CM108G 管理學｜第 7 週補充講義CM108G Management · Week 7 supplement

皮克斯靠什麼贏？What gives Pixar its edge?

用 VRIO 檢驗一門「人的生意」：人才再強，留不住，就不算優勢。Testing a people business with VRIO: talent only counts as an advantage if you can keep it.

看動畫版Watch the animated version 看證據：誰和誰合作See the evidence

元智大學終身教育部吳相勳主任　·　CM108G 管理學　·　2026-10-19 版Wu Hsiang Hsun, Yuan Ze University · CM108G Management · edition of 2026-10-19

六十秒讀完這一頁The page in sixty seconds

這是一份把課堂討論整理成單頁的講義，先看結論，再回頭看每一步怎麼推出來。A one-page handout of today's class discussion. Read the conclusion first, then see how each step is reasoned.

優勢要過四關：V、R、I、OAn advantage must pass four tests: V, R, I, O

前三關問「資源本身」：好不好用（價值）、有沒有人也有（稀缺）、對手學不學得會（不可模仿）。The first three ask about the resource itself: is it useful (Value), do others have it (Rarity), can rivals copy it (Inimitability).

第四關問「組織」：公司接不接得住、留不留得住。The fourth asks about the organization: can the firm capture it and keep it.

皮克斯的核心資源是人Pixar's core resource is people

他們的創作價值高、稀缺，也不容易模仿。可是人會走路，對手可以用高得嚇人的薪水來挖角。Their creative output is valuable, scarce and hard to imitate. But people can walk away, and rivals can bid with eye-watering offers.

所以勝負落在 O：怎麼讓他們長久留下來。So the contest is decided at O: how to keep them for the long term.

證據：同一批人，輪流換角色Evidence: the same people, rotating roles

1995 到 2017 年的 13 部代表作裡，六位核心創作者反覆出現，在導演、故事、劇本、監製、剪輯之間輪流上場。Across 13 films from 1995 to 2017, six core creators keep reappearing, rotating among director, story, screenplay, executive producer and editor.

留下來的人，是在「換角色」中成長的。The people who stay grow by changing roles.

給經理人的一句話ONE LINE FOR MANAGERS

優勢不在你有誰，而在你怎麼讓他們留下、合作、互相成就。The advantage is not who you have, but how you keep them, connect them and let them make each other better.

先搞懂：什麼叫「優勢」？First, what counts as an "advantage"?

VRIO 是一張把「資源」檢查四次的問卷。答案不同，優勢的等級就不同。VRIO checks a resource four times. Different answers lead to different grades of advantage.

問題The question

答案不同，結果不同What the answer means

皮克斯的答案Pixar's answer

價值 ValueIs it valuable?

這項資源，能幫公司抓住機會、或擋下威脅嗎？Does the resource help the firm seize an opportunity or neutralize a threat?

答「否」變成競爭劣勢。"No" means a competitive disadvantage.

創作者能持續做出最好的作品，價值高。Its creators keep making the best work: high value.

稀缺 RarityIs it rare?

同業裡，有多少對手也擁有它？How many competitors also have it?

答「很多」只能與對手打平。"Many" means only competitive parity.

這種人才不容易取得，稀缺性高。This kind of talent is hard to come by: high rarity.

不可模仿 InimitabilityIs it costly to imitate?

對手想複製或取代它，要付出很高的成本嗎？Would it cost a rival a lot to copy or substitute it?

答「不高」只是暫時的優勢。"Not much" means a temporary advantage.

默契、信任與共同歷史，買不到，也抄不走。Chemistry, trust and a shared history can neither be bought nor copied.

組織 OrganizationIs the firm organized to capture it?

公司的制度與做法，能把這項資源用出來，也留得住它嗎？Do the firm's structure and practices put the resource to work, and keep it?

答「接不住」優勢沒有用上，或慢慢流失。"Cannot capture it" means the advantage goes unused or leaks away.

課堂的關鍵：怎麼讓他們長久留下來，不被高薪挖走？The crux of the class: how do you keep them for the long term, and not lose them to a high offer?

四關的結果，怎麼對應優勢的等級How the four answers map to grades of advantage

VRIO

競爭劣勢Competitive disadvantage連價值都沒有。

VRIO

與對手持平Competitive parity有價值，但大家都有。

VRIO

暫時的優勢Temporary advantage稀缺，但對手學得會。

VRIO

還沒用上的優勢Unused advantage難模仿，但組織接不住。

VRIO

可持續的競爭優勢Sustained competitive advantage四關全過。

課堂上的轉折：人才型資源，O 特別難The twist in class: for people-based resources, O is the hard one

設備、專利、版權放在公司裡，公司擁有它們。人才的價值卻長在人身上，而人可以走。所以對「人的生意」來說，O 不只是「組織有沒有用上」，更是「組織留不留得住」。 Equipment, patents and copyrights sit inside the firm, and the firm owns them. A person's value lives in the person, and people can leave. So in a people business, O is not only whether the firm uses the resource, but whether it can keep it.

動畫簡報：課堂的推理過程Animated walkthrough: the reasoning in class

九個場景，一步一步從提問走到結論。可以自動播放，也可以用方向鍵一幕一幕看。Nine scenes, from the question to the conclusion. Play it automatically, or step through with the arrow keys.

每幕Per scene

提示：鍵盤 ← → 換幕、空白鍵播放／暫停、F 全螢幕。手機可左右滑動畫面。Tip: ← → to change scene, Space to play or pause, F for fullscreen. On phones, swipe the stage.

證據：黃金班底和作品的關係Evidence: the golden lineup and the films

課堂最後我們回頭看事實：同一批人，在不同電影裡到底做了什麼？At the end of class we went back to the facts: what did the same people actually do on different films?

↑

角色升級Role progression

Lee Unkrich：《玩具總動員》剪輯 → 三部片共同導演 → 《玩具總動員3》《可可夜總會》導演。Lee Unkrich: editor on Toy Story, then co-director on three films, then director of Toy Story 3 and Coco.

Jonas Rivera：製作經理 → 製片 → 監製。Jonas Rivera: production manager, then producer, then executive producer.

⇄

跨片支援Support across films

Andrew Stanton 為 Pete Docter 的《怪獸電力公司》寫劇本；Pete Docter 也替 Stanton 的《瓦力》貢獻原創故事。Andrew Stanton co-wrote Pete Docter's Monsters, Inc.; Pete Docter shares an original-story credit on Stanton's WALL-E.

不是各自為政，而是互相支援。Not silos, but mutual support.

⚭

固定搭檔與接班Standing pairs and succession

導演與製片反覆搭檔；後期的核心成員轉任監製，由新導演接手。Directors and producers pair up again and again; later, core members move up to executive producer and new directors take over.

互動表：誰在哪部片做了什麼Interactive table: who did what, on which film

點選左邊的姓名，看他的角色軌跡；點選上方的片名，看那部片的署名。Tap a name for a career path; tap a film title for its credits.

固定搭檔：導演與製片的長期組合Standing pairs: directors and producers who keep working together

Lee Unkrich×Darla K. Anderson

《玩具總動員3》（2010）→《可可夜總會》（2017）：導演與製片連續搭檔。Toy Story 3 (2010) → Coco (2017): director and producer work together twice.

Pete Docter×Jonas Rivera

《天外奇蹟》（2009）→《腦筋急轉彎》（2015）：導演與製片連續搭檔。Up (2009) → Inside Out (2015): director and producer work together twice.

Andrew Stanton×Lindsey Collins

《瓦力》（2008）共同製片 →《海底總動員2：多莉去哪兒？》（2016）製片：兩片都由 Stanton 執導。WALL-E (2008) co-producer → Finding Dory (2016) producer: Stanton directs both.

接力：核心成員退到後面，新人站到前面Handover: core members step back, new leads step forward

項目Item	《腦筋急轉彎》2015Inside Out (2015)	《腦筋急轉彎2》2024Inside Out 2 (2024)
主要導演Lead director	Pete Docter 共同導演 Ronnie del Carmenco-director Ronnie del Carmen	Kelsey Mann
Pete Docter	導演、故事、劇本Director, story, screenplay	監製Executive producer
Jonas Rivera	製片Producer	監製Executive producer
Mark Nielsen	副製片Associate producer	製片Producer
主要劇本署名Principal screenplay credits	Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley	Meg LeFauve, Dave Holstein

第二集的完整監製名單是 Pete Docter、Jonas Rivera、Dan Scanlon。後期作品也有類似的接力：《玩具總動員4》的新導演是 Josh Cooley，Docter、Stanton、Unkrich 轉任監製。Inside Out 2's full executive-producer list is Pete Docter, Jonas Rivera and Dan Scanlon. Later films show similar handovers: Toy Story 4 is directed by Josh Cooley, with Docter, Stanton and Unkrich as executive producers.

讀這些證據時，請留意三件事Three cautions when reading this evidence

署名不等於因果。共同署名能證明「一起做過」，不能證明「因為穩定所以成功」。要證明因果，還需要比較製作過程與成果。Credits are not causes. Shared credits show people worked together, not that stability produced success. Causation needs evidence on process and results.
空白不代表沒參與。表中的「－」只是本表沒有列出該人的主要職務；資料也不是完整的員工名單，不能當成留任率。A blank is not absence. A dash only means the table lists no main role; the data is not a full staff roster and cannot be read as a retention rate.
穩定不等於不變。核心成員之間的角色一直在換，新的人也持續進場，人也會離開：Joe Ranft 於 2005 年過世；John Lasseter 在 2018 年宣布年底離開迪士尼與皮克斯，Pete Docter 接任首席創意長。這正是「留才」與「接班」要一起設計的原因。Stable does not mean unchanged. Roles keep rotating, new people keep arriving, and people do leave: Joe Ranft died in 2005; John Lasseter announced in 2018 that he would leave Disney and Pixar at year-end, and Pete Docter became chief creative officer. This is why retention and succession have to be designed together.

資料範圍：1995–2024 年 17 部長片中的部分署名職務，核對日 2026-10-19。Scope: selected credited roles on 17 films, 1995–2024; checked 2026-10-19.

帶回辦公室：給經理人的五個觀念Take it to the office: five ideas for managers

你不必經營動畫公司。只要你的優勢來自人，這五個觀念都用得上。You do not need to run an animation studio. If your advantage comes from people, these five ideas apply.

先問：資源長在誰身上？First ask: who actually holds the resource?

把價值分成兩堆：長在公司身上的（設備、版權、流程），和長在人身上的（判斷、關係、手藝）。留才機制要設計在第二堆。Split value into two piles: what the firm holds (equipment, rights, processes) and what individuals hold (judgment, relationships, craft). Retention has to be designed for the second pile.

想一想THINK

如果團隊裡最關鍵的三個人下週離職，客戶會察覺到多大的差別？If your three most critical people left next week, how much would your customers notice?

把個人本事，變成團隊能力Turn personal talent into team capability

皮克斯讓未完成的作品攤在同事面前，接受坦率的意見（Braintrust）。人離開了，做事的方法還在。Pixar puts unfinished work in front of peers for candid notes (the Braintrust). When a person leaves, the way of working stays.

想一想THINK

你的團隊有哪一種「讓好點子被打磨」的固定做法？What regular practice in your team sharpens good ideas?

留才的辦法，本身也要過 VRIOThe retention method must pass VRIO too

薪水最容易被比價，對手隨時能追上。共同作品、成長路徑、夥伴關係和團隊文化，要長期累積，對手很難一次買走。Pay is the easiest thing to match; a rival can catch up at any time. Shared work, growth paths, partnerships and culture take years to build and cannot be bought in one go.

想一想THINK

你現在留人的做法，有哪些是對手明天就能照做的？Which of your current retention practices could a rival copy tomorrow?

讓人有路可走：角色輪替與接班Give people a path: rotation and succession

Unkrich 從剪輯走到導演；後期的核心成員轉任監製，新導演接手。人看得到下一步，比較不會往外看。Unkrich moved from editor to director; later, core members became executive producers and new directors took over. People who can see the next step look outward less.

想一想THINK

你的組織上一次讓新人接下資深者的角色，是怎麼發生的？When did your organization last let a newcomer take over a senior role, and how did it happen?

想清楚：價值最後歸誰？Be clear about who captures the value

Coff（1999）提醒：當優勢來自難以取代的人，這些人的談判力也高，利益可能被他們取走，而不是留給公司。留才設計要同時處理「怎麼分」與「歸屬感」。Coff (1999) warns that when advantage comes from hard-to-replace people, those people hold bargaining power, and the gains may flow to them rather than to the firm. Retention design must address both how value is shared and a sense of belonging.

想一想THINK

當你最強的人要求更多，你手上有哪些「錢以外」的選項？When your strongest person asks for more, what do you have to offer besides money?

延伸（非課堂內容）：當「留人」變成「彼此約定不挖角」Beyond class: when "keeping people" turns into "agreeing not to poach"

想把人留住，有些公司曾經走偏門：業者之間約定不互相挖角或不主動聯絡對方員工。2010 年，皮克斯與 Adobe、Apple、Google、Intel、Intuit 因這類協議，和美國司法部達成和解。Some firms have tried a shortcut: agreeing with rivals not to hire each other's staff or approach them. In 2010 Pixar, with Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel and Intuit, settled with the US Department of Justice over such agreements.
之後的動畫業員工集體訴訟中，迪士尼集團（含皮克斯與盧卡斯影業）、夢工廠動畫、新力與 Blue Sky 等合計約 1.69 億美元和解，法院於 2017 年 6 月核准。In the later animation-workers class action, Disney (including Pixar and Lucasfilm), DreamWorks Animation, Sony and Blue Sky settled for about $169 million in total, with final court approval in June 2017.
管理上的提醒：靠「對手不准來挖」留住人，是把 O 的功課外包給灰色地帶；真正的 O，是讓人自己選擇留下。The management lesson: keeping people because rivals may not approach them outsources the O test to a legal gray zone. A real O means people choose to stay.

以上為和解事實，公司在和解中未必承認違法；來源見頁尾。These are settled matters; settlements do not necessarily imply an admission of wrongdoing. Sources are listed at the foot of the page.

舉一反三：把 VRIO 用在你的團隊Try it: apply VRIO to your own team

換一個例子：街角烘焙店的主廚。（假設的情境）主廚做的招牌麵包是客人上門的原因。 A different example: a neighborhood bakery's head baker. (A hypothetical.) The signature bread is why customers come.

	皮克斯Pixar	主廚（假設）Head baker (hypothetical)
優勢放在哪裡Where the edge sits	一群人之間的默契與共同歷史Chemistry and shared history among many people	主廚一個人的手感與配方One baker's touch and recipe
對手怎麼拿走How a rival gets it	要挖走整個班底，還要重建多年的關係Must hire away a whole lineup and rebuild years of relationships	挖走主廚，或學會配方後在隔壁開店Hire the baker, or learn the recipe and open next door
留才的重點Retention focus	讓團隊持續一起成長：角色輪替、搭檔、接班Keep the team growing together: rotation, pairings, succession	把手藝教出去、讓配方標準化，並讓主廚分享成果Pass the craft on, standardize the recipe, let the baker share in the results

自己試試看：先選一組預設，再改答案，看結論怎麼變。 Try it: pick a preset, then change the answers and watch the conclusion change.

回到首頁，找更多相關主題Back to the homepage, and more related topics

這一頁只是第 7 週的補充。想順著策略、組織與課程繼續讀，可以從這裡出發。This page is a Week 7 supplement. To keep reading on strategy, organization and the course, start here.

吳相勳個人網頁Wu Hsiang Hsun's homepage

研究、教學、作品索引與 Blog 都從首頁進入。Research, teaching, the works index and the blog all start from the homepage.

回個人網頁首頁Back to the homepage

來源與延伸閱讀Sources and further reading

理論與管理文獻Theory and management literature

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49–61.
Coff, R. W. (1997). Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 374–402.
Coff, R. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119–133.
Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business Review, September 2008. · Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc. Random House.

皮克斯署名與背景資料來源Sources for Pixar credits and background

本頁與皮克斯、迪士尼沒有隸屬或合作關係。Pixar、片名與角色屬其權利人所有，本頁僅為教學與評論目的，引用公開署名資料。頁面插圖是本課程的原創角色（AI 輔助生成），不代表任何真實人物。This page is not affiliated with Pixar or Disney. Pixar, film titles and characters belong to their owners; public credit data is cited for teaching and commentary only. The illustrations are original course characters (AI-assisted) and do not depict real people.