Most pre-1990 literature on businesses' use of information technology (IT)—defined as any form of computer-based information system—focused on spectacular IT successes and reflected a general optimism concerning IT's potential as a resource for creating competitive advantage. But toward the end of the 1980's, some economists spoke of a "productivity paradox": despite huge IT investments, most notably in the service sectors, productivity stagnated. In the retail industry, for example, in which IT had been widely adopted during the 1980's, productivity (average output per hour) rose at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent between 1973 and 1989, compared with 2.4 percent in the preceding 25-year period. Proponents of IT argued that it takes both time and a critical mass of investment for IT to yield benefits, and some suggested that growth figures for the 1990's proved these benefits were finally being realized. They also argued that measures of productivity ignore what would have happened without investments in IT—productivity gains might have been even lower. There were even claims that IT had improved the performance of the service sector significantly, although macroeconomic measures of productivity did not reflect the improvement.
But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms. Resource-based theory offers an answer, asserting that, in general, firms gain competitive advantages by accumulating resources that are economically valuable, relatively scarce, and not easily replicated. According to a recent study of retail firms, which confirmed that IT has become pervasive and relatively easy to acquire, IT by itself appeared to have conferred little advantage. In fact, though little evidence of any direct effect was found, the frequent negative correlations between IT and performance suggested that IT had probably weakened some firms' competitive positions. However, firms' human resources, in and of themselves, did explain improved performance, and some firms gained IT-related advantages by merging IT with complementary resources, particularly human resources. The findings support the notion, founded in resource-based theory, that competitive advantages do not arise from easily replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be, but from complex, intangible resources.
The passage is primarily concerned with
describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
providing an explanation for unexpected findings
demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 C。该文章主要讨论的是,尽管在1980年代末必须进行大量的 IT 投资,但服务部门的生产率仍然停滞不前,这一现象被称为生产力悖论。文章试图解释这些出乎意料的发现。
C. 对意外的调查结果作出解释(通篇解释 paradox: IT 没有带来预料中的经济优势,即使段末说明了一些好处,也是和其他补充一起获得,不是单纯依靠 IT, 正确)
unexpected findings = "productivity paradox"
unexpected findings = "productivity paradox"
得出结论是that competitive advantages do not arise from easily replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be, but from complex, intangible resources.
E. “But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms. ” 反对者并不是反对使用IT技术,而是质疑为什么IT技术没有带来明显的竞争优势
预期和事实的对立,不是观点上的disagreement登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
误选了d,d错在“IT促进行业发展”并没有形成一个理论,只是一个大家的一个看法和期待,更涉及不到理论的建立
一些观察质疑如果IT真的产生经济价值,为什么IT没有产生给公司直接的竞争优势。Resourece-based theoty给出了答案