小老板比经理还厉害吗（小丹尼你又不懂技术）
小老板比经理还厉害吗（小丹尼你又不懂技术）请注意，本文不是教你快速挣钱小窍门的，想快速致富的可以绕道，我不想夸大“生意-产品-技术”模型的作用，本文只是帮你看懂一点商业社会的角色分工和分别体现的价值。听上去也有道理，但是还是不那么让人信服。其实只需要一个简单的模型——“生意-产品-技术”。再一细想，心理更不平衡了：“不对啊，教练背后还有球队总经理和董事长，我整天在球场上卖命，怎么他们在背后挣那么多钱？”这个问题几乎让每届职场新人困惑，也被所谓的职场老鸟解答过无数遍，但我始终也没看到一个理性又易懂的回答，大多数解释都是停留在现象和感性层面，端着泡满枸杞的茶杯说：“这个问题嘛，懂的人自然懂，老板压力大啊！每天都要考虑公司的生死。你放假的时候可以不用考虑公司的事情，但是老板随时都要想员工下个月工资怎么发，每个员工背后都是一个家庭等着吃饭啊！”最后再补刀一句：“自己悟去吧！” 伴随着一丝诡秘的微笑，感觉在讲养生般神秘。
▼ English Version Below
❶
职场上一个常见的问题：“凭什么我的领导又没我懂技术，还能领导我（挣得还多）？”
这个问题有点类似NBA球队：“教练还没我篮球打得好，凭什么教我打篮球？”
再一细想，心理更不平衡了：“不对啊，教练背后还有球队总经理和董事长，我整天在球场上卖命，怎么他们在背后挣那么多钱？”
这个问题几乎让每届职场新人困惑，也被所谓的职场老鸟解答过无数遍，但我始终也没看到一个理性又易懂的回答，大多数解释都是停留在现象和感性层面，端着泡满枸杞的茶杯说：
“这个问题嘛，懂的人自然懂，老板压力大啊！每天都要考虑公司的生死。你放假的时候可以不用考虑公司的事情，但是老板随时都要想员工下个月工资怎么发，每个员工背后都是一个家庭等着吃饭啊！”最后再补刀一句：“自己悟去吧！” 伴随着一丝诡秘的微笑，感觉在讲养生般神秘。
听上去也有道理，但是还是不那么让人信服。其实只需要一个简单的模型——“生意-产品-技术”。
请注意，本文不是教你快速挣钱小窍门的，想快速致富的可以绕道，我不想夸大“生意-产品-技术”模型的作用，本文只是帮你看懂一点商业社会的角色分工和分别体现的价值。
好了，现在我们具体讲一讲这个“生意-产品-技术”模型。
❷
生意，就是你的老板最需要考虑的，也有人称它为“商业模式”、“战略层面的问题”等等，用大白话解释就是：“你做事的源动力是如何挣钱或者造福社会的？”
源动力是挣钱容易理解，如果这个生意不挣钱，就不能长期维持，也不能形成正循环拓展应用规模，换句话说就是要完蛋。如果有能力能从政府合法拿到钱也算挣钱，事实上前几年很多新能源汽车企业就是这么干的。
之所以说造福社会，是因为一些政府组织、研究机构或者慈善机构存在的意义并不是为了挣钱，而是为了基础民生、社会稳定等目的。很多公共部门里有那么多闲职，他们明明可以被机器高效率或者优化流程替代，不仅仅是中国，美国也一样，甚至公共服务效率更低，这些就是政治维稳、维护就业率等原因（但是大盘子撑不下去时，首先被裁员的也是他们）。也有正能量，有的人办企业是为了更高的理想，比如像稻盛和夫在52岁时创立DDI（现在的KDDI）、之后又拯救日航也不是为了挣钱，他已经升华为造福社会，让人尊敬。
懂生意为什么重要呢？
虽然生意是靠产品和技术来支撑的，但是如果没有生意，产品和技术就只能是自娱自乐的小把戏、没人用的专利或者没人看的学术论文，据说90%以上的学术论文看的人不超过3个（还包括作者的妈妈）。
但是还是有人认为：“懂生意有那么重要？难道我就专心做出牛×的产品不就行了吗？酒香不怕巷子深！”
说实话，还真不行。举个最简单的例子，哪怕你现在设计出来一个比苹果iOS和安卓性能和功能更牛的手机操作系统，也替代不了他们，因为苹果和安卓已经形成一套完整的价值网络——开发者、应用、商家和用户都是价值网络中的元素，就是我们常说的商业壁垒或护城河。
再举个例子，Facebook在发展初期也走了生意上的弯路，差点成为咱们“校内网”的结局。
刚开始扎克伯格只是一个软件开发小能手，最早开发的是叫Facemash找辣妹的网站。扎克伯格最早不太懂生意，在Facebook拓展初期，差点让联合创始人巴西富商的儿子沙弗利（Eduardo Saverin）生意上臭点子给坑了，要知道，沙弗利最早可是占Facebook 30%的股权的。
我们现在都知道，平台型的社交网站/App一定是规模优先，形成网络效应，即平台上朋友越多、用户越愿意用。但是当Facebook在哈佛取得成功时，沙弗利主张一所一所学校推广，即线性增长，沙弗利看重的是让Facebook尽快盈利卖广告。沙弗利的想法无疑是个昏招，过度注重短期利益，线性增长的Facebook很有可能被Google等大公司模仿干掉。扎克伯格刚开始就是听沙弗利这么干的，打算争取半年扩展到50所大学，因为他觉得巴西富商的儿子沙弗利一定比他更懂生意。
幸亏后来扎克伯格遇到了硅谷的著名创业者帕克（Sean Parker） 扎克伯格听取了帕克生意上的建议，将Facebook带入了正轨。帕克纠正了扎克伯格线性增长的看法，认为Facebook必须马上占领美国和欧洲的所有大学，需要指数增长；另外，为了支撑这个生意上的，光靠卖广告是无法达到的，必须去硅谷从风险投资人那里融资。虽然以上好主意不是扎克伯格原创的，但是扎克伯格擅于判断和执行。现在看来，帕克给扎克伯格出的这个生意上的好点子，比黄金还要珍贵，否则很可能就没有现在Facebook应用群（Facebook、WhatsApp、Instagram以及Messenger）用户量超过25亿、占全球人口三分之一科技巨头了。
当然，Facebook之后的一系列生意层面的运作也很成功的，比如Facebook以10亿美元收购13人团队Instagram、200亿美元收购不足百人的团队Whatsapp，当时很多人都认为买贵了，然而这两笔收购帮助到Facebook往移动端转型，并且协同效应发挥非常好，现在来看这两笔并购绝对是非常值的。
现在你应该理解生意层面的决策有多重要了。有人可能认为：“你举的Facebook社交网络案例比较特殊，因为是一个平台公司，就是要权衡拓展速度/规模和产品质量。我就是一个生产一般消费产品的，也不能好好专注提高产品质量吗？”
很遗憾，也不行。我在这里不是说产品质量不重要，只是说生意层面的事情更需要理解清楚。事实上有很多产品质量/性能好，但是很多输了商业战争的案例，就是在生意层面理解不如竞争对手深刻。
比如在智能手机发展初期，英特尔芯片水平是绝对领先的，但是却遗憾错过了这个市场，被高通抢占了先机。而且当年乔布斯曾找到英特尔CEO欧德宁（Paul Otellini），提出了芯片需求并给出了报价，但报价要低于英特尔的预算成本，被欧德宁拒绝了，当年的苹果跟现在不可同日而语，后来苹果就和当时性能要低、价格便宜的高通合作了。“不过现在看来，当时的预算成本是错的”，后来欧德宁在接受媒体采访时表示。
再举个一般消费品的案例，智能手机发展初期Sony内存的质量和耐用性也是远胜于其他竞争对手，但是却被韩国的三星抢占了手机内存市场的先机。
原因是什么呢？我想你也猜到了，Sony内存的质量和耐用性虽然好，但是价格高，而且手机内存迭代非常快，三星就是抓住了这个生意的机会——生产质量够用就好，但是价格便宜的内存，三星内存的市场份额甚至在2016年达到创纪录的64.5％。
再举个一般消费品的例子。本田摩托车刚进入美国市场时，一直难以打入摩托车经销商市场，经销商都不愿意卖日本摩托车，因为日本的摩托车特点是小排量，比传统的美国摩托车性能差不少，而且不够酷，比如哈雷，本田摩托车小排量很难跑长途，而且重量轻不够安全。
但是后来情况大扭转，本田是怎么做的呢？本田摩托车在偶然情况下另辟蹊径，不在传统的摩托车市场竞争了，找到另一片增量市场——休闲娱乐市场，很多美国人买摩托车只是想去周边玩玩或者买菜，跑长途更愿意开汽车而不是骑摩托车，本田摩托车正好符合需求还更便宜，于是拓展了增量市场，甚至比传统美国摩托车市场更大。
❸
通过以上案例，你知道生意的重要性了，那么，做生意的挑战在哪里呢？我将做生意的主要挑战总结为两点——创造财富和多资源的协调：
1. 创造财富：做生意是需要创造财富的。请注意，创造财富和挣钱不一样。
员工考虑的是通过工资来挣钱，但员工的工资是哪里来的呢？来自老板在生意中创造的财富。YC 创始人Paul Graham在《黑客与画家》 一书中讲到过：
“很多人认为我们这个世界金钱的总量是恒定的，富人赚的钱就是穷人减少的钱，其实这个世界并不是一个零和游戏，富人赚到的钱往往是因为他创造出更多的财富。”
我很赞成这个观点，事实上，我认为大多数富人赚到的钱相对于他们所创造的财富相比更少，想想Windows盗版软件这件事吧。
就是因为要创造财富，做生意就不是一件闭门造车、自娱自乐的事情，必然要熟悉外部环境，所以才会产生各种内外部结合分析的模型，包括PEST、波特五力模型、SWOT等等。
2. 多资源的协调：多资源包括人、财、物和外部因素（政商关系、渠道、公关等等），类似波特曾经提出的“战略配称”：
“战略配称是创造竞争优势最核心的因素，它可以建立一个环环相扣、紧密联接的链，将模仿者拒之门外。”
你会发现最有护城河的公司厉害的不是某一款产品，而是多资源的协调优势：多资源可以是多个产品或服务的集成解决方案、产品与渠道的紧密结合、甚至可以是产品与独特紧密关系的配合（有种说法是之所以美国国防部采购价格高、利润率高，是因为打入到这层关系已经花了不少钱）等等。
再多说一点，人作为多资源当中最重要的一点，如何进行协调呢？那就是我们所常说的企业文化——使命、愿景、核心价值观，也就对应了我们做生意的源动力（虽然公司对外不会宣传自己的源动力是为了挣钱，但是事实是什么你们也懂的）。
❹
“生意-产品-技术”是一个商业中很好的基础模型，就像数学中的二元一次方程一样，属于“元知识”。“元知识”有什么好处呢？
曾经听吴军讲到过的一点我觉得很有道理：什么是好老师呢？不是简单的把知识点讲出来，如果只是这样的话学生去看教科书就好了。好老师是可以把知识的架构和联系讲清楚，让你以一个全面的视角看待问题，而且可以用丰富有趣的实际案例让学生理解更加深刻。
所以我概括元知识的好处至少有两点——又远又深：
- 远：让你从一个全面的架构来看待问题。就像三体人看我们地球上芸芸众生一样。
- 深：学会一个通用的看待问题方法，而且具有可拓展性。就像学会了二元一次方程，给你再大的未知数x、y你也能解出来，而且还能继续扩展学习高阶方程。
不仅是学习“生意-产品-技术”模型，以后你学任何知识都可以考虑这到底是“元知识”，还是只是一个在特殊情况下的观点，我称之为“天上掉落的鸟屎”。就像你朋友倒霉被鸟屎淋了，见人便说“要警惕所有鸟啊！”，你说这个观点是错的吗？也不全错，确实可以警惕一些，但是这只是特殊情况之一，你需要警惕的事情多着呢，而且过于注重鸟屎会让你错过很多美丽的鸟儿。
尤其是现代传媒为了传播以猎奇为主导，“天上掉落的鸟屎”遍地都是，聪明人更要警惕。
我们要学习元知识，避免只吸收“天上掉落的鸟屎”。举一个商业上“天上掉落的鸟屎”例子——北大教授陈春花给企业家的建议：“你先开1家店能盈利，再开20家店；而不是先开20家店，再让每一家盈利。”
听上去好像是那么回事，但是我不赞成这个观点，她说的只是特殊情况之一，也就是“天上掉落的鸟屎”，不是“元知识”。
“元知识”在于先扩大规模还是先盈利，需要分别考虑你的生意/商业模式到底属于那种类型（平台、商家还是个体），反驳她的观点很简单，为什么那么多硅谷大佬要支持先扩大规模、后考虑盈利？比如我之前讲的Facebook案例，幸亏扎克伯格听取帕克的建议先扩大规模后考虑盈利，否则很可能就没有Facebook了；“创业教父”YC 创始人Paul Graham提倡“速度决定创业”；Reid Hoffman新书《Blitzscaling》也强调创业的真相就是“闪电般的增长”。关于生意/商业模式和速度的关系，下期我会详细讲。
当你深刻理解了“生意-产品-技术”模型，你对以下问题应该也有更深层的思考：
- 人人都说的商业模式，为什么重要？难度在哪？
- 是什么能力，让老板挣了大钱？你现在的能力会被替代吗？
- 一些战略咨询公司又不如我们懂业务，到底这些咨询公司有什么用？（虽然我听说之前有个电视剧《我的前半生》帮普及过咨询公司是干嘛的，但是电视剧演的和实际情况差别你懂的）
今天重点讲了“生意-产品-技术”模型中生意的特点，下一期我们讲一讲这么模型的可拓展性：
回见。
引用及相关文章
▲ 《创新者的窘境》Clayton M. Christensen 《The Innovator's Dilemma》
▲ 《黑客与画家》Paul Graham 《Hackers and Painters》
▲ 【小丹尼】为什么知乎live、分答、得到都不是干货？
▲ 《竞争战略》迈克尔▪波特《Competitive Strategy》
小丹尼VIP星球内已分享
进小丹尼沟通或VIP群，请添加dannytutor
《You don't know technology，but why do you lead me and earn more? | "Business - Product - Technology" Model》
❶
A frequently asked question in the workplace: "Why is my leader not knowing the technology but he can make more money than me?"
This question is a bit like the basketball team: "My coach doesn't play basketball well as I do why he teach me how to play basketball? I spend all my life on the court how do team managers and chairman make so much money?"
This problem has almost confused every newcomer in the workplace and has been answered by the veterans many times but I have never seen a rational and easy-to-understand answer. Most of the explanations are at the level of phenomena and emotions such as :
"The problem is people who understand naturally understand the boss is under pressure! Every day boss must consider the survival or death of the company. You don't have to think about the company when you are on vacation but the boss always need to know how to pay wages next month. Just feel it!" With a hint of a secret smile I feel like a mystery of preserve longevity.
It sounds reasonable but it is still not so convincing. In fact we only need to understand a simple model - "Business - Product - Technology" .
Please note that this article is not an arcanum to teach you how to make money quickly. If you want to get rich quickly you can bypass it. I don't want to exaggerate the importance of the "business-product-technology" model. This article is just to help you understand the role of the division of labor and the their value reflected in business.
OK let's talk about the "Business - Product - Technology" model.
❷
Business that's what your boss needs to think about most someone may call it business model or strategy. I explain Business in the simplest words "how do you make money or benefit society?"
The motivation of making money is easy to understand and often needs to be considered by the company's boss or senior managers. If the business does not make money it can not be sustained for a long time nor can it form a positive cycle to expand the application scale in other words it is doomed. If you have the ability to legally get money from the government it is also called make money. In fact many new energy automobile companies in China did that in the past few years.
The reason for business benefit society is that some government organizations research institutes or charities do not exist for the purpose of making money but for the purpose of social stability. In fact I also had a question before:" Why are there so many idle jobs in many public departments? They obviously can be replaced by machines with high efficiency or optimized processes " This situation is not only existing in China but the United States. As far as I know，public services in the United States even less efficient. Later I gradually understand that maintain people in their work with no value better than let them make chaos. There are also positive examples. Some people run business for higher ideals. For example when Kazuo Inamori founded DDI (now KDDI) at the age of 52 and then saved JAL it was not for earning money. His ideal is to benefit the society. Respect.
Why understand Business model important? Although business is supported by products and technology if there is no business products and technology can only be self-entertainment tricks no-use patents or academic papers that nobody cares. It is said that more than 90% of academic papers read no more than 3 people (including the author's mother).
Some people believe: "Should I concentrate on making good products?
Good wine needs no bush."
To be honest it really doesn't work. For example even if you design a mobile phone operating system that is more powerful than Apple's iOS and Android it can't replace them because Apple and Android have formed a complete value network - developers Apps merchants and users are all elements of a value network. We always call it moat.
For another example Facebook also took a detour in business in the early stages and almost became the disastrous ending of Chinese website "xiaonei / renren". At the early stages Zuckerberg was only a good software developer，not a business man. The predecessor of Facebook was called Facemash，which is developed by Zuckerberg to mark hot girl in Harvard.
Zuckerberg didn't know much about business at first. Eduardo Saverin the son of Brazilian wealthy businessman the cofounder of Facebook with 30% equity，came up with bad ideas and almost ruined Facebook.
We all know now that platform-based social networking sites/applications must be prioritized on a scale to form a network effect which means the more friends on the platform the more users are willing to use them. But when Facebook's successed at Harvard Saverin advocated that Facebook should promote in universities one after another that is linear growth. Saverin believes Facebook have to make profit as soon as possible to sell advertising. Saverin ’s idea is undoubtedly wrong to over-emphasizing short-term interests and the linear growth of Facebook is likely to be destroyed by big companies like Google. Zuckerberg started following Saverin’s advice at the beginning and planned to expand to 50 universities in half a year because he felt that Saverin the son of Brazilian wealthy businessman must know business better than him.
Fortunately Zuckerberg met Sean Parker the famous entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. Zuckerberg listened to Parker’s business advice and brought Facebook on the right track. Parker corrected Zuckerberg’s view of linear growth. He believes that Facebook must immediately occupy all universities in the United States and Europe and needs exponential growth. In addition in order to support this business strategy Facebook must go to Silicon Valley to raise money from Venture Capitals instead of selling advertising. Although moving to Silicon Valley to raise money from Venture Capitals is not Zuckerberg's original idea Zuckerberg is good at judging and executing. Now it seems that Parker’s good idea for Zuckerberg’s business is more precious than gold otherwise it’s likely that there are no more Facebook the technology giant (Facebook WhatsApp Instagram and Messenger) with more than 2.5 billion users (one-third of the global population).
Of course Facebook's business strategies in the next few years have been very successful such as Facebook's $1 billion acquisition of 13-person team Instagram $20 billion acquisition of the less than 13-person team Whatsapp which many people thought was too expensive. However acquisitions of Instagram and Whatsapp helped Facebook seize the opportunity of the mobile platform and the synergy is very good. Acquisitions of Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions are definitely worth it.
Now you should understand how important the decision at the Business level is. Some people may think: "The Facebook social networking case you cited is quite special because it's a platform company that consider priority of growth speed / scale and product quality. I am only an general consumer product manufacturer should I only focus on improving product quality? "
The answer is No. I am not to say that the quality of the product is not important but that the Business level decision needs to be understood more clearly. In fact there are many products with good quality/performance but lose the commercial war because they do not understand the Business level question as deep as their competitors.
For example in the early days of smartphone development Intel's chip was absolutely leading but it was regrettable to miss smartphone’s chip market and replaced by Qualcomm. When Steve Jobs discussed with Intel CEO Paul Otellini Steve proposed the chip demand and price but the price was lower than Intel's budget，so Jobs was rejected by Otellini. So Apple started to cooperate with Qualcomm which had lower performance and lower price at that time. "But now it seems that our budget was wrong." Otellini said in an interview with the media later.
Another example similar to Intel and Qualcomm. In the early days of smart phone，the quality and durability of Sony's memory is far better than other competitors but opportunities of smart phone market was seized by Samsung .
What is the reason? I bet you can guess it. Although quality and durability of Sony's memory is best but the price is higher. Smartphone memory upgrade very fast and Samsung seized the opportunity- they produce cheaper memory and the quality is fit for user's need. The market share of Samsung's memory reached a record 64.5% in 2016.
Let's take another example of a general consumer product. When Honda Motorcycle entered the US market it has been difficult to enter the motorcycle dealers. Dealers was not willing to sell Japanese motorcycles because Japanese motorcycles are characterized by small displacement which is much worse performance than traditional American motorcycles and not cool enough such as Harley. In addition Honda motorcycle is difficult to drive long distance and light weight is not safe enough.
But then the situation was greatly reversed how did Honda do it? Honda did not compete in the traditional motorcycle market and found another incremental market – the leisure and entertainment market. Many Americans buy motorcycles just want to hang out or go shopping. They were get used to drive a car for long distances instead of riding a American motorcycle like Harley. Honda motorcycle just fits their demand and cheaper. Finally Honda expanded the incremental market even larger than the traditional American motorcycle market.
❸
After reading cases above you have a deeper inside the importance of business. So，what are the challenges of doing business? I summarize the main challenges of doing business as two points: wealth creation and multi resource coordination:
1. Wealth creation：Please note that wealth creation is different from making money.
Employees often consider making money by earning wages but where do wages come from? Wages come from the wealth created by your boss. Paul Graham founder of YC writes in his book 《Hackers and Painters》:
"Many people think that the total amount of money in our world is constant. Rich people make less money than poor people. In fact the world is not a zero-sum game. Rich people often make more money because they create more wealth."
I totally agree with that. In fact I think most of rich people make less money than the wealth they create. Think about the piracy of Windows software.
It is because of wealth creation business is not a matter of working behind closed door and must be familiar with the external environment. That's why a variety of internal and external analysis models exist including PEST Porter's Five Forces Model SWOT and so on.
2. Multi resource coordination：Multi-resources include human financial material and external factors (political and commercial relations channels public relations etc.) similar to Porter's "strategic fit"：Strategic fit is the core factor to create competitive advantage. It can build a closely linked chain and shut out imitators.
You will find that the most powerful company does not have a single product but a coordinated advantage of multiple resources: multiple resources can be integrated solutions for multiple products or services complete integration of products and channels or even a combination of products and unique relationships and so on.
People，as the most important factor of multi-resources how to let them work together? That's what we often call it corporate culture - mission vision core values which corresponds to the motivation of our business. (Although companies do not publicize their motivation to make money you know the truth.)
❹
"Business - Product - Technology" is a basic model in business just like the Binary Linear Equation in mathematics it is a "meta-knowledge." What are the benefits of "meta knowledge"?
I once heard from Wu Jun: "What is a good teacher? It's not just teach the point knowledge simplely. If in this case then the student will just read the textbook. A good teacher can clearly explain the structure and connections of knowledge let you view the problem from a comprehensive perspective and can make students understand more deeply with rich and interesting practical cases.”
So I sum up the benefits of meta-knowledge，far and deep:
1. Far. Meta-knowledge lets you look at the problem from a comprehensive framework. Just like a trisolaran watchs human.
2. Deep. Meta-knowledge helps you learn a universal way of looking at problems and be expansibility. Just like learning a Binary Linear Equation you can always solve it by giving you greatest numbers of unknown x y and you can continue to study multivariate equation.
Not only learning the "business-product-technology" model but if you learn any knowledge in the future you can consider whether this is "meta-knowledge" or whether it is just a special case. I call it "bird dropping from the sky" . Just like your friend is unlucky to be drenched by a bird dropping when you saw someone he talk to all his friends "Be wary of all the birds!" Are you saying that this view is wrong? Not all wrong you can be wary but this is only one of the special circumstances. Of course you need to be vigilant but too much attention to the bird dropping will make you miss a lot of beautiful birds. In order to spread the novelty-seeking in modern media the "bird dropping from the sky" are everywhere and smart people should be more vigilant.
We need to learn meta-knowledge rather than "bird dropping from the sky". Take a commercial example of "bird dropping from the sky" - Professor Chunhua Chen of Peking University used to advise entrepreneurs:
"Firstly you must make money in a single store and then expand 20 profit-making stores one after an other. Instead of forming a scale you start 20 stores at the very beginning. "
I don't agree with her point of view. She is only talking about one of the special circumstances not "meta knowledge." “Meta knowledge” is whether to expand the scale first or make profit first. You need to consider whether your business/business model belongs to which type (platform merchant or super individual).
Refuting her point of view is very easy. Why do so many Silicon Valley celebrities believe that we must first expand the scale first and then consider the profit? For example the Facebook case above fortunately Zuckerberg listened to Parker's suggestion to expand the scale first and then consider the profit otherwise it is likely that there is no Facebook. Founder of YC Paul Graham advocates "speed determines entrepreneurship"; Reid Hoffman also emphasizes that the truth of entrepreneurship is "blitzscaling growth" in his new book 《Blitzscaling》.
After reading this article do you have a deeper understanding of the following questions:
- What is the value and challenges of Business?
- What ability to make your boss make a lot of money?
- Some strategic consulting companies are not as good as we understand technology. What are these consulting companies for?
Today we focus on the characteristics of Business in the "Business-Product-Technology" model. Next time we will talk about the extensibility of this model.
Danny out.
Reference and recommend aelated articles
▲ Clayton M. Christensen 《The Innovator's Dilemma》
▲ Paul Graham 《Hackers and Painters》
▲ Michael E.Porter《Competitive Strategy》
Shared in DannyZ VIP group
Join DannyZ VIP group，please add WeChat：dannytutor
