- UID
- 597935
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-1-18
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
诶，这篇文章很莫名，虽然看上去好像都看得懂，结果题目都做的不对。。。而且，在理这篇文章的时候，发现自己不是很理的清楚结构。求NN指点。。。另外，这篇文章到底是什么类型的？还搞不清楚。直接导致第一题做错啊。。。
我的文章结构分析：
1. 背景资料，提出观点（paradox）：贯彻cost－ctting，lost competitive edge
2. “40 40 20”的规律（不知道第二段到底是什么作用）
3. 坏处2：降低创造力，A的理论支持（看到another problem，因此认为前文提的应该是第一个问题，但是又不知道40 40 20是个什么问题）
4. 提出新的方法改进，a manufacturing strategy，一家公司的例子支持
Passage 27 (27/63)Since the late1970’s, in the face of a severe loss of market share (market share: 市场份额, 市场占有率) in dozens of industries,manufacturers in the United States
have been trying to improveproductivity—and therefore enhance their international competitiveness—throughcost-cutting programs. (Cost-cutting here is defined as raising labor outputwhile holding the amount of labor constant.) However, from 1978 through 1982,productivity—the value of goods manufactured divided by the amount of laborinput—did not improve; and while the results were better in the business upturnof the three years following, they ran 25 percent lower than productivityimprovements during earlier, post-1945 upturns. At the same time, it becameclear that the harder manufactures worked to implement cost-cutting, the morethey lost their competitive edge.With this paradoxin mind, I recently visited 25 companies; it became clear to me that thecost-cutting approach to increasing productivity is fundamentally flawed. Manufacturingregularly observes a “40, 40, 20” rule. Roughly 40 percent of anymanufacturing-based competitive advantage derives from long-term changes inmanufacturing structure (decisions about the number, size, location, andcapacity of facilities) and in approaches to materials. Another 40 percentcomes from major changes in equipment and process technology. The final 20percent rests on implementing conventional cost-cutting. This rule does notimply that cost-cutting should not be tried. The well-known tools of thisapproach—including simplifying jobs and retraining employees to work smarter,not harder—do produce results. But the tools quickly reach the limits of whatthey can contribute.
Another problem isthat the cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creativepeople. As Abernathy’s study of automobile manufacturers has shown, an industrycan easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques,reducing its ability to develop new products. And managers under pressure tomaximize cost-cutting will resist innovation because they know that morefundamental changes in processes or systems will wreak (BRING ABOUT,CAUSE “wreak havoc”) havoc with the results on which they aremeasured. Production managers have always seen their job as one of minimizingcosts and maximizing output. This dimension of performance has until recentlysufficed as a basis of evaluation, but it has created a penny-pinching (FRUGALITY,PARSIMONY), mechanistic culture in most factories that has keptaway creative managers.
Every company Iknow that has freed itself from the paradox has done so, in part, by developingand implementing a manufacturing strategy. Such a strategy focuses on themanufacturing structure and on equipment and process technology. In one companya manufacturing strategy that allowed different areas of the factory to specializein different markets replaced the conventional cost-cutting approach; withinthree years the company regained its competitive advantage. Together with suchstrategies, successful companies are also encouraging managers to focus on awider set of objectives besides cutting costs. There is hope for manufacturing,but it clearly rests on a different way of managing.
1. The author of the passage is primarilyconcerned with （A）正确答案B
(A) summarizinga thesis
(B)recommending a different approach
(C) comparingpoints of view
(D) making aseries of predictions（B）
(E) describinga number of paradoxes |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-1-29 17:00:41
收藏
收藏
楼主
