2. 职称英语
  3. Since the late 1970’s, in the face of a severe loss of market share in dozens

Since the late 1970’s, in the face of a severe loss of market share in dozens

游客2025-01-05  6
问题    Since the late 1970’s, in the face of a severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the United States have been trying to improve productivity and therefore enhance their international competitiveness through costcutting programs. (Cost-cutting here is definding the amount of labor constant.) However, from 1978 through 1982, productivity—the value of goods manufactured divided by the amount of labor input—did not improve; and while the results were better in the business upturn of the three years following, they ran 25 percent lower than productivity improvements during earlier, post-1945 upturns. At the same, it became clear that the harder manufactures worked to implement costcutting, the more they lost their competitive edge. With this paradox in mind, I recently visited 25 companies: it became clear to me that the costcutting approach to increasing productivity is fundamentally flawed, Manufacturing regularly observes a" 40, 40, 20" rule, roughly 40 percent of any manufacturing-based competitive advantage derives from long-term changes in manufacturing structure (decisions about the number, size, location, and capacity of facilities) and in approaches to materials. Another 40 percent comes from major changes in equipment and process technology. The final 20 percent rests on implementing conventional costcutting. This rule does not be tried. The well-known tools of this approach—including simplifying jobs and retraining employees to work smarter, not harder-do produce results. But the tools quickly reach the limits of what they can contribute. Another problem is that the cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. As Abernathy’ s study of automobile manufacturers has shown, an industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in costcutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. And managers under pressure to maximize cost-cutting will resist innovation because they know that more fundamental changes in processes or systems will wreak havoc with the results on which they are measured, production managers have always seen their job as one of minimizing costs and maximizing output. This dimension of performance has until recently sufficed as a basis of evaluation, but it has created a penny pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers.
   Every company I know that has freed itself from the paradox has done so, in part, by developing and implementing
   a manufacturing strategy. Such a strategy facturing and implementing a manufacturing strategy. Such a strategy focuses on the manufacturing structure and on equipment and process technology. In one company a manufacturing strategy that allowed different areas of the factory to specialize in different markets replaced the conventional cost-cutting approach, within three years the company regained its competitive advantage. Together with such strategies, successful companies are also encouraging managers to focus on a wider set of objectives besides cutting costs. There is hope for manufacturing, but it clearly rests on a different way of managing. [br] The author suggests that implementing manufacturing competitiveness is a strategy that is______
选项 A、flawed and ruinous
B、shortsighted and difficult to sustain
C、popular and easily accomplished
D、useful but inadequate
答案 D
解析 语意题。该题问：作者如何评价使用传统的削减成本法试图提高制造业竞争实力这种作法?A项意为“错误且灾难性的”，这种说法语气过强，文中的作者态度并非如此。B项意为“短视而难以维持的”。说这种方法不合适是对的，但不合适的方法不一定就维系不下去。C项意为“普及易有成效的”，此项说法说反了。D项意为“有用但不合适”，在本文的第一、二段可以找到线索，指出此方法有些道理，但是很快就会达到极限，基本上是不可行的，因此D项为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3900363.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)