Thank you for deflating a fad. There should be more CIOs like you.

Cole

Dear Cole:
I cannot tell you the number of times I have bitten my lip to avoid saying something sarcastic when people start on their "but I'm your customer" speech. What is even worse is when you see a supposedly rational IT person start to mouth the same mantra, normally with a fervor reserved for religious revivals, about the importance of the internal customer.

What's really sad is that we don't seem to connect the emphasis on the internal "customer" with the estrangement of members of the IT staff from the company that employs them. It stands to reason that if you have to view the people in your company as internal customers, they, in turn, will view you as internal vendors. And as we all know, vendors are frequently treated with a lot less concern than is shown in dealing with co-workers.

I am not, however, sure whether this fad is really passing. I hope it is, but I don't know. Recently, I was at a conference in which a CIO made a speech and one of his key points was that the concepts of the internal customer, charge-back systems, and service-level agreements were all

hurting the ability of CIOs everywhere to retain key people. His premise was that because they are made to feel like suppliers to the company rather than employees, it doesn't much matter to many IT professionals which company logo is on their paycheck. While his comments were well-received by the audience, I still think such viewpoints are in the minority, judging from the articles I read in the trade magazines.

Some time ago I commented on the need to treat IT professionals as if they really are valued employees in "IT People Aren't Plumbers." To convey my opinion as to the ease with which I thought the situation would be rectified, I had originally titled the column, "The Impossible Dream." Sadly, I think we may have as difficult a time erasing the dogma of the internal customer as the man of La Mancha had jousting with his own windmills. I'll have more to say on the subject in an upcoming Secret CIO column in InformationWeek.

Recently, my company went into the request-for-proposal process to specify and purchase a new telecommunications platform. Having been in the business a few years, I entered the vendor-selection process with my eyes wide open; however, the vendor promised (in writing) so much that has yet to be delivered. I am astonished. It took a call to the company that administers the vendor's value-added reseller license to get the vendor off the dime and get the job finished. (It's still not done, but it's progressing)

I have encountered this attitude (or lack thereof) from the major Unix vendors, but chalked it up to lack of support as they flood the market with hardware.

Is this vendor attitude that prevalent, or do I just have the wrong vendor?

Robert

Dear Robert:
Most of the vendors with which I have dealt are motivated to do a good job and provide their customers with quality products and service. Sometimes, however, these very fine people get carried away with promising results that they cannot deliver. There are also some people out there who are first and foremost concerned with achieving the sale. The ability to deliver what they promise is a distant second on their radar screens. It's not that they are necessarily trying to lie, it's just that fulfillment of the contract is something they assume can be figured out later, after the sale is made.

Since it's almost impossible to determine by talking to them which potential suppliers fall into which category, I have a three-step method that I use. The first step is that I always--and I mean always--get references and check them. You would be surprised at how candid people are about the shortcomings of a vendor, even when that vendor has cited them as a reference. In addition to obtaining names of customers from the vendors, I also try to get this type of information from outside sources, such as friends in the industry.

Of course, sometimes it's not possible to get the names of references, or you may be (appropriately so) worried that even if someone did a good job in the past for someone else, that is no guarantee that they will do a good job for you. Therefore, the second step in my process is I always negotiate the contract before I make the final selection of a vendor. The extra work in getting an agreement from the two finalists on their terms and conditions may sound like a lot of effort, but it's a key element in deciding who is most likely to be serious about delivering on promises.

The third step is to make sure I have a contract that gives me the right to walk away if milestones aren't met. And when they're not, and I am not satisfied that corrective action will be promptly forthcoming, I do just that.

Thank You,
M. E. B.

Dear M.E.B.:
I agree with your prediction about the lack of severity of the year 2000 problem. I'm much more optimistic about the situation than I was a year ago. As I've said before, I think there will be some bumps, but nothing like the chaos that has been forecast by some.

I also think a lot of consultants may strike us as alarmists because they are very sincere about their concern for what could happen at midnight on Dec. 31. But even these people recognize that, no one really knows exactly what will occur as we head into the new year.

There are another class of consultants who see the turning of the millennium primarily as a real opportunity to make money. Some of these people are fanning the fires of hype and paranoia. I've received more than my fair share of letters from individuals who certainly appear to be using fear to market their own pet schemes. I often wonder whether they believe the spiels they so glibly articulate. Take a look at the letter reprinted below and make up your own mind. It's typical of the correspondence that falls into this category.

In the event your company is concerned with portfolio risk of pension or profit-sharing assets, we have available an institutional money manager that has developed a proprietary management style to control portfolio investment risk. We have assessed the various risk scenarios that may evolve from the year 2000 problem and can position assets to preserve capital, or in fact, profit from an expected declining stock market.

The challenge ahead will not only be created by the timing of when to reduce risk exposure for investment accounts to the market, but when to reenter the stock market when it is oversold and undervalued based on the potential for public panic.

On top of remediation costs that will hit the bottom line of companies, there may be a breakdown of foreign trade that may have an adverse impact on a major sector of the U.S. economy. Beyond the outlined costs, major law firms are attending seminars for suing corporate directors and fiduciaries of pension plans in the event of Y2K-related losses. Estimates of potential Y2K litigation costs have been $1 trillion dollars.

In the event your company would like to address portfolio risk management related to year 2000, we would like to have an opportunity to make our case for a prudent approach to capital preservation.

Martin

Dear Martin:
Gosh, it's really nice of you to be concerned about my stock portfolio, my company's, and that of the rest of my readership. But what I don't understand is how you can guarantee that we will earn a profit if all sorts of havoc occur because of the year 2000 bubble. Don't you have to know what really will occur for your method to work? For example, if the crisis doesn't happen, or doesn't happen the way you think it will, won't your method be wrong?

Oh, one other thing. How do I know that your "institutional money manager that has developed a proprietary management style to control portfolio investment risk" is year 2000 compliant?