GRE阅读综合辅导:63题新东方网络课堂总结(三十)GRE考试

文章作者 100test 发表时间 2009:04:30 08:04:50
来源 100Test.Com百考试题网

Passage 27 新老方法对比型（降低成本法）
提出老方法：降低成本法Since the late 1970’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行业, manufacturers in the United States have been trying to improve productivity（破折号中间的是插入语）—and therefore enhance their international competitiveness*1C—through cost-cutting programs. (Cost-cutting here is defined as raising labor output while holding the amount of labor constant.)（括号里为“降低成本法”的定义，可以等做到题再回来查） However（新老对比）, from 1978 through 1982, productivity（这里的插入语解释productivity）—the value of goods manufactured divided by the amount of labor input—did not improve（老方法的缺点）. and while（转折，前半句说better，后半句更重要，肯定是不好的） 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 time, it became clear that the harder manufactures worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.

老方法的缺点一With this paradox in mind, I recently visited 25 companies. it became clear to me that the cost-cutting approach to increasing productivity is fundamentally flawed（-）（本段继续讲老方法的缺点）. Manufacturing regularly observes a “40, 40, 20” rule（可以暂时不看，等有题目再回来查找）. 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 cost-cutting. This rule does not imply that cost-cutting should not be tried. The well-known tools of this approach—including simplifying jobs and retraining employees to work smarter, not harder—do（让步语气） produce results. But（让步的后半句，重要） the tools quickly reach the limits of what they can contribute.

老方法的缺点二：阻碍创新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被束缚 of its own investments in cost-cutting 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 (BRING ABOUT, CAUSE “wreak havoc”) havoc引起破坏，造成破坏，实现破坏 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（老观点） sufficed充分，充足，够用 as a basis of evaluation, but（转折，新观点） it has created a penny-pinching斤斤计较 (FRUGALITY, PARSIMONY), mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers.

新方法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 focuses on the manufacturing structure and on equipment and process technology. （以下举一个具体例子，可能对应举例作用题，可以等到出题再看）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.