A while back Nicholas Carr caused a stir with a Harvard Business Review article entitled Does Information Technology Matter? It sent technology executives into a "tizzy" and Carr it seems relished the attention. But the argument is absurd on its face. Does technology matter at Google, at eBay, at Amazon, at Walmart, at FedEx? Mind you Carr was not just talking hardware, but a combination of hardware and software. Technology will continue to matter to any organization that is interested in improving processes within the value chain that allow them either to be the low cost provider or allow them a differentiated offering that customers are willing to pay a premium for. In short, technology will continue to matter to any organization that wants to survive in a world where "me too" offerings are a path to extinction.
Had Carr's argument been that billions are wasted on technology projects that miss the mark, or that some (non mission critical) applications and perhaps most infrastructure could be outsourced, then the argument would be more plausible. But that is not what Carr was arguing, he was arguing that (all) technology was becoming a commodity like electricity, essentially arguing (after the dot com implosion when it was now "safe" to make this argument) that the "baby should be thrown out with the bath water."
Follow this reactionary BS at your own risk. Technology is the "glue" that ties key processes in the value chain together. Do you think that Bezos could have just ordered Amazon's technology platform form Home Depot when he set out to revolutionary how books would be sold? While by definition there will on be a few Amazons or eBays, there are millions of small to medium size firms that will build platforms that dominate their respective niches.
Comments