Schrage’s article provides a compelling rebuttal to a provocative article entitled “IT Doesn’t Matter” by Nicholas Carr. Schrage’s article elevates itself above the seemingly futile debate on whether or not IT matters by attacking the very assumptions and framework of analysis that Carr used. Schrage’s approach can be characterized as intellectually satirical. He sets the stage by stating that not only is Carr’s position provocative, it is also ridiculous. He goes further by claiming that, “His (Carr’s) facts were flawless and his historical analysis smooth. But the business conclusions he draws are profoundly silly.”

Central to Schrage’s article was his systematic demolition of Carr’s thesis which essentially defined IT in the context of business as follows:

1. What makes a resource truly strategic—what gives it the capacity to be the basis for a sustained competitive advantage—is not ubiquity but scarcity.
2. IT has become a commodity and is therefore transformed from a strategic resource to a commodity factor of production.

Even without Schrage’s article, I would have rejected outright Carr’s points as a blatant ignorance what IT is all about. His warped thesis is testament to his business and technology myopia. It is interesting that Carr views IT as a narrow technology comparable to utilities such as power and water. Perhaps what Carr does not realize is that unlike utilities and other commodities, IT is not a one-size-fits-all technology. Its optimal use is characterized by its tight integration and customization to the business processes of the company it serves. Its applications are only limited by the imagination. How can you commoditize that? Clearly, Carr’s flawed industrial age framework is not suitable for information age business analysis.

Schrage fortifies his point by applying Carr’s flawed framework to financial capital, human resources and productivity gadgets. Schrage’s relatively obvious anecdotal examples highlight the flimsiness and oversimplifications of Carr’s thesis.

Even if this article does a superb job in ridiculing Carr’s thesis and making him look incompetent, I feel that it is never the main objective. The real value of this article lies in the following:

1. IT or any other technology should not be seen in isolation of its management - what is most important is not the technology itself but its proper management.
2. Proper management puts IT (or any other technology for that matter) in the proper context.
3. We should wary in employing generalities that are based on precepts which do not necessarily fall in the correct context. That is, we should NOT choose a framework because it fits our case.

Referenced Article: "Why IT Really Does Matter", Michael Schrage