to manage IT as a commodity input,

to manage IT as a commodity input, seeking to achieve competitively neces- sary levels of IT capability at the lowest possible cost and risk.
I find nothing in these letters to con- tradict that argument. As many of the writers point out, the way companies organize processes and use information plays a critical role in their ability to dis- tinguish themselves from competitors. That’s always been true and always will be true. But that does not mean that the information systems involved in managing processes and information are the source of the distinctiveness. It is better, I would argue, to start with the assumption that the technology is generic – that its functionality can be easily and quickly copied – and that the more tightly an advantage is tied to the technology, the more transient it will be. I would certainly be wary of follow- ing Paul Strassmann’s recommendation that executives “be ready to engage in yet another IT investment cycle,” as if spending more money on IT is itself
early investor in new IT functionality, a first mover strategy becomes harder to justify. Just because we continue to see new innovations in IT does not mean that it pays to be a pioneer.
Finally, I want to say that Jason Hit- tleman is right to chide me for suggest- ing that rigorous cost control and risk management are “boring.” I used the term as a contrast to what John Seely Brown and John Hagel call “big bang” thinking in IT management – the “IT changes everything” school of thought that distorted so many business deci- sions during the 1990s. It was, however, an unfortunate word choice, and I apol- ogize to the many dedicated IT profes- sionals whose hard and valuable work is leading to a more efficient and prag- matic use of information systems – and to a more realistic understanding of those systems’ limitations.
Nicholas G. Carr