Question Description
Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Since the late 1970’s, faced with severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the US 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—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 manufacturers worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.When 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 does not mean cost-cutting should not be tried. Approaches like 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.Cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. An industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. 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 created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers. Successful companies have overcome this problem by developing and implementing a strategy that 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.Q. As inferred from the first paragraph, the manufacturers expected that the measures they implemented woulda)encourage innovationb)keep labor output constantc)increase their competitive advantaged)permit business upturns to be more easily predictedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.