单选题 For more than a decade, the prevailing view of innovation has been that little guys had the edge. Innovation bubbled up from the bottom, from upstarts and insurgents. Big companies didn't innovate, and government got in the way. In the dominant innovation narrative, venture-backed start-up companies were cast as the nimble winners and large corporations as the sluggish losers.
There was a rich vein of business-school research supporting the notion that innovation comes most naturally from small-scale outsiders. That was the headline point that a generation of business people, venture investors and policy makers took away from Clayton M. Christensen's 1997 classic, The Innovator's Dilemma, which examined the process of disruptive change.
But a shift in thinking is under way, driven by altered circumstances. In the United States and abroad, the biggest economic and social challenges—and potential business opportunities—are problems in multifaceted fields like the environment, energy and health care that rely on complex systems.
Solutions won't come from the next new gadget or clever software, though such innovations will help. Instead, they must plug into a larger network of change shaped by economics, regulation and policy. Progress, experts say, will depend on people in a wide range of disciplines, and collaboration across the public and private sectors.
"These days, more than ever, size matters in the innovation game," said John Kao, a former professor at the Harvard business school and an innovation consultant to governments and corporations. In its economic recovery package, the Obama administration is financing programs to generate innovation with technology in health care and energy. The government will spend billions to accelerate the adoption of electronic patient records to help improve care and curb costs, and billions more to spur the installation of so-called smart grids that use sensors and computerized meters to reduce electricity consumption.
In other developed nations, where energy costs are higher than in the United States, government and corporate projects to cut fuel use and reduce carbon emissions are further along. But the Obama administration is pushing environmental and energy conservation policy more in the direction of Europe and Japan. The change will bolster demand for more efficient and more environmentally friendly systems for managing commuter traffic, food distribution, electric grids and waterways.
These systems are animated by inexpensive sensors and ever-increasing computing power but also require the skills to analyze, model and optimize complex networks, factoring in things as diverse as weather patterns and human behavior. Big companies like General Electric and IBM that employ scientists in many disciplines typically have the skills and scale to tackle such projects.

单选题 In his book Christensen comes to the conclusion that
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】第一段中提到,创造力总是自下而上地发生,little guys根据上下文指小公司(包括新创办的公司,也包括从某个大公司独立出来的小公司)。第二段提到Christensen在1997年出版的经典作品,该著作探讨了那些带有突破性的变化(这里指创新成果所带来的变化)的发生过程。从第二段来看,作者得出的结论是:创新大都来自于小规模的公司。small-scale outsiders根据上下文也指小公司,特别是那些刚刚步人某个行业或市场的公司。
单选题 Due to the complicated circumstances, a single innovation
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】第二三、四段提到,在美国和其他国家,由于最大的经济和社会挑战涉及各个领域里的问题,涉及复杂的系统,因此对这些问题的解决也不是某个小创新就能解决的。解决问题的方法必须要融入(plug into)一个由经济、法律、政策所促成的更大网络中,涉及各个领域里的人的共同努力。言外之意,一个创新并不能解决目前复杂的社会问题,这些问题的解决需要各个行业、各个领域的共同努力。
单选题 In the author's opinion, Obama's approach to the health and energy problem
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】文章在第五段提到了奥巴马政府经济复苏计划,这只是一个例子,从第五段对奥巴马政府政策的描述来看,它强调了综合解决问题的重要性。这也是第三、四段一直在说明的道理。
单选题 Big companies have the advantage of
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】第六、七段提到了在当今时代大公司在创新上所拥有的优势,这个优势在最后一段最后一句得到了明确的阐述,即大公司雇用不同学科领域的科学家来协作解决复杂的问题。实际上,自第三段之后,作者就转而谈论大公司的优势,第三段之后的逻辑是:时代的变化使问题变得复杂起来,过去一些独立的创新已经不能解决目前复杂的问题,复杂的问题只能通过不同领域里的创新得以综合解决。
单选题 The text is written to answer the question
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】第一、二段提到,人们以前普遍认为小公司比大公司更具有创新能力,第三段第一句是一个转折,以后几段都说明大公司在创新上所拥有的优势。得出的结论显然是:在当今世界,小公司的个别创新是不够的,已经不能领导创新的潮流,解决复杂问题。另请参阅以上各题题解。