Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 29 Jul 2015, 02:00
GMAT Club Tests

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 349 [0], given: 18

Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of [#permalink] New post 20 Mar 2012, 21:01
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 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—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 implement 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
4. The author refers to Abernathy’s study (line 36) most probably in order to
(A) qualify an observation about one rule governing manufacturing
(B) address possible objections to a recommendation about improving manufacturing competitiveness
(C) support an earlier assertion about one method of increasing productivity
(D) suggest the centrality in the United States economy of a particular manufacturing industry
(E) given an example of research that has questioned the wisdom of revising a manufacturing strategy
[Reveal] Spoiler:
C


7. The author suggests that implementing conventional cost-cutting as a way of increasing manufacturing competitiveness is a strategy that is
(A) flawed and ruinous
(B) shortsighted and difficult to sustain
(C) popular and easily accomplished
(D) useful but inadequate
(E) misunderstood but promising
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 349 [0], given: 18

Re: PT #13 RC 17 [#permalink] New post 20 Mar 2012, 21:12
OA is c,d


But I don't understand why the OAs are correct.

For Q4, I don't see "one method of increasing productivity" anywhere above Abernathy's study.
How does Abernathy's study support an earlier assertion if there is no assertion ahead of Abernathy's study?

For Q7, I don't see anything that shows or infers usefulness of cost-cutting in the passage.

Please, help me understand these two.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2014
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 33

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of [#permalink] New post 08 May 2015, 19:26
My answer for 7 was wrong. I chose B instead of D (d'oh!). That said, I think I chose the right part of the passage but misinterpreted it.

The inference can be drawn from the last section of the second paragraph where conventional cost cutting (the key term in the question) is discussed with my notes in bold:

"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 produce results. (i.e. it is useful) But the tools quickly reach the limits of what they can contribute. (i.e. it is inadequate)"

My idea that conventional cost cutting is shortsighted came from the second last paragraph. Obviously the idea of that paragraph refers to cost cutting as a whole, not conventional cost cutting.

Hope that helps people
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2013
Posts: 79
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Re: Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of [#permalink] New post 11 May 2015, 04:55
Quote:
But I don't understand why the OAs are correct.

For Q4, I don't see "one method of increasing productivity" anywhere above Abernathy's study.
How does Abernathy's study support an earlier assertion if there is no assertion ahead of Abernathy's study?

Can an expert please reply, because I am not able to figure this out. Abernathy’s study is about ability to develop new products. I can't see any "earlier assertion" (means any reference to this) in the passage, because 40 40 20 rule does not mention new products at all..

Is it confirmed that this is the right answer?

I think B is more appropriate, because according to B, address possible objections to a recommendation about improving manufacturing competitiveness.

So, recommendation about improving manufacturing competitiveness was to increase productivity, but Abernathy’s study says that an industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products.

So, the study is clearly objecting to the traditional cost-cutting techniques. But not sure if his study is objecting the recommendation; but B says: address possible objections to a recommendation. This might be slightly different.

Would request experts.

Quote:
For Q7, I don't see anything that shows or infers usefulness of cost-cutting in the passage.

This one is actually ok. Following portion of the passage states this:

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 produce results. But the tools quickly reach the limits of what they can contribute.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2013
Posts: 79
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Re: Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of [#permalink] New post 11 May 2015, 05:09
Getting really confused. I read on another thread the following:

Passage says: 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 cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products.

Option C: support an earlier assertion about one method of increasing productivity.

Apparently, "earlier assertion about one method of increasing productivity" refers to the sentence in bold. However, when I read the statement in bold, I think that option C should have been: support an earlier assertion against one method of increasing productivity, and it should not be: support an earlier assertion about one method of increasing productivity.

Found this question quite tough, just when I was beginning to think that I am getting a good grip on RC.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2014
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 33

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of [#permalink] New post 11 May 2015, 05:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
"About" can be either in support or against (or both?). For example, if I were to talk about you, I could be saying something good or something bad about you. The content of what I say doesn't matter, the fact that I am talking about you does. So I would be talking about you.

The key for these Structure-type questions is to look at the verb in the answer choices such as support, suggest, address, etc. That verb is a hint in how to look at that part of the passage in the context of the whole passage, and a way of eliminating answers, particularly when they are clearly wrong. You can't really draw any generalities from this type of question; to me, solving these questions is a case-by-case basis.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2013
Posts: 79
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Re: Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of [#permalink] New post 11 May 2015, 10:33
alman888 wrote:
"About" can be either in support or against (or both?). For example, if I were to talk about you, I could be saying something good or something bad about you.

Thanks alman888, I did understand it, but only in hindsight:).
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2014
Posts: 62
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 6

Re: Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of [#permalink] New post 12 May 2015, 04:14
4. The author refers to Abernathy’s study (line 36) most probably in order to

(A) qualify an observation about one rule governing manufacturing
(B) address possible objections to a recommendation about improving manufacturing competitiveness
(C) support an earlier assertion about one method of increasing productivity -- Another problem is that the cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people
(D) suggest the centrality in the United States economy of a particular manufacturing industry
(E) given an example of research that has questioned the wisdom of revising a manufacturing strategy

7. The author suggests that implementing conventional cost-cutting as a way of increasing manufacturing competitiveness is a strategy that is
(A) flawed and ruinous
(B) shortsighted and difficult to sustain
(C) popular and easily accomplished
(D) useful but inadequate -- successful companies are also encouraging managers to focus on a wider set of objectivesbesides cutting costs
(E) misunderstood but promising
Re: Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of   [#permalink] 12 May 2015, 04:14
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of riteshv 5 19 Jun 2012, 02:12
1 Since the late 1970's, in the face of a severe loss of anilnandyala 13 29 Nov 2010, 18:54
Since the late 1970’s, in the face of a severe loss of marke priyankur_saha@ml.com 5 13 May 2009, 23:51
Passage 27 (27/63) ======== Since the late 1970's, in the nitya34 8 09 Apr 2009, 11:39
2 Since the late 1970's, in the face of a severe loss of gmatcrook 15 27 Jun 2008, 10:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Since the late 1970 s, in the face of a severe loss of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.