The Third Axle Alternative is alive and well.

The third axle alternative, in case you don’t recall it, is deciding to weld a third axle onto your car when a nail punctures one of your tires, instead of fixing the flat.

Before we get to why it’s important to you, let me take a few moments to talk about me, and a bank that’s working hard to lose my business.

When I opened IT Catalysts, I worked with the bank that already took care of my personal checking, my wife’s personal checking, and our household checking, all of which were free checking accounts … excuse me, they were FREE! Checking Accounts as I recall how they were advertised at the time.

So were my two business checking accounts (one for IT Catalysts, one for IS Survivor Publishing).

For convenience, I had the same bank provide my business Visa card. A few years later I switched my personal Visa card to the bank as well.

And then the service charges started to appear.

On every single checking account.

I called customer service, explained that my idea of FREE! Checking isn’t compatible with paying service charges, and asked what had changed.

What had changed, it turns out, was that the bank had redefined the types of checking account it offers, along with the conditions necessary to maintain FREE!-dom. Long story slightly less long: The bank couldn’t stop the service charges, but it could automatically refund them right after it charged them, welding on another axle as it did so.

The fix lasted a year, at which point the service charges reappeared. Another call to customer service; another discovery that the terms had changed. For my business accounts, this meant:

  1. Switching to a different class of checking account.
  2. Opening two business savings accounts.
  3. Transferring $150 from each business account to one of the savings accounts on the first day of each month.
  4. Transferring $150 back from the savings accounts to the checking accounts on the third day of each month.
  5. Sticking my left pinkie in my right ear.
  6. Pushing my left foot in and my left foot out, pushing my left foot back in and then waving it all about.

We didn’t long ago switch banks for two reasons. The first is our suspicion that all the rest are just like the one we’re already working with. The second is the inconvenience of switching all of our accounts, automatic payments, and so on, to a different financial institution.

Why am I telling you this? To vent, of course.

But also as a cautionary tale.

Unencumbered by facts, I can nonetheless make a pretty good guess that the Third Axle Alternative is at work. It matters to you as an IT leader.

But first, back to me and my venting. Here’s what I think happened: FREE! Checking sounded like a terrific idea to the banking executives when money was plentiful and there was more competition. And so they offered it. Then, with banking consolidation eliminating competitors and an ongoing need to grow profits, the bank decided to use the lure of free (as opposed to FREE!) checking as an upselling tool — customers could still get their checking at no charge, but only if they were good customers — the kind that buy several products and services.

Instead of figuring out products customers actually want — fixing its metaphorical flat — my bank created a set of artificial financial upselling incentives, built around an ever-more complex collection of bank-account types — a third axle.

(What banking customers actually want: I’m pretty sure most of us want no choice at all with respect to our bank accounts. We want one type — one where we can put money in when we have it, take money out when we need it, and send money from it to someone else when the situation calls for it. As the bank already makes money by loaning out depositors’ money, and more on float when we use on-line banking to pay someone … we figure the bank makes a profit without charging us an additional fee.)

Anyway, instead of ending up with more-profitable customers, my bank ended up with the $150 back-and-forth transfer — a fourth axle developed by bank staff as a way to placate customers like me who were irritated by the third axle.

Brilliant!

Saturn was supposed to be a different kind of car company with a different kind of car.

It was, more or less. Mostly less. As Toyota discovered when it dissected one, the car’s engineering wasn’t all that good, and its construction wasn’t any better.

Once again, the Edison Ratio reigns supreme: Genius is only one percent inspiration. The rest is sweating the details.

Not that Windows 8 is as bad as you might have heard (how’s that for a segue?). Even without a touch screen it’s far from horrible.

It’s just that The User Interface Formerly Known As Metro (TIFKAM, which, not that it matters, we should introduce to the performer formerly known as “the performer formerly known as Prince”) is pointless on a laptop or desktop system, leaving us with a Start-button-free desktop that is otherwise just like Windows 7 only with fewer cosmetic flourishes.

Microsoft’s Windows 8 design dilemma began with its decision to create a new device classification — the “laplet,” or convertible laptop/tablet computer.

I love the idea, right up until, when I’m traveling with my iPad, I have to use LogMeIn to do something on my computer back home. That’s when I realize a tablet-size screen is too small for how I work on a laptop or desktop system. So I try to do the work using native iPad apps instead. That’s when I realize just how much less productive I am when I can’t have multiple windows open.

There might not be a better solution than the dual-mode user interface Microsoft ended up with. If there is one, I have no thoughts on what it might look like. I’d suggest Kinect, but can you imagine a business meeting where everyone in the conference room gestures to interact with their tablets?

But this week’s topic isn’t TIFKAM. Our issue this week is that, while both Apple and Microsoft have been busily focusing their time and attention on the user interface, they’ve been ignoring, for more than two decades, what business needs most when it comes to personal technologies.

That’s finally figuring out how to preserve user autonomy for personal computing while simultaneously integrating personal technologies into the enterprise technical architecture.

The original personal computer was a 100 percent detached device. It stood alone, with no connection to the rest of the enterprise technical architecture (which, back then, consisted of one or more mainframe computers) beyond re-keying data from printed reports into an electronic spreadsheet.

No integration with anything else meant there was no need to restrict what employees could do with the gadget, any more than there was a need to restrict what they could do with a 10-key calculator or typewriter.

But then, local area networks happened, followed by the widespread adoption of electronic mail and the advent of n-tier software architectures. We woke up to discover that desktop computers now interacted directly with … everything.

With PCs so thoroughly integrated into both the enterprise technical architecture and business processes and practices, “do whatever you want” was no longer a viable approach to information security and enterprise risk management.

Most businesses, following the advice of an army of consultants whose sole concern was security, adopted a lock-’em-down philosophy for personal technologies. The result was membership in the Value Prevention Society, where risk prevention trumps everything else, including the cost of lost innovation and overall organizational effectiveness.

Businesses that resisted this trend, doing what they could to leave the “personal” in personal computing, faced the same trade-offs. They just accepted more risk in exchange for more employee freedom to fiddle around.

But why should they have to? Establishing multiple log-ins or virtual machines for employees that provide more flexible levels of freedom shouldn’t be all that difficult: In addition to total lock-down login, another might include install-level control coupled with restrictions on what corporate data can be accessed, and yet another might be completely open, except for being totally walled off from any corporate resources.

Maybe you can do this now. I’m not a master of Windows administration. The technology might already be in place, and all that’s needed is the right combination of settings.

But whether the problem is missing technology or missing guidance, Microsoft’s customers would benefit more from its providing this sort of industry leadership than from it further tweaking the laplet user interface.