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
111
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://www.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
Whattypeofbusinessdothespeakersmostlikelyworkfor?
Whattypeofbusinessisthemanmostlikelycalling?
(Thecandidatechoosesonetopicandspeaksaboutitforoneminute.)A.Technology:theimportanceoftrainingstaffinhowto
Iscapitalmarketimportantornot?Why?Canyougiveexplanationaboutit?
DoyouthinktheInternetwillbecomemorewidelyusedbycompaniesinthefuture?(WillmorecompaniesusetheInternetinthe
Theinterlocutorasksyouquestionsonanumberofwork-relatedandnonwork-relatedsubjects.
•Youwillheararecruitingmanagertellinghowtofindjobsontheweb.•Asyoulisten,forquestions1-12,completethenotes
•Youwillheararecruitingmanagertellinghowtofindjobsontheweb.•Asyoulisten,forquestions1-12,completethenotes
•Youwillheararecruitingmanagertellinghowtofindjobsontheweb.•Asyoulisten,forquestions1-12,completethenotes
A.beingontimeforanyinterviewB.beingnicetoeveryoneyoutalktoC.beinghonestintheinterviewD.become
随机试题
Thedestructionofhabitats(栖息地)allovertheworldistheprimaryreasonspeciesarebecomingextinct(灭绝)orendangered.Hous
关于急性型血小板减少性紫癜的描述错误的是
女性,38岁,因创伤致心跳呼吸停止,经复苏后恢复,继而出现体温升高、抽搐、惊厥,病人可能并发()
函数可去间断点的个数为()。
工程建设实施过程中的工程质量由()负总责。
下列有关证券业务的专业人员范围的说法中,正确的有()。Ⅰ.证券公司中从事自营、经纪、承销、投资咨询、受托投资管理等业务的专业人员Ⅱ.除相关部门管理人员外,基金销售机构中从事基金宣传、推销、咨询等业务的专业人员Ⅲ.证券投资咨询机构中
下列叙述正确盼有()。
在系列音乐欣赏教学方案设计中,“一一匹配”的模式有哪些特点?
左边给定的是纸盒的外表面,下面哪一项能由它折叠而成?
Goinghungryisamajorcontributortoillhealth,particularlyamongchildren,andanewreportrevealshowlong-lastingtheda
最新回复
(
0
)