Labour-based productivity is still used to measure productivity, especially when conducting research in countries other than the U.S. or Canada. In the U.S. and Canada, multifactor analysis consistently reports smaller productivity values than labour-based measurements. For the purposes of the productivity paradox debate the measurement used matters only when looking at absolute productivity, as opposed to the relative increases in productivity after a given year. However, many economists feel that even multifactor analysis does not provide a complete picture, that the impacts of computers on productivity are still too poorly measured for computerization benefits to show up in productivity statistics. However, until better ways of measuring computerized productivity are developed, arguing that the unrecorded impacts of computerization will bias productivity measurements one way or the other is fruitless.
Some parties continue to take a very optimistic view of computer productivity.
Not surprisingly, technology providers discount the productivity paradox, arguing that computerization has helped boost productivity since it was introduced, but that the gains are not measured well by existing indices, which were designed to measure productivity in terms of physical goods, not information. IBM claims that preliminary results from its studies indicate a strong correlation between productivity growth and technological investment. The studies admit that productivity has been slow, but as usual they predict greater productivity gains as computerization becomes more widespread. The IBM-sponsored research is both exciting and suspicious. One part of the study is aiming to collect multinational productivity measurements to see whether the productivity paradox is justified on a worldwide scale.