Here are two reasons companies fail: they only do more of the same, or they only do what's new.
公司失败一般有两种原因：他们总是做一样的东西，要不然就是他们只关注新的东西。
To me the real, real solution to quality growth is figuring out the balance between two activities: exploration and exploitation.
对我来说，真正解决品质升级的办法，不外乎在两种行为中找到平衡：探索和开发。
Both are necessary, but it can be too much of a good thing.
两者都甚为必要，但是太多不一定是好事。
Consider Facit. I'm actually old enough to remember them. Facit was a fantastic company.
想想Facit公司。我已经老到能记住它的程度了。Facit是一个极好的公司。
They were born deep in the Swedish forest, and they made the best mechanical calculators in the world. Everybody used them.
在瑞典森林深处诞生，做出了世界上最好的机械计算器，人人都用他们的计算器。
And what did Facit do when the electronic calculator came along?
但电子计算器开始普及的时候Facit做了什么呢？
They continued doing exactly the same. In six months, they went from maximum revenue ... and they were gone. Gone.
他们继续做一样的事情（生产机械计算器）。六个月内，他们从最佳收益落到公司消失这般田地，直至泯灭。
To me, the irony about the Facit story is hearing about the Facit engineers,
对我来说，关于Facit有一点讽刺的是，听说Facit工程师，
who had bought cheap, small electronic calculators in Japan that they used to double-check their calculators.
他们从日本买来便宜，小型的计算器，来确保自己生产出的计算器准确无误。
Facit did too much exploitation. But exploration can go wild, too.
Facit过于注重开发了。然而探索有时候也会出问题。
A few years back, I worked closely alongside a European biotech company.
几年以前，我和一个欧洲的生物科技公司紧密合作。
Let's call them OncoSearch. The company was brilliant.
暂且称呼为OncoSearch吧，这家公司非常卓越。
They had applications that promised to diagnose, even cure, certain forms of blood cancer.
他们有保证能诊断出、甚至有望治疗某些血液癌症的方法。
Every day was about creating something new.
天天都在创造新的东西。
They were extremely innovative, and the mantra was, "When we only get it right," or even, "We want it perfect."
他们极具创新性，公司的口头禅是“我们不只是把事做对”，甚至是“我们想要完美”。
The sad thing is, before they became perfect -- even good enough -- they became obsolete. OncoSearch did too much exploration.
然而不幸的是，在他们成为完美之前，甚至是足够好之前，他们已经过时了。OncoSearch过于注重开发了。
I first heard about exploration and exploitation about 15 years ago, when I worked as a visiting scholar at Stanford University.
十五年前，我作为斯坦福大学的访问学者之时，第一次听到探索和探险两个说法。
The founder of the idea is Jim March. And to me the power of the idea is its practicality.
吉姆·玛驰首先提出了这种思想。对我来说，这种思想最厉害之处是它的可行性。
Exploration. Exploration is about coming up with what's new.
探索。探索是一个创新的过程。
It's about search, it's about discovery, it's about new products, it's about new innovations. It's about changing our frontiers.
和搜索有关，和发现有关，和新产品有关，和创新有关，和改变我们的边界有关。
Our heroes are people who have done exploration: Madame Curie, Picasso, Neil Armstrong, Sir Edmund Hillary, etc.
我们的英雄都是那些探索家：居里夫人、毕加索、尼尔·阿姆斯特朗、埃德蒙德·希拉里，等等。
I come from Norway; all our heroes are explorers, and they deserve to be. We all know that exploration is risky.
我是挪威人，我们那所有英雄都是探险家，而且他们值得被称作探险家。我们都知道探索是存在风险的。
We don't know the answers, we don't know if we're going to find them, and we know that the risks are high.
我们不知道答案，不清楚是否可以找到答案，而且我们知道风险很大。
Exploitation is the opposite. Exploitation is taking the knowledge we have and making good, better.
开发则正好相反。开发是利用我们现有的知识，然后让他们变得更好。
Exploitation is about making our trains run on time. It's about making good products faster and cheaper.
开发是关于让我们的火车准点出发。这是有关于更快生产出更便宜的产品。
Exploitation is not risky -- in the short term.
开发没有风险，至少短时内。
But if we only exploit, it's very risky in the long term.
但是如果我们只是开发，长远来说风险极大。
And I think we all have memories of the famous pop groups who keep singing the same songs again and again,
而且我认为我们都知道一些有名的流行乐团一直唱一样的歌，循环往复，周而复始，
until they become obsolete or even pathetic. That's the risk of exploitation.
直到他们过时甚至有些可怜为止。这就是过度开发的风险。
So if we take a long-term perspective, we explore. If we take a short-term perspective, we exploit.
所以，在长远的角度的来说，我们要探索。对短时间来说，我们开发。
Small children, they explore all day. All day it's about exploration.
小孩子们天天探索新事物。每天都在探索。
As we grow older, we explore less because we have more knowledge to exploit on. The same goes for companies.
随着年龄的增长，更多的知识等待我们开发，因此我们不怎么探索了。对于公司来说也一样。
Companies become, by nature, less innovative as they become more competent.
公司如果越来越有能力，自然而然会逐渐变得不那么有创新性。
And this is, of course, a big worry to CEOs. And I hear very often questions phrased in different ways.
当然这对于CEO们来说是令他们担心的事情。而且我常常听到各种各样这样的问题。
For example, "How can I both effectively run and reinvent my company?"
举个例子，“如何同时有效的运营和重新改造我的公司？”
Or, "How can I make sure that our company changes before we become obsolete or are hit by a crisis?"
或者，“我怎么才能保证我的公司在过时或者危机来临之前改变？”

So, doing one well is difficult. Doing both well as the same time is art -- pushing both exploration and exploitation.
所以，把探索和开发之中的一项做好很难。同时把两项都做好是一门艺术--去同时探索和开发。
So one thing we've found is only about two percent of companies are able to effectively explore and exploit at the same time, in parallel.
我们发现，大约只有百分之二的公司有能力同时进行探索和开发。
But when they do, the payoffs are huge. So we have lots of great examples.
但是当他们这么做了的时候，回报是巨大的。我们有很多这样的例子。
We have Nestlé creating Nespresso, we have Lego going into animated films,
例如雀巢公司创造奈斯派索咖啡机，乐高公司进入动画电影领域，
Toyota creating the hybrids, Unilever pushing into sustainability -- there are lots of examples, and the benefits are huge.
丰田公司生产混合动力汽车，联合利华注重可持续发展，这样的例子还有很多，而且这样做的好处是巨大的。
Why is balancing so difficult? I think it's difficult because there are so many traps that keep us where we are.
但为什么平衡两者这么难呢？我认为原因是有很多陷阱使我们不能做我们自己。
So I'll talk about two, but there are many.
我已经讲了两个失败的例子，然而这样的例子还有很多。
So let's talk about the perpetual search trap.
首先，让我们来说说“不断搜索”这个陷阱。
We discover something, but we don't have the patience or the persistence to get at it and make it work.
我们发现了一些东西，但是我们没有足够的耐心或者毅力去把事情做对。
So instead of staying with it, we create something new.
因此我们又创造了新的东西，而不是继续做我们已经在做的事情。
But the same goes for that, then we're in the vicious circle of actually coming up with ideas but being frustrated.
但是对这件新的东西我们又做了一样的事情，一直下去，我们陷入了恶性循环。尽管确实在创新，然而还是很失望。
OncoSearch was a good example. A famous example is, of course, Xerox. But we don't only see this in companies.
OncoSearch就是这样。另一个很有名的例子当然是施乐公司。但是我们不只在公司里看到这种现象。
We see this in the public sector as well.
公共服务里也是这样。
We all know that any kind of effective reform of education, research, health care, even defense, takes 10, 15, maybe 20 years to work.
我们都知道在教育，研究，医保，甚至国防上的任何形式的改革，都需要至少10，15，甚至20年。
But still, we change much more often. We really don't give them the chance.
但是事实上我们改变的更频繁。我们其实没有给很多改变甚至一次机会。
Another trap is the success trap. Facit fell into the success trap.
另外一个陷阱是“既有的成功”。Facit公司就是这样。
They literally held the future in their hands, but they couldn't see it.
他们明明已经拥有了未来，但是他们却看不到。
They were simply so good at making what they loved doing, that they wouldn't change. We are like that, too.
他们太擅长做自己喜欢做的事情，这使得他们不予改变。我们也是这样。
When we know something well, it's difficult to change.
当你把一件事情做得很好的时候，去改变和创新是很难的。
Bill Gates has said: "Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces us into thinking we cannot fail." That's the challenge with success.
比尔·盖茨曾经说过：“成功是一个讨厌的老师。让我们幻想我们从来不会失败。”这就是既有的成功带来的挑战。
So I think there are some lessons, and I think they apply to us. And they apply to our companies.
因此我认为有很多这样的例子可以教育我们。并且适用于公司。
The first lesson is: get ahead of the crisis.
第一课是：在危机到来前做打算。
And any company that's able to innovate is actually able to also buy an insurance in the future.
任何持续创新的公司，其实都是在为公司的未来买保险。
Netflix -- they could so easily have been content with earlier generations of distribution,
Netflix本可以很容易满足于它早年的分配战略，
but they always -- and I think they will always -- keep pushing for the next battle.
然而它--我也认为它会--继续一次又一次的挑战自己。
I see other companies that say, "I'll win the next innovation cycle, whatever it takes."
我听到其它一些公司说：“下一次创新大潮来的时候，无论如何我会赢”。
Second one: think in multiple time scales. I'll share a chart with you, and I think it's a wonderful one.
第二课：思考多个时间标度。我会分享一张表格给你，我认为这张表很好。
Any company we look at, taking a one-year perspective and looking at the valuation of the company,
我所注意到的任何一家公司，站在“年”的角度来分析公司的价值，
innovation typically accounts for only about 30 percent.
创新大致只有百分之三十。
So when we think one year, innovation isn't really that important.
所以当我们只考虑每“年”的时候，创新不那么重要。
Move ahead, take a 10-year perspective on the same company -- suddenly, innovation and ability to renew account for 70 percent.
但向前看，在一个“十年”的周期里，创新和更新占到了百分之七十。
But companies can't choose. They need to fund the journey and lead the long term.
但是公司们无法选择。他们需要筹集资金而且长期保持领先。
Third: invite talent. I don't think it's possible for any of us to be able to balance exploration and exploitation by ourselves.
第三课：邀请有才之人加入。我不认为我们之中任何一个人可以独自在探索和开发之间找寻平衡。
I think it's a team sport. I think we need to allow challenging.
我认为这是一个团队竞技项目。我认为我们需要允许挑战发生。
I think the mark of a great company is being open to be challenged,
衡量一个公司是否伟大的标准是这家公司是否愿意被挑战，
and the mark of a good corporate board is to constructively challenge.
衡量一个董事会是否好的标准是它是否会建设性地去挑战。
I think that's also what good parenting is about.
我认为这个过程像父母监护儿女一样。
Last one: be skeptical of success.
最后一课：怀疑成功。
Maybe it's useful to think back at the old triumph marches in Rome,
想想古罗马的胜利游行吧，
when the generals, after a big victory, were given their celebration.
当将军在胜利之后，接受庆祝。
Riding into Rome on the carriage, they always had a companion whispering in their ear, "Remember, you're only human."
坐在马车上进罗马城，他们身边总会有人在他们耳边小声说道，“别忘了，你只是个平常人而已”。
So I hope I made the point: balancing exploration and exploitation has a huge payoff.
所以我希望你们了解我的观点：把探索和开发平衡之后，回报是巨大的。
But it's difficult, and we need to be conscious.
但是我们也要意识到这个过程是很困难的。
I want to just point out two questions that I think are useful.
我想指出两个有用的问题。
First question is, looking at your own company:
第一个问题：看看你自己的公司，
In which areas do you see that the company is at the risk of falling into success traps, of just going on autopilot?
在哪些方面你觉得你的公司有风险掉入“满足于既有成功”的陷阱，或者就让公司自然前行？
And what can you do to challenge?
而且你能做什么去挑战自我？
Second question is: When did I explore something new last, and what kind of effect did it have on me?
第二个问题是：我上次探索新事物是什么时候，那次探索对我有什么启发？
Is that something I should do more of? In my case, yes.
有什么我可以更进一步的事情吗？对我来说答案是肯定的。
So let me leave you with this.
所以我让你们想想。
Whether you're an explorer by nature or whether you tend to exploit what you already know,
不管你生来就是一个探险者，或者是一个对既有资源的开发者，
don't forget: the beauty is in the balance. Thank you.
别忘了平衡这两者是一种艺术。谢谢。