Customers make buying decisions. Consumers use products and services. Sometimes they’re the same person. Sometimes they aren’t.

By differentiating between customers and consumers you can explain a lot of otherwise baffling phenomena in business, like why professional sports teams don’t care that strikes and demands for new stadiums (stadia?) have driven the public beyond mere apathy to alpha-state levels. Their major customers are the networks; fans, for the most part, are consumers.

It also explains the poor product quality and “customer” service of many software companies: Software selection is a strategic decision made by IS leadership or the chief technical officer, so when end-users and technicians experience problems and call for support they can’t threaten to take their business elsewhere — it isn’t their decision.

(This distinction, by the way, appears to be an original insight — much to my astonishment, nobody seems to have pointed it out before. If you were my customer instead of my consumer, it could turn me into a wealthy man.)

This distinction is useful inside, as well as outside, the company: Understanding the difference between your internal consumers — the people who make use of the technology you provide to the enterprise — and your internal customers will help you become a more effective leader, and help your career as well.

A recent column pointed this out. Your internal customers aren’t your consumers, they’re the people who approve your budget and who control your career. Some readers weren’t too happy with this analysis: They prefer to eliminate the idea of internal customers altogether. Everyone in IS, in their view, should focus on the connection between their work and external customers (and, presumably, external consumers, too).

This is a position advocated many times in this space: Everyone in IS, and in fact, every employee in the company, should always be aware of how their efforts translate to value for external customers.

The two positions aren’t in conflict, though. They’re complementary, or at least they can be, although keeping all of the connections straight can be a challenge sometimes.

When making decisions, it’s worthwhile to look at the world from more than one perspective. One perspective is that of mission and purpose — what you are trying to accomplish. From this perspective, it’s important to understand your connection to external customers, to provide context for your actions and decisions. IS works best when it relates to the rest of the company as an active partner rather than as a passive order-taker or independent service provider, and to be an active partner you need to participate in interactive discussions about how to achieve business goals. “How can we more effectively attract and retain customers together?” is a better question than, “How can we help you?”

A different, but equally valid, perspective is your responsibility to be politically effective. Even in healthy companies, every individual starts with different premises, experiences, personal and professional goals, and priorities … in short, a unique world view. Politics is the art of moving forward in the face of these differences. With technology pervading most businesses, every business decision leads to new or changed, and always conflicting technical requirements and priorities, so you operate in a highly political environment.

Why should you view the people who control your budget as your internal customers? Because that’s political reality. By definition they are your customers, and if you don’t treat them that way, they won’t make the right buying decisions about your products and services (they won’t approve your budget).

Then, most important of all, there’s a third perspective: your career. You personally have customers, and they’re also internal. They’re the people who approve your raises, bonuses, and promotions.

If you’re lucky, helping the business attract and retain external customers will make your personal internal customers happy. If you aren’t so lucky … well, they’re internal, but they’re still your customers.

It’s up to you to decide how you want to treat them.

For the past two weeks we’ve eavesdropped on the Amazingly Bright Colors Corp.’s IS senior staff. ABC is launching a major change in its business strategy. Last week, the chief marketing officer (CMO) explained that ABC is calling its new strategy “molecularization.” Based on customer relationship management (CRM) and one-to-one, it’s called “molecularization” because the company plans to turn its products and services into “atoms” it can recombine freely to satisfy each customer’s unique requirements.

The battery in the bug I planted is low, but there should be enough juice left for us to hear the team make its plans …

CIO: So what do you think?

Application development manager: I think our CMO is running true to form. Completion in three years? Solid business results in half that time? He’s set the timetable without any idea of what this will take.

CIO: And you’ve rejected it, without any idea either.

Database manager: Are we committed to this cockamamie schedule, or do we get to negotiate?

CIO: OK, I’m only going to say this once. This is the strategy. It isn’t optional. Get used to the idea, and get used to the schedule. It’s going to happen in three years. The original timetable was two years, because that’s all the time the CEO and CMO think we have before our customers start abandoning us. The COO and I persuaded them that two years just isn’t enough.

Process redesign manager: So much for empowerment.

CIO: Empowerment doesn’t mean employees set our strategy. It means we’re going to need every good idea we can get to help us implement it. Starting with the four of you.

Operations manager: Here’s one good idea. We’ll each figure out our piece of it and get back to you. My piece is, no matter what you do, we’ll go on running the data center. (Yawns ostentatiously.)

CIO: What, do you expect every application we buy to run on the boxes and operating systems we already own? You’re in this up to your eyeballs. Now how are we going to make this happen?

App dev manager: We’ll wait until the rest of the company has defined its requirements. How can we make plans until we know what we’re supposed to build? Of course, that will be next year … and as a fringe benefit, by the time that happens we’ll have a new fad of the month to worry about.

CIO: The CEO and CMO are talking to three systems integrators right now. Does anyone in this room think they’ll avoid this opportunity because it’s impossible?

Database manager: Hey, they should involve us in technical decisions like that. This is a great way to make a bad choice.

CIO: Frankly, the execs told me you’d say it’s impossible and they wanted a more useful alternative. Now … if anyone in this room wants to explain why we can’t do it but three different systems integrators can, please don’t waste the oxygen because I’m not interested.

I told you earlier — our goal is to stay off the critical path. As of now, that’s our new mission statement. I want ideas on how. “Why not” isn’t on today’s agenda.

Process redesign manager: I’ve been thinking. Why don’t we think in terms of capabilities? We don’t need a lot of specifics to figure out the core capabilities we’ll need. For example, I’d be amazed if we don’t end up needing computer telephony integration in the call center.

App dev manager: OK, I’ll bite. We’re either going to need an ERP suite in here or a really nasty enterprise application integration system … and the EAI market is hardly what I’d call mature, either. Does anyone want to tell me how I can choose before I know a whole lot of specifics?

Operations manager: You can’t … but you can figure out the decision criteria, can’t you?

App dev manager: (Slowly) You know, that’s so crazy, it just might work …

Well, the batteries seem to have quit. But it looks like ABC’s IS leaders have some traction and have started working the problem.

How about you?