[問題][問題]gwd 5-22

[hao]

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. 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 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.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GWD-5-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

B.C 我分不清 盼高手指點

[訪客]

我個人覺得
B選項後面的offering an opposing point of view 太絕對了!! 我覺得resource-based theory 不是全盤否認IT的好處,而是依產業不同,IT取得容易與否....來判斷.並沒有全盤否認IT的好.

(38),firms gain competitive advan-
tages by accumulating resources that are
(40) economically valuable, relatively scarce,
and not easily replicated
感覺上是resource-based theory提出的觀點,這觀點是以前所沒有的,所以我覺得C比較好.

[hjp1077]

請問Q24 題:
選項B 與 E . 我覺得好像都是對的!!

盼 高手解答
感謝

[stilalala]

請問Q24 題:
選項B 與 E . 我覺得好像都是對的!!

盼 高手解答
感謝

不是高手
但試著解解看

從文章的脈絡來看
LINE 10-12 是在說明PARADOX是什麼
接下來就 In the retail industry , for example ,....
注意,for example這兩個字,很明顯的是要替paradox舉個例子 ---也就是b

至於e選項,counter the argument that IT could potrentially create competitve advantage

我不認為這邊有counter the argument 的意味
因為之前的proponent只是預期it會有好處
並沒有argue,只是提出一個unexpected findinds
並加以舉例而已

呵呵不知道這樣講會不會等於沒講

請指教嚕


[/b]

[hjp1077]

感謝
FOR EXAMPLE 是很強的訊號
我竟然忽視了

十分同意你的說法

我的焦點是被L10冒號之後的句子 所牽引而選了E
現在知道不對了

[Ace]

關於Q22的E
我覺得題目所爭議的焦點不是use of technology(新技術使用)
而是IT的價值

Q24的E
會去counter的應該是資源基礎理論,而非productivty