“Strategic” Role for CIOs is the Exception
What frustrates me about most surveys and studies is the lack of definition of the terms. The result is a survey that means virtually nothing. CIO Insight uses the phrase “strategic mindset” when discussing responses to one of it’s survey statements to CIOs:
“There are some companies where the head of the information technology department is considered a leader on par with other C-level execs. But those companies are the exceptions, not the rule.”
Strongly Agree 19%
Agree 51%
Disagree 27%
Strongly Disagree 3%
Doubts about CIOs’ strategic mindset have led many business leaders to consider the role of CIOs as less important than that of other top executives. Some CIOs have a seat at the table, but the dynamic changes from business to business, so there’s no telling whether this sentiment will change in the near future.
CIO Insight seems to believe that a “strategic mindset” is the key. As I said in my previous post, strategy development should not be required of a CIO, but strategy understanding is a requirement. The statement that is responded to should be reworked to include this nuance- otherwise it is gives us worthless information. By the way, I do believe that the role of the CIO is LESS important than that of other top executives.
What do you think? Are most surveys worthless because they fail to define their terms? What about this survey statement? Am I splitting hairs by considering the difference between strategy development and strategy understanding? Let me know how you feel.
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL.
(Image Source: stockxchng.com)
Tags: CIO, CIO role, strategic mindset, strategyRelated Stories
POSTED IN: 101 Basics
2 opinions for “Strategic” Role for CIOs is the Exception
Alan Wilensky
May 14, 2008 at 8:50 am
There are two cultures in the smokestack era orgs that still have entitled a CIO:
Companies where the CIO takes marching orders to execute what the functional org wants to accomplish, and here, IT is seen as supporting the CLOB (Capital line of Business). It is seen here as a cost center, and ripe at any time for cutting. One can even show how an investment in strategic IT upgrades can transition IT to a profit center (Utilities have held out on smart grids and metering, other orgs SOA and ESB) falls flat.
In other businesses, where IT is seen as a functional asset (where the IT infrastructure is fundamental to generating revenues, collections, serving apps, POS), then most old economy businesses seat a CIO as a peer.
Under the most painful circumstances, and kicking and screaming (maybe due to fuel costs) some industries have had to re-think the leadership role of their IT helmsperson.
Whatever we call the IT grandmaster, any business that does not exploit its IT assets to the fullest, gets what it deserves.
Bob Turek
May 14, 2008 at 11:09 am
Alan- thanks once again for commenting. Your insights are thought provoking. Even though I tend to grapple with the CIO role, what I’m really interested in is whether the company culture understands the value of IT. If a CIO accomplishes anything, he must somehow get other execs to this point. As you probably know from reading my other posts, I’m a big PMO fan (one with jurisdiction over ALL projects - IT or not) and feel that this could be a vehicle to “teach” the org about technology enablement. Whether you call it a PMO or not, it is some vehicle that concentrates on supporting execs with the info they need to make decisions on which projects to do that support strategies of the company. It has to go beyond IT because there are “demand” side (vs IT “supply/internal” side) projects that must grow the business. What do you think of the PMO function as a vehicle for project/strategy alignment?
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: