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 author of the passage discusses productivity in the retail industry in the first paragraph primarily in order to
suggest a way in which IT can be used to create a competitive advantage
provide an illustration of the "productivity paradox"
emphasize the practical value of the introduction of IT
cite an industry in which productivity did not stagnate during the 1980's
counter the argument that IT could potentially create competitive advantage
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案为B。第一段的目的是提供产品力矛盾的例子,这是在零售行业中由于IT的广泛使用而出现的结果。文章指出,1973年至1989年期间,零售行业的生产率——每小时投入的平均产出比前25年期间的24%降低到了11%。因此,选择B是正确的选择。
啊,sorry放错位置了。。。默默离开
B和C都看到了,纠结选B还是C
为什么IT不能产生直接竞争优势?因为他不是经济资源
因为他是复杂无形资源
原文:IT的竞争优势来自无形资源 不是来源于有形资源(经济资源)
因为IT是无形资源,所以他有竞争优势
即,IT没有竞争优势,因为他不是无形资源(而是有形资源经济资源)
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.
retail industry的数据是作为例子跟在"productivity paradox"后面