The new CRM system was designed to make it easier for customer service to help market line extensions and innovative services. Unfortunately, the service reps now had to juggle logging, recording, and responding to technical and logistics concerns while also responding to prompts for enquiries and upselling from the CRM system. Given that they were evaluated on how many customer calls they could bring to satisfactory resolution per hour, they couldn't do both well. So they did neither well. Customer satisfaction dropped.

Finally, because the new system sought to serve Web-based online order entry and configuration, the telco's sales site asked existing customers to fill out a new form and set up new passwords for security and systems integrity purposes. Twenty percent of the existing online customer base declined to do so and went to the phones — which pushed up cost-per-sales and led to abandoned purchasing efforts because of the delays associated with the unexpected surge of inbound calls.

Even though the technology performed to spec, who got blamed for this cavalcade of customer and channel conflict? Why, the CIO, of course! The CEO, the CFO and the COO raked the poor schmo over the coals for practically every CRM mishap that materialized.

Is that grossly unfair? Of course! But the CIO made one of the biggest - and most common - implementation errors that undermine IT's credibility. He confused implementing systems that work effectively with implementing a system that is used effectively. Implementing a CRM system that is technically successful but fails to generate growth or savings is IT's version of "the operation was a success, but the patient died".

So what happened? During the pilots, marketing and sales did observe some of the early perverse behaviours that ultimately scaled into money-losing fiascos. What did they do? They told IT to press on while they dealt with it. Foolish IT!

Consider this simple thought experiment: Suppose everybody in the organization was given a free corporate car. Within 90 days, a third of the cars are damaged, involved in accidents, towed or otherwise create a liability for the firm. Who would be held responsible? The irresponsible individuals who abused their vehicles? Not likely. In most organizations, the likeliest scapegoat would be the people responsible for handing out those "free" corporate cars.

That was IT during this CRM implementation. The folks who distribute, champion and install "productivity" tools are frequently held responsible for how those tools are used or abused. Turn the story around: You can be sure IT would grab the credit if the CRM system had transformed the business.

The lesson here is simple: Whether CIOs implement ERPs, SCMs or CRMs, only the most naive C-level executive focuses on whether the system actually works. Success will be — and should be — measured by how well that system is used. Don't think that's the CIO's job? Just try implementing a technically excellent system that's profoundly underutilized, and find out how forgiving your CEO, COO and CFO can be.

Michael Schrage is codirector of the MIT Media Lab's eMarkets Initiative. He can be reached at schrage@media.mit.edu