IT managers interviewed by Computerworld during the past four years have often maintained that IT portfolio management techniques and software would short-circuit the politics often surrounding discussions between IT and business executives about which IT projects to fund. That"s because the tools can calculate and rank the projects expected to have the greatest impact on an organization using a variety of metrics, including return on investment, net present value and internal rate of return.

But in hindsight, the belief that objective rankings would defuse the political jockeying around budget discussions were either naive or misguided, several conference attendees said.

"To be a successful CIO, you have to learn not to take sides in the budget battle," said Russ Finney, vice president and CIO at Tokyo Electron America Inc. The Austin-based company is a subsidiary of Tokyo Electron Ltd., which makes semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

Finney said he needs to listen to all sides of a discussion about which IT projects to fund -- and about the drivers behind them -- before he can make an objective decision. That"s particularly true when it falls upon him to break a deadlocked vote. Still, he acknowledged that the budgeting process at Tokyo Electron "is very political. That"s why we only do budgets every six months -- if we had to do them every quarter, we"d be at each other"s throats."

Still, one IT executive at the conference sees an upside to the situation. "Some of the tools are pretty slick, and some of them enable conversations to happen" between IT and business executives about which projects to fund, said Michael M. Blake, vice president of finance for IT at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.

"I"m a big advocate of conversations, and we can use these tools as a vehicle to drive those discussions and make those decisions," Blake said.