In the beginning was Electronic Data Processing (EDP). In EDP we wrote computer programs to automate business processes. Ignorant about methodologies, we just talked with the people who were going to use the system, figured out together what it should do, and tweaked things until everyone was satisfied. Eventually these programs turned into legacy systems.

Like baseball managers, most of whom once played the game, the guy who ran EDP was a former programmer who could talk to the company’s business leaders without scaring them. A lot of his conversations started, “Didja know …” as in, “Didja know we could automate that and save you a lot of money?”

Then database management systems happened, and some genius decided our real job was to manage information – a clear case of confusing means and ends. EDP became Information Systems (IS), the person in charge became Chief Information Officer (CIO), and theorists inflicted bulky methodologies on project teams. The result? Long delays before the writing of actual code, and an organizational hierarchy to separate programmers from the people who need their product.

Along the way we gave up on the baseball manager theory of CIO selection. Instead we focused on the need for “business knowledge.” If that wasn’t bad enough, we defined “business knowledge” as “understands how to perform a Return On Investment (ROI) analysis”. We got what we asked for: Late, bloated projects, fictional ROIs, and a management-fad orientation leading to the belief that late projects and fictional ROIs are fine so long as we “satisfy our internal customers”. Mired in these time-wasters, most CIOs missed the Internet. Oops.

So now we have Chief Technology Officers (CTOs).

Sometimes the CTO is the CIO’s peer, with the former focused on the Internet and the latter on everything else. This is worrisome from the organizational design perspective because it has strong potential for dividing accountabilities.

If your company insists on having both titles, minimize conflict by giving the CTO application-layer authority only, but responsibility for all customer-facing applications, not just the Internet. Why? If your CTO owns the Internet, your Telecommunications Manager (presumably re-titled to “CVO” for “Chief Voice Officer”) will own your interactive voice response and call centers, another bizarre title will own sales force automation, and the chance customers have of getting consistent service across all channels is exactly zip.

In most companies, though, CTO is the new title for “the person we hold accountable for all of our computer stuff”, accompanying a name shift from IS to IT. “CTO” implies rejection of a lot of the intellectual baggage we’ve accumulated since EDP first changed its name.

Like the EDP manager, but not the CIO, the business wants its CTO to have a strong technical focus, because that’s how you figure out what the business can do today that it couldn’t do yesterday. And where EDP lacked formal methodologies, in the CTO’s world they exist but they’re pretty lightweight, because the ones we’ve been using are way too slow. Mostly, programmers work with whomever to design the customer interface, then work backward to design the system’s innards.

Best of all, CTOs reject the whole, ridiculous concept of “internal customer”. They’re far too busy worrying about real ones.

From the ol’ mailbag …

Microsoft

Most readers preferred my alternative penalty for Microsoft – making it publish the entire Windows API, enforced by a $50 million bounty for every hidden API found. One ingenious reader enhanced it, doubling the bounty with each successive hidden API. This makes sense – later ones would be harder to find, and at some point the penalty would be so high even Microsoft would pay attention.

Of course, it’s all moot now. Worse, it’s a sure thing this will end up in front of the Supremes. Given the bizarre decisions coming out of the high court these days, I’m not optimistic …

Several folks thought Microsoft shouldn’t be punished at all because, they say, antitrust laws are outmoded and don’t deal with software very well. Okay, by that logic: Lots of people think intellectual property laws don’t deal with software very well, so I guess they shouldn’t be prosecuted for software piracy. Microsoft doesn’t get to choose which laws it likes and which ones it doesn’t, any more than you or I do. At least, it shouldn’t.

Most of these letters also included the oft-repeated and entirely ridiculous assertion that “monopoly” is hard to define. That’s nonsense. My dictionary does a decent job: “Exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices,” or a company that has that exclusive control. A better definition goes beyond price manipulation to marketplace distortions such as exclusionary contracts. What’s hard to define isn’t “monopoly”. It’s “market”.

PIMs

My second column on Personal Information Managers (PIMs) which identified three descendants of the breed (the few remaining PIMs, sales force automation software, and knowledge mapping or thought-mapping systems) generated a bunch of e-mails. Most wanted the names of specific thought-mapping packages. Sorry, but I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to provide even a representative sample, let alone a recommendation. I’d rather remain silent than appear to endorse the few of packages I’ve tried.

One letter mentioned a fourth descendant: Just as salespeople have sales force automation (SFA) software, managers should have “Management Automation Software” – packages tailored to managers’ need to keep track of everything from departmental projects to employee career goals to delegated to-do items … the stuff of management. The writer knew of two packages, neither satisfactory, and wanted to know if there are any others.

If you use and like something in this category, let me know. In a future column I’ll provide the names of the three most popular. (Note to vendors: This is a reader poll, not an invitation to your PR departments. Sorry.)

UCITA

While no one wrote to defend UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act), I did get complaints on my comments equating soft money contributions and bribery. Some expressed thoughtful concern about the propriety of including political commentary in this forum. It’s a valid concern. I had qualms, but decided to include those comments because of their direct relevance: Soft money will make fighting UCITA hard.

Then there were those who accused me of being part of the liberal media conspiracy to silence conservative speech. For them: I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to parrot Rush Limbaugh.