There is, it seems, a growing dissatisfaction in the international legal services market, particularly from large corporate users of legal services. Some simply want cheaper service in recessionary times; others want more certainty about their budgetary commitment. Some inhouse counsel are thinking radically about new forms of service and are open-minded about who to use; others remain convinced of the value of pre-eminent suppliers but are under serious pressure, perhaps for the very first time, from internal buying specialists. In some parts of the world there is discussion about adopting new approaches to the provision of legal services, like outsourcing, and there is no doubt that these pressures are also being felt by practices within Hong Kong.

These are serious and remorseless changes driven by more than just a client's instinct to try to get a good price. The pressures on private practices are accumulating and they are not just recessionary, although the fallout from the Western credit crunch is bad enough. Business clients are, for example, challenging items they call 'commodities'. Most projects contain administrative functions or routine processes which have been the source of healthy billings to date. Clients are demanding that even the elite practices strip out these items and find ways to distinguish between valuable professional insight and routine tasks. Across the world there seems to be a requirement from even those businesses with the deepest pockets to understand what the value of different legal services is to their organisation.

These forces are accumulating and unlikely to diminish. Even when international recession reverses, it seems unlikely that private practices will be able to return to the halcyon days of fat margins and luxurious lifestyles. This prompts a number of questions. Is the legal profession going the way of the accountants, who seemed to be traumatised by similar pressures a decade or so ago? Is it inevitable that the value of legal services is eroded as both business and private clients become better educated second guessers? Are lawyers, like many professionals before them, going to have to increase span of control and introduce robust processes so that junior associates lead most client engagements? Partners in many different firms are thinking about serving clients in radical new ways and this is leading, perhaps for the very first time, to true differentiation in legal services.

What is differentiation?

The changing legal services market is not unique in its experience of these forces. Others have been through this before. In many demanding and difficult markets, suppliers have learnt to thrive by creating a truly unique offering which commands the attention of their buyers. In luxury goods, for example, the world's leading brands have learnt to create wealth from the perceived differences of, say, perfumes. The problem is that this looks sensible and obvious in retrospect. But perfume is really just smelly water. There is no logical reason why Estee Lauder should be perceived to be different to and more desirable than, say, Yves Saint Laurent. Yet, the world over, people flock to these different, desirable offers.

Other suppliers have succeeded in creating difference between business offers. The business class travel in Virgin Airways is perceived to be different to that of American Airlines, for instance. It is particularly clear in management consultancy, where business clients will understand the very different stances of, say, McKinsey, Deloitte and Bane. The same senior executives who may say that 'there is little to choose between' different tiers of law firms will value the choice in management consultancy and pay different prices for different offers.

Real differentiation is the offer of a truly unique and distinct service which creates choice for clients and sustainable profit for suppliers, and it is starting to emerge in legal services.

Innovative ownership models and their impact on differentiation

One of the phenomena that cause differentiation in an industry is the advent of innovative forms of supply and changing patterns of ownership. The owners of an organisation set its priorities, culture and investment patterns. They influence, albeit remotely, the nature and style of service offered to clients. In the past, legal services have, of course, been dominated by one form of ownership: private partnership. Yet this is changing in various parts of the world and it is causing the nature of legal service to change.

To start, there is a trend amongst the world's professions to limit the risk of partnership. Many have now become LLPs and others are looking at different forms of ownership and funding. In Australia some partners, such as Slater & Gordon, have gone further and floated their firm; others are making plans with investment banks. Britain too is about to allow changes in the nature of practice ownership which will allow new forms of investment, and America has experimented with different forms of ownership. For instance, Californian employment practice Littler Mendelson PC is a professional corporation which has structured its governance like a corporate board, whilst New York's Axiom is a 'network' firm (with plans to open in South East Asia) which uses project management processes to allow lawyers to execute work remotely and at different times. Finally, Novus Law, an outsourcing model founded by Ray Bayley, a former partner of PwC, is gaining ground by applying the concept of business process outsourcing to the internal methods of business clients.

These different ownership models prompt a fundamental change in the practice which alters its financial dynamics, culture, partnership behaviour and the services it offers. Over time, publicly owned practices in other professions like accountancy, management consultancy or executive search have become leaner, cheaper and meaner. So, even if a private partnership does not need external funding and does not itself change, it is likely to find itself competing against intently focused, streamlined and effective public competitors. For the clients though, it prompts genuinely different offers to emerge and allows them real choice. Although they are in the same field, for example, the nature of support from consultants in Deloitte, Accenture and IBM global services are substantially different. This emerging trend in the international legal services market will cause similar, differentiated service offers to occur.

Client needs as a source of differentiation

Leading thinkers in international legal services have been trying to create the 'magic bullet' of differentiation for some time. I have sat in on several meetings where partners have discussed what their firms can do to be different. But the reason many legal practitioners (and even their marketing support people, who are supposed to understand these issues) find it difficult to differentiate is that they start in the wrong place with the wrong assumptions. Many assume that all clients want is the best advice at the cheapest price. They then look to their own firm to try to discover ways in which they might be different to competitors.

True differentiation begins with a perhaps unfamiliar approach to the needs of clients. History shows that those who have succeeded in creating viable, profitable differences in other industries have done so through a systematic understanding of the needs of their buyers. In other words, it starts with the desires of the clients, not the ideas of the partners.

Even economists now recognise, via behavioural economics, that human beings are not always rational when they buy things for work or home. They are erratic, impulsive and frustratingly contradictory creatures. When people shop they generally have a cluster of needs in their minds which are not necessarily refined into a fixed purchase. They might only have an intuitive, confused mix of ideas or preferences and look for the proposition that best fits them. Interestingly, contrary to popular belief and even in a recession, price will generally be ranked as less important than several other considerations. Despite what many people say when they lose a deal, no one, in any part of the world, buys services solely on price. They go looking for an offer which meets their needs. There will always be anywhere from two to four service attributes that will be more important. If all of these more important attributes are exactly the same among competing services, then price becomes the only difference. So, if suppliers do compete on price, it's because they haven't understood the cluster of needs that are in their buyers?minds and created a distinct offer that meets those needs. Lawyers who end up arguing about price do so because they have not properly understood the underlying emotions and motivations of the potential clients. If their service is becoming a commodity it is their fault.

One practical way of beginning to understand this problem is a management tool called a 'perceptual map'. These have been used by the leaders of many different organisations to set direction and to gain insight. They have two axes: 'perceived price' and 'perceived quality' both being aspects of value. A typical outcome is shown in Figure 1 which illustrates a perceptual map of buyer needs.

The range of client views that it captures represents the perception of different human beings, with all their frailties, emotions and illogical desires. They will not all want the cheapest offer. They will want a mix of features and price which represents value to them. Some seek a features-rich offer with a high price and some a basic offer at a low price. The buyers?ideal purchases will be scattered around the line shown and, in a market which is not distorted by monopoly or regulation, most buyers cluster around the middle, a position that the leading firm can dominate.

The main use of the tool is to work out where clients' values lie and to move the firm's offer towards them. 'Positioning' the firm in this way can guide policy, helping the leadership to reach consensus on the position that they want the firm to take in the market. It is therefore a very powerful tool to guide strategy debate amongst leadership teams.

The 'market leader' normally takes centre stage: see Figure 2. It has the offer by which all are judged. It sets the price/quality expectations of the whole industry and has the power to change the whole market. The 'premium position' normally occupied by a long standing firm, is taken by a features-rich offer at a high price, while the 'least cost' supplier strips out everything possible to achieve low price. Various niche providers set themselves against the market leader and survive by providing a different offer. As leaders of firms test out different offers to different client groups, they begin to attract groupings of like-minded clients. Over time, suppliers take up sustainable positions and real differentiation occurs.

Explicit innovation management as a source of differentiation

I have been taken by surprise by the number of legal practices which are at the moment discussing ways to foster and manage innovation. This seems to have been to some extent promoted by IBM's massive international advertising campaign with the catchphrase: 'innovation that matters'. The effect of this campaign was once again to put emphasis on the word 'innovation' in business circles. Since then, innovation has become a topical subject of books, seminars, summits and conferences. Leading consultancies have published research and white papers on innovation needs. Although this might seem a little faddish, there is no doubt that legal practices across the world are investing time and resources in innovation because clients are demanding fresh approaches. A symptom of this is the London Financial Times?annual award for the 'cost innovative law firm'.

Innovation is the management process by which an organisation captures, cultivates and exploits initiatives. It is at the heart of the successful differentiation achieved by organisations in other industries and is beginning to create real differences between the offers of different law firms. Some, most commonly in companies which create and industrialise consumer services, use a formal innovation process. American Express, for instance, has a highly developed process with strict controls over eight development 'gates'. The normal approach is to set up a sub-committee of the leadership team. Innovators are given a budget to complete initial feasibility studies and are then required to return to the management group for further funds to go to the next phase. The committee reports to the main leadership team on the progress of all new concepts.

Perhaps surprisingly, a number of respected legal practices have set out to mimic this method of harvesting creative insight. The venerable British law firm Allen & Overy, for example, has an innovation committee which reports to its leadership team on programmes to capture creativity on behalf of the whole partnership. They have successfully launched a series of IT-based services which, at the most sophisticated level, automate a number of client processes.
Others, by contrast, emphasise smallness. For instance, in a recent speech, British entrepreneur Richard Branson attributed part of the success of his Virgin empire to smallness. His policy, he said, was to break units in two once they had reached around 30 people. He had found that it maintained entrepreneurial spirit and kept overheads low. This approach is founded on a story which has become the stuff of business legend. In the 1960s, the American multinational 3M nearly missed a major opportunity. Its employee Dr Spencer Silver had produced a 'low-tack reusable adhesive' - a glue which didn't stick well - and saw the potential to create what became 'Post It' notes. Unfortunately, the concept was rejected by all. Undeterred, he began to manufacture samples which he gave to the board's secretaries. As they asked for more, word spread and demand grew until the manufacturing capability for the notes took over the office of his supportive boss. The company eventually accepted the innovation which went on to become one of its most successful products. Then, as a response to the fear that its large, bureaucratic structure might miss another new product opportunity, 3M broke itself down into small cells. It claimed that this revised structure was responsible for a number of subsequent innovations.

Innovation through smallness is ideal for private partnerships. Even though it is not usually regarded as a practice management strategy, it is probably in fact the reason for the enduring success of many partnerships over the last two centuries. Even in the largest firms, success lies in the individual practices therein which, like cells in a living organism, evolve and respond to changes because they are run directly by a partner, an owner of the business. So, fostering an innovation by dedicating a practice to it is common in all the professions. Typically, though, this is intuitive and not recognised as 'innovation management' or, indeed, part of any structured, practice management strategy. As a result, partners often have to fight against resistance to establish a fresh idea and some initiatives are lost. Experience suggests that leaders can improve success if they make explicit a mechanism to identify, nurture and prioritise ideas in this way.

Still others have successfully innovated though outsourcing. In the early 1970s a young advertiser, David Crayton, had the European decorating company Polly-cell as a client. He was in a meeting with them when they began to talk about a huge mistake. They had tried to move into paint and, because they were a glue company, were about to discard the resultant 'stuff'. It was far too white and sticky, but the main problem was that it dried as a rubbery skin which could not be used as gloss paint under any circumstances. The company asked David if he could use his creative skills to save some of their investment. He went back to his agency and used his team to work through 'benefits', 'features' and 'applications'. They came up with the idea that the substance might serve, in a country with old housing stock, as a treatment for ceilings which did not need painting. It was eventually launched as 'Polytex' becoming a successful product for the company.

David Crayton went on to found Crayton, Lodge & Knight, a leading creative agency. These agencies pitch for work in similar ways that legal partners do with business clients, and work on mandates to turn creative ideas into viable new products or services; and their successes include new services for professional partnerships. Agencies do need to learn and adjust to the very different environment of professional services, and they need to work with open-minded partners, but once the working relationship is in place the two sides can be very constructive.

In conclusion, differentiation is a source of long-term competitive advantage in difficult and changing markets. It is not at all easy to create an offer which is distinct and different from others, but it has been done many times before in many different markets. In consumer products, for instance, British potter Josiah Wedgwood (1790) and American entrepreneur Henry Heinz (1890) managed to create unique offers in businesses based on basic, cheap commodities, and in pre-industrialised, war-ravaged economies. In consumer services, leaders as different as Chicago's Marshall Field (1910) and Britain's Richard Branson have been able to create distinct, unique offers for which buyers were happy to pay more. And, for the avoidance of doubt, this has also been achieved with sophisticated business services. From banks like Rothschild and Coutts, to consultancies like McKinsey, educated business leaders, similar to lawyers, have been able to create and maintain distinct, valuable offerings. If they can make themselves wealthy by crafting unique offers, so can lawyers in Hong Kong. Commoditisation, cheapness, erratic cash flow and price slashing are not by any means inevitable. It just takes a little forethought, application and durability to achieve genuine differentiation. It can and will be done in legal services.




Laurie Young
www.lauriedyoung.com
lauriedyoung@aol.com

差異化的價值
Laurie Young本於其作為專業服務公司的領導人和策略家方面的經驗， 解釋了創新和差異化所帶來的好處。

國際法律服務市場現時似乎正存在日益增加的不滿情況，尤其是該些使用法律服務的大企業。在這些企業中，一些主要是希望在經濟衰退時期，法律服務的收費會降低；其他的則希望在費用預算方面能更具確定性。一些企業的內部律師的態度較為進取，他們會考慮是否可以使用新的服務方式，而對於聘用誰人，亦抱持開放的態度；其他的人雖仍愛起用有名的服務供應商，但也許須首次面對企業內部的採購專門人員的重大壓力。在世界的一些地方，現時正在討論著提供法律服務的新方法（例如外判） ﹔毫無疑問，香港的專業服務界也感受到這一股壓力。

那是重大和無情的改變，而驅動此等改變發生的力量，並非單純出於客戶希望取得理想價格的本能。私人執業所面對的壓力正在日漸增加，這不單是由於經濟衰退所致，雖然西方的信貸收縮確是帶來了惡果。例如，商業客戶對他們稱為「商品」的項目提出質疑。大多數的工作項目均包含行政職能或例行程序，而那至今仍是重要的業務收入來源。客戶現正提出，指出甚至是業內的菁英都已將這些項目刪除，並尋求方法將具有價值的專業探究與例行性的工作加以區分。全世界即使最具財力的企業，似乎都正在要求瞭解不同的法律服務對他們自身的機構可具有甚麼價值。

該等力量現時正在逐漸累積，並看來沒有減輕的跡象。即使國際經濟環境未來有所好轉，私人執業者看來亦不大可能會回到以往的繁榮日子，享受豐厚的利潤和豪華的生活方式。這引出了若干問題，例如﹕法律界是否走上與會計師相同的道路？後者約在10年前也面對著類似的壓力而遭受打擊。法律服務的價值，是否不可避免地，因著商業和私人客戶變為認識更深的事後批評者而被侵蝕？律師是否如許多走在前面的專業人士般，須增加其控制幅度和引入有效的程序，委派資歷較輕的副手來處理大部分客戶的委託？許多律師行合夥人正在探求以大為不同的新方法來為客戶提供服務，而也許正因這樣而開始為法律服務帶來真正的差異化。

甚麼是差異化﹖

在轉變中的法律服務市場，目前所面對的種種力量並非只是它獨有，以往在其他市場中亦曾經遭遇相同的境況。在許多很費力，而經營條件又相當困難的市場中，供應商意識到要使其業務興旺，便需要建立和提供能吸引其買家注意的真正獨有服務。例如在奢侈品方面，世界的領先品牌意識到，須從感知上的差別來為自己創造財富，例如是香水。問題是，這些情況只有在回顧時，人們才會認為那是合理和顯然的。真正而言，香水只是一種有氣味的水份，我們不能憑理性來確定，雅詩蘭黛為何會被感覺到和聖羅蘭有所分別，以及較後者更令人渴求得到。然而在全世界，人們對這些悅人心意的產品都是趨之若騖。

其他的服務供應商，亦成功地在所提供的業務方面創造了差異化。例如，維珍航空的商務旅程，被認為與美利堅航空公司所提供的有所不同。這在管理顧問服務方面特別明顯，公司客戶會明白到例如麥肯錫、德勤及Bane之間的根本差異。同一批高級行政人員，他們也許會說在不同層級的律師行之間，只「存在很有限的選擇」，但卻會很欣賞在管理顧問服務方面所獲得提供的選擇，並會就不同的服務提供支付不同的價格。

真正的差異化，是提供真正獨一和獨有的服務。它為客戶提供了選擇，又為供應商創造了可持續的利潤，而這種情況亦正在法律服務中顯露出來。

創新性的所有權模式及其對差異化的影響

導致一個行業產生差異化的其中一個現象，是創新性的供應方式的出現，以及在所有權模式方面的轉變。一個機構的所有人設定其機構的優先選擇、文化和投資模式。他們會在向客戶所提供服務的性質和風格方面發揮其影響（雖然只是間接地）。在過去，法律服務一向是理想當然地由一種所有方式主導，即是：私人合夥。然而，這一種情況現時在世界各地已經發生變化，而它亦正在促使法律服務的性質產生變化。

在世界的各個專業領域中，正存在一個限制合夥經營風險的趨勢。現時已有很多人採用有限責任合夥的方式來經營，而其他人亦正有意嘗試不同的所有權和獲得資金的方式。在澳洲，一些合夥人（例如Slater & Gordon）已進而將其律師業務上市，其他的人則正在與投資銀行商討有關計劃。英國亦計劃容許業務的擁有性質作出改變，並將會允准實行新的投資方式；美國亦正在嘗試採納不同的擁有形式。例如，加州的僱傭業務Littler Mendelson PC是一個公營機構，它以像公司董事會一般的模式來進行管理，而紐約的一家「網絡」公司（計劃在東南亞開業）則使用項目管理程式，容許律師以遙距方式和在不同時間執行工作。最後的一個，是由一名非律師（Ray Bayley，PwC的一名前合夥人）所建立並正日益普及的外判模式—Novus Law。它提倡將業務程序外判的概念運用於商業客戶所採用的內部方法中。

這種種不同的擁有模式，促使這些業務產生基本上的轉變，並改變了其財務運作、文化、合夥行為及所提供的服務。經過一段時間後，其他專業的公共所有業務，如會計、管理顧問服務或獵頭服務等，已變得更為節約、廉宜和適度。因此，即使一個私人合夥經營並不需要外來資金的投入，自身亦不作轉變，但卻很可能會發現自己正在與專注而有組織、有效率的公開競爭者進行競爭。對於客戶而言，這情況促成真正具差異的服務提供的出現，並讓他們得到真正的選擇。例如，雖然是處於同一範疇，但德勤、埃森哲及IBM的顧問所提供的環球服務，其支援性質仍存在實質差別。這一正在國際法律服務市場形成的趨勢，將會導致相類而具差異的服務提供的出現。

客戶需要乃差異化的一個來源

國際法律服務的主要探求者，一直在嘗試創造出差異化的「魔法子彈」來。我曾經出席了數次會議，合夥人在當中討論其律師行應當作甚麼來使它們具有差異。然而，很多法律專業人士（甚至是他們律師行中被認為對該等問題較有認識的市場營銷人員）認為很難有差異化的原因，是他們從錯誤的地方出發，並作出了錯誤的假設。他們很多人假設所有客戶都希望以最低廉的價格來獲得最好的服務。然後，他們檢視自己的律師行，試圖找出自己與競爭對手可能有所不同的地方。
真正的差異化，始自對客戶的需要也許不大熟悉的方法。歷史證明，能夠在其他行業成功地締造出可行並能夠獲利的差異，需要先行對其客戶的需要作出系統性的瞭解。換言之，它是自客戶的期望而非合夥人的意念開始。

即使是經濟學家，現在也藉著對行為經濟學的研究而承認，當人們在為工作或家庭的需要而購物時，其表現並非經常是理性的。人類是不穩定、衝動和矛盾的動物。在購物時，人們的心內通常會有一堆需要，但它們並非必然會轉化成為明確的採購選擇。人們可以只有一些單憑直覺來決定的混淆概念或是偏好，並尋求最能符合它們的意見。有趣的是，與大多數人的想法不符，即使是在經濟衰退時期，價格一般而言仍是會排在其他數項考慮因素之後。不管許多人在失去了一次交易機會後怎麼說，在世界上任何地方，沒有人會單純憑價錢來購買一項服務。他們在尋求切合他們需要的服務，而當中通常會有二至四種服務特性對他們而言是較為重要的。假如所有該些較為重要的特性，在各項相互競爭的服務當中都是完全一樣的話，那麼價格便會成為唯一的差別。因此，假如供應商在價格上進行競爭，那是因為他們仍未明瞭在買家心中的需要，以創造出和提供切合該等需要的獨特服務。假如律師只懂一味為著價錢爭論，那是因為他們並未瞭解潛在客戶的內心想法和動機。假如他們所提供的服務變成了一項商品，那純粹是他們的錯。

要能夠開始瞭解這一問題的一個實用方法，乃一項稱為「感知圖」的管理工具，它已經被許多不同機構的領導人用作設定方向和進行深入洞察的工具。這些「感知圖」具有兩個軸線：「感知價格」和「感知質量」，而二者均屬於價值層面，其中一個典型的結果可參見圖1，當中述明與買家的需要有關的感知圖。
它所陳述的一系列客戶意見，乃代表不同人的感知，並連同他們所有的脆弱、情緒和不合理的期望。不會所有人都希望得到最平價的服務提供，他們期望獲得一個對他們而言是代表價值，並包含各個特性與價錢的混合。一些人尋求價格高而富有特性的服務提供，另一些人則選擇價錢低廉但只屬於基本的服務提供。各個買家的理想購買點，將會圍繞和分散在所顯示的線上，而在一個不受壟斷或規例所扭曲的市場中，大多數的買家會圍繞著中間的部位，而那是具主導地位的律師行可支配的位置。

該工具的使用，主要目的是找出客戶的價值處於甚麼位置，並將律師行所提供的服務方向朝向它們。按這一方式來將律師行定位，可以指導政策，有助領導層就期望律師行在市場中佔據甚麼位置達成共識。因此，它是一項對指導各領導隊伍進行策略性辯論的非常有力工具。

「市場領導者」一般處於中央位置：參見圖2。所有服務是藉著它所提供的服務來評估。它訂立了整個行業的價格／品質期望，並具有能力改變整個市場。「特選位置」（通常由歷史悠久的律師行所佔據）是由高價而富有特性的服務提供者所佔有，而「價格最低」的供應者，則盡可能將所有東西去除以收取低價。各種特殊領域的供應者均面向市場領導者，並藉著提供不同的服務而得以生存。由於律師行的領導人向不同的客戶群體進行不同的服務提供測試，因此他們開始吸引到看法相近的客戶凝聚於一起。經過一段時間之後，供應者佔到一個可持續的位置，而真正的差異化亦開始產生。

明確的創新性管理作為差異化的一個來源

令我感到驚奇的是，法律界現時有許多人在討論促進和達至創新的方法，這看來在某程度上是由於IBM的大型國際廣告運動宣傳所致。其口號是：「重要的是創新」。這一運動所產生的影響，是再次在商業領域中將「創新」一詞加以強調。自此，創新成為了書本、講座、高層會議及大型會議的論題。享有領導地位的顧問，就創新需要出版了研究報告和白皮書。雖然這看來有點兒像趕時髦，但無可置疑的是，全球的法律界正在將時間和資源投資於創新，因為客戶要求有新的做法。這方面的一個徵狀，是倫敦金融時報每年頒發的「最具創新意念律師行」獎項。

創新是一個管理過程。一個機構透過它掌握、培育和開拓首創精神。它是其他行業機構得以成功實現差異化的核心，並正開始在不同律師行所提供的服務中締造出真正的差異化。一些人（最為普遍的是在組建消費者服務的公司中）使用正式的創新程序。例如，美國運通具有高度發展的程序，在八個發展「閘道」中實施嚴格控制。正常的方法，是成立一個在領導團隊之下的委員會，負責創新工作的人員獲得提供一個預算來完成初步可行性研究，之後如須就第二期的工作獲得資金，便須回到管理小組向其提出要求。該委員會須就所有的新概念進展，向主要的領導團隊進行匯報。

也許令人感到驚訝的是，某些一向受人敬重的律師行，現時也開始參考這一獲取創作洞察力的方法。例如，英國的老牌律師行安理國際律師事務所便成立了一個創新委員會，就提升創造力的計劃向領導團隊作出匯報。他們成功地啟動了一系列以資訊科技為本的服務，並在達至最尖端的水準時，能夠自行操作若干項客戶程序。

相反，其他一些公司則強調以小巧為先。例如，英國企業家理查．布蘭森在最近的一次演說中，將其維珍王國的成功因素部分歸因於規模小巧。他說，他的方針是當單位人數達至約30人時，便會將其一分為二。他發現此舉可以維持企業的士氣和將營運費用收緊。這一做法，是建基於已成為了現代商業神話的一個故事。在20世紀60年代，美國跨國公司3M差不多錯失了一個重大商機。它的僱員史賓沙博士（Dr Spencer Silver）生產了一種「低黏度並可重覆使用的黏合劑」（一種不能牢固地黏貼的膠水） ，並認為有可能創造出日後稱為「便利貼」的便條紙。很可惜，他所提出的意念被所有人反對。然而，他並沒有因此而放棄，反而開始生產一些樣品，並將其提供給董事會的秘書們使用。由於該些秘書不斷要求他增加供應，消息便因而傳開，需求亦不斷增加，直至便條紙的生產容量佔據了給予他支援的上司的整個辦公室。最後，3M接受了這一項創新發明，而便條紙日後亦成為了該公司的其中一項最成功產品。之後，3M為了恐怕它的龐大官僚架構會錯失另一個發明新產品的機會，乃將公司拆分為細小單位，而它聲稱這一結構性改變，為它帶來日後的某些新產品的發明。

因著小規模而帶來的創新發明，對於私人合夥而言是理想不過的。即使它通常並非視作一項實務性的管理策略，但事實上它很可能是過去兩個世紀以來，許多合夥經營得以持久地成功的原因。即使是最大型的律師行，其成功之處，也是基於當中的個別實務操作，而它們有如一個生存的有機體中的細胞，一直在進化並對轉變作出反應，原因是它們乃直接由一名合夥人 （該業務的一名擁有人）負責管理。因此，透過致力於一項實務來推動創新，在所有各個專業中都是普遍被採用的做法。雖然，這基本上只是源於直覺，而不被承認為屬於「創新管理」，或屬於結構性的實務管理策略中的任何一部分。因此，合夥人往往必須與反對採納新意念的力量對抗，而一些首創精神亦因此而喪失。經驗證明，假如領導人能明確建立一個機制，從而以這種方法來識別、培育各種意念和對其優先次序進行區分，他們定必可取得更大的成果。

然而，亦有一些是藉外判方法而成功地達至創新。在20世紀70年代初，一名年青廣告人大衛．克萊頓 （David Crayton）獲得了一家歐洲裝飾公司Polly-cell作為其客戶。他與這家公司的人員開會，當中談論到這家公司所犯下的一個重大錯誤。他們嘗試發展油漆業務，而由於他們是一家生產膠水的公司，現正打算丟棄在生產過程中所形成的「物料」，因為該些物料過白和過黏，而問題主要是當它乾了後，便會變成有如橡膠皮一般，怎麼樣也不能作為光澤塗料之用。該公司詢問大衛是否可以運用其創新技巧來挽回他們的部分投資。他返回自己的公司，帶領他的創作小組進行了「利益」、「特性」及「應用」等程序，而最後他們得出一個意見，就是該等物料可以在一個建有舊住宅的國家中，作為一種對天花板進行修補而無須塗上油漆的處理方法。最後，它作為產品「Polytex」被推出，並成為了該公司的一項成功產品。

大衛．克萊頓其後更建立了一家有名的創作公司Crayton, Lodge & Knight。這些公司的運作，與律師行合夥人為商業客戶服務的方式類似，並根據要求將具創意的概念轉化成為有用的新產品或服務﹔而他們的成功，亦包括為專業合夥組織提供新服務。這些公司需要學習和就不同的專業服務環境作出調整，並需要與態度開放的合夥人一起工作，但只要雙方的工作關係一旦建立起來，便可以產生非常有建設性的後果。

本文的結論是，差異化是在困難和多變的市場中取得長期競爭優勢的根源。要提供一種獨特和與別不同的服務絕不容易，但在許多不同市場中，以往均曾經常出現。例如，就消費品而言，英國的陶工約書亞．瑋緻活 (Josiah Wedgwood) (1790) 及美國的企業家亨利．海因茲 (Henry Heinz) (1890) 在其業務方面，以基本和廉宜的商品為基礎，並在工業化之前和受戰爭破壞的經濟中，創造出獨有的產品來提供給消費者。在消費者服務方面，芝加哥的馬歇爾．菲爾德 (Marshall Field) (1910) 及英國的理查．布蘭森 (Richard Branson) 創造出獨特唯一的服務提供方式，令買家樂意為此而支付較高的價格。無疑，此等成果都是憑著提供優良的商業服務而取得。從羅特希爾德 (Rothschild)和高特斯 (Coutts)等銀行家，以至麥肯錫 (McKinsey)等顧問專家，他們這些曾經受過良好教育的商業領袖都與律師一樣，能夠創造和維持獨特和具價值的服務提供。假如他們能夠藉著發掘獨有的服務提供而致富，則為何香港的律師不能。商品化、廉價、不穩的現金流及降價，均非絕對無法避免。只要我們具有少許遠慮、運用能力及耐久力，便可以實現真正的差異化。在法律服務中，它必定能夠及將會實現。




Laurie Young
Strategic Marketing Consultant
www.lauriedyoung.com
lauriedyoung@aol.com