企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)譯文</b></p><p>　　資料來(lái)源:Wiley InterScience 作者：威廉.B.勞斯</p><p>　　信息技術(shù)革命帶動(dòng)了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和快速全球化的步伐。因此越來(lái)越多的企業(yè)需要考慮和追求企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型，轉(zhuǎn)型可以維持或獲得競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。這就提出了一個(gè)關(guān)于如何理解和追求轉(zhuǎn)型的重要研究問(wèn)題。本

2、文概述了這些問(wèn)題研究的企業(yè)理論指導(dǎo)。該理論的重點(diǎn)是轉(zhuǎn)型為什么發(fā)生和怎樣發(fā)生，以及轉(zhuǎn)型過(guò)程中的處理方法和工作過(guò)程方面的追求與對(duì)這些過(guò)程的結(jié)構(gòu)。并且用不同行業(yè)和企業(yè)的插圖來(lái)說(shuō)明理論。討論了如何才能使提出的理論具有代表性研究舉措，同時(shí)也增加了企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型的慣例。</p><p><b>　　企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型理論</b></p><p>　　簡(jiǎn)潔，由于經(jīng)驗(yàn)不足或預(yù)期價(jià)值促使了企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型計(jì)劃

3、。不足之處的確定是當(dāng)前的企業(yè)狀況相對(duì)于與期望的企業(yè)狀況。期望可能是建立在對(duì)企業(yè)過(guò)去狀態(tài)的基礎(chǔ)上。也可以理解為在繼續(xù)擴(kuò)大市場(chǎng)，尋找新的贊助者，提高技術(shù)等機(jī)會(huì)的基礎(chǔ)上，因此不足之處可被視為被動(dòng)和主動(dòng)兩個(gè)原因。</p><p>　　轉(zhuǎn)型計(jì)劃涉及解決企業(yè)做什么工作和如何完成這項(xiàng)工作。企業(yè)的工作最終影響到企業(yè)的狀況，企業(yè)的狀況在某種程度上反映出企業(yè)的財(cái)務(wù)結(jié)算、平衡積分卡評(píng)估和或與之相同的東西。另外企業(yè)狀況的重要內(nèi)容可能包括

4、市場(chǎng)優(yōu)勢(shì)，品牌形象，員工和客戶滿意度等等。一般來(lái)說(shuō)，企業(yè)狀況并不包括可變的內(nèi)部工作流程。</p><p><b>　　企業(yè)驅(qū)動(dòng)價(jià)值缺陷</b></p><p>　　更具體地說(shuō)，企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型是由認(rèn)知價(jià)值的需求與預(yù)期相對(duì)不足驅(qū)使的，原因是：經(jīng)驗(yàn)或預(yù)期價(jià)值下降的損失，例如，企業(yè)收入或利潤(rùn)的減少，經(jīng)驗(yàn)或預(yù)期應(yīng)付預(yù)計(jì)與承諾價(jià)值上漲空間的失敗，例如，通過(guò)市場(chǎng)開(kāi)發(fā)或技術(shù)上的提升，未能實(shí)

5、現(xiàn)預(yù)期的企業(yè)成長(zhǎng)達(dá)到新的價(jià)值水平的欲望。在所有這些情況中，往往只有一種轉(zhuǎn)型能夠補(bǔ)救這種價(jià)值缺陷的信念，轉(zhuǎn)型整治的范圍可以從業(yè)務(wù)流程改善到更根本的企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型。 工作流程的轉(zhuǎn)型</p><p>　　一般來(lái)說(shuō)，有三大方式可以處理價(jià)值的缺失，所有這些都會(huì)涉及到企業(yè)工作的考慮：</p><p>　　?改善目前的工作如何進(jìn)行，例如，減少變化。?用不同的方法做當(dāng)前的工作，例如啟用網(wǎng)站的客戶服務(wù)。

6、?做不同的工作，例如，外生產(chǎn)和集中服務(wù)。</p><p>　　第一種選擇是最基本的業(yè)務(wù)流程改進(jìn)，如引入討論，這種選擇比其他兩種選擇變革的能力要小。第二個(gè)選擇往往涉及變革，可以根據(jù)業(yè)務(wù)范圍的變化而相應(yīng)改變。第三種選擇是最有可能導(dǎo)致企業(yè)的改造。然而這要取決于企業(yè)資源如何重新部署，清算，本身并不一定是變革。</p><p>　　工作流程是企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型的重點(diǎn)得到公認(rèn)[例如，Hammer和Champy，

7、1993年; Womack和Jones，1996;Kessler，2002]。而且工作流程的重新設(shè)計(jì)和精益處理已經(jīng)成為許多轉(zhuǎn)型計(jì)劃的目標(biāo)。由于企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型很大程度上要依賴(lài)于轉(zhuǎn)型的程度和實(shí)施的成功程度，因此對(duì)工作流程的重視，至少要在最初階段開(kāi)始，而且需要管理層對(duì)企業(yè)思想進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)變。 </p><p>　　轉(zhuǎn)型也可能涉及到過(guò)程之間的關(guān)系，而不僅僅是個(gè)人的工作和他們自己的過(guò)程，這些關(guān)系往往是建立在一個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)框架體系上，而且所表

8、達(dá)多種多樣的觀點(diǎn)是共同的。業(yè)務(wù)觀點(diǎn)是對(duì)業(yè)務(wù)活動(dòng)、業(yè)務(wù)內(nèi)容和支持企業(yè)運(yùn)營(yíng)信息流的說(shuō)明。該技術(shù)的觀點(diǎn)是確定一個(gè)相互作用和相互依存關(guān)系的制度，以確保兼容性與需求滿足規(guī)則。該系統(tǒng)描述了物理連接、位置、關(guān)鍵節(jié)點(diǎn)等等，來(lái)支持企業(yè)的運(yùn)行[sage和Lynch，1998]。</p><p>　　工作流程改造的必然會(huì)影響該體系內(nèi)在結(jié)構(gòu)的業(yè)務(wù)視圖。如可能影響到技術(shù)或系統(tǒng)的意見(jiàn)。但是系統(tǒng)或技術(shù)的改變并不能使企業(yè)的經(jīng)營(yíng)意見(jiàn)和工作流程運(yùn)作

9、的意見(jiàn)改變。因此，這類(lèi)的變化可能改變過(guò)程，但并不改變企業(yè)。</p><p>　　Bailey和Barley[2004]主張?jiān)诠ぷ髦袑W(xué)習(xí)。他們記錄工作中的重大變化，從生產(chǎn)工人到知識(shí)型工人，但是工業(yè)工程是放棄工作學(xué)習(xí)的嘗試和設(shè)計(jì)。在這個(gè)概述的理論背景下，工程將不得不找回在企業(yè)中發(fā)揮核心作用的系統(tǒng)工作研究 [勞斯，2004]。</p><p>　　Rasmussen和他的同事[1986，1994

10、]已率先分析了人在復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)中的角色、工作和任務(wù)的特征。因此可以從員工的工作宗旨，目標(biāo)，職能，任務(wù)和活動(dòng)層次方面上的特征，來(lái)反映員工工作的轉(zhuǎn)化。</p><p>　　靠他們自己改變企業(yè)的任務(wù)和活動(dòng)，會(huì)涉及到業(yè)務(wù)流程改善。相反地，用途、目的和企業(yè)職能更有可能的被轉(zhuǎn)變。這種變化可能，會(huì)引起任務(wù)和活動(dòng)的更改。因此，任何層次水平的變化多有可能導(dǎo)致較低工作水平的變化。</p><p>　　這似乎能合理

11、的推測(cè)出越高層次的轉(zhuǎn)化，將會(huì)使改變變得更加困難、昂貴、費(fèi)時(shí)和更多的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。例如，改變企業(yè)的目的，可能會(huì)遇到很大的困難，特別是如果變化的程度是相當(dāng)大的。在許多情況下，例如，軍轉(zhuǎn)民，這種變化只有當(dāng)幾乎所有的雇員被替換時(shí)才是成功的。[Rouse，1996]。</p><p>　　最終，人們可以對(duì)企業(yè)進(jìn)行清算，并重新部署其財(cái)務(wù)和可能的在其他企業(yè)的有形資產(chǎn)。然而，很難把這些描述為轉(zhuǎn)型。因此有一個(gè)點(diǎn)在于變化是有足夠的實(shí)質(zhì)性給出

12、結(jié)論，那就是企業(yè)已經(jīng)被淘汰，而不是被改變。</p><p><b>　　分配注意力和資源</b></p><p>　　輸入也是企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型理論的核心。輸入包括關(guān)于客戶的外部變量、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、需求和利率等，同時(shí)也包括諸如資源和它們工作流程中分配的內(nèi)部變量。轉(zhuǎn)型包括分配注意力和資源如：</p><p>　　預(yù)測(cè)和適應(yīng)外部變量的變化，即控制企業(yè)相對(duì)于“前進(jìn)的道

13、路”，而不是落后的道路。</p><p>　　培養(yǎng)和分配資源，以便生產(chǎn)出可接受的不確定性和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)高預(yù)測(cè)值的未來(lái)企業(yè)的國(guó)家。</p><p>　　因此，一個(gè)企業(yè)重新部署人力、財(cái)力和物力資源的能力是轉(zhuǎn)化性質(zhì)和可能性的核心。</p><p><b>　　轉(zhuǎn)型的過(guò)程</b></p><p>　　轉(zhuǎn)化是如何發(fā)生的？轉(zhuǎn)化過(guò)程可能會(huì)在模

14、型圖的外部。但是更高層次的轉(zhuǎn)化知識(shí)將包括把轉(zhuǎn)化過(guò)程納入工作程序圖。這種工作程序圖以結(jié)構(gòu)方面為特點(diǎn)，如雙回路學(xué)習(xí)和組織學(xué)習(xí)的結(jié)構(gòu)[阿吉里斯和舍恩，1978;圣吉，1990]。</p><p>　　因此，轉(zhuǎn)型可能成為不可或缺的正常商業(yè)慣例，甚至常規(guī)。當(dāng)然，企業(yè)在進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)型時(shí)，應(yīng)該考慮變革的程度問(wèn)題。由于隨著企業(yè)的發(fā)展不會(huì)降低企業(yè)的變革程度，但會(huì)使企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型來(lái)得更加容易執(zhí)行。</p><p><

15、;b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)原文</b></p><p>　　Material Source:Wiley InterScience Author: William.B.Rouse</p><p>　　The information technology revolution has driven the pace of competition and rapid glob

16、alization. Consequently, enterprises increasingly need to consider and pursue fundamental change—transformation—to maintain or gain competitive advantage. This need raises important research issues concerning how transfo

17、rmation is best understood and pursued. This paper outlines a theory of enterprise transformation to guide research on these issues. The theory focuses on why and how transformation happens, as</p><p>　　A TH

18、EORY OF ENTERPRISE TRANSFORMATION</p><p>　　Succinctly, experienced or expected value deficiencies drive enterprise transformation initiatives. Deficiencies are defined relative to both current enterprise sta

19、tes and expected states. Expectations may be based on extrapolation of past enterprise states. They may also be based on perceived opportunities to pursue expanded markets,new constituencies, technologies, etc. Thus, def

20、iciencies may be perceived for both reactive and proactive reasons.</p><p>　　Transformation initiatives involve addressing what work is undertaken by the enterprise and how this work is accomplished. The wor

21、k of the enterprise ultimately affects the state of the enterprise, which is reflected, in part, in the enterprise’s financial statements, Balanced Scorecard assessment, or the equivalent. Other important elements of the

22、 enterprise state might include market advantage, brand image, employee and customer satisfaction, and so on. In general, the state of the enterprise </p><p>　　Value Deficiencies Drive Transformation</p&g

23、t;<p>　　More specifically, enterprise transformation is driven by perceived value deficiencies relative to needs and/or expectations due to:</p><p>　　??Experienced or expected downside losses of value

24、, e.g., declining enterprise revenues and/or profits</p><p>　　??Experienced or expected failures to meet projected or promised upside gains of value, e.g.,failures to achieve anticipated enterprise growth<

25、;/p><p>　　??Desires to achieve new levels of value, e.g., via exploitation of market and/or technological opportunities.In all of these cases, there are often beliefs that change will enable remediation of such

26、 value deficiencies.Change can range from business process improvement to more fundamental enterprise transformation.</p><p>　　Work Processes Enable Transformation</p><p>　　In general, there are

27、 three broad ways to approach value deficiencies, all of which involve consideration of the work of the enterprise:</p><p>　　?Improve how work is currently performed, e.g.,reduce variability.</p><

28、p>　　? Perform current work differently, e.g., web-enable customer service.</p><p>　　? Perform different work, e.g., outsource manufacturing and focus on service.</p><p>　　The first choice is

29、basically business process improvement.As discussed in the Introduction, this choice is less likely to be transformative than the other two choices. The second choice often involves operational changes that can be transf

30、ormative depending on the scope of changes. The third choice is most likely to result in transforming the enterprise. This depends,however, on how resources are redeployed. Liquidation,in itself, is not necessarily trans

31、formative.</p><p>　　The need to focus on work processes is well recognized [e.g., Hammer and Champy, 1993; Womack and Jones, 1996; Kessler, 2002]. Reengineered and lean processes have been goals in many tran

32、sformative initiatives. Indeed, a focus on processes may, at least initially, require transformation of management’s thinking about an enterprise. The extent to which this subsequently transforms the enterprise depends o

33、n the extent of changes and success in their implementation.</p><p>　　Transformation can also involve relationships among processes, not just individual work processes in and of themselves. These relationshi

34、ps are often framed in terms of an “architecture.” It is common to express architectures in terms of multiple “views.” The operational view is a description of the activities, operational elements, and information flows

35、required to support enterprise operations. The technical view is a set of rules defining the interactions and interdependencies of system eleme</p><p>　　Transformation of work processes inherently must affec

36、t the operational view of the architecture. Changes of this view are likely to affect the technical and systems views. In contrast, changes of system and/or technical views that do not change operational views do not, by

37、 definition, change work processes. Hence, these types of changes may improve processes but do not transform the enterprise.</p><p>　　Bailey and Barley [2004] have argued for a renaissance in the study of wo

38、rk. They chronicle the substantial changes in work—from production workers to knowledge workers—while industrial engineering was abandoning the study of work practices and design. In the context of the theory outlined he

39、re, engineering will have to reembrace work studies to play a central role in enterprise systems research [Rouse, 2004].</p><p>　　Rasmussen and his colleagues [1986, 1994] have pioneered the use of work doma

40、in analysis to charac-terize human roles, jobs, and tasks in complex systems.Building on this foundation, we can characterize the work of the enterprise in terms of the hierarchy of purpose, objectives, functions, tasks,

41、 and activities.Transformation of work can be pursued at all levels of this hierarchy.</p><p>　　Changing the tasks and activities of the enterprise,by themselves, relates to business process improvement.In c

42、ontrast, changing the purpose, objectives,and/or functions of the enterprise is more likely to be transformational. Such changes may, of course, cause tasks and activities to then change. Thus, change at any level in the

43、 hierarchy is likely to cause changes at lower levels.</p><p>　　It seems reasonable to hypothesize that the higher the level of transformation, the more difficult, costly,time-consuming, and risky the change

44、s will be. For instance, changing the purpose of the enterprise is likely to encounter considerable difficulties, particularly if the extent of the change is substantial. In many cases, e.g.,defense conversion, such cha

45、nge has only succeeded when almost all of the employees were replaced[Rouse, 1996].</p><p>　　Ultimately, one could liquidate the enterprise and redeploy its financial and perhaps physical assets in other ven

46、tures. However, it is difficult to characterize this as transformation. Thus, there is a point at which the change is sufficiently substantial to conclude that the enterprise has been eliminated rather than transformed&l

47、t;/p><p>　　Allocation of Attention and Resources</p><p>　　Input is also central to the theory of enterprise transformation.As implied by Figure 2, input includes both external variables related to

48、customers, competitors,demand, interest rates, and so on, as well as internal variables such as resources and their allocation among work processes. Transformation involves allocating attention and resources so as to:<

49、;/p><p>　　??Anticipate and adapt to changes of external variables,i.e., control the enterprise relative to the“road ahead” rather than the road behind.</p><p>　　??Cultivate and allocate resources s

50、o as to yield future enterprise states with high projected value with acceptable uncertainties and risks.</p><p>　　Transformation Processes</p><p>　　How does transformation happen? Transformatio

51、n processes could be external to the model in Figure 2.However, it would seem that higher levels of transformation expertise would involve incorporation of transformation processes into the work processes in Figure 2. Th

52、is possibility has been characterized in terms of constructs such as double-loop learning and organizational learning [Argyris and Schon, 1978; Senge, 1990]. </p><p>　　Thus, transformation might become integ

53、ral to normal business practices, perhaps even routine. Of course, this raises the question of the extent to which routine fundamental changes should be considered transformative.It is quite possible that such an evoluti