1.1.9 company 的location
有一篇讲怎么去选择company 的location的,不是用以前的单纯的cost-base原则,而是一个什么新的原则.
考古（未确认）细细青颜提供
位置和商家.
[版本一]
一种老的理论认为相同行业的企业在一起不好，会怎么怎么封闭技术，产生不良影响。然而，后来有人提出新的理论，认为企业在一起好，能产生种种好处。然后，文章举了例子来说明什么情况下，对不同规模的企业，有着不同的影响。
[版本二]
第一段：从传统的经济学观点可以看出，向同行业的企业应当有一定的距离，否则会引起竞相减价等问题。但事实是这样吗？ 也不一定。实际上企业在一起起码有两点好处：（1）、好的方法技术传播的快。（2）、增大需求。
第二段：某雪茄研究了德克萨斯州的旅馆行业。并提出了两个问题：（1）、为什么这样会带来好处。（2）哪些人是好处的受益者
第三段：经过研究，发现并不是所有的旅馆都得到好处，在大旅馆旁边的小旅馆得到了最大的好处。
[版本三]
关于性质相似的企业是否应该距离的近一些。
传统观点认为这样会加剧竞争，导致降价（这里有一题问以下那种现象属于此类，题干很长，不难）。其实这观点不对。有科学家研究了连锁旅店的出现会使整个地区的客流上升。获利最多的是独立的中小型旅馆
[版本四]
产业集中和选址#### location对做生意的重要性
“第4篇是产业集中和选址的，挺长，80－100行。时间不太够了，没做好。”
[版本五]
location对做生意的重要性
传 统观点认为很重要。但是现在自由贸易削弱了这种重要性。接着一段谈到 cluster business, 以意大利服装业为例，可以带动很多相关产业在一个地方聚集。最后作者又指出cluster 也有可能带来在一起聚集的企业之间的竞争，以及其他地方对这些企业的竞争压力。
[版本六]
企业扎堆的问题。巨长，108行。全是细节题。
在 老观念里，企业主要通过减低原材料和劳动力成本来赚钱。但现在一些企业扎堆不符合这一理论。以下以意大利制鞋业为例子来解释：扎堆有利于企业招到熟练工 人。以下是重点：在现代条件下，因为交通运输发达，即使企业扎堆也不会因为本地原材料紧张而使价格上涨。有2个infer题，一个问为什么作者强调原材料 问题，我选原材料价格对制鞋业的
成本控制非常重要。另一个问这段说明什么，我选外面原材料供应商的竞争使本地供应商保持低价。
[版本七] 110行
p1: location is no longer critical to business with the development of information technology...
p2: however, sales clusters still has a role in business,such as the fashion show in milan, being centers of information sharing and where suppliers gather together.
p3: disavantages of cluster: intensive competition in one location...
[版本八]
讲现在地经济环境不想以前，以前地理位置相当重要,如，接近市场等，现在可以通过cluster来解决（cluster就是公司聚在同一个地区，如米兰的服装行业），文章之后就列出了，cluster的众多好处，最后一段作了让步说cluster的缺点（有考题）
[版本九]
location. but different from old GJ. Qualitative factors such as tax rate, exchange rate are more important than quantitative factors such as cost advantage when the venture decides the locations. the last sentence says the venture can consider quantitative factors after the consideration of qualitative factors. One question is about last sentence.
Manufacturing site location is an important consideration in determining the optimal deployment of a firm’s production resources, but one that is usually given only limited attention. Decisions about location are often based purely on quantitative analyses that trade off transportation costs, economies of scale, and other cost-based variables. This practice, however, can lead to suboptimal results, as decision-makers tend to focus only on easily quantifiable factors. A further disadvantage of strictly cost-based methods is that they tend to focus on cost advantage factors, which are often transitory Government regulations, tax systems, and exchange rates can quickly change. Strategies based on such parameters may eventually be rendered obsolete by the very factors that first created an advantage.
In contrast, qualitative issues, which are frequently neglected in choosing manufacturing site locations, are often central to creating and supporting a competitive advantage. For example, the level of skill possessed by the local workforce varies with location; consequently, location can affect the ability of firms to implement skill-based process technologies. When formulating a site location strategy, companies should therefore emphasize qualitative factors to ensure that the chosen strategy supports the company’s overall business strategy. Only after establishing a set of desirable location options should companies refine choices using cost-based factors.
