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C呢？等待nn

这样解释行不行呢？

文章中：“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, IT by itself appeared to have conferred little advantage.”
这句话的意思是：“基于资源的理论提供了一个答案，指出一般情况下公司的竞争优势来源于积累那些经济上有价值的、相对稀有的、并且不容易复制的资源。根据最近的一项关于零售业公司的研究，目前零售业中IT已经非常流行并且获取相对容易”

这一经说明了IT不是一个很难获得的资源，从而基于资源的理论能够判定其为一个不能产出直接竞争优势的资源。

A为正确答案 而C说得恰好相反阿

希望这样的解释能够帮助你

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

H.S.Wang ： 老詹你能不能别所有事情都那么较真

James ：不较真那就不是我了...