GWD5-Q22 to Q25:
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
(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)
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. Proponents 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
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD5-Q22:
The passage is primarily concerned with
答案说是C,但我觉得E貌似也行啊。说是分析了关于一个technology(IT)的作用的意见不一致。
望大家赐教了~~~
resolve不是分析的意思
resolve在这里意思跟reconcile很进，就是“调和，解决”的意思，所以E错
C providing an explanation for unexpected findings
什么是unexpected findings?
resolve不是分析的意思
resolve在这里意思跟reconcile很进，就是“调和，解决”的意思，所以E错
就是因为是调和，解决的意思，才觉得E比较对，因为作者的态度比较温和，最后引用了HR的说法，说IT和other complementary sources 结合起来，带来了improvement,这些都是indirect competitive advantage啊，
怎么E不对呢？我感觉E是错在后半句那个uses of a technology上。这种说法上不太专业。。。
这道题我死选不出答案。。。
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. 确实是通过全文分析意外得出的发现。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |