Unlike many people in business, I don't mind meetings. Yes, many of them are boring and pointless, and no, I'm not usually forced to attend an endless stream of day-to-day meetings. But most meetings, even the pointless ones, are a way to get readings on both participants and their organization. If the content of the meeting is of no interest, at least you can use the opportunity to watch what the other people do and how they react.

The meeting was supposed to be informational. We had been asked to present our current project to a group about to start a related new project. After the usual opening folderol and minor business, we gave our 10-minute presentation, outlining the scope of our project and its history. It was tough to summarize in such a short time because we'd been at it for more than two years, and to speak truthfully, not without difficulties. When we finished, we asked for questions.

At this point the CIO leaned forward and asked us if there was any problem with outmoded technology. "After all, any computer-related project that runs more than a year runs the risk of having the technology change right out from under it." This was not an innocent question. He went on: "I have a memo here from one of the field people asking if the approach you're taking isn't outdated and no longer appropriate for our strategic direction."

What memo? E-mail is such a wonderful tool. And because of the CC: button you can easily send information to everybody involved--if you want to. This did not sound good at all. He continued, "It seems to me that a system designed for direct-dialup connections is cumbersome compared to Internet wireless, don't you think?"

I could see my colleague quickly scan the room, perhaps looking for an exit, although I presumed he was checking the faces to see if the fix was in. I was rapidly shifting gears. In the first place, the CIO--or the memo--was incorrect. We weren't using direct-dialup LAN connections for communication. We were using Internet e-mail.

I should explain that this organization is highly distributed. The CIO and central office staff rarely have any contact with division activity, so it was not unusual that the CIO didn't know the particulars of our project. Should I start out by crossing portholes with the CIO about his facts? The more obvious issue was the use of wireless. This was not a can of worms; it was a bucket of worms.

The first thing I did was to apply a shoe to my mouth with a bland generalization: "When you start a project like this, you do your due diligence, take your best shot, and hope that the fundamentals of technology don't slip out from under you." When I saw the CIO smile (do sharks smile?) I knew immediately that I'd found the trap, seen the bait, stuck my nose in it, and gone in for the big bite. Now all I could do was extricate or sever the body part stuck in the trap.

I continued, "When we designed this program we had a spectrum of choices: On one hand there was the existing method of communication--paper and the mail. On the other were newer technologies such as the Internet and wireless. Getting rid of paper was one of the reasons for the project. Inspectors wanted information to be timely, meaning that sample data arrives with or before the samples, and test results come back as quickly as possible. I think the same desires apply to your project." I paused, partly to see if people were following and partly to think about the more ticklish explanation to come.

"We looked at the new technologies. Internet approaches, primarily using FTP or e-mail, were readily available and inexpensive but required users to log in to an Internet access point--something the people in the field can only manage about once a day. Then there was wireless." Here comes the crunch, I thought. The CIO obviously favors wireless and they're going to put it in the new project.

"I guess we all have an image of the UPS or FedEx people with their wireless devices having instant package information at their fingertips. It would be great to let the field people have that same instant, real-time response. However, those systems cost many millions. We knew we wouldn't get millions--or even a fraction." I shot a quick glance in the direction of the CIO. No reaction. "Wireless was, and unfortunately still is, bleeding-edge technology. Back when we designed the program there wasn't much to choose from, and coverage didn't extend to field people out in rural areas. The situation is better today, but with all the competing wireless approaches and the relatively high cost, I'm not sure if it can be justified."

I tried to turn the outmoded technology argument on its head. It isn't often that I get to argue for the old versus the new, but this project had some wrinkles that made it appropriate. The CIO tipped his glasses back toward his eyes, looked at me and said, "Oh, I think we can find ways of cutting the costs of wireless. I know a company that has extra bandwidth that they're willing to sell."

To me, the recipe of buying expensive wireless devices, developing custom software for them, and then pinning the whole system on somebody's "extra" bandwidth is, well, nuts. But the CIO was playing the old I-know-something-you-don't-know game. Knowing I wasn't going to score a touchdown, I elected to try for a field goal.

I said, "That sounds good. This new project should be a good pilot for that technology. You can research the devices, cost out the services, get estimates on the custom programming, and test the reliability for people out in the remote areas. In the meantime, we'll provide a comparison with a program that uses existing equipment, common software development tools, off-the-shelf e-mail software, and essentially free communications."

This was a dangerous gambit. Sometimes organizations have to go with the latest and greatest just to keep up. In this case, only the CIO can make the call. Now I'd backed him to a wall in public. Of course, he'd just done the same thing to us, from the blind side.

The CIO took off his glasses and put them on the table. "Yes. But it seems like the customer wants to be in the real-time loop, and satisfying the customer is worth quite a lot, don't you think?"

"Oh, absolutely," I said. "But I think sometimes a distinction between what the customer wants and what the customer needs has to be analyzed. I know that some of the field people want the best new technology, which is fine, but in our research we polled over half the field and discovered that many of them pick up just a batch or two of samples a day and send it in. Several days or even weeks later, the results come back. The pressure for instant response isn't as intense as it is for, say, airline ticketing or package tracking. Our conclusion was that in general, making a standard Internet connection and downloading e-mail at least once a day would be sufficient. Most of the field people agreed with that."

Did I like swinging that I-know-something-you-don't-know sandbag? Not really. This is the type of technology debate that should take place over lunch with several people who want information, opinion based on experience, and the ability to weigh factors without hidden agendas. This meeting was more like a technology inquisition with the foregone conclusion that the inquisitee's project is going up in flames. The least I could do is relieve myself on the fire. So much for technology transitioning to business as usual.

Editor at Large Nelson King also writes Enterprise Pursuits on ComputerUser.com, a weekly column discussing the perils of enterprise-level technology integration.