gwd-5-22,23

Most pre-1990 literature on busi-

        nesses’ use of information technology

        (IT)—defined as any form of computer-

Line based information system—focused on

  (5)        spectacular IT successes and reflected

a general optimism concerning IT’s poten-

tial as a resource for creating competitive

advantage.  But toward the end of the

1980’s, some economists spoke of a

(10)        “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

(15)        1980’s, productivity (average output per

hour) rose at an average annual rate of

1.1 percent between 1973 and 1989, com-

pared with 2.4 percent in the preceding

25-year period.  roponents of IT argued

(20)        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

(25)        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

(30)        service sector significantly, although mac-

roeconomic measures of productivity did

not reflect the improvement.

      But some observers questioned why,

        if IT had conferred economic value, it did

(35)        not produce direct competitive advantages

for individual firms.  Resource-based

theory offers an answer, asserting that,

in general, firms gain competitive advan-

tages by accumulating resources that are

(40)        economically valuable, relatively scarce,

and not easily replicated.  According to

a recent study of retail firms, which con-

firmed that IT has become pervasive

and relatively easy to acquire, IT by

(45)        itself appeared to have conferred little

advantage.  In fact, though little evidence

of any direct effect was found, the fre-

quent negative correlations between IT

and performance suggested that IT had

(50)        probably weakened some firms’ compet-

itive positions.  However, firms’ human

resources, in and of themselves, did

explain improved performance, and

some firms gained IT-related advan-

(55)        tages by merging IT with complementary

resources, particularly human resources.

The findings support the notion, founded

in resource-based theory, that competi-

tive advantages do not arise from easily

(60)        replicated resources, no matter how

impressive or economically valuable

they may be, but from complex, intan-

gible resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q22:

The passage is primarily concerned with

22， 全文主要关注的不是一个it资源，也没有具体描述，研究这一资源的具体方法。文章主要关注的是it运用中，出现的没有预期到的一些结果。第一段有一个明显的态度的变化，把原来乐观的估计给否定了。然后给出了一个结果， 然后就开始对这一没有预期到的现象进行解释说明了。所以22题是c

23题

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.  明显指出了proponents of resource-based theory 对IT出现这一现象的解释。

从文中，给出了it的巨大投资，以及广泛的使用，不是一个relatively scarce,and not easily replicated的资源。所以选c   注意，题目问的是

that proponents of resource-based theory ，不是it的支持者。ets这题挺阴险的

我也是菜鸟，以上是自己的想法。还请nn们多指正。谢谢

q22，对c不赞同，偶选b；

c选项降低了全文作者的视点。

本文所举的例子是it的retail行业中的应用，但从文章第一句话，作者开篇立义时，并没有局限与哪个行业；而在举例说明paradox时，列举了retail行业的情况，第二段中it和hr的结合同样举的是retail行业，但仅此不足以证明作者只对retail行业的paradox作出一个合理解释；

个人认为，作者关注的是：

一种理论：IT可以增加企业的competetive advange；而反对观点：resource-based认为IT的优势应该和其它资源相结合。

同意楼上的。请大家解释！

对于22题有新的看法，第一段中提出"focused on spectacular IT successes and reflected a general optimism concerning IT’s poten-tial as a resource for creating competitive advantage".说明了对于IT这个资源，原来的商界提出了两种看法：IT可以带来商业成功，IT可以为私人企业带来竞争优势。在第一段中，文中提供了生产力的数据来说明商业成功似乎没有实现，然后IT的支持者解释了这个现象。

第二段的首句说到" But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did  not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms",这里的if我认为是一个让步，表示即使第一段的解释是正确的，IT可以带来商业上的经济成功，那么为什么IT没有为私人企业带来竞争优势。然后，作者表示Resource-based theory offers an answer，对这个问题进行了解释。

综合上面分析，文章在两个段落中表示了原来商界提出的两个看法似乎都没有实现，然后分别给出了相应的解释。因此，文章的中心含义是providing an explanation for unexpected findings，应该选择C。

还请大牛继续讨论！

up

关于23题，我来说两句。

大家看下面的句子：

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...

原文说：Resource-based理论确认公司通过资源积累得到竞争优势，这些资源是有经济价值的，相对稀缺的，以及不容易复制的。然而根据最新的对零售公司的研究报告得知IT行业变得越来越普及和相对容易获得。说明IT由于相对容易获得，所以无法是公司得到竞争优势。