Discussion:
Review the book The New Strategic Weapon: Information Technology F. Warren McFarlan
This week we move to another discussion. The topic is ostensibly information technology as a strategic influencer and imperative, but, on another level, the lesson can and should be used for any disruptor to the strategy and business model to any one company or an entire industry. While the articles listed have to do with "tech" (laptops vs tablets, different handheld devices, IT itself), consider what are the real disruptors here. Is it really just the things (technology) or is it the ideas of what the technology brings (different cultures, ideas, stakeholders, purposes to business)? Are we in a paradigm shift away from the "corporate" entity and enterprise to "collective individuality"? There is an old line that goes "No man is an island". But, given the distributed nature of information and the underlying technology that makes that distributed information possible, is that statement still true? Should it be? Is it a "good thing" that these technologies are proliferating and changing things?
The discussion can and should look at for-profit, non-profit, and governmental agencies (top include the military). But, also take a step back and look at the underlying cultural changes that allow the technology to proliferate. Is the thesis of Milton Friedman, that the corporation exists solely for the benefit of the shareholder, still valid? Consider what you have been reading and discussing for the last 6 weeks. Can Toyota exist and thrive in an individualistic society? Could McDonald's? How can they and any other corporation adapt to the changes that are occurring?
Or, as an alternate thesis, is "collective individualism" where the individual has the ability to act on behalf of themselves within a collective corporate body (as an employee or owner, shareholder, or non-owner stakeholder) the "new corporate norm"? How can any corporate entity adopt and coopt this new norm into their respective enterprise strategies? Should they? What are the risks if they choose to ignore this new corporate norm? Or if they adopt quicker than the society, or their targeted audience, as a whole?
I realize there is not a lot of guidance in the syllabus, but, part of that is to give you the greatest leeway in developing a dialogue. Use your own experiences. Where do you see your own companies headed with technology, and especially with IT in the workplace? Do you think your company or organization is "doing it right"? What would you like to see done differently? Why?
Also consider that IT is expensive, both from an adoption perspective and implementation perspective? How do you pay for IT? Is the cost worth the benefit? Or the risk of adoption or non-adoption? Will it provide a strategic advantage? Or is it just a cost of doing business?
As you can see, from a few simple little lines and some suggested (okay, required) readings, the strategic implications are vast, and possibly overwhelming. Start with your own experience and company. Then look at your industry. Then discuss with your colleagues and look at their industries. And then look at industries you are not familiar with.
Samsung smartphone Galaxy J SC-02F, left, and Apple's iPhone 5s are seen in Tokyo. European Pressphoto Agency
A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request from Apple Inc. AAPL +1.23% to barSamsung Electronics Co. 005930.SE +1.87% from selling smartphones and tablets in the U.S. that infringe on Apple patents.
Apple had sought a permanent injunction against certain Samsung products after a judge and jury found in May that the Korean firm had infringed on three of its patents in a high-profile intellectual property dispute. The jury awarded Apple nearly $120 million in damages-a fraction of the $2.2 billion that it was seeking.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., said Apple hadn't "satisfied its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm and linking that harm to Samsung's exploitation of any of Apple's three infringed patents." An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the ruling.
"We welcome today's ruling," a Samsung spokesman said. "We remain committed to providing American consumers with a wide choice of innovative products."
The ruling isn't a surprise because Apple has struggled to win injunctions against Samsung during its series of high-profile patent disputes between the companies.
Apple has won two verdicts from federal juries in California that Samsung had infringed its patents on the iPhone and iPad. The Korean company has been ordered to pay damages totaling more than $1 billion from the two trials. Samsung has said it would appeal both decisions.
Apple has yet to collect a dime from either case and it hasn't gotten what it really wanted: a far-reaching injunction on sales of certain
Samsung phones and tablets. Apple recently dropped its appeal of a ruling denying it an injunction against nearly two dozen Samsung products from the first trial, in 2013.
The inability to score an injunction has eliminated one of the main ways for Apple to inflict pain on Samsung. The damages, while sizable, won't significantly hurt Samsung, which holds about $60 billion in cash.
The acrimonious feud between the two companies may be coming to a close. Earlier this month, the two sides agreed to dismiss all patent disputes between them in courts outside the U.S.