You may not be familiar with the name Michael Schrage, but as an early founder of MIT's path-breaking Media Lab, and as a gifted writer no matter the topic, he's someone I read whenever I come across him.   His latest piece is in the elastic and forgiving form of a hypothetical, anonymous, note from a Fortune 1000 CIO to a "trusted colleague" reciting the CIO's recent (perceived) mistreatment at the hands of the firm's CEO.

As you read this, I will ask you to substitute "AmLaw 200" for "Fortune 1000" and "managing partner" for CEO.  The counts of the indictment are as follows:

• As soon as a system or function is buttoned down and running robustly and smoothly, the CEO wonders why it can't be outsourced.
• If the CIO proposes an initiative (CRM in Schrage's example, substitute KM in our world) that actually comes in winningly on time and within budget, the biggest gorilla on the premises (Schrage: Sales, Us: Corporate Practice) gets envious and wants its own, incompatible with the "enterprise" system; to which the CEO responds, "let Sales have its system; just integrate them."
• The CIO realizes that he has been spending too much time trying to do the best job possible rather than trying to do the best possible job as the CEO would envision it, and that the CEO inadequately understands technology, which is partly the CIO's fault for failing to explain it.

Sound familiar?  The scary part is that Schrage leaves us hanging; this is the dilemma, rest in peace.  Businesspeople are at least "supposed" to understand the value of IT, whereas lawyers generally grew up ignorant of or allergic to it, and proud of it.  Too harsh?  Imagine putting these words into the mouth of a senior partner at a big firm, or a CFO of a Fortune 500: "My secretary screens my emails."  Which is more plausible?

And if it's bad in a (median) Fortune 1000, is it better in the AmLaw 200?  I invite those in the trenches to email me with both horror stories and enobling tales of redemption.