Most pre-1990 literature on busi-
nesses’ 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 poten-
tial 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, com-
pared 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 mac-
roeconomic 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 advan-
tages by accumulating resources that are
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
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
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-
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
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
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
答案是C...我選E.原因在於C中的unexpected findings比較讓我疑惑,感覺題目中提到1973~1989並無有unexpected的意思...另外我會選E是因為我認為提出resource-based theory的確解決到底要不要使用IT的爭議(不在IT本身而在於如何使用)!!不知是不是過分解讀了...謝謝
GWD5-22
版主: shpassion, Traver0818
29 篇文章 • 第 1 頁 (共 2 頁) • 1，2
由 christine » 2004-12-24 17:23
(1)~(8) 在1990年以前許多文獻對於企業採用IT反映出樂觀的態度，他們認為IT可以產生競爭上的優勢。=>帶出了本文討論的主題--IT的使用
(9)~(12) 出現But轉折語氣，代表和上述所言(IT可以產生競爭上的優勢)相反，但是在1980年代末期卻有一個矛盾：
儘管大量的投資IT，產量居然停滯不前。
(12)~(19) 提出一個實際的例子，用確切的數字指出，採用IT反而使得企業的產量成長變慢了。
(19) IT的擁護者指出IT是需要時間以及大量的投資來產生利益=>不能只看短期(上面的例子所提出的1973~1989的變化)
(24) IT的擁護者又指出產量的測量忽視了如果沒有投資IT會產生的後果，甚至會使得產量更低。
第二段：
(33)~(36) 有人提出疑問，如果IT可以帶來經濟價值，為什麼IT沒有為單獨的公司帶來競爭優勢。
(36)~(41) 開始解釋，公司要取得競爭優勢可以藉由…方式。
(41)~(46) 根據最近零售公司的研究，IT只帶來了一點點的利益。
(46)~(51) 又提出IT反而會削弱公司的競爭力。
(51)∼(56) However帶出了轉折語氣，指出藉由HR和IT合併的方式，可以提升performance。
(57) 這個發現支持了一個看法：競爭優勢無法由可以複製的資源來產生，重要在but後面，
競爭優勢可以由複雜且無形的資源產生。
第一段一開始說明使用IT的好處，後來有人提出質疑：有矛盾之處，接著IT的擁護者開始解釋..
第二段也是如此，一開始有人提山了疑問，又有人開始回答...最後提出了一個發現，IT要和HR結合才能達成。
因此應該是(C)為一個unexpected finding(IT和HR要合併)提供了一個解釋
(E)的意思是，解決對於IT使用意見不一致的現象
(9)~(12) 出現But轉折語氣，代表和上述所言(IT可以產生競爭上的優勢)相反，但是在1980年代末期卻有一個矛盾：
儘管大量的投資IT，產量居然停滯不前。
(12)~(19) 提出一個實際的例子，用確切的數字指出，採用IT反而使得企業的產量成長變慢了。
(19) IT的擁護者指出IT是需要時間以及大量的投資來產生利益=>不能只看短期(上面的例子所提出的1973~1989的變化)
(24) IT的擁護者又指出產量的測量忽視了如果沒有投資IT會產生的後果，甚至會使得產量更低。
第二段：
(33)~(36) 有人提出疑問，如果IT可以帶來經濟價值，為什麼IT沒有為單獨的公司帶來競爭優勢。
(36)~(41) 開始解釋，公司要取得競爭優勢可以藉由…方式。
(41)~(46) 根據最近零售公司的研究，IT只帶來了一點點的利益。
(46)~(51) 又提出IT反而會削弱公司的競爭力。
(51)∼(56) However帶出了轉折語氣，指出藉由HR和IT合併的方式，可以提升performance。
(57) 這個發現支持了一個看法：競爭優勢無法由可以複製的資源來產生，重要在but後面，
競爭優勢可以由複雜且無形的資源產生。
第一段一開始說明使用IT的好處，後來有人提出質疑：有矛盾之處，接著IT的擁護者開始解釋..
第二段也是如此，一開始有人提山了疑問，又有人開始回答...最後提出了一個發現，IT要和HR結合才能達成。
因此應該是(C)為一個unexpected finding(IT和HR要合併)提供了一個解釋
(E)的意思是，解決對於IT使用意見不一致的現象
-
christine - 新手會員
- 文章: 5
- 註冊時間: 2004-12-10 11:18
由 訪客 » 2005-01-02 11:35
sandyclub \$m[1]:B. presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
我選B說... 因為一開始覺得IT好，後來發現根本不好。
教我怎麼反駁它吧！
Sandy
主題題要在整篇文章的角度去思考
B的答案不夠general
本篇是一開始點出的一個問題prodoctivity paradox,然後接下來整篇都在解釋(explain)這個現象,其中resource-based theory只是這個解釋的基礎
E之所以錯,也是同樣的理由,要根據文章的架構去判斷他是否是disagreement
- 訪客
由 訪客 » 2005-01-02 11:43
sandyclub \$m[1]:B. presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
我選B說... 因為一開始覺得IT好，後來發現根本不好。
教我怎麼反駁它吧！
主題題要在整篇文章的角度去思考
B的答案不夠general
本篇是一開始點出的一個問題prodoctivity paradox,然後接下來整篇都在解釋(explain)這個現象,其中resource-based theory只是這個解釋的基礎
E之所以錯,也是同樣的理由,要根據文章的架構去判斷他是否是disagreement
- 訪客
由 christine » 2005-01-04 12:45
Most pre-1990 literature on businesses’use of information technology (IT)(整串是主詞)—(—之後definition先跳過,先找動詞) defined as any form of computer-based information system—focused (整句話的主要動詞,)on spectacular IT successes and reflected a general optimism concerning IT’s potential as a resource for creating competitive advantage.( 帶出了本文討論的主題--IT的使用,並且認為IT使用可以產生競爭力)
But(轉折字眼出現,代表下面要說的一定不是上述所言,甚至是相反) 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. (果然提出一個經濟學家的看法來說明這個paradox)
In the retail industry, for example,(開始舉例,接著順向語氣) 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. (擁護者開始回應)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. (再次回應)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,(有人又提出質疑) if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms. Resource-based theory(由理論來解答) 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(有理論通常會有實際現象,用實際現象繼續解釋) of retail firms, which confirmed that IT has become pervasive and relatively easy to acquire(先跳過不看,最後再回來看), 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.(本文主要在說IT不可能說到這裡就結束了) However(轉折出現了,上一句說weaken,下一句會提出不同的看法), firms’ human resources, in and of themselves, did(強調) explain improved performance, and some firms gained IT-related advantages by merging IT with complementary resources, particularly human resources.(提出最後答案,IT要和HR合併)
The findings support the notion, founded in resource-based theory, (最後說明本文提出的理論和實例是相符合的)that competitive advantages do not arise from easily replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be(先跳過,最後再回來看), but from complex(重點在but之後的句子), intangible resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
A)本文沒有在描述一個resource並且指出不同的使用方法
B)在第二段提出理論,並用理論來解釋有人提出的疑問,雖然有提,但並不是全文主旨
C)為一個unexpected findings(IT和HR合併)提出一個解釋
在第二段解釋完問疑問後,本文的最後一句有指出The findings support the notion..
本文提出的理論和實例是相符合的並為IT和HR合併的發現做出結論
D)說明為何一個理論沒有被發現,一定錯,文章提出了IT和HR合併,而且在文章最後也說了The findings…
E)解決對於IT使用意見不一致的現象
文章看起來有兩派說法,但是先由一方提出看法,另一方提出了paradox的疑問,第二段也是再提出疑問
But(轉折字眼出現,代表下面要說的一定不是上述所言,甚至是相反) 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. (果然提出一個經濟學家的看法來說明這個paradox)
In the retail industry, for example,(開始舉例,接著順向語氣) 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. (擁護者開始回應)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. (再次回應)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,(有人又提出質疑) if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms. Resource-based theory(由理論來解答) 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(有理論通常會有實際現象,用實際現象繼續解釋) of retail firms, which confirmed that IT has become pervasive and relatively easy to acquire(先跳過不看,最後再回來看), 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.(本文主要在說IT不可能說到這裡就結束了) However(轉折出現了,上一句說weaken,下一句會提出不同的看法), firms’ human resources, in and of themselves, did(強調) explain improved performance, and some firms gained IT-related advantages by merging IT with complementary resources, particularly human resources.(提出最後答案,IT要和HR合併)
The findings support the notion, founded in resource-based theory, (最後說明本文提出的理論和實例是相符合的)that competitive advantages do not arise from easily replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be(先跳過,最後再回來看), but from complex(重點在but之後的句子), intangible resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
A)本文沒有在描述一個resource並且指出不同的使用方法
B)在第二段提出理論,並用理論來解釋有人提出的疑問,雖然有提,但並不是全文主旨
C)為一個unexpected findings(IT和HR合併)提出一個解釋
在第二段解釋完問疑問後,本文的最後一句有指出The findings support the notion..
本文提出的理論和實例是相符合的並為IT和HR合併的發現做出結論
D)說明為何一個理論沒有被發現,一定錯,文章提出了IT和HR合併,而且在文章最後也說了The findings…
E)解決對於IT使用意見不一致的現象
文章看起來有兩派說法,但是先由一方提出看法,另一方提出了paradox的疑問,第二段也是再提出疑問
-
christine - 新手會員
- 文章: 5
- 註冊時間: 2004-12-10 11:18
29 篇文章 • 第 1 頁 (共 2 頁) • 1，2
回到 GMAT Reading Comprehension 考區
誰在線上
正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者：沒有註冊會員 和 10 位訪客
Copyright © 2006-2009 FormosaMBA.com. All Rights Reserved.
