I frequently hear the argument that IT is a “strategic” corporate function since it is critical to most modern businesses. Unplug the servers, or send all the data jockeyed by IT into that great recycle bin in the sky, and the company is hosed, say the advocates of this theory. The problem is that you could apply the same concept to electricity. It’s critical to the success of most organizations, and most parts of an organization simply cannot function or grow without it. Yet, how many companies invite their local electric company to strategic discussions, or thank them for literally splitting atoms safely and cost effectively? A critical system is not necessarily a strategic one.

Where I see IT going wrong is that we expect a “seat at the table” for successfully performing utility functions. What we need to be doing, is demonstrating business results through strategic IT projects, then we get the seat at the table.

By way of example, I’d consider a strategic project something like marketing automation that decreases lead conversion times by X%, or even a receivables management system that decreases AR by Y%. In either case, the system can be directly tied to a financial result.

There’s long been talk in IT management circles about getting a seat at the table when corporate strategy discussions are happening. The thinking goes that technology is such a central function to most modern companies, that IT should have input into strategic decisions, and help guide their implementation almost as a birthright. However, for many there is a cart before the horse problem at work here. CIOs want a seat at the strategic table, but they don’t demonstrate any strategic value. The CEO wants to talk about entering new markets, and the CIO wants to talk about upgrading Windows or the nuances between the HAL 9000 version 1.98845 versus 1.987234.

There are two prerequisites to getting that “seat at the table”. 1) The utility aspect of IT needs to be flawless, and you need to stop talking about it. When was the last time you called the power company and thanked them for safely splitting atoms so you could turn on your light switch and have it just work? Same goes for the utility element of IT. It’s complex and completely thankless, get over it.

2) The CIO needs to understand the business deeply, and be able to articulate and frame the challenges and opportunities facing the business. He or she then needs to explain in layman’s terms how technology might accelerate these strategic imperatives.

Do these two well, and the CIO will be sought out for his or her opinion. Spend every board meeting looking for accolades because you implemented some fancy disaster recovery plan, or installed a new security package, and you’ll soon be shown the door.

Netflix, a US company that started life as a DVD-by-mail rental service, then added digital movie streaming to its offering recently announced a poorly-received corporate restructuring. In addition to a price increase for the mail and streaming services, the company split the offering into not only two products, but two separate companies with their own billing, recommendation, and customer account systems. Whereas a customer could formerly login to the Netflix website and manage a queue of movies for mailing or streaming, the split would create two different, non-integrated places for customers to do the same tasks, and even charge two separate items to a customer’s credit card each month, a move akin to a restaurant forcing you to go into a different room, with a different waiter, and pay a separate bill for your appetizer and entrée.

Historically, the company has often been regarded as consumer-friendly, and technologically advanced, so the move legitimately offended a highly vocal group of customers. The CEO of the company offered a non-apology, and attempted to convince customers that splitting their service, creating more administrative hassle, and effectively increasing the price for less convenience were in their favor.

These types of maneuvers can best be described as a kind of corporate narcissism, where companies focus internally and treat customers as an inconvenience, rather than the reason they are in existence. The US-based airlines have been guilty of this for years, with flight attendants literally rolling their eyes while dealing with customers as if the flight was scheduled for the airline staff’s personal amusement, and then those pesky paying customers rained on the party.

This narcissism can also occur internally, with corporate divisions passing inane policies and procedures that scratch some parochial itch, while inflicting hours of extra administrative burden on the larger organization.

While the customer (external or internal) is not always right, they are almost always the ones that provide the financial lifeblood of your company. When you consider some elaborate strategic shift and there is nary a mention of how it will impact paying customers, make sure you’re not preening in front of the mirror while the building around you burns down.