ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1591|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

对文章的正确理解-GWD-5 Q22 to Q25(已经看过以前的讨论)

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-8-3 01:23:00 | 只看该作者

对文章的正确理解-GWD-5 Q22 to Q25(已经看过以前的讨论)

请教大家三个问题:

1。下面high-lighted in yellow的句子的意思是什么?作者通篇不是要说明IT是not successful的吗?为什么在这里,作者要突然指出IT对HR的improvement呢?

2。文章最后high-lighted in green的句子的意思是什么?我个人觉得,这里很明显的有强调not easily to replicate而贬低ecconomically valuable的意思。但是,这好像和前面resource-based theory 的观点不是很一致啊。(前面应该是说三者都很重要-economically valuable, relatively scare, and not easy to replicate) .

3。该文章存在主题句吗?如果存在?是否最后一句?

非常感谢大家!



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


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.


[此贴子已经被作者于2005-8-7 12:55:15编辑过]
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2005-8-5 12:18:00 | 只看该作者

请大家帮忙看看!谢谢!

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2005-8-8 20:58:00 | 只看该作者

是我的问题太愚蠢,还是。。。?


您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-10-6 02:58
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部