系统（例如ERP） : 买一个还是自研一个?

这问题绝对让大家纠结很久，多大的投资决策呀。搞不好啥啥都没了。赔了大把时间和体力还背一大锅。多冤那。但把事掰开了说明白就没有那么纠结了。

首先明白为什么要买？

• 也许自身产品架构，开发能力不行
• 也许想学习所谓的最佳业务实践（Best Practice）
• 也许因为别人（友商）都买的SAP，Oracle， 从众心理， 至少不犯错
• 也许有个天大的折扣，占便宜
• 也许系统售前的西装看着比较到位，Slides看起来棒棒的，刹（Cha）那间可以通过PPT变成世界500强
• 也许（等你补充）。。。

接着呢，看着墙坦诚的评估一下自己企业是啥情况：

• 算行业内的一般玩家还是头部玩家
• 是风口最早飞起来的还是凑热闹进来的
• 是连续业务模式创新还是拾人牙慧的模仿者
• 和米国的关系咋样？ 有禁运和黑名单风险不
• 是真的要考虑基于时间的TCO，有时候好贵，好贵的。。。。
• 是王者荣耀里的青铜还是王者 （40来岁玩王者荣耀竞还只是青铜）

如果你是绝对的TOP玩家， 绝对的新物种， 绝对的颠覆者就坚决地自己搞吧。别犹豫， 别被所谓的最佳业务实践（Best Practice）忽悠， 你自己才是行业的最佳，你是这么NB业务的唯一实践者，你才是这条gai上最靓的崽！试问你跟谁学？千万小心别买个桎梏给自己穿上，等想变形了，‘壳’不允许呀！CEO/COO们你们牙不痒痒？

如果不是上面的异类，你还是老老实实买SAP，Oracle这些成熟的产品，琢磨琢磨谁更适合你的行业，谁有更优秀的行业解决方案。换句话说：抄也有好范本可抄。至少保证规范业务，降本增效（感觉好Low），业务规范赚辛苦钱，风口才能赚大钱。

这个方子（套路）加减适用各类业务系统。选自《医宗金鉴》

华为开始买，玩着玩着，完成王者了，所以开始回头大量自研。
字节，某米这样的创新玩家，不自己搞搞确实有点可惜。毕竟玩着玩着，玩成了就可以拿出去卖了。对，字节开始卖飞书了，阿里也悄悄整ERP，供应链。

但是切记： 如果自研的系统其实是垃圾，你也别撑着，早点去买个成熟的，是明智的自救。别问我为什么？我已经见过太多的辣鸡自研系统，见过太多井底之蛙画的月亮。（挺美的^_^，这里容我违心一笑）

The lesson from leaders is clear: if you want to support best-in-breed business operations, you’ve got to build your own.

领导者们的经验教训很清楚：如果你想支持同类最佳的业务运营，你必须（找牛B人）建立自己的自研系统。

对这个问题有个老外说的很清楚，除了我的胡说，下面他用Tesla很文绉绉的举例来讲了这个道理， 简单用工具译了一下，忍着看吧，能看原文最好。

In our work, we’re constantly evaluating the top tech trends impacting companies today, and a common theme is clear: industry leaders innovate, invest, incent, and win. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) technology is no exception to this rule.

在我们的工作中，我们不断评估当今影响公司的顶级技术趋势，一个共同的主题很明确: industry leaders innovate, invest, incent, and win。企业资源计划(ERP)技术也不例外。

What we’re seeing among the country’s top corporate innovators is a knowledge that best-in-class business processes, impacts and results aren’t going to come from deploying a tool every other company is using. That’s the secret Tesla knows. Tesla – Disruptor in Chief in the automotive and manufacturing sectors – chose to build its own customized ERP system under the visionary leadership of Elon Musk.

我们在美国顶尖的企业创新者中看到的是这样一种认识，即一流的业务流程、影响和结果不会来自于使用其他公司都在使用的工具。这是特斯拉知道的秘密。作为汽车和制造行业的颠覆者，特斯拉选择在埃隆•马斯克(Elon Musk)富有远见的领导下，建立自己的定制化ERP系统。

Why? Because Tesla knew conventionally available ERP systems wouldn’t support their culture and business model.

为什么?因为特斯拉知道传统的ERP系统无法支持他们的文化和商业模式。

Tesla’s crystal clear mission includes inherently disruptive approaches and products, meaning they wouldn’t likely have “fit” into a standard packaged ERP. The company also needed its system faster than the large ERP vendors could move. Instead of many months or even years configuring packaged software, the company built its own in four months. No doubt it is a better fit for their business than any package would have been – and they owe nothing to a vendor for ongoing software assurance and upgrade costs going forward.

特斯拉的水晶般清晰的使命包括固有的颠覆性方法和产品，这意味着它们不太可能“适合”一个标准的打包ERP。该公司还需要比大型ERP供应商更迅捷的系统。该公司在四个月内完成了自己的软件开发，而不是花几个月甚至几年的时间来配置打包的软件。毫无疑问，它比任何套装软件包都更适合他们的业务——而且他们不欠供应商任何软件保证和升级成本。

Many companies we talk with want to gain industry leadership by inventing and using new best practices. Then, they implement or upgrade to a standard ERP platform, all but guaranteeing they will adopt business processes that are only average or slightly better. The intention is good, but the outcome could be better. Much better.

我们交谈过的许多公司都希望通过发明和使用新的最佳实践来获得行业领导地位。然后，他们实施或升级到一个标准的ERP平台，几乎可以保证他们将采用的业务流程只是一般的或稍好一些。出发点是好的，但其实结果可以更好。更加好。

There is little to no chance that an ERP vendor’s process template is optimal for your business.

作为行业领域头部玩家：ERP供应商的流程模板几乎不可能是最适合您的业务的。

Consider the fundamental realities: How much time will pass before a truly new best practice is invented somewhere – anywhere – in industry and is suddenly available to anyone in an ERP product? And how valuable is that new best practice? The higher its value, the more closely guarded it will be with intellectual property protections. Even if access is possible, an ERP software maker must be aware of and understand it. Then, they must integrate it into their product and offer it in a general release.

考虑一下基本的现实:在工业的某个地方(任何地方)发明了一种真正的新最佳实践并突然对ERP产品中的任何人可用之前，需要多少时间?这种新的最佳实践有多大价值?其价值越高，其知识产权保护就越严密。即使可以访问，ERP软件制造商也必须意识到并理解它。然后，他们必须将它集成到他们的产品中，并在一个通用版本中提供它。

How likely is that scenario? How long will it take? Can a company afford to wait? Those questions are precisely why market leaders build their own custom ERP if they can afford it. The prerequisites for doing so are not for the faint of heart: willingness to invest, truly capable IT resources, a strong belief in your business model, and visionary leadership.

这种情况发生的可能性有多大?需要多长时间?一家公司能等得起吗?这些问题正是为什么市场领导者如果能够负担得起，就会建立自己的定制ERP。这样做的先决条件并不适合胆小的人:愿意投资、真正有能力的IT资源、对商业模式的坚定信念和有远见的领导。

How can you be an industry leader using a tool that everyone else already has?

你怎么能用别人已经有的工具成为行业领袖呢？

Clearly, not every company can be Tesla. For many businesses, just getting to a standard industry practice will produce significant value in excess of what they will spend on a new ERP platform. ERP technology continues to improve, thanks to large R&D budgets at SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft, and these systems provide more value and are easier to use than ever before. And for most businesses, a packaged ERP is a viable choice. Packaged ERP systems can be optimized when a company is crystal clear about where the competitive advantage comes from in their business. Then, they are armed with the insight to customize the ERP in specific areas to retain and capitalize on that advantage.

显然，不是每个公司都能成为特斯拉。对于许多企业来说，仅仅达到一个标准的行业实践，就会产生比他们在一个新的ERP平台上花费更多的巨大价值。由于SAP、Oracle和Microsoft的大量研发预算，ERP技术不断改进，这些系统比以往任何时候都提供了更多的价值和更易于使用。对于大多数企业来说，一个打包的ERP是一个可行的选择。当一个公司清楚地知道竞争优势从何而来时，可以优化打包的ERP系统。然后，他们具备在特定领域定制ERP的洞察力，以保留和利用这一优势。

But the lesson from leaders is clear: if you want to support best-in-breed business operations, you’ve got to build your own.

但领导者们的经验教训很清楚：如果你想支持同类最佳的业务运营，你必须建立自己的自研系统。

别来找我， 我是戏说， 其实是胡说， 别当真，当真你就输了。