Computer Science Homework Help

Answer 1

Productivity Paradox and its Current Thinking

There exists a notable discrepancy between information technology (IT) investments and the garnered national productivity levels. A productivity paradox entails an unusual corporate process analysis that postulates a negative correlation between IT investments and worker productivity, where more computer-based investments are associated with decreases in overall employee productivity. The 20th-century observation is backed with diverse empirical evidence collected between the 1970s and 1990s by comprehensively evaluating the growth of distinct economies with standardized computerization. In such economies, the prospected return on investments before the IT investments was about 3-4% and was attributed to the mechanization of farm operations and factory sectors. However, with the introduction of IT, the economies’ return on investments dropped to 1% between the 1970s and 1990s.

Paradox Development

The contradictions developed through five stages from the period around the 1970s. The first stage constituted the days where little was known about the implications of IT investments, including a widespread notion that its applications risked displacing human labor. The second stage occurred in the late 1970s and entailed the practical realization of the inefficiencies of IT investments in increasing productivity. However, most companies continued to undertake investments in computing despite the apparent conclusion of its impact on productivity. The early 1980s marked a period when various multinational corporations leveraged IT strategies in creating a competitive advantage over their competitors, and the fourth stage market, the period when the investments covered management information systems, which, unlike in the other stages, was not expected to be directly productive (Ibragimov & Sims, 2008)e. In the last phase, most IT investments were directed towards telecommunications and significantly lowered productivity expectations.

Prospected Causes of the Productivity Paradox

Researches have consistently attempted to unveil the possible causes of the evident non correlation between increased IT investments and lowered productivity levels. First, measurement errors are attributed to the causes of the negative correlation between the variables and are associated with the difficulties encountered in assessing the service sector productivity (Ibragimov & Sims, 2008). They involve the diminished potential for the national statistics taking into account the qualitative contributions associated with IT. The second explanation relates to the aspect of time lags, where researchers argued that for productivity gains associated with IT to occur, they require time and notable alterations of the complementary infrastructure. The others include mismanagement and differences in income distribution among companies in an economy.

Current Thinking

The modern era is characterized by technological revolutions that include incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) in organizational practices. As such, machines can execute tasks that were only possible through human intelligence a decade ago (BRYNJOLFSSON et al., 2020). In addition, there has also been an extensive growth of other digital capabilities, unlike in the conventional era, such as the worldwide digital infrastructures. Nevertheless, despite the enormous industrial potential, the growth rate remains low, which makes the modern productivity paradox redux the IT paradox in the twentieth century.

References

BRYNJOLFSSON, E., BENZELL, S., & ROCK, D. (2020). Understanding and Addressing the Modern Productivity Paradox – MIT Work of the Future. MIT Work of the Future. Retrieved from https://workofthefuture.mit.edu/research-post/understanding-and-addressing-the-modern-productivity-paradox/.

Ibragimov, V., & Sims, J. (2008). An updated view of the productivity paradox in the early 21st century.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Answer 2

The productivity paradox is also referred to as the Solow computer paradox. It is used when referring to a peculiar observation that is made in the business process analysis. For instance, when more when a business makes more investment in information technology, then it is indicated that workers’ productivity is likely to go down instead of going up. The productivity paradox has been indicated. It has been supported with various empirical evidence that dates back from the 1960s to the 1990s (Brynjolfsson et al., 2019). This has been featured to be highly intuitive. In most organizations, before the organization thought on investment in IT, it was noted that the expected return that was noted on investment in productivity was about 3-4%. The average is said to have developed from the automation or mechanization of the factory sectors and other farms. With the use of IT, the expected return was expected to be around 1% from the 1970s and 1990s (Polák, 2017).

Different theories have been featured to explain the productivity paradox and ensuring that everyone understands how it works. Some of the theories focused on ideas that relate to the inadequate measurement of productivity to those explaining the necessary lag period before gaining the actual products that could be seen in an organization (Polák, 2017). With companies that have heavily invested in IT, it is notable that they can witness productivity. Hence, the different theories have found evidence to the same and to explain the productivity paradox (Zhu et al., 2018).

References

Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2019). 1. Artificial Intelligence and the Modern Productivity Paradox: A Clash of Expectations and Statistics (pp. 23-60). University of Chicago Press.

Polák, P. (2017). The productivity paradox: A meta-analysis. Information Economics and Policy, 38, 38-54.

Zhu, D., Ciais, P., Chang, J., Krinner, G., Peng, S., Viovy, N., … & Zimov, S. (2018). The large mean body size of mammalian herbivores explains the productivity paradox during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature ecology & evolution, 2(4), 640-649.