Proprietary Vs Infrastructural Technologies example essay topic

In the HBR article, "IT Doesn't Matter", Nicholas Carr writes of the Information Technology world as a fleeting commodity with comparisons to the steam engine, railroad, electricity or the telegraph implying it is soon to become extinct. He asserts that IT will eventually become obsolete as its ubiquitous nature can only become powerful if it's replaced with scarcity. I think this could be dangerously incorrect, as I don't envision IT being erased from our lives but in effect, progressing it towards further simplification. While I can't list all of his viewpoints in this paper, I will try to examine some of his key issues such as: IT accessibility, proprietary vs. infrastructural technologies, companies IT overspending.

Carr's article is thought provoking and quite interesting to read and I found his argument to be compelling to say the least. But I'm not convinced his conclusions are correct or even properly focused. My initial reaction is "IT Does Too Matter!" . Carr starts off by stating that the only way IT can have any strategic value is to be scarce. He reduces it by claiming the "core functions of IT - data storage, data processing, and data transport - have become available and affordable to all".

While I can agree with his assertion that companies cannot remain competitive if they do not show distinctiveness, I do not agree with this idea that technology cannot be a driving force in creating and maintaining that distinction. I don't think (and having been in this field for over 18 years) that IT is as simple as he makes it out to be. It is actually still fairly complex with many players including the Internet, which has become an information and e-commerce medium for many businesses throughout the world. Information is the true essence of Information Technology. IT is still evolving and while it is easily accessible and available to many, doesn't mean that it's lost its value. Carr implies that IT has become a commodity input that is no longer the secret weapon it used to be.

I can agree with that if you are trying to use technology in the same way and there have been no improvement processes to evolve as a result of the technology. However, innovation solely cannot make a business successful. Carr also calls notice to the distinction between proprietary vs. infrastructural technologies. He boldly states that companies with the proprietary technologies will keep the strategic advantage over rivals while infrastructural technologies will languish. Again, IT is more than some proprietary piece of software or an infrastructure network. They are only parts to the whole.

Carr does not seem to get this point. Carr writes "while no one can say precisely when the build out of infrastructural technology has concluded, there are many signs that the IT build out is much closer to its end than its beginning". I think this is absurd. There are so many new innovations that are created daily, to basically say that this is the beginning of the end sounds preposterous. For example, no one was using wireless computing 2 years ago but now many businesses have wireless as well as the home consumer network. Technology is an enabler to business processes that provide value to the overall organization.

The past 40-50 years, IT has focused from being technology centric to user-driven. This means that IT has to change focus from being a cost center to more of a value center in order to become visible to the enterprise. Carr does touch on the amount of spend, or overspend, that comes from IT. Traditionally, IT has always been viewed as overhead with a really large summarization line item in the corporate budget.

I do agree somewhat with Carr's viewpoint on IT spend. For example, at my job, thinking has changed -- I used to just have to justify expenditures and explain why the enterprise needs them, how they will be allocated, and what IT resources are required. Now I have to shift thinking to demonstrate tangible value to the business contributed by IT services. Otherwise, my budget will be scrutinized, reduced, and outsourcing initiatives become explored more and more.

Since the key is to manage costs and risks, this is the way it should be from an Economics 101 standpoint. I think Carr is trying to make this same point that IT executives must extend accountability to transform their processes and make the invisible visible and valuable to the business. Admittedly, the title alone stirred my adrenaline! Being of an IT background, I tried to be as unbiased with an open mind especially given the title to which I immediately raised an eyebrow. This article prompted me to want to know more about Nicholas Carr and why he seemed to distort the role of IT in the business arena. He totally misses the point that it's not having an IT system in place that causes the problem; it's how it's managed.

I visited his website (given his IT "doom and gloom" attitude I wondered why he has one?) web only to learn that this article sparked lots of controversy. I was very curious to learn of Mr. Carr's background and knowledge of IT. Since he states that companies should not upgrade for the sake of upgrading, I am curious if Carr was typing this article on a typewriter, and old IBM 8088 desktop computer, or some newer, faster computer with some of the latest and greatest software and hardware to make his job easier! After all, they can all do word processing. In my closing and somewhat opposite opinion, tech is here to stay, but IT will always be a vital part of any businesses growth and dominance.