	SunFAITH Risk
Risk Management	Issue I, 2008
请选择语言版本：中文版 Please choose a language version of the newsletter: English Version
新闻：解剖亲密关系中的阴暗面（续）服务项目联系我们新闻 ¨ 解剖亲密关系中的阴暗面（续）是什么在原本“美好”的亲密关系中埋下了阴影？通常情况下，这些关系中都存在着一个共通点，即当初为了建立起这一关系时所做出的一些所谓的“特殊安排”。之所以称其为“特殊”是因为这些通常是不符合商业常规的，又往往是以关系中的某一方的某些利益或者权益上的牺牲为条件的。用一个汽车生产商和供应商的案例来对此加以说明：在这一案例中，汽车生产商（A公司）和供应商（B公司）都为深化彼此之间的合作关系下足了功夫，特别是B公司，为加强与A公司之间的关系做了很大的努力，比如更多地了解A公司的业务；针对A公司的特殊需求开发出细致的生产管理流程以确保产品能够及时跟上A公司的生产进程。不仅如此，B公司也致力于与A公司建立起一种类似社团类的社会关系，比如积极组织双方公司的团队活动。所有这些努力在双方合作关系建立的初期可以说是非常有成效的，A公司在许多方面得到了利益，而B公司则在业务上显示出了极大的灵活性和以客户为主的思想，以至于到了这样的地步，就是经常会接受A公司作出的类似单方面降价的要求。到这个时候，A公司似乎什么好处都占尽了。它一方面通过这种垂直整合的关系获得了极大的利益，另一方面又不必拥有和运营一家供货分公司，而且还不必担心其供货方会因为被它并购后而与市场脱节。但是令A公司没有想到的是，B公司在满足它那么多要求的情况下，另有其自己挣钱的方法——不惜违反合约，采取降低成本的方法，然后利用其与A公司各部门的良好的关系从而隐藏了降低成本所带来的一些负面的结果和影响。B公司的一位负责人在解释这种投机取巧的行为时是这样说的：“如果省掉零部件三层涂料的第一层的话，在这一块的生产成本就可以降低，所获得多余利润会与A公司的采购部门分享。而如果我们选择完全隐瞒这个做法，虽然可以获得更大的利润但是风险较前一种做法更大，因为由于偷工减料生产出的产品在质量上会存有缺陷。比如说少了一层涂料的零部件，另两层涂料持续的时间不会很长，而如果A公司的研发部门对零部件进行材质分析的话，它很快就会发现涂料少了一层，而后采购部就会找到我们……因此在充分评估了风险之后，我们选择了现在的方法。” 在这一案例中，双方的亲密关系是供应商为了给双方产生实质性的回报而特意设计并发展起来的。但是促成这一关系的最终目的——利益最大化的需求，也恰恰变成了拆毁这一关系的最致命因素。我们来进一步地观察，有哪些因素会给众多“亲密”合作关系中带来阴影： - 在追求短期利益与长期利益之间的不平衡：亲密关系的建立源于双方希望可以从中获得利益，而这些利益又会促进未来的关系的发展，为双方的继续合作提供了推动力。但是如果双方过于注重短期利益，那么就常常会导致双方为了获得利益的最大化而做出有损这种长期合作关系的事；而如果过于注重长期利益，而双方没有经常地体会到这种合作关系带来的利益的话，那么双方会逐渐地对继续维持这种合作关系失去兴趣与动机。 - 过于亲密的个人关系：良好的个人关系固然可以为合作提供更为良好的润滑剂，能够确保双方在合作中都能够畅通无阻。而这种关系一旦加上其他的条件，如前面的案例中，个人关系可能会为某些“猫腻”行为提供了可乘之机。 - 特别的工作流程安排及方案：在合作关系中，合作双方（更多地是供应商方面）常常会采取建立一种全新的工作流程来适应这种新的关系，例如：生产商为了适应特定客户的需求而修改它的产品、生产流程；成衣的生产商则会根据零售商的要求直接送货至各个零售店铺。有些时候这种特别的安排会对双方在短时间内带来更大的利益，比如操作流程的减少意味着效率的增加和成本的降低。然而，这样的情况也会直接或者间接地合作双方因循守旧，不愿意花时间进行变革与创新，直到产生另外一种推动力。来源：以上内容部分信息取材于《麻省理工学院斯隆管理评论》2005春季号

(诤信企业管理咨询崔琛供稿)

服务项目

回顶端

了解本报告更多信息，请联系：

SunFaith China Ltd

地址：上海市黄埔区南外滩福佑路8号埃力生国际大厦10楼G座

电话：+86-21-6330 5233

传真：+86-21-6330-3699

电邮：Jean Wu@sunfaith.com

网站：

回顶端

如果您希望取消订阅诤信时事通讯，请发送邮件至 Jean Wu@sunfaith.com

Headline：

The Seamy Side of Intimate Relation

Service Catalogue

Contact Us

¨ The Seamy Side of Intimate Relation

What cast a shadow over the originally good intimate relation?

Usually, a common point exists in the relation, that is, a so-called “special arrangement” for the relationship establishment. It is called “special arrangement” because the actions usually do not conform to commercial routine, and the relation is usually conditioned based on the sacrifice of one party’s benefit or rights. Take a auto manufacturer and its supplier as an example:

The auto manufacturer (Company A) and its supplier (Company B) have made great efforts to strengthen the relation, especially Company B, which tries to learn more about Company A’ business scope, develops special production management flow to follow up Company A’s production procedure. In addition, Company B applies itself to establishing a corporative relation with Company A, such as organizing members activities for two parties. All efforts are very effective in the initial stages of the relation. Company A gains a lot of benefits, and Company B shows great flexibility and guideline that customer comes first. So even under such condition, Company B would accept Company A’ requirement in price abatement. It seams that Company A gains most advantages. On the one hand, it gets benefits from the vertical integration relation; on the other hand, it never bothers about running a subsidiary supply company, and needn’t worry that the supplier would be adrift from the market after being merged.

But what surprise Company A is that Company B has its own way to make money even though it can satisfy Company A so many requirements. Company B lowers the cost regardless of the contract, and then utilizes the good relation with Company A to hide the negative influence and results brought by the lower cost. A authority of Company B explained the action of speculating and taking advantage of opportunity, “If we can spare the first of the three layers of dope for the parts, the production cost would be lowered, and the purchase department of Company A and us can share the extra profit. But if we hide the truth completely, we can gain more profit but the risk is higher than the former method, as the defect may exist in the products. For example, the duration of parts with two layers of dope would be shorter than those with three layers, so if the R&D of Company A detects the truth when analyzing the materials of parts, then the purchase department will look into the matter… Therefore, after evaluating possible risk, we choose the current method.”

In the above case, the intimate relationship is established especially to bring substantive rebound for both parties. But the terminal aim of the relation --- the demand for maximum benefit, is no other than the fetal factor of destructing the relation. Through the following further observation, we can see what cast a shadow on the intimate relation.

- Imbalance in pursuing short-term and long-term benefits: the establishment of intimate relation is originally out of the hope of getting profits, which may promote further development of both parties. But on condition that both pay too much attention to short-term benefit, they usually damage the long-term relation in order to gain maximum benefit; but if the two parties pay too much attention to the long-term benefit, and ignore the benefit from the cooperation, they will lose interest and motivation gradually in keeping such cooperative relation.

- Too intimate personal relation: good personal relation is a plus for the companies’ cooperation, which can ensure unblocked cooperation. But if the relation is conditioned based on others, like the above case, personal relation may give an opportunity to illegal deals.

- Special work flow arrangement and project: both parties (especially the supplier) usually set up a completely new work flow to adapt the new relation. For example, the manufacturer amends the product and production flow to accommodate to the customer’s requirement; clothing manufacturer may deliver goods directly to the retail store upon on the requirement. Sometimes the special arrangement may bring more benefit to both parties in short time, for instance, the reduce of operational flow can improve the efficiency and reduce the cost. However, both two parties may stick to old ways and be unwilling to transform or innovate, until another impetus emerges.

Source: (Some content of the article is quoted from “MIT Sloan Management Review” No.1/ Spring issue)

Top

(Contributed by Sandy Cui, SunFaith Research)