| BEC中级听力第八课时 |
|
第八课时
Questions 23-30（真题集TEST 1-PART 3）
● You will hear the chairman of a business institute making a speech about new business awards that that his institute has sponsored.
● For each question(23-30), mark one letter (A, B or C) for the correct answer.
● After you have listened once, replay the recording.
23 The aim of the ‘Business Today’ competition was to reward
A good produce design.
B skilful project management.
C rapid financial success.
24 How many companies were chosen to compete in the final of the competition?
A four
B fourteen
C forty
25 The types of products which the finalists were developing
A caused considerable problems for the judges.
B were all connected with the food industry.
C involved a common set of development aspects.
26 According to the speaker, what are small firms good at?
A fitting new products in with current production
B recording methods used in developing new products
C developing new management structures for products
27 The speaker believes big companies document innovation well because of
A the number of staff available
B the involvement of senior management.
C the insistence on regular procedures.
28 The panel was impressed by Natura because they had
A invested considerable time investing a new product.
B researched new ways of manufacturing their product.
C investigated new overseas markets for their product..
29 The judges praised the links between development teams in smaller companies and
A senior management.
B suppliers.
C the market.
30 The companies sometimes had problems because the suppliers
A could not understand the specifications.
B could not meet the deadlines.
C could not rely on their subcontractors.
答案：23－30 BBCA CBAC
听力原文：
Man: Who are the managers of the best innovation developments in British industry? That was the question which the first Business Today Innovation Awards set out to answer.
This project is all about rewarding good practice and performance. So, rather than simply recognizing excellence in the design of specific products, or analysing their financial impact on profits, the awards set out to take an objective look at exactly how companies mange the development process itself.
Over three hundred and fifty organizations entered the competition and were initially reduced to about forty. Then, after further careful checking, a short list of just fourteen of them was arrived at. These finalists, all manufacturers, were then visited by the competition judges, a panel of four chief executives from leading companies. The panel toured the finalists’ facilities, received presentations on the companies and their projects, and interviewed the key development team members. The products varied enormously in their scale, function and degree of technology – from bread for a supermarket chain to a printer inside an automatic dispense. Initially the organisers were concerned that this range could create difficulties in the assessment process. But this fear proved baseless, as most elements in the innovation process are shared by all manufacturers.
Interestingly, the finalists broke down into two distinct and equal groups: large firms with one thousand employees or more and small firms with two hundred and fifty employees or fewer. With both groups the judges decided to concentrate on two of the clearest indicators of a successful innovation process, which are: how well the new product is combined with the company’s existing business, and secondly, how well the innovation methods are recorded and understood. Small firms naturally tend to do well in the first category since they have fewer layers of management and thus much shorter communication lines. But they seem to put less emphasis on creating formal development methods which would be repeatable in future innovation.
Large firms, on the other hand, have difficulty interesting the new development within their existing business for reasons of scale. But they tend to succeed in achieving well – documented and repeatable development methods. This is because larger companies, with their clear emphasis on training, fixed management structure and administrative systems, require more formal, daily record-keeping from their staff.
However, I had one main concern. The company has recently invested heavily in state – of – the - art production equipment and in a comprehensive training programme for machine operators. But I was surprised to see that half the factory wasn’t in use because several important customers had cancelled orders. I was reassured that orders are dispatched quickly, and delivery times are impressive, and distribution isn’t a problem – but I’d need to inspect their products more closely to see if the quality’s what we require.
The second company looked promising too, because they are based in the region that produces the natural resources to make our components. Everything needed for their activities is available on their doorstep. They have a good working relationship with the local mine owners, who are known to have good safety records. During my visit, the company went into great detail about the quality inspections carried out on the material before it leaves the mines.
This company seemed to have no problems with transport – until I looked more closely. The factory is in a very mountainous region, about six hundred kilometers from the capital city. Passenger flights are fairly frequent, taking under two hours, but the journey by road can take days. The roads are really inadequate – the whole infrastructure needs massive investment. There is a seaport just over the border with the neighbouring country, which would certainly cut down on distance, but, as far as I can see, it might also bring other problem. We simple can’t risk depending on such fragile communications.
The third company I looked at, on the other hand, is on the coast, with good access to the main seaport. Transport and shipping of goods are well organized and, in fact, they own a haulage company as one of their subsidiaries. The production unit is new – built and equipped with the help of investment from the Ministry of Industry. What’s more, company workers are involved in decision-making, and industrial relations are excellent. Perfect so far.
Unfortunately, though, their finished products are not of the quality we demand. The specifications are right for our components, so no modifications in design would be necessary. But when I did a quick inspection, I found a higher percentage of faults than we’d be prepared to tolerate. If we chose them, we’d certainly have to negotiate longer warranties than those they’re offering at present.
The final company I visited seemed to have everything, though. It’s ten years old, well established, located between the capital and a major seaport. The company has grown rapidly and has just modernized its factory, thanks to a loan from the World Bank, which has enabled it to install the most up-to-date equipment available on the market. The production unit is now fully automated, and efficiency is the company’s great strength.
This company has a well-deserved reputation for the quality of his finished goods. Given their high standard, it’s not surprising that the costs are considerable, and they’re asking higher prices than the other companies I visited. But I’m confident we’ll be able to negotiate on this. The key point in their favour, in my opinion, is their ability to meet deadlines of a long-term contract. It’s easy to meet one deadline, of course – the difficult thing is to do it all the time.
To sum up, then…
So what were the key questions the judges had in mind when assessing the finalists? One of the most important areas concerned how thoroughly a company checks what is happening in other fields in order to incorporate new ideas into the development process. Many of the finalists impressed in the areas. Natura, for example, had demonstrated genuine energy in searching for new ways of producing their range of speciality breads. They had looked at styles of home cooking in different countries, as well as the possibility of exploiting new production technologies in order to achieve equally good results but on a high-volume production line.
What then occupied much of the judges’ thoughts was the quality of the links which the development team established with senior management, suppliers, the market and manufacturing. The best examples of the first category were found in small firms, where the individual entrepreneur at the top was clearly driving the innovation forward.
Links with suppliers were also seen as an important factor, but not all supplier experiences were positive. Occasionally serious problems had to be solved where suppliers were working hard to meet specification, but the companies that the suppliers were using to adapt their machinery were not so efficient. This led to disappointing faults or fluctuations in quality.
But in conclusion the awards demonstrate that innovation isn’t just for high-tech internet companies, You can also be successful in mature markets with determination and skill.
知识点总结：
如何扩大背景知识： 阅读商务报刊 背景知识考察点： 1）人 新人的选择，executive 执行官的选择；员工的管理：激励问题、人员培训 2）公司的问题 公司的类型 管理； 运作 3）公司的运作 成本、产品的研发 市场和营销 安全生产 4）报告，报表
Questions 23-30（真题集TEST3- PART 3）
● You will hear the Purchasing Manager of a manufacturing company giving a presentation to senior management about four possible new suppliers.
● For each question (23-30), mark one letter (A, B or C) for the correct answer.
● After you have listened once, replay the recording.
23 The advantage of the first company is
A the size of the factory.
B the company of the MD.
C the production capacit[1] [2] 下一页 |
| 责任编辑：孟实 |
|
|
|
|
| 回全站首页 外语考试专题--点击进入 |
|
|
· 雅思分类词汇：信用卡相关用语
· 雅思分类词汇：money相关词组
· 雅思分类词汇：地震词汇
· 雅思单词公敌：先入为主的记忆干涉
· 雅思分类词汇：交通相关词汇
· “手足口病”相关词汇
· GMAT考试阅读辅导大汇总
· GMAT考试阅读辅导汇总一
· GMAT考试阅读辅导汇总二
· GMAT考试阅读：实战篇
· GMAT考试阅读辅导——（60）
· GMAT考试阅读辅导——（59）
· 四级写作高分策略：准确把握题目要求
· 四级写作高分策略：准确把握题目要求
· 冲刺：北京大学老师预测四六级考试作
· 冲刺：北京大学老师预测四六级考试作
· 冲刺：北京大学老师预测四六级考试作
· 冲刺：北京大学老师预测四六级考试作
· 英语四级考后记：一波三折终考过了级
· 经验之谈：为何你的英语四级考不了高
· “英语四六级”，利益链条下的盛宴
· 五次大学英语四级考试经验:永不放弃
· 一家之言：以什么心态应对英语四级考
· 英语四级考前心情：人都是这么被逼疯
|
