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.
Q23:
The passage suggests that proponents of resource-based theory would be likely to explain IT’s inability to produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms by pointing out that A. IT is not a resource that is difficult to obtain B. IT is not an economically valuable resource C. IT is a complex, intangible resource economic progress has resulted from IT D only in the service sector E changes brought about by IT cannot be detected by macroeconomic measure 请教这题，我觉得是细节题，应该从第一段去找答案，但是为什么我就推不出呢？
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-5-2 08:16:00
roponents of IT argued
楼主