London Traffic Jam

Nick Carr published an article in Harvard Business Review titled "IT Doesn't Matter." In this article, Carr compared IT to railroads, a transport mechanism. He emphasized "like any transport mechanism, it is far more valuable when shared than when used in isolation." Carr also added that as the ubiquity of IT grew, IT became more like a commodity, and therefore its role in strategic advantage reduced. He argued that the window for gaining competitive advantage through IT implementation is closing, and that the best way to seek advantage in the future is to manage IT costs and risks.
Do you agree with Carr that as information technology's power and ubiquity grows, its strategic importance diminishes? Why and why not?
I agree that simply implementing an IT system will not give strategic advantages. An IT system is no longer guaranteeing a success for a business in today business' environment. However, if we do not have an proper IT system to support business strategy, we are already at our disadvantage. Therefore, if IS department is aligned with the whole business strategy, there is a chance a company will strike for its competitive advantage.
Where do you think the next IT-based strategic advantage may occur? Give an example.
The window of opportunity for IT-based strategic advantage is getting smaller, but it still exists. The chance is there for a company can read or predict the market, and apply a right system for it. For example, the cell phone market was saturated with big players such as: RIM, Nokia, Motorola. Then, Apple joined the market with its Iphone, and has changed the order of the whole market. But, Apple is not the one who gets the most benefit from the market's change, Samsung is. Samsung holds a biggest share in Smartphone's market. Samsung has made a right decision to use Android at a right time.
Zara is an example of non-IT company for the case. IS system has given Zara an indirect strategic advantage. With the IS system, Zara store