> > > two issues come to mind.  Legal defensability (i.e.finger pointing), and
> > > warm-fuzzies (i.e. making upper management feeling safe; kind of like
> > > Dilbert(?) peeing in a warms suite)

Well I think the finger pointing is only part of the equation, BUT a very 
VALID one.  Let me bring to light a very real example.

Once upon a time there was a huge energy company(Enron), who decided to 
things right they better get a goat, a scapegoat.  So they hired this 
little bitty group of accountants (Arthur Anderson).  When the crap 
started to fly guess who everyone readily pointed the finger on?  Its 
quite likely it will help them.

So there is some 'reality' to having a deep pocketed sucker in which to 
cast your problems. (though that doesnt make it right)

Back to my other point, most large corporations have a fellow called the 
CIO or CTO.  Generally this person is paid rather nicely (and would like 
to keep his job), but hasnt been in the trenches for some time.  So when 
big decisions are on the line having someone to blame is nice, but its 
even better to be able to justify it by saying 'competitor X uses this 
too'.

The old saying used to be: "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM." which 
has become "No one ever got fired for choosing MicroSoft."  When a CTO/CIO 
can point out that 3 out of 4 of his peers are making the 'same' choice 
its really hard for a CEO/COO to discredit that even if its more expensive 
and ultimately hurts the company.

end rant... 

-d