The Article: It Doesn't Matter By Nicholas G. Carr

The Article It Doesnt Matter By Nicholas G Carr From the May 2003

The article "IT Doesn't Matter" by Nicholas G. Carr from the May, 2003 Harvard Business Review is available here: Read all parts of the article carefully. After you understand Carr's arguments, find at least one article that presents an opposite view. You may use Internet searches to do this, but find an article from a high quality source. One source of high-quality articles is the ACM Digital Library (you are not expected to use material that requires payment of a fee for this or any other assignment in this course).

You may also use any other source, including books and periodicals in the university library near you. In no more than two or three paragraphs, take the position of the "prosecuting attorney," i.e. of Mr. Carr. Summarize and defend Carr's arguments using material from the essay and also material from your outside reading. Then, in another two or three paragraphs, present the opinion of the "defense attorney," using material from one or more articles that present the opposing view.

Finally, play the role of the judge and, in two or three more paragraphs, render a decision. Tell which point of view is the correct one and why. You may quote from your articles. Be sure to cite your sources when you do that. Use APA style in your answers.

Please note - a "good" essay will clearly present two distinct sides of the argument and a ruling. Regardless of which side you favor, you must clearly and succinctly present an opposing side. Should be at least 600 words.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Nicholas G. Carr's influential article "IT Doesn't Matter," published in the Harvard Business Review in 2003, sparked widespread debate about the strategic importance of information technology (IT) in business. Carr argued that IT, once considered a source of competitive advantage, had become a commodity, similar to electricity or railroads, and thus no longer provided organizations with a sustainable competitive edge. This essay will explore Carr's thesis from the perspective of a prosecuting attorney, then present the opposing view from a defense attorney, and finally, as the judge, evaluate which stance offers a more accurate understanding of the role of IT in contemporary business practices.

The Prosecuting Attorney: Advocating Carr's Perspective

From Carr's perspective, the primary argument is that IT has transitioned from a strategic resource to a standardized commodity. He emphasizes that as technology becomes more accessible and affordable, its deployment across organizations converges, diminishing its potential as a source of differentiation. This phenomenon is analogous to the advent of electricity, which initially provided competitive advantages but eventually became a universal utility. Carr contends that investing heavily in IT or attempting to differentiate through technological infrastructure no longer confers sustainable strategic benefits; instead, it leads to unnecessary expenditures and inefficiencies (Carr, 2003).

Supporting Carr’s argument, recent advancements have made IT more standardized. Cloud computing, for example, offers scalable resources that are readily available to all firms, reducing the necessity of proprietary systems. Moreover, the rapid pace of technological change means that investments in IT quickly become obsolete, discouraging companies from pursuing cutting-edge innovations solely for competitive advantage. Carr advocates that managers should focus on using IT for operational efficiency rather than seeking strategic differentiation, which is no longer attainable through technological investments (Bower & Christensen, 2013). This perspective aligns with resource-based views of competitive advantage, emphasizing that core organizational resources, rather than widespread commodity IT, sustain competitive edges.

The Defense Attorney: Opposing the Perspective

Contrary to Carr’s view, many scholars and industry leaders argue that IT remains a crucial strategic asset. They posit that innovative applications of technology can generate significant competitive advantages through differentiation, customization, and the development of unique digital ecosystems. For instance, companies like Amazon and Google have harnessed IT not merely as operational tools but as integral elements of their business models—creating barriers to entry and fostering customer loyalty (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014). These firms continue to leverage IT to redefine industry standards and customer expectations, suggesting that IT can still be a source of sustainable advantage when used creatively and strategically.

Furthermore, proponents contend that not all IT investments are commodities. Certain technologies—such as data analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning—offer organizations the ability to gain insights and innovate rapidly, enabling differentiated products and services (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). These tools, unlike basic infrastructure, are not easily replicable or substitutable, thereby maintaining their strategic importance. Therefore, the blanket assertion that IT no longer provides sustainable advantage overlooks the transformative capacity of technological innovation when aligned strategically with organizational goals (Teece, 2010).

The Judicial Perspective: Ruling on the Dispute

After considering both viewpoints, it becomes evident that Carr's assertion holds true in specific contexts but is overly reductive in nature. While it is accurate that foundational IT infrastructure—such as data centers, networking hardware, and basic enterprise software—has become commoditized, this does not imply that all technological investments lack strategic significance. The transformative potential of cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence and data analytics suggests that organizations can still gain sustainable advantages through innovation and strategic deployment of IT (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2017).

Ultimately, the distinction lies in how organizations approach IT. The key is recognizing which aspects are becoming commodities and which are avenues for strategic differentiation. Firms that focus solely on infrastructure are likely to find their positions eroding, whereas those investing in innovative applications and integrating emerging technologies into their business models can achieve and sustain competitive advantages. Therefore, the correct perspective acknowledges the commoditization of certain IT components but emphasizes the strategic importance of innovative, differentiated technology in fostering long-term success.

References

• Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2013). Disruptive innovation theory: In the beginning. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(3), 285–297.
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Carr, N. G. (2003). IT Doesn't Matter. Harvard Business Review, 81(5), 41–49.
• McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64–88.
• Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.