首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Read the article on the opposite page about innovation in business and the questions below. For each question 15-20, mark one le
Read the article on the opposite page about innovation in business and the questions below. For each question 15-20, mark one le
admin
2012-12-14
125
问题
Read the article on the opposite page about innovation in business and the questions below.
For each question 15-20, mark one letter (A, B, C or D) on your Answer Sheet for the answer you choose.
Not long ago innovation was The Big Idea in marketing circles. Now, however, it’s hard to see the benefits of this rush to innovate. Indeed if anything, companies seem to be drawing back from innovation, not charging ahead. But just a few years ago many companies were combining a commitment to create entirely new product categories through innovative technologies working to hugely ambitious growth targets with a root-and-branch organisational overhaul designed to free up creativity and speed new product roll-outs.
The result was that as resources were shifted away from core businesses, sales and profits faltered, share prices slumped and CEOs were ousted. Now the mantra is a more conservative focus on the top brands, the top retail customers and the top markets. It’s being rewarded in many cases by healthier share prices. This sustained effort to cut long tails of smaller brands and focus marketing resource on existing leaders seems to be paying off.
So were we wrong to pinpoint innovation as key to long-term market success? Surely not. But we might have underestimated the enormous complexity of this beast. The term "innovation" may be simple enough but it spans a vast landscape, including the type and degree of innovation, marketing purpose, management process and market circumstance, not all of which are well understood.
Take "type" of innovation. Are we talking about new products only? Or new processes, new channels, underlying technologies, organisational structures and business models? When should the innovation involve a new brand? Or take "degree". Are we aiming for blue-sky inventions that will transform markets and create new categories? Or marginal tweaks in, say, formulation or packaging that give us an excuse to advertise something "New! Improved!"? Likewise, is the marketing purpose of the project to steal a march on competitors and drive incremental growth, or to update an obsolete product line and play catch-up to competitors? As one business news editorial complained, "innovation" is often just "simple proliferation of similar products". Then there’s process. What is the best way to manage this particular innovation? Is it to employ creative revolutionaries and set them free, or is disciplined risk management, requiring the careful testing and sifting of options to pick winners a better approach? In larger organisations, has senior management really made time spent in cross-functional teams a recognised element of successful career paths? What time frames (eg. payback periods) and degrees of risk is senior management comfortable with? And does the organisation have a culture that fits the chosen approach? Does it "celebrate failure", for example, or is it actually a risk-averse blame culture (despite what the CEO says in the annual report) ?
Successful innovation requires clearing two hurdles. First, it needs the right project with the right degree of innovation to fit with the right marketing purpose, the right innovation process, corporate culture and market circumstance. Second, it needs senior managers that understand the interplay between these different factors, so that rather than coming together simply by chance, they are deliberately brought together in different ways to meet different circumstances.
Clearing Hurdle Two can happen "by accident". Clearing Hurdle One requires real skill. We can all point to admirable, inspiring innovations. But how many companies can we point to and say "these people have mastered the art of innovation"? Brilliant innovation is a wonderful thing. Expert innovation management is even better and much rarer.
According to the third paragraph, it would be a mistake to______.
选项
A、rely on future benefits in business planning
B、deny the benefits of pursuing innovation
C、neglect the importance of strategic issues
D、predict the outcomes of innovations
答案
B
解析
第三段第1句问:So were we wrong topinpoint innovation as key to long-term mar-ket success?(难道我们把创新做为长期市场成功的钥匙是错的吗?)回答为“surelynot”,所以说否定创新的作用是个错误选B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/2Q7d777K
本试题收录于:
BEC高级阅读题库BEC商务英语分类
0
BEC高级阅读
BEC商务英语
相关试题推荐
WhattypeofbusinessisMegan’sThreads?
Whattypeofservicedoesthecompanymostlikelyprovide?
1.(Thecandidatechoosesonetopicandspeaksaboutitforoneminute.)A.StaffManagement:howtoachieveandmaintainhighm
FinancialManagement:theimportanceofmaintainingfinancialcontrolacrossalldepartments
Answer回答
Theinterlocutorasksyouquestionsonanumberofwork-relatedandnonwork-relatedsubjects.
Theinterlocutorasksyouquestionsonanumberofwork-relatedandnonwork-relatedsubjects.
Practisediscussingthistask,andthequestionswhichfollowit,withapartner:STAFFTRAININGREVIEWTheorganisationyouwor
Paula’scompanyprovidedserviceslike
随机试题
月经量多,质稀色淡红,身倦乏力,食少便溏,舌淡脉细,属于
A.浸浴疗法B.暴露疗法C.包扎疗法D.开放疗法E.湿敷疗法深度大面积烧伤常用
两名护士协助患者移向床头时,下列做法不妥的是
某初产妇,24岁,孕足月,胎膜早破,入院后医生为其进行骨盆测量为:骶耻外径小于18cm,前后径小于10cm,对角径小于11.5cm,可初步诊断为
《生活垃圾焚烧污染控制标准》(GB18485—2001)中规定,以下说法不正确的是()。
预算是企业为实现目标而对各种资源和企业活动的详细安排,其最主要的特征有()。
由于常规的抗生素的使用可以产生能在抗生素环境下存活的抗生菌,人体内存在抗生菌是由于人们使用处方抗生素,但是一些科学家相信人体内大多数抗生菌是由人们吃下的已经被细菌感染的肉类而来的。以下哪一项论述,如果是正确的,将最显著地增强这些科学家的假想?()
Whatisobesity?Ifwesaythat"fatiscriticalforgoodhealth,"wemeanthat
【26】【44】
Thisisamust-havebookforeverygardener,fromlearnertoexpert.
最新回复
(
0
)