惠普和IBM：一个未来，两条道路

    从表面上看，惠普（HP）和IBM有许多共同之处。两家公司都鼎鼎大名，都拥有大量塑造现代高新科技格局的宝贵财富。两家公司都在同时与诸多大型企业和小公司合作，帮助他们解决技术问题。两家公司还在争夺云计算、海量数据等具有大好增长前景的新兴市场。

    惠普和IBM都在最近更换了掌门：梅格•惠特曼于一年前接过惠普首席执行官的权杖，而维吉尼亚•罗曼提在今年1月接手IBM。两家公司的成功愿景相差无几，不过，他们也都面临着相似的挑战：萎靡不振的全球经济形势和不断涌现的颠覆性新技术。

    尽管历史底蕴非常相似，但惠普和IBM的发展道路大不一样。惠普现在仍处于为期多年的复苏转型中，而IBM却在实施多年前就已制定好的长远规划。两家公司的发展道路在很大程度上都不是其现任首席执行官制定的。为什么？首先，他们对硬件和软件在未来IT发展中的定位不同；其次，他们的企业并购策略也不一样。

    近十年来，IBM的管理层非常稳定，而且一直着眼于长远目标。在历史上，IBM以大型机制造商而著称；而现在，它是IT咨询和软件服务的标志性厂商。2004年，IBM以17.5亿美元将PC业务部出售给联想（Lenovo），从而开始摆脱对硬件制造的依赖。

    和IBM一样，惠普早在多年前就已经意识到，作为科技巨头，未来的发展不仅仅在于向企业出售大型机，更重要的是参与管理客户日益复杂的硬件设备和种类繁多的技术。但与IBM不同，惠普坚信硬件在技术外包业务中仍将继续扮演关键角色。2002年，惠普投入重金，以250亿美元收购了康柏（Compaq）。

    收购康柏后，惠普持续增长，营收从2002年的570亿美元增长至去年的1,270亿美元。相比之下，IBM的增速相对较慢——从2002年的810亿美元营收增加至去年的1,070亿美元。

    过去十年，惠普通过激进的收购策略，在营收增长上一举超过了IBM。马克•赫德在2006到2010年执掌惠普的5年时间里，惠普投入巨资收购了多家大型科技企业。例如EDS（139亿美元）、3Com（27亿美元）、Palm（12亿美元）和3Par（24亿美元）。李艾科接替赫德后，惠普又耗资16亿和110亿美元，分别收购了ArcSight和Autonomy两家软件企业。

    相比之下，虽然IBM在出售PC业务后也进行了多起收购，但只有一次金额超过20亿美元，即2008年以50亿美元收购商业软件提供商Cognos。相反，IBM在此期间进行了多起10亿美元级别的收购：Internet Security Systems（16亿美元）、数据分析公司Netezza（17亿美元）、Sterling Commerce（14亿美元）等。

    还有一个不同之处。在刘易斯•普拉特1999年辞去惠普首席执行官后，惠普走马观花似地迎来了7位首席执行官，其中包括两位临时的。而IBM自1971年小托马斯•沃森退休后到现在，一共只有7位首席执行官。

    首席执行官的更替速度影响重大：在IBM实施辉煌的五年计划时，惠普首席执行官从硬件高管菲奥莉娜、赫德转到软件高管李艾科，再到现在的电子商务高手惠特曼。频繁的人事变动——或者说缺乏稳定的高管，对两家公司的策略产生了巨大影响。

    换句话说，从惠普过去10年的并购案例来看，这家科技巨头已形成在硬件和软件两方面齐头并进的战略，它显然将未来同时押宝在两大业务上。相比之下，IBM则更看好软件，认为它比单纯的物理硬件更为重要。

    On the face of it, Hewlett-Packard and IBM have a lot in common. Both are storied brands with rich legacies that shaped high-tech. Both are working with companies large and small to help manage their technology. Both are angling for a piece of the markets -- like cloud computing and big data -- that promise years of growth.

    And both have new chief executive officers: Meg Whitman moved into HP's (HPQ) CEO office a year ago; Virginia Rometty took the reins at IBM (IBM) in January. Both companies share a similar vision for success. And both face similar challenges to get there, like a sluggish global economy and the rise of disruptive new technologies.

    Despite this bedrock sameness, HP and IBM are pushing forward on different paths. HP is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround, while IBM is building on a long-term plan outlined years ago. Neither company's path was charted in large part by its current leader. Why? First, their views on the role of hardware versus software in the future of IT; and second, their approach to mergers and acquisitions.

    IBM's last decade has been marked by steady leadership pursuing a long-term course. To move forward from its recent history as a maker of big computers, the company famously pushed into IT-consulting services and software, taking a step away from hardware in 2004 by selling the PC division to Lenovo for $1.75 billion.

    Like IBM, HP saw years ago that the future of big tech was not in selling big computers to companies, but in taking on the increasingly complex tasks of managing them and all the antecedent technologies. But unlike IBM, HP maintained that hardware would continue to play a key role in its tech outsourcing business -- a bet the company made when it spent $25 billion for Compaq in 2002.

    After Compaq, HP continued to grow. It went from a company that made $57 billion in revenue in 2002 to one that made $127 billion last year. By contrast, IBM grew relatively slowly -- from $81 billion in revenue in 2002 to $107 billion last year.

    Over the past decade, HP has trumped IBM in revenue growth through its aggressive acquisitions. Under Mark Hurd's tenure, between 2006 and 2010, HP spent big on tech brand names like EDS ($13.9 billion), 3Com ($2.7 billion), Palm ($1.2 billion) and 3Par ($2.4 billion). Under Hurd's ill-starred successor Léo Apotheker, HP spent $1.6 billion on ArcSight and $11 billion on Autonomy, two software companies.

    IBM, by contrast, has made many mergers and acquisitions since spinning off its PC division, but only once in that tine has it spent more than $2 billion -- for business software maker Cognos for $5 billion in 2008. Instead, it's made a handful of billion dollar deals in that time span: Internet Security Systems ($1.6 billion), data analytics firm Netezza ($1.7 billion), Sterling Commerce ($1.4 billion), and others.

    But there is another aspect to the story. Ever since Lewis Platt stepped down as HP's CEO in 1999, the company has gone through seven different leaders, including two interim CEOs. That's as many CEOs as IBM has seen since Thomas Watson, Jr., retired from IBM in 1971.

    The pace of CEO turnover can be crucial: While IBM has had the luxury of laying out five-year plans, HP has shifted from hardware execs Fiorina and Hurd to software exec Apotheker to e-commerce veteran Whitman. And those transitions -- or lack thereof -- have had a big impact on the two companies' strategies.

    In other words, HP's M&A moves in the past decade chronicle the strategy of a tech giant pushing into hardware and software alike, a clear bet on a future that would rely on both. IBM, by contrast, saw its future more in the zeros and ones of software than the physical machinery of hardware.