GWD-5-Q23

didosun72

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-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

D.economic progress has resulted from IT only in the service sector

E.changes brought about by IT cannot be detected by macroeconomic measures
这道题为什么选A，不选B呢？

原文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. 我理解的是：IT不是这样的手段，所以IT are not economically valuable, and easily replicated. 这样AB都对。请NN解释一下吧，小妹拜谢！

embracechange

定位点
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.

didosun72

你给的这句话说明A对，那B为什么不对呢？可以从原文推出来啊

Jackjokes

你的问题存在你对原文逻辑的理解有偏差
原文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
 可以表达为   因为通过accumulating resources that are economically valuable, relatively scarce, and not easily replicated ， 所以获得 competitive advantages

而B选项：因为IT is not an economically valuable resource， 所以 IT’s inability to produce direct competitive advantages   是对原逻辑的单纯否定
即若A推出B，但否A不能推出否B，所以综上所述B是错误的

希望能帮助你， good luck~