【阅读】5.19起悦读鸡精~（6.14 没有新狗筒子们。）

jingyang1986

thorn8 发表于 2016-5-22 09:38
亲。你搞错了。那个不是原文而是背景资料。  我们GMAT阅读是不提倡看背景资料的。因为你要做的只是去foll ...

额。。。那个文章基本可以确定是出题的原文。。。。我看了所有的题目，贯穿了整篇文章。而且所有的EVIDENCE 全部紧扣文章。 另外我说的那个大神确定的答案是错的，因为有其它大神也是700+ 同一个问题确定的答案确实是对的。 如果是不同的题目，说明节选可能不太一样，但是题目一样，两个都出现在答案里，正确的就只有一个。 anyway我可以确定上面给的那个大神确定的确定是肯定错误的

jingyang1986

PS 那个文章有点长，我放上来也是想了想，毕竟大家没有时间读。。。。但是我看完所有的题目，都在文章里。有时间还是建议读一下。 不过楼主说的对，上场还是要看一遍文章，要以实战为准~

khunnie-abc

同学说有一篇是讲地月系统的，可能银河系中就没有其他生命了，因为没有像地月系统这样的系统存在了，（CO2无关）
就这点信息，能考古出来吗？

Jade1123

谢谢大家啦，希望自己过两天考试顺利啊

garfieldforGMAT

悦读菌好给力啊，两天出了17篇！赞一个，25号 Fighting ！

生命之树的JG

大小公司创新

Much research on the causes of organizational innovation is rooted in the seminal work of Joseph
Schumpeter (1912; 1942). His notion of “creative destruction,” whereby innovations destroy the market
positions of firms committed to old technology, first drew attention to the powerful effects of radical
innovation on the economy and the fortunes of individual firms. A key Schumpeterian hypothesis is that
large firms innovate more “intensively” than small firms (Acs and Audretsch 199 1; Scherer 1992, p. 1422).
- --. : This hypothesis has been the subject of extensive and continuing research. Over a hundred research articles
have studied the effects of size on innovation (Acs and Audretsch 1991; Baldwin and Scott 1987; Cohen and
Levin 1989). However, results of the research have been decidedly mixed (Scherer 1980; 1984).
Authors such as Galbraith (1952; 1968) and Ali (1994) build on Schumpeter’s basic arguments and
suggest that large firms have many advantages over small ones in their ability to produce radical innovations.
They note that large firms enjoy economies of scale in R&D, can spread risks widely (Arrow 1962), and have
greater access to financial resources. Other researchers argue that as firms become large, they become more
bureaucratic, slow to react, and less willing to take risks (e.g., see Mitchell and Singh 1993; Tornatzky and
Fleischer 1990). As a result, they are less Zikely to produce radical innovations than smaller firms that do not
possess these handicaps. These two views are contradictory. In addition, some authors suggest that the
relationship between innovative productivity and size is bell shaped (e.g., Ettlie and Rubenstein 1987).
Medium sized firms are best positioned for radical product innovation, since unlike small firms they possess
2
the critical mass for research, but do not suffer from the bureaucratic inertia of large firms. Conversely,
Pavitt (1990) argues for a U-shaped curve. He suggests that the “proportions of significant innovations made
by both large and small firms have been increasing at the expense of the medium sized firms in between” (p.
23). Perhaps medium sized firms have the liabilities of large and small firms, but few of their strengths.
Decades of research on the effect of size on radical innovation indicates that that factor may not
throw light on the causes of radical product innovation. Authors have not reached a consensus about the role
of size. Contradictions abound. Managerially useful generalizations are rare.
In its focus on size, the literature neglects attitudinal and organizational factors that may more
strongly influence radical innovation in firms (e.g., see Acs and Audretsch 199 1; Cohen 1995; Scherer 1992).
Ironically, Schumpeter (1942) himself noted that “mere size is neither necessary nor sufficient” for the
superior innovative performance of the large firm (Schumpeter 1942, p. 101). Anecdotal evidence suggests
that small, medium, and large firms can all be radical innovators. For example, the first celluloid roll camera
was introduced by Kodak, when it was a small firm. The first air-conditioner was introduced by the Buffalo
Forge company, a medium sized firm. The first microwave oven was introduced by Raytheon, a large firm.
This paper proposes an alternative explanation for radical innovation, based on organizational and
attitudinal factors. It suggests that the effect of size may be weak once these factors are accounted. We define
radical product innovation as the propensity of a firm to introduce new products that: 1) incorporate
substantially different technology from existing products, and 2) can fulfill key customer needs much better
than existing products. The next section explains our theory and hypotheses, which are based on insights
from our in-depth field interviews and the history of radical product innovations. The subsequent sections
describe the method and results. The final section discusses the implications of the results

生命之树的JG

Beyond Size: What Really Drives Radical Product Innovation?
We argue that the key determinant that separates radical product innovators from others is the
willingness of the former to cannibalize their specialized investments. Willingness to cannibalize is critical
because firms that dominate markets are often reluctant to embrace or foster radical innovations in their
markets. Their reluctance derives from their established base of specialized investments with which they
serve such markets. Nevertheless, contrary forces can overcome this reluctance. In particular, the presence of
internal markets, influential product champions, and future market focus can overcome reluctance to
cannibalize specialized investments, and can motivate radical product innovations. While marketing
managers have little control over their firm’s size, they have considerable influence over these organizational
factors (e.g., Chandy and Stringfellow 1995; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Menon, Bharadwaj, and Howell
1996). The subsequent sections explain each of these concepts of our argument

卡卡女爵

khunnie-abc 发表于 2016-5-22 14:49
同学说有一篇是讲地月系统的，可能银河系中就没有其他生命了，因为没有像地月系统这样的系统存在了，（CO2 ...

15年9月的阅读，地月关系的独特性，我一战的阅读

thorn8

生命之树的JG 发表于 2016-5-22 16:30
Beyond Size: What Really Drives Radical Product Innovation?
We argue that the key determinant that s ...

h猴猴猴~~~~~~感谢亲~~~

thorn8

卡卡女爵 发表于 2016-5-22 17:50
15年9月的阅读，地月关系的独特性，我一战的阅读

棒呆！！！！！感谢~~