In 2003, Nicolas Carr wrote an article for Harvard Business Review titled, “IT Doesn’t Matter.” In that article, he argued that companies should focus on minimizing the cost of IT and managing risk (which, itself, is an argument that IT matters, but more on that later). Here we are, about eighteen years later, and IT matters more than ever. With the onslaught of the IoT (Internet of Things), big data, AI (artificial intelligence), and more, IT is poised to bring exceptional value to companies in the 2020s.
NOTE: Carr’s article is still online at HBR’s website. I encourage you to read it, even if you read it years ago. Gaining his perspective will help you better decide for yourself if he was wrong or if I am wrong today.
In the 2003 article, Carr stated that:
IT is best seen as the latest in a series of broadly adopted technologies that have reshaped industry over the past two centuries—from the steam engine and the railroad to the telegraph and the telephone to the electric generator and the internal combustion engine. For a brief period, as they were being built into the infrastructure of commerce, all these technologies opened opportunities for forward-looking companies to gain real advantages. But as their availability increased and their cost decreased—as they became ubiquitous—they became commodity inputs. From a strategic standpoint, they became invisible; they no longer mattered. That is exactly what is happening to information technology today, and the implications for corporate IT management are profound.IT Doesn’t Matter,
Harvard Business Review, Nicolas Carr, 2003
First, I would suggest that significant errors existed in Carr’s thesis in the context of 2003, but that the errors have been proven more severe than I felt at that time. In 2003, I had just arrived in my 30s and now I am pushing into my 50s, after nearly 20 years I have learned significantly more about IT and business and it has only strengthened my position.
The fundamental error is in comparing IT to specific engineering technologies (steam engines, railroads, electric generators, engines) that can be used differently, but do not provide perpetual enhanced value without replacement with something better. For example, we replaced steam engines with fired engines for more power and the hauling of larger loads. The steam engine itself could only be improved upon to a limited extent. The same is true for railroads, electric generators and other engines. At some point, continuing to enhance the “thing” adds marginal improvements. After all, physics eventually steps in to stop progress with such individual items. However, IT is not a specific technology, it is any and all technology as it relates to information generation, transfer, storage, retrieval, analysis, and destruction. So the fundamental error in Carr’s thesis is in attempting to compare a generalized concept (IT) with specific technologies or innovations (steam engines, railroads, etc.). Had he argued that computer networking was a commodity, more strength would be afforded his thesis. Given that he attempted to place all IT under the umbrella of a commodity, he failed miserably.
You see, the last eighteen years have shown what should have been known already in 2003: we don’t use the same “steam engine” today that we were using then. Today, we have better programming languages, better networks, better systems, and better databases, to name a few items. But they are not just better, they are wildly different. In 2003, very few organizations were using Wi-Fi – today, very few are not. In 2003, few had heard of NoSQL databases (even though the term was coined in 1998) – today, very few database admins have not. While I could continue this construct, let’s look back further. In 1990, very few organizations were connected to the Internet – in 2003, very few were not. In 1990, very few organizations used desktop and laptop computers (most used terminals) – in 2003, very few were not. Do you see the point? There was no reason to assume, in 2003, that IT has ceased to evolve and develop different and better solutions to historic and future problems. Now, in 2021, there is no reason to assume that IT will not continue this process into the undetermined future.
The following partial list of items introduced to the IT world since 2003 illustrate the fallacy of Carr’s original argument when you consider the non-commodity value they brought – even if they are a commodity now (this list was generated through the in-depth analytical process of taking whatever first came to my mind, which, if nothing else, reveals my primary areas of focus since 2003):
- Wi-Fi
- Smartphones
- IoT (Internet of Things)
- NoSQL Databases
- Programming Languages (C#, Python, etc. – they existed in 2003 but hadn’t gained significant attention yet)
- Programming Frameworks (Django, Angular, React, Node, jQuery, Xamarin, etc.)
- Data Structures/Formats (JSON, YAML, etc.)
Again, many of these listed technologies either existed in small scale or in definition in 2003, but their explosion of use occurred in the years after. Only a limited few would deny that smartphones, Wi-Fi, and IoT have drastically improved IT operations (while, some would rightly argue, when left unmanaged, have degraded IT operations) and business processes. The same is true for the improved databases, programming languages, and more.
Ten years ago, I wrote a brief post titled, “Speed: The Great IT Offering,” which is still available through archive.org here. In it, I suggested that, “I find it interesting that discussions take place based on the question: Does IT provide a competitive advantage or is it a commodity? It is my conviction that the only reason these discussions can take place is that we (the IT professionals) have failed to communicate the value we provide.” In other words, because technology professionals focus almost entirely on the technical aspects of their profession (you know, the fun part) and neglect the business value communication, the question remains: does IT matter?
In that post, I also indicated that IT provides value in several ways that we can consider with high-level concepts such as better, faster, cheaper, more, and continuity. IT (and OT for that matter) can improve business processes, making them better. It can improve business processes, making them faster. You get the picture. The point is that IT provides value by improving processes. If IT replaces processes with other processes that make no improvement, one could argue that continuity is provided, but my thirty years of experience with technology would argue that few new process implementations simply replace older processes – in most cases they add value even if the technology professionals fail to communicate it.
Notice that I am arguing the value IT brings and not a specific technology. This concept can be considered at the micro-scale as well. Each IT professional should bring value to the IT operations, but the professional’s value will be short-lived if stagnation sets in. That is, if you are still working based on skills developed in the 90s or 2000s, you bring less value than professionals working based on skills surrounding more modern technologies. As I’ve stated in other articles, “It’s time to become cheesemakers and not just cheese eaters.“
IT directors, managers, and CIOs, must ensure that their team brings this value. Way back in 2005, in part as a rebuttal to Carr’s thesis, Phillip A. Laplante and Don M. Bain wrote, in IEEE IT Professional, an article titled, “The Changing Role of the CIO: Why IT Still Matters.” In it, they report on the five roles CIOs see themselves taking (based on an InformationWeek 2004 article by Cash and Pearlson, “The Future CIO”): business strategist, change agent, technology advocate, IT functional leader, and IT strategist. I would argue that these five roles continue as the most important roles for technology directors. From the perspective of the team, the director must ensure that the team is staffed with proficiencies that allow for the implementation of the IT strategy in alignment with the business strategy. In the process, they must address change and sell the value of technology.
However, as a team member, to be successful in modern IT (or even OT), it is up to you to be the proficient technical professional who does your part in adding this value. It’s not just about being a team player, it’s about playing well in the team. Can you do your part to bring continued value so that IT matters or are your skills outdated and irrelevant?
Finally, back to managing risk, if the only value IT brings is the management of risk in relation to an organization’s information, then IT matters for that reason alone, and this is not a commodity. By definition, a commodity is some good or service that is basic, common, and interchangeable (understood as able to be replaced with the same good or service from any other provider). When it comes to risk management, given the ever changing threat landscape, it is simply beyond my ability to conceptualize it as a commodity. Every new technology also introduces new risks. Every new risk must be addressed using either existing or new solutions. Without this effort, critical threats to the organization exist and the value of this effort cannot be overstated. That’s my take, in a nutshell. Maybe I’ll flesh this out in more detail at a later time.
So, yes, eighteen years later, IT still matters, but I suppose we must ask a more important question: Do I matter or are my skills outdated?