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 produc-

tivity—and therefore enhance their international

(5) competitiveness—through cost—cutting programs. (Cost-

cutting here is defined as raising labor output while

holding the amount of labor constant.) However, from

1978 through 1982, productivity—the value of goods

manufactured divided by the amount of labor input—

(10) 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 time, it became clear that the harder manufactures worked to imple-

(15) ment cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive

edge.

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

(20) 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

(25) 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—

(30) 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

(35) 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 cost-cutting techniques, reducing its

ability to develop new products. And managers under

(40) 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

(45) 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

(50) paradox has done so, in part, by developing and imple-

menting a manufacturing strategy. Such a strategy

focuses on the manufacturing structure and on equip-

ment and process technology. In one company a manu-

facturing strategy that allowed different areas of the

(55) 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.

1.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with

(A) summarizing a thesis

(B) recommending a different approach

(C) comparing points of view

(D) making a series of predictions

(E) describing a number of paradoxes

答案是B 文章的主题是介绍一种不同的方法?想不明白。我选择的是A.文章中是有介绍新的途径,但是个人认为并不是主要啊。

谢谢指教.