比较管理学：竞争优势的种类
(许博士vs.波特博士)
作者：许诗玉企管博士
1. 前言
读者欲明了许博士与波特博士对于竞争优势的种类之不同观点时，则须彻底明了竞争优势的定义。作者曾遍寻仍未见竞争策略大师哈佛大学教授波特(Michael Porter)博士在其多本攸关竞争策略与竞争优势的著作中给「竞争优势」下个妥适的定义。作者给「竞争优势」下个妥适的定义：「竞争优势就是在某一特定的价值链之中，个人或组织所创造与保持的优异差异化(superior differentiation)；其优异的差异化可以：(一)使其利益关系人(例如顾客、供货商、债权人、员工、投资人、以及/或者其它相关的个体)易于认定并接受其所提供的产品、服务、形象、以及/或者品牌名气而获得最大的满足，并且(二)使其所提供的产品、服务、形象、以及/或者品牌名气，能够胜过其它竞争者所能提供的价值或贡献。」毋庸置疑，竞争优势等同于优异的差异化。
2. 竞争优势等同于优异的差异化
优异的差异化就是竞争优势的别名。然而，对差异化不求甚解的人很多；当然，对差异化误解与误用的人亦不少。差异化，被管理界的大师、学者、与专家们曲解与误导将近30年了。
明代杨慎在《见二十一史弹词》<临江仙>之中写道：「滚滚长江东逝水，浪花淘尽英雄。」英雄、圣贤、与才子等之精神或思想俱不死，只是肉体逐渐凋零；作者个人不以良知来具体扶正被曲解与误导的竞争优势(优异的差异化)，那么其该由谁来做？
《论语子罕篇》载明：「子在川上曰，逝者如斯夫，不舍昼夜。」韶光易逝，作者此时不以良能来具体导正被曲解与误导的竞争优势(优异的差异化)，那么作者或其它人要等待何时才会做呢？
当个人或组织以各种活动来力图差异化(differentiates)自己时，其宗旨就是迫使自己达成优异的差异化(differentiation)。例如哈佛大学教授波特(Michael Porter)博士说(注53︰Porter, 1985: 119)：「一个公司行号若能对其顾客提供独特性的产品或服务时，就差异化了自己而优于其诸竞争者。(A firm ‘differentiates’ itself from its competitors if it can be unique at something that is valuable to buyers.)」差异化了自己而优于其诸竞争者，且能对其顾客提供独特性的产品或服务时，其就取得了竞争优势；此意殆无疑义。
当个人或组织以各种活动来力图差异化(differentiates)自己时，其宗旨就是迫使自己「有出息」；所谓有出息，就是产出须是有效果的(定性的)以及有效率的(可计量的)，让大家觉得出色、出众、出类拔萃、与出人头地等等，而达成优异的差异化。例如，在奥林匹克运动会有优异差异化表现的运动员、历届诺贝尔奖得主、世界上的诸多伟人、以及世界上赫赫有名的台湾信息科技产业的产品等等。
个人或组织优异的差异化是经由有效果的(定性的)以及有效率的(计量的)产出结果所呈现出来的；其产出(output)与投入(input)必须合乎经济原则。个人或组织投入资源而产出竞争优势的实质与形式；竞争优势的实质与形式就是多种计量的差异化与多种定性的差异化。时至今日，全世界信息科技消费者有价廉物美的信息科技产品可用，固然拜全世界信息科技精英人士的力图差异化(differentiates)自己的智能，但是台湾信息科技产业的全体参与者的孜孜不息(differentiates)也是居功厥伟。
许诗玉博士为台湾信息科技产业有竞争优势；此产业全体参与者比别人做得较佳就是指其竞争优势的实质：信、变、精、准、快、好、奇、美、廉、安、以及爽；此产业全体参与者比别人做得较佳亦就是指其指竞争优势的形式：较高质量、较佳形象、成本领导、较低成本、较快交货、与较优惠价格等等。竞争优势的实质与形式就是优异的差异化；优异的差异化就是竞争优势的别名。台湾信息科技产业的竞争优势岂可只被归纳为低成本与差异化等两种而已。
大美百科全书字典(The New Grolier Webster International Dictionary of the English Language, 1974: 279) 解释：「差异化，名词，是力图差异化(differentiating)的作为或步骤，或者是所造成结果的壮态；就生物学而言，差异化是指当生物们发展成成熟的结构与功能时，其细胞、组织、或身体等之修补……。(differentiation, n. The act or process of differentiating, or the resulting state; biol. The modification of cells, tissues, and body parts as they develop into mature structure and function; ……)」例如，蚕儿于力图差异化(differentiates)自己并发展成成熟的结构与功能时，即吐蚕丝成茧；茧是丝产品的来源，而丝产品有经济价值与精美凉爽的价值。经济价值是可以计量的，而精美凉爽是定性的。蛹于破茧而出后，成为美丽的蝶；蝶于力图差异化(differentiates)自己并发展成成熟的结构与功能时，即产卵。蚕卵于受精后又于惊蛰季节成为蚕儿。蚕儿的优异差异化使其有造蚕丝的竞争优势。由此例再观之，竞争优势的种类诸多，且不可被错误归类为低成本与差异化两种。
因此，优异的差异化等同竞争优势；优异的差异化就是竞争优势的别名。当此说以许诗玉博士之差异化家族的树状结构分析来说明时，则其更为清楚。
3. 许诗玉博士之差异化家族的树状结构分析说
优异的差异化，表现于对利益关系人所提供之价值或贡献。个人或组织不仅要达到利益关系人的要求，而且要超越利益关系人的期望，俾让利益关系人非常满意或十分感动。
能让利益关系人非常满意或十分感动的是：(一)唯一的优异差异化，(二)计量的差异化与定性的差异化，以及/或者(三)多种计量的差异化与多种定性的差异化。
从许诗玉博士之差异化家族的树状结构分析而言，唯一的优异差异化是祖父级(grand-father)，计量的差异化与定性的差异化是父亲级(fathers)，以及多种计量的差异化与多种定性的差异化是儿子级(sons)。
一个公司行号的差异化，首先有祖父级(即differentiation)，其次才有父亲级(即quantitative differentiation and qualitative differentiation)，最后才有儿子级(即lower costs, more competitive prices, cost leadership, higher quality, and the like)。此三级同属差异化家族，而它们分别代表不同的意义与价值。
优异差异化包括计量的差异化与定性的差异化。计量的差异化可再分出多种计量的差异化项目；定性的差异化可再分出多种定性的差异化项目。较高质量、较佳形象、与成本领导等等是非计量的(定性的)价值的表现；较低成本、较快交货、与较优惠价格等等是计量的(非定性的) 价值的表现。
因此，尤须注意：因为差异化家族的每一组成分子分别代表不同的意义与价值，所以全天下之产官学等各界以及士、农、工、商、兵等诸多人士对差异化的树状结构分析应非常谨慎，而且不可乱了学理与实务的层次。
4. 波特博士之竞争优势种类说
波特博士说(注54︰Porter, 1985: 119)：「一个公司行号若能对其顾客提供独特性的产品或服务时，就差异化了自己而优于其诸竞争者。(A firm ‘differentiates’ itself from its competitors if it can be unique at something that is valuable to buyers.)」依照此意，一个公司行号既然差异化了(differentiates)自己，其最终的与主要的目的就是取得优异的差异化(differentiation)；一个公司行号既然差异化了自己而优于其诸竞争者，其就具有竞争优势。
竞争优势等同于优异的差异化；优异的差异化就是竞争优势的别名。这是举世皆知的必然道理，所以不容被扭曲或漠视。然而，波特博士只认为一个公司行号差异化了自己就是取得差异化；他也认为差异化需花费成本。于是，他的心目中只悬念低成本与差异化；事实上，低成本也是差异化的家族成员。
依照许诗玉博士所提差异化的树状结构分析，一个公司行号对其顾客所提供独特性的产品或服务的「优异差异化」可以再作明细分类：(1)较高质量、较佳形象、与成本领导等等的定性差异化，以及(2)较低成本、较快交货、与较优惠价格等等的计量差异化。因此，低成本是计量差异化之一。低成本与差异化不可以混淆。
然而，非常遗憾的事是：波特博士强调(注55︰Porter, 1985; O’Shaughnessy, 1996)：「一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：低成本与差异化。(Porter stresses that there are two basic types of competitive advantage a firm can possess: low cost or differentiation (Porter, 1985; O’Shaughnessy, 1996).」波特博士的这句话似是而非，而这种说法不合乎一切事实；上述许诗玉博士差异化树状结构分析可以立即证明举世差异化之当然之理。
4.1 波特博士之两种竞争优势学说之深层解析
吾人皆知：竞争优势诸多，例如较高质量、较佳形象、以及成本领导等等就是定性的差异化；例如较低成本、较快交货、以及较优惠价格等等就是计量的差异化。
1. 下列说法是合理的：
(1) 一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：计量的差异化与定性的差异化。
(2) 一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：较低成本与较高质量。(只要在较高质量、较佳形象、成本领导、较低成本、较快交货、以及较优惠价格等同位阶项目任选两个皆可。)
2. 下列说法是不合理的：
(1) 一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：低成本与差异化。
(2) 一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：低成本与计量的差异化。
(3) 一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：低成本与定性的差异化。
3. 低成本、计量的差异化、以及差异化三者同属于差异化的这个家族；波特博士把儿子级的低成本与祖父级的差异化平起平坐地相提并论为两种竞争优势，这一切显得不伦不类！
儿子级的低成本差异化与祖父级的差异化不可以被平起平坐地相提并论；否则，其余每一个儿子级的差异化都可以以东施效颦的方式要求与祖父级的差异化平起平坐地相提并论为竞争优势的种类。
当祖父级的差异化之中仍包含着父亲级的差异化、当父亲级的差异化之中仍包含着儿子级的差异化项目、或者当祖父级的差异化之中仍包含着儿子级的差异化项目，那么此事是不是很唐突怪异而且与现实格格不入？
4. 如果波特博士所说「一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：低成本与差异化」的论说可以成立时，那么下列不合道理的说法是否亦可比照一一成立？
(1)一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：快交货与差异化。
(2)一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：优惠的价格与差异化。
(3)一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：高质量与差异化。
(4)一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：佳形象与差异化。
(5)一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：成本领导与差异化。
5. 如果一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势(即低成本与差异化)为真时，那么波特博士把每个定性的差异化(如较高质量、较佳形象、成本领导等等)与其它每个计量的差异化(如较快交货与较优惠的价格等等)置于何地？
(1)难道它们每个都比低成本更不重要吗？
(2)难道它们几个必须毫无道理地与低成本随便分开而且被刻意凑合成一个没道理可寻的差异化吗？所谓「被刻意凑合成一个没道理可寻的差异化」就是既含诸计量差异化项目，又含诸定性差异化项目的差异化，但绝对不含「低成本」这个可计量差异化项目；这样的差异化的确贻人话柄且贻笑大方。
4.2 The improper classification of types of competitive advantage
In my opinion, any wrong classification of types of competitive advantage (CA) will make people confused and make related things messy in academic studies or business analyses.For example, Porter stresses that there are two basic types of competitive advantage a firm can possess: low cost or differentiation (Porter, 1985; O’Shaughnessy, 1996). As a matter of fact, Porter’s classification of types of CA is totally wrong, and a justification follows. Porter (1985, page 119) argued: “A firm ‘differentiates’ itself from its competitors if it can be unique at something that is valuable to buyers.” Logically, to “differentiate” is to mark off by superior differentiation. After all, “differentiation or superior differentiation” is the final weapon for which a firm “differentiates” itself from its competitors to strive. The weapon is used to conquer competitors and serve stakeholders so as to result in business performance, achieve business objectives, and reshape business visions. Therefore, “superior differentiation” is the CA of the firm. A firm needs good implementation to “differentiate” itself from its competitors. After good implementation, a firm may increate, sustain, and monitor many types of CA (i.e. superior differentiation or differentiation). The concept of differentiation is particularly troublesome because it is possible to differentiate in a number of different ways (Campbell-Hunt, 2000; Jenkins, 2005). Now that a firm differentiates itself in a number of different ways, superior differentiation comes in many flavours. For facilitating reasoning and analysis, differentiation (i.e. it ranks as a grandfather in the classification of CA) can be classified into many flavors: (1) quantitative differentiation and qualitative differentiation (i.e. they rank as fathers in the classification of CA), or (2) efficient differentiation and effective differentiation (i.e. they rank as fathers in the classification of CA). Quantitative differentiation is composed of many “quantitative attributes” such as lower cost, more competitive prices, faster delivery time, and the like (i.e. they rank as sons in the classification of CA). Likewise, qualitative differentiation is composed of many “qualitative attributes” such as cost leadership, price leadership, the quality of products, good reputation, excellent brand images, and the like (i.e. they also rank as sons in the classification of CA). In the same way, efficient differentiation is composed of many “efficient attributes” such as lower cost, more competitive prices, faster delivery time, and the like (i.e. they rank as sons in the classification of CA). Likewise, effective differentiation is composed of many “effective attributes” such as cost leadership, price leadership, the quality of products, good reputation, excellent brand images, and the like (i.e. they also rank as sons in the classification of CA). Obviously, it is very logical that low cost is one of types of quantitative or efficient differentiation and that cost leadership is one of types of qualitative or effective differentiation. Apparently, Porter has misplaced both “low cost (which ranks as a son)” and “differentiation (which ranks as a grandfather)” into the same classification level for 25 years or so. It goes without saying that either low cost or cost leadership is cost differentiation, and cost differentiation is one of types of differentiation. Product differentiation (Porter, 1998) or quality differentiation is also one of types of differentiation.
Porter and Millar (1985; Porter, 1998) pointed out that in any company information technology has a power effect on competitive advantage in either cost or differentiation. Porter (2001, page 70) indicated again: “If average profitability is under pressure in many industries influenced by the Internet, it becomes all the more important for individual companies to set themselves apart from the pack – to be more profitable than the average performer. The only way to do so is by achieving a sustainable competitive advantage – by operating at a lower cost, by commanding a premium price, or by doing both. Cost and price advantages can be achieved in two ways. One is operational effectiveness – doing the same things your competitors do but doing them better… The other way to achieve advantage is strategic positioning – doing things differently from competitors, in a way that delivers a unique type of value to customers.” Since 1985 or so, Porter has still done his wrong loop about two basic types of CA: low cost or differentiation. As a matter of fact, the only way to do so is by creating, sustaining, and monitoring many types of sustainable competitive advantage – by achieving them in a more efficient way (e.g., lower cost, better price, and the like), by obtaining them in a more effective way (e.g., better on-line support of customer services, more useful channel management, and the like), or by gaining both. Cost and price advantages can be achieved by a firm in only one way: it “differentiates” itself from its competitors so as to mark off by “superior differentiation” for its stakeholders, not for its buyers only. If there is no operational efficiency at all, the so-called operational effectiveness can make little contribution to the CA of firms because CA contains both effectiveness and efficiency. On the other hand, Porter’s strategic positioning needs to be anchored to the consideration of both efficient differentiation and effective differentiation. Moreover, it is apparent that simply making strategic positioning does not provide a durable CA because strategic positioning or strategy can do nothing by itself. In addition to strategies, a firm needs other related ingredients to be mixed. Implementation is like a huge mixer that blends all related ingredients such as environmental factors, business resources, strategies, organizational culture, entrepreneurial spirit, profound leadership, enthusiastic attitude, comprehensive plans, perseverance, management philosophy, and others. Firms can achieve their missions, goals, and objectives only when they are able to create, sustain, and monitor many types of sustainable competitive advantage (i.e. superior differentiation) through implementation.
Why does that superior differentiation really occur? Herb Kelleher, who founded Southwest Airlines, not only wanted to give his customers the lowest possible price, but he wanted to give them the best possible service (Blanchard, et al., 2004). Because Wal-Mart used “differentiation” to manage its future, it has aggressively defined differences with Kmart; shoppers are consistently more satisfied with Wal-Mart (Tucker, 1998). Nowadays, firms are busy building “superior differentiation” into their plans (Trout and Rivkin, 2000). Existing functional strengths can, of course, often be successfully exploited to gain the desired differentiation (Ohmae, 1982). Otis Elevator uses remote diagnostics as a way to differentiate itself (Trout and Rivkin, 2000). Still, those who fail to “differentiate” their product or service in the mind of consumer won’t stand a chance (Trout and Rivkin, 2000). In order to survive and succeed, a firm “must” possess superior differentiation (i.e. CA). Superior differentiation is also composed of cost differentiation, product differentiation, quality differentiation, and other kinds of differentiation. Superior differentiation is the unique type of CA. However, unfortunately, Porter (1985, page 119) pointed out: “Differentiation is one of the two types of competitive advantage a firm may possess.” It should be noted that the improper classification of Porter’s two basic types of competitive advantage a firm can possess (Porter, 1985; O’Shaughnessy, 1996) not only has made people confused, but it also has made related things messy in management theory and management practice. Since 1980 or so, Porter’s followers have treaded in the steps of the aforesaid improper classification of Porter’s two basic types of CA. As the old Chinese saying goes, “If it deviates a little bit at the starting point, then it’ll miss by a thousand miles at the ending point.” Therefore, such an incorrect classification has multiplied a far-reaching impact on the development and application of CA.
In my conclusion, old concepts, views, and systems must be updated, corrected, or abandoned so as to make the great progress of all human beings. As for an example, Peters and Waterman (1982, page 42) explained: “An old but excellent example is the Ptolemaic view of the universe (which held until the sixteenth century) that the earth was at the center of the universe, and the moon, sun, planets, and stars were embedded in concentric spheres around it. Elaborate mathematical formulas and models were developed that would accurately predict astronomical events based on the Ptolemaic paradigm. Not until Copernicus and Kepler found that the formula worked more easily when the sun replaced the earth as the center of it all did an instance of paradigm shift begin.” It is quite apparent that, in the field of business management, a lot of old concepts, wrong views, and obsolete systems have neither led to a right direction for modern business management nor resolved many management problems; therefore, the justification of this article tries to remedy those shortcomings and insufficiencies of the proposed problems so as to make potentially valuable contributions to both the academic and business world.
5. 拨乱反正已刻不容缓
差异化必须以「事实的差异化」作为一切论述的基础，而非以「扭曲的差异化」为自我封闭与误导他人的论述基础。差异化既不能「差」，也不能「异」，更不能「矛盾互戳」，但恒要「优异」；这样，优异差异化才会产生正面的与积极的效果，而竞争优势的实质与形式才会产生持续的、强劲的、与多元的力量。
依据许诗玉博士的潜心研究所得之不同观点，波特博士在其1985年所著之Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance一书中,错把低成本逐出差异化家族欲三十年了。低成本早应认祖归宗，而且差异化家族长老早该把低成本找回纳入差异化家族。
对于竞争优势与优异差异化，全世界很多相关人士竟然被诸多管理学者与专家们持续误导近三十年。例如，差异化被作形容词使用时一定要用对，而不可胡言乱语。例如，大师、学者、与专家们说要获得「低成本的差异化」或者要获得「低成本的竞争优势」是正确的说法，因为低成本是差异化之一，也是竞争优势之一；然而，他们说要获得「差异化的竞争优势」是错误的说法，因为前述优异差异化就是竞争优势的别名。难道「差异化的竞争优势」可以被指称是：「差异化的差异化」或「竞争优势的竞争优势」？这些都是大师、学者、与专家们始料未及的大错。对此，大家现在是不是应醒该悟要改？若不及早改正之，那么后代子子孙孙岂不浸泡在错误的差异化酱缸之中而永不见真理的天空？
读者们在自求多福与相信自己清明之余，还是回到那句中国俗话：尽信书，不如无书。为今之计，群众唯有幡然醒悟并自求多福。至于本文自始至终之宗旨，只在不偏不倚地研讨学术与正确彰显工商实务而已。
人是会犯错的；不会犯错的人，不是人；经常犯同一错误的人，也不是人。若人人知错能善改，则其个人必将逐渐超凡入圣进贤；若大小组织(如家庭、学校、社会团体、与国家等等)的圣贤人士愈来愈多，则其文明进化的举措必将愈臻完善，而其当下所享受之富强康乐福祉以及今后福泽后代之辉煌建树必将增多。
最后，凡是在竞争优势(优异差异化)种类的认知或解说方面，已犯错误的人士固然可断然改过，而无辜被误导的信士亦可及时迷途知返，从而使具有真意的竞争优势(优异差异化)种类永远光荣地存在。格物致知与实事求是的康庄正大之道，正待吾侪共同举步迈进。
6. 结语
观念正确了才不至于误人误己与耽误文明进化。任何人之思虑云为应充满自信与智慧；任何人不可未经缜密分析就把他人谬误之言奉为圭臬；任何人不可将谬误之论蛊惑大众。
优异差异化就是竞争优势的别名。优异差异化的种类包括计量的差异化与定性的差异化；计量的差异化可再分出多种计量的差异化项目；定性的差异化可再分出多种定性的差异化项目。较高质量、较佳形象、与成本领导等等是非计量的(定性的)价值的表现，而较低成本、较快交货、与较优惠价格等等是计量的(非定性的) 价值的表现。它们都同属差异化家族，而它们分别代表不同的意义与价值。
正如波特博士的话说，一个公司行号若能对其顾客提供独特性的产品或服务时，就差异化了自己而优于其诸竞争者。这句话表明：当一个公司行号差异化了自己而优于其诸竞争者，且能对其顾客提供独特性的产品或服务时，其就取得了差异化与竞争优势。正如波特博士的话强调，一个公司行号能够有两种竞争优势：低成本与差异化。当波特博士的上述两句话被放在一起仔细连结思索时，低成本差异化与差异化等两个不同层级的差异化竟然被做成同层级的并论与比较。这个错误应予及早拨乱反正，始为当代与后代世人之福。(完)
注53︰Porter, 1985: 119
注54︰Porter, 1985: 119
注55︰Porter, 1985; O’Shaughnessy, 1996
注56：黄秀媛译2005：31
注57：黄秀媛译2005：48
注58：黄秀媛译2005：50
注59：李明译，2004：105
李明译，2004；夏蓝(Ram Charan)，2004，《成长力(Profitable Growth Is Everyone’s Business)》，台北市：天下文化
黄秀媛译，2005；金教授与谟玻格妮教授(Kim and Mauborgne)，2005，《蓝海策略(Blue Ocean Strategy)，台北市：天下文化
Blanchard, K., Ballard, J., and Finch, F. (2004) Customer Mania: It’s never too late to build a customer-focused company, London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Campbell-Hunt, C. (2000) ‘What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis’, Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 127-54.
Jenkins, W. (2005) ‘Competing in times of evolution and revolution: An essay on long-term firm survival’, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Ohmae, K. (1982) The Mind of the Strategist: Business Planning for Competitive Advantage, New York: Penguin Books.
O’Shaughnessy, N.J. (1996) ‘Michael Porter's Competitive Advantage Revisited’, Management Decision, Vol. 34, Issue 6.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run companies, New York: Warner Books, Inc.
Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E. (1985) ‘How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage’, Harvard Business Review, July-August.
Porter, M.E. (1998) On Competition, Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Porter, M.E. (2001) ‘Strategy and the Internet’, Harvard Business Review, March, pp. 63-78.
------，(1974) The New Grolier Webster International Dictionary of the English Language, The English-Language Institute of America, Inc.
Trout, J. and Rivkin, S. (2000) Differentiate or Die: Survival in Our Era of Killer Competition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tucker, R.B. (1998) Managing the Future: 10 Driving Forces of Change for the Next Century, New York: The Berkley Publishing Corporation.
作者分享在「价值中国网」更多好文章：
只要在下列名称上点击即可
读者或媒体转载或引用文章必须注明文章来源及作者名称，
并且以电子邮件事先知会本文作者，以免涉嫌抄袭或窃用。