When business performance management (BPM) software vendors claim to offer customers a single version of the truth, one question comes to mind: Um, yes, but what is truth? I'm in good company. Since time immemorial, this question has perplexed philosophers, theologians, scientists, police interrogators, consumers of advertising, golfing partners, income tax preparers, hiring supervisors, and, of course, shareholders.

You're probably thinking, "Here he goes again, playing the empiricist absolutism of Plato off of the moral relativism of Hobbes. Man, am I sick of that false dichotomy!" But the truth is, it's hard to get people to agree on what's true.

An obvious example of this is experts' perpetual conflict over what we should or shouldn't eat. Some argue that you should eat meat and cheese but avoid all breads. Others say bread is good but meat and cheese are treacherous. Still others recommend you eat only vegetables -- a diet that will never make inroads in my household. I prefer to listen to the experts who suggest we drink a glass of red wine daily, and I figure there's no reason they wouldn't allow me to replace the wine with beer.

These debates are informative, and not just on the question of my waistline. Because if medical science in 2004 can't agree on what we should eat -- a basic human activity that, according to my research, has been going on since at least 40 B.C. -- how can we reasonably expect people in other professions to agree on anything? Truthfully, humans don't even agree that agreement is a good thing. What some call "consensus" or "unanimity" others refer to as "conspiracy" or "alibi."

Arguments about what's fact and what's fiction make for lively presidential debates and Oliver Stone movies. But in a corporate setting, the effects of this kind of discussion can be paralyzing. This may come as a shock to you, but in some businesses, departments have been reported to develop their own versions of the truth to promote an agenda that benefits them.

Perhaps manufacturing blames a production problem on procurement's inability to have the right materials in the right place at the right time. Procurement then blames accounting for complicated systems that delay payment to suppliers. So accounting accuses treasury's cash management software of bollixing up payables. Treasury blames sales for underachieving, while sales blames marketing for overpromising. Marketing then turns around and hammers product development for having dumb ideas in the first place. Product development explains that corporate strategy steered it down the wrong path. Corporate strategy questions the executive committee's vision, but the executive committee considers the CEO at fault because his decision-making isn't democratic. Obviously, the CEO has no one to blame but the Democrats.

In theory, when BPM software enables everyone to share one version of the truth, only the poor suckers in IT can reasonably be blamed for failures. There's still a problem, however. These sophisticated applications promise a cross-functional, department-agnostic solution that allows no room for spinning and that ultimately drives accountability. But no matter what the technology or the goal, one still has to deal with other humans -- who are resistant to change, unpredictable in their reactions, and frequently mired down in side issues such as whether the company medical plan should cover red wine. Even when the evidence is irrefutable, delicacy, finesse, and patience are necessary to persuade individuals to sublimate their personal delusions to the corporate reality.

Ultimately, what's true is less important than what we all agree is true. As the science of ophthalmology demonstrates, perception is reality. And people who resist their company's BPM data can rest assured that if they only wait a little longer, a new version will come out -- Truth 2.0.

Dan Danbom writes humor for a number of publications. His latest book is "Humor Meets Your Workforce: Make Laughter One of Your Organization's Goals."