Long-time correspondent Bob Ernst writes, “It hit me that what has become a major function of a corporate IT department is enabling your company to comply with the rules of doing business with another company. Without this capability, the efforts of manufacturing, sales and marketing are unable to sustain the customer relationship.”

I agree, with the proviso that “has become” should read “should have become.” In my experience, it’s often someone well-hidden from IT, using Excel spreadsheets to keep track of customer-specific product and service requirements, and more Excel spreadsheets to take care of customer-specific reporting requirements.

For example: Whenever I’ve worked with non-profit organizations built around winning grants, I’ve seen pretty much the same systems mess: handcrafted grant reporting managed as a monthly panic attack when the non-profit is small, and as a swarm of satellite spreadsheets “connected,” if I might abuse the term, to the enterprise ERP system, which is utterly incapable of handling the task on its own.

But as you’d expect from someone named Bob, Mr. Ernst isn’t wrong.

For example, sometimes the rules are a matter of keeping track of parameterized product and service features, as when you travel on business and your preferred rental car provider keeps track of contractually specified rental options, such as which forms of additional insurance employees should and shouldn’t sign up for.

Or, for that matter, if your customer is enterprise IT and requires the PCs and laptops it buys from you to all have the same, standardized set of key components (I presume — I don’t work in that part of Dell, but was responsible for PC acquisition earlier in my career).

But there are plenty of businesses that rely on negotiated contracts to define the terms and conditions of doing business. Some are insurance companies, some are in the transportation business, others are manufacturers, and one I worked with quite a few years ago managed rebate programs.

Then there was the company that didn’t have any of this, but which did have eleven bargaining units (unions, if you don’t belong to the Magic Buzzword Club), each of which negotiated unique compensation and benefits terms for its members, all of which had to be hard-coded into the payroll system.

What all these situations had and have in common is that each contract signing was a new and often unique scramble for IT, calling for custom, contract-specific code.

Except for the life insurance businesses I’ve worked with; their underwriting and policy administration systems provided the business with what amounted to an insurance contract description language. This provided enough flexibility to handle most contracts, at this cost: New business staff needed at least three months to become at all productive, and a couple of years to become truly proficient.

And, sales force ingenuity was (and, I’m sure, still is) nothing to be trifled with — some contracts still result in a need for IT to extend the language.

What I find interesting about this need for information technology to manage unique customer requirements is that there is, to the best of my knowledge, no body of theory to accommodate it.

It’s quite the opposite, in fact: The prevalent guiding theories are such stalwarts as Lean and Six Sigma, both of which preach standardization and simplification. My experience working with consultants schooled in these disciplines suggests their solution would be to simplify, standardize, parameterize, and limit customer choices to the result.

It isn’t that they’re wrong. It’s that, they are, as someone once said, insufficiently right.

To draw an inexcusable analogy, it’s as if Lean and Six Sigma are the Newtonian physics of business. In the world of everyday forces, temperatures, sizes, masses, densities, and accelerations they handle things just fine.

But just as a lot of the universe operates at quantum and cosmological scales, near-light-speed velocities, ferocious accelerations, and light-capturing gravitation — situations where Newtonian physics breaks down — so there are plenty of business situations that don’t fit the simplify and standardize formulation.

As when, for example, that isn’t what customers want to buy.

Changing metaphors, your average process consultant is the clichéd hammer owner, for whom all problems look like nails.

If your business depends on selling customers what they do want to buy, even when what they want to buy will take custom code and one-off business processes, you’re looking at the situation from the other side.

As yours truly once said, when all you have are thumbs, every hammer looks like a problem.