CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Directions: The passage below is followed by ... Start Learning for Free
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for today's dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.
But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.
The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.
Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.
A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.
Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals' or performing similar activities in different ways.
Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.
Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.
The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.
Q. Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?
  • a)
    Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.
  • b)
    Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.
  • c)
    Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.
  • d)
    Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals'.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on i...
Understanding the Correct Answer: D
The passage emphasizes the relationship between operational effectiveness and competitive advantage, ultimately leading to profitability. Here's how option 'D' aligns with the author's views:

Operational Effectiveness and Pricing
- **Operational Effectiveness (OE)**: The author defines OE as performing similar activities better than rivals. This includes enhancing efficiency, reducing defects, and utilizing advanced technology.
- **Impact on Pricing**: By achieving higher operational effectiveness, a company can lower its costs. This allows the company to either offer lower prices than competitors or maintain prices while increasing profit margins.

Link to Competitive Advantage
- **Sustaining Competitive Advantage**: The author asserts that sustainable competitive advantage arises from distinct operational effectiveness. Companies that excel in OE can deliver greater value, enabling them to charge higher prices or operate at lower costs.
- **Profit Maximization**: The passage suggests that while operational effectiveness contributes to profitability, it is through superior performance relative to rivals that a company can maximize profits.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect
- **Option A**: The passage does not suggest that temporary dynamism in technology is lost; rather, it acknowledges that technology is constantly evolving.
- **Option B**: Although optimizing performance is important, it is not the root of all managerial rules, as strategy also plays a crucial role.
- **Option C**: Profit maximization is tied to establishing a competitive advantage, which is a combination of OE and strategic positioning, rather than being solely a direct outcome of OE.
In conclusion, option 'D' accurately reflects the author's argument that efficient performance of activities compared to rivals directly contributes to pricing advantages and profitability.
Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on i...
A. Incorrect. Temporary dynamism may not even be a desirable character. This nowhere connects with OE and strategy.
B. Incorrect. Performance cannot be a rule. It is a pre-requisite. The option makes no sense.
C. Incorrect. Maximisation cannot be derived from the passage. And 'direct outcome' is too far-fetched.
D. Correct. This is the only option that connects with OE, which is the focus of the passage. The answer to this question can be found from paragraphs 8th and 9th. The answer can be found in the last line of the 8th paragraph, "Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation." and the second line of the 9th paragraph, "The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time." The passage is about OE, not about investment of capital.
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.It can be inferred from the passage that the distinction between operational effectiveness and strategy has seemingly obscured now due to none of the following EXCEPT

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.On the basis of the information in the passage, operational effectiveness and strategic position are different from each other in which one of the following respects?

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.The overall tone of the passage is

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.The Ethical Implications of Genetic EngineeringGenetic engineering, once a speculative notion confined to the realms of science fiction, has now become a tangible reality with profound implications. The ability to manipulate the genetic code of living organisms has opened a Pandoras box of ethical dilemmas that challenge our most fundamental beliefs about life, identity, and nature.At the forefront of this scientific frontier is the revolutionary technology known as CRISPR-Cas9, which allows for precise editing of DNA. Its applications range from the noble pursuit of eradicating genetic diseases to the contentious arena of enhancing human capabilities beyond their natural limits. The potential to cure hereditary conditions and improve the quality of life is counterbalanced by the specter of designer babies and the commodification of genetic traits.The ethical quandaries extend beyond human genetics. Genetic engineering in agriculture has led to the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that promise higher yields and resistance to pests. However, the long-term ecological consequences of such modifications remain uncertain, and the monopolization of genetically altered seeds by corporations raises concerns about food sovereignty and the rights of farmers.Moreover, the manipulation of animal genetics for human benefit, such as the production of transgenic animals for pharmaceutical purposes, poses questions about animal welfare and the integrity of species. The blurring of lines between natural and artificial life forms has profound philosophical implications, challenging our understanding of what it means to be natural in the age of genetic engineering.As we grapple with the capabilities afforded by genetic engineering, it is imperative to engage in a global dialogue that considers the ethical, social, and environmental ramifications. The decisions we make today will shape the future of our species and the planet, necessitating a careful balance between scientific innovation and ethical responsibility.Q.What is the primary concern addressed in the passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Positioning - once the heart of strategy - is rejected as too static for todays dynamic markets and changing technologies. According to the new dogma, rivals can quickly copy any market position, and competitive advantage is, at best, temporary.But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and they are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition. True, some barriers to competition are falling as regulation eases and markets become global. True, companies have properly invested energy in becoming leaner and more nimble. In many industries, however, what some call hyper-competition is a self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.The root of the problem is the failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques: total quality management, benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering, change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have often been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. As managers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther away from viable competitive positions.Operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, which, after all, is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work in very different ways.A company can outperform rivals only if it can establish a difference that it can preserve. It must deliver greater value to customers or create comparable value at a lower cost or do both. The arithmetic of superior profitability then follows: delivering greater value allows a company to charge higher average unit prices: greater efficiency results in lower average unit costs.Operational Effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. Operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilise its inputs by, for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster. In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways.Differences in operational effectiveness among companies are pervasive. Some companies are able to get more out of their inputs than others because they eliminate wasted effort, employ more advanced technology, motivate employees better, or have greater insight into managing particular activities or sets of activities. Such differences in operational effectiveness are an important source of differences in profitability among competitors because they directly affect relative cost positions and levels of differentiation.Differences in operational effectiveness were at the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western companies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead of rivals in operational effectiveness that they could offer lower cost and superior quality at the same time.The productivity frontier is constantly shifting outward as new technologies and management approaches are developed and as new inputs become available.Q.Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?a)Temporary dynamism in developing technology is lost today.b)Optimising performance is at the root of development of all managerial rules.c)Profit maximisation achieved in an organisation is the direct outcome of operational effectiveness.d)Advantage of pricing is due to more efficient performance of activities than the rivals.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev