In my experience, IT gets zero priority elsewhere in the business. It's rare you'd ever get a really clear business case for work, and so it's rare you ever get any traction from elsewhere when you need it.
As an example, say you've got $pileofshit software that's umpteen years old, not used by very much and all the people who ever knew anything about it have left. Probably the "best thing" (for different views of "best") would be to schedule some dev work over the next few months/quarters to get rid of the legacy and move over to new stuff. That would give the remaining users of it the benefits of whatever replaced it, and gets rid of a management headache for the IT folks. Seems pretty reasonable, right? Well, not so much once it goes out "to the business". You'll get comments like "well, it seems to be working, right?", "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "we've got higher priorities right now" etc, without anyone thinking about it in any depth at all. A more enlightened view would be to say "get rid of the legacy and it means the IT folk can be more nimble", but I've yet to really see anyone ever think like that.
It could be that all the IT departments I've ever worked at all just talk techno-babble to the rest of the organisation and so no one understands our awesome wisdom. It might be that I'm a perfectionist that expects every last little scrap of a problem to be eradicated. Or maybe, just maybe, the rest of the organisation just can't quite meet IT half-way and think outside their own little bubbles because "IT is too hard"?
So it seems to me that if an organisation has a problem with its IT department, it should probably look at itself as much as it looks at IT. Just as your finance people can't keep track of the money if you never keep any receipts, your IT department can't do every single thing you ask without question. If they're not doing what you need, you're not "working" them right.