GWD5-Q22

kexin03

GWD5-Q22 to Q25:

 

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.

GWD5-Q22:

The passage is primarily concerned with

             

A.      describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it

B.       presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view

C.      providing an explanation for unexpected findings

D.      demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded

E.       resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology

 

哪位牛牛能告诉我为什么选的是C而不是B阿，B不是正好符合观点对比型吗???

大谢啊！！！

kexin03

...怎么没有动静？？大家帮忙看看呀~~~

自己顶~~~

谢谢了啊！！！！

Aquafer

这题我也选了B，当时做的时候其实觉得没有一个答案理想...

感觉C的findings一说有点牵强，不知道这个finding指的是什么？productivity paradox么？

kexin03

恩恩~~~我还是觉得B比较合适~~~

yaozo

C更对。全文就是围绕着productivity paradox来谈的。解释这个现象。

Zspirit

B中提到的theory是指Resource-based theory，它在第二段才出现，不能作为全文的主旨

道光

B那个opposing太绝对了，作者也没有表明最后IT是带来了direct competitive advantage的，而是比较折中的引用hr说的，和其他complementary sources一起运用，有带来improvement，所以用opposing在立场上有点Over了。。。

但是C，我真是无法理解这个选项是虾米意思。。。什么unexpected findings?完全无法理解。。。

amy1028

NN help, help!

mcyinhbs

整篇文章是现象解释型，开头提出一个奇怪的现象（unexpected finding)，然后接着全都是围绕这个现象进行解释

summerymiao

我觉得B中所谓的theory 应该是指 生产力悖论（productivity paradox）吧? 不是说没“理论”那个词就不是理论吧，虽然我也觉得B中只给了 presenting a theory， 没说是什么但是应该比C好啊。

请大家再讨论吧