InformationWeek

November 10, 1998

Your letters to my print column and this E-mail forum ask some serious questions about managing information technology in today's world. Since today's world is essentially absurd, my serious responses may sometimes sound a little whimsical, and my occasional whimsical ones, serious. In any case, if you want to participate, write to me at lovelace@home.com. I'll respond to those letters that I can. I reserve the right to edit for size and content. Just sign your E-mail the way you want it to appear online.

Dear Herb:
I recently decided to pursue the position of chief knowledge officer, which is being created in some of the more progressive companies in the world, and which will be perceived as a threat to the typical CIO I have had the pleasure of meeting.

Earlier in my career, I was very interested in the CIO career track until I realized that the position offers little respect from the boardroom, and less so from the business population at large. I can understand the reasoning. How many CIOs deliver metrics or solutions that contribute to the bottom line? Their budgets serve only to enrage those business managers who pay the "tax" without being told how this spending will benefit their operations.

In the interest of serving my future career goal and creating an active dialog (i.e., debate) around the advent of the CKO, I have decided to rename the CIO as chief infrastructure officer. I believe this describes the function perfectly. This way, the CKO takes over the information role in the company, which is then distilled into knowledge that can be acted upon to reward the bottom line.

Do you think the average CIO has a chance against this oncoming invasion, or that he ever shows how his "solutions" contribute to the bottom line and assist learning and application of knowledge in the corporation?

The Secret CKO

Dear Secret:
I admire your ability to focus your career goals so clearly on a position that is still, for the most part, being defined. I am sure that I am not alone in being awed by your desire and eagerness to have a job in which you are responsible for distilling all of the knowledge in the company for the benefit of the bottom line. It shows a real willingness to dive right into a new concept while the cement at the bottom of the pool is still wet, so to speak.

You do raise some valid points. Many of those CIOs that you have met might even agree with your interpretation that CIOs are in charge of the information infrastructure of the business--that is, when they are not busy fighting the fires that arise from the latest problem with a system that is doing something ugly to the well-being of the company. And there is no question that they do not have an enviable record of being able to communicate what they are doing for the business, as I wrote in "Align Yourself Today."

Perhaps the only fly in the ointment might be the attitude of the non-IT people. I am not sure that your interpretation of the role of a chief knowledge officer as the central bottler and distiller of knowledge would sit well with the people who run the business units in a company. Frequently, they feel that their own knowledge and talents have some influence on the profitability of the enterprise. But, hey, all you have to do is win them over to your way of thinking and you are well on the road to earning the job you seek.

Dear Herb:
How do you handle information when so much of it is out of date even before it hits the newsstand? This problem is pervasive and occurs with everything from Web links to new technology. By the time a presentation is finished and a walk-through on a systems solution is given, it has been replaced by more news about a product or recent updates to the software. This makes it hard to stay up with current technology.

Thanks for your feedback.

Henry

Dear Henry:
You get used to it. As you wrote, it happens with so much of what we do. Most of us recognize that there are rapid changes in technology, but this phenomenon is not limited to just the gadgets and the software we buy.

One of the biggest areas where I am unable to keep up with changes is in my budget. Either someone is suddenly over-running it, or someone else is cutting it. Sometimes--more often than I like to contemplate--both are happening simultaneously.

It is also impossible for me to ever be sure what the latest scoop is in the area of user needs. User needs seem to change around my company faster than the technology and possibly even faster than my budget. Frequently, the user needs are adjusted right after their own budgets have been cut. In fact, this situation occurs so often that we ought to consider changing the phrase "user needs" to "user affords."

Taking these major areas into account, keeping up with technology, though important, is not at the top of my list. First of all, I have some very good people to help me understand what is significant. Second, if all else fails, I just ignore the latest technology until it is replaced with an even newer and better technological advance in a week or two. After this happens, I begin to read a little about the new stuff and I'm up to date again. The way I see it, I haven't missed a whole lot.

Let me give you an example. I ignored all of the buzz about Windows NT 4.0 for a long time. A little while ago, I decided to begin reading about NT 5.0, now renamed Windows 2000. You might think that I still have a void in my knowledge because I know nothing about NT 4.0 (other than the fact that it is really old hat and thus not worth discussing). However, this situation is not a problem. Not only do I now know something about Windows 2000, but I can also talk at length about all of the failings of NT 4.0 that will finally be fixed. Thus, I am right up to speed without having wasted a lot of time on actually becoming knowledgeable about the subject.

Try it. It works.

Dear Herb:
Sometimes it's good to step back and do a frame test to see how proposed ideas would play out in a different context. An example is your article, "The Microsoft Solution." What if we applied those rules to other industries?

Suppose we require General Motors to publish all the blueprints of its new cars and trucks a year before they hit the market so aftermarket suppliers can be ready? Should we require all our industries to make public planned technologies so competitors can copy GM instead of competing with it?

Be careful what you wish for Microsoft, because in the future everyone will have to play by the rules set for them. Do we really want the federal government designing computer operating systems?

If you're a CIO, there's a fair chance you're old enough to remember the IBM-Telex suit of the 1970s. The parallels to Microsoft-Netscape should be obvious.

Regards,
Mike

Dear Mike:
Thanks for your letter. It was thoughtful, but I don't think the analogy holds.

If GM changes a design, it does not invalidate the ability of Ford to sell a truck that runs on the same highway. However, if Microsoft changes Windows without providing the information I suggested be put in the public domain, it certainly does affect the ability of other people to sell their products. If Microsoft uses its Windows monopoly to stifle competition (extend its monopoly) in other areas, that is considered illegal under our antitrust laws.

Let me give you a slightly more appropriate analogy than the one you offer. Suppose GM programmed its radios to work only with GM-certified radio stations, would that be okay? Or suppose the gasoline filler openings on its vehicles were such that only GM-licensed gasoline pumps would fit the cars (the GM logo would display on the meter with the appropriate melody, of course, when you turn the pump handle to "start"). Would you consider either of these situations to be fair competition? I think not.

Of course, you will say that GM does not have the competitive strength to enforce either of these conditions I postulate in my analogies. And you would be right--and that is my point. In its own industry, Microsoft does have this type of strength.

With regard to the Telex suit, Telex was selling plug-in devices to replace portions of the systems that IBM offered. The suit centered on whether IBM could change its designs so that Telex could not easily replace existing parts of IBM systems. If the present Department of Justice action were about a vendor insisting that Microsoft was required to adjust Windows such that other people could replace parts of the operating system with their own proprietary software, then I might agree with you. But that is not the case; it is about Microsoft extending what it has into business areas started by others using tactics that are alleged to be illegal.

Dear Herb:
I read your article, "What to Do? Just Sue," and I'm definitely worried. Steve Forbes just issued a memo saying that year 2000 computer failures will be widespread and disruptive to business and the economy.

Ed Yourdon has moved from New York to New Mexico to avoid the year 2000 urban crisis, as are many other year 2000 specialists and people in the know.

It's looking really bad. What do you make of all this?

Thank you,
Tammy D.

Dear Tammy:
I really can't comment on why Steve Forbes made his statement, although I once was a guest on his yacht (which in true capitalist tradition is available for rental). After cruising around for a few hours on that floating palace, I can appreciate that he would not want anything to mess with his way of life.

With respect to Ed Yourdon, it is possible that Ed may have moved to New Mexico to avoid the year 2000 problem, but he now has to sweat the scorpions and snakes. On the other hand, New Mexico is so beautiful that he may have moved for reasons other than how all of us programmed our systems with two date digits instead of four.

Herbert W. Lovelace is CIO at a multibillion-dollar international company. Herb practices his day job under an alias and has changed the names of colleagues to protect the guilty.

View past issues of "Ask The Secret CIO"