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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q22:
The passage is primarily concerned with
- describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
- presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
- providing an explanation for unexpected findings
- demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
- resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
- IT is not a resource that is difficult to obtain
- IT is not an economically valuable resource
- IT is a complex, intangible resource
- economic progress has resulted from IT only in the service sector
- changes brought about by IT cannot be detected by macroeconomic measures
22题答案是C?为什么不是A?
23题答案是A?为什么不是E? | 
