Inrix Case Study

Case Study: INRIX

        INRIX developed its competitive advantage with its proprietary algorithms that produce very accurate information about traffic conditions on the roads. The firm further developed their technology strategy and competitive advantage when it formed strategic partnerships with Tele Atlas, giving INRIX access to Clear Channel. These two firms provided INRIX larger revenues, a sales force, and a distribution channel, which gives INRIX a greater access to user data. In addition to their partnership, “INRIX’s fast growth was attributable to its unique and accurate traffic data platform” (Applegate & Johnson, 2012). This strong platform allowed INRIX to provide personalized services and applications to their customers in numerous different sectors, such the automotive, public, and media industries. The firm was also successfully proactive in expanding their services to different geographical locations, following the footsteps of their competitors in order to maintain their competitive advantage.  

As strong as INRIX’s the technology strategy is, especially due to the alliances they have formed with other firms, INRIX needs to be cautious of the firms that they form partnerships with because their users may not want their data shared with numerous firms. Also, the New Deal on Data is a threat towards INRIX because it will require the firm to “work hard to show their customers the value in collecting all this data” (Pentland & Berinato, 2014) in order to continue getting access to the data. Additionally, INRIX and all data-gathering firms will need to be more proactive in protecting consumer data from security breaches, which will increase their costs of security maintenance, because “the FTC has made it very clear it’s going to come down hard on them” (Pentland & Berinato, 2014). Furthermore, breaches of user data can be catastrophic to the firm’s reputation and trust with its users and customers. As seen in Target’s credit card security breach, Target tarnished its reputation and lost customers who no longer feel comfortable shopping at their stores (Riley, Elgin, Lawrence, & Carol, 2014).

INRIX also needs to be wary of the credibility of their data because they may be gathering data that is not correctly portraying what they meant to collect. Although they were clever in differentiating “whether a cell phone was on a train or a car, especially when trying to use cell phones as data points” (Applegate & Johnson, 2012), other similar conditions could be contaminating the gathered data. To prevent possible contamination of the gathered data, INRIX should have “better communication between the creators of the data and the users” (Redman, 2013). By communicating with the data’s creators and the users, they can gather more accurate data and even provide more information to its users if they find that their user needs a certain type of information that can also be derived by the same data.