Comments on: The title issue revisited: CTO vs. CIO

By: Yes we can, yes we must: the ongoing case for IT/Business alignment

Yes we can, yes we must: the ongoing case for IT/Business alignment — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:07:45 +0000

[...] here: it’s possible for the pendulum to swing too far in the wrong direction. I think that we can at times go overboard in our desire to avoid being seen as the geek with the pocket protector. Some even preach [...]

By: bfwebster

bfwebster — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:45:41 +0000

Great post, Peter. (I ended up here following your comment to Chris Curran’s post about an IT Czar.) My own outlook tends to be a bit skewed, not over the CIO/CTO debate per se, but because most of my professional work tends to deal with troubled IT projects, either as a consultant brought in to help review and get said projects back on track, or as an expert witness in lawsuits involving failed/troubled projects. As such, I tend to spend a lot of time looking at organizations that have some degree of dysfunctionality when it comes to IT. But then again, those may not be out of the normal distribution.

If you’ll forgive me for quoting myself (and my co-author, Ruby Raley) from an article we wrote a few years ago:

The bad news is that, unlike in football, the business and IT sides of a firm don’t always agree on what constitutes a ‘victory’ (even though both sides can usually agree on what a ‘loss’ is, at least in cases of total or significant project failure). Indeed, sometimes they cannot fully agree on what the game is.

I think that’s at the heart of the same tension you’re talking about above. In the meantime, I’ve added you to my list of blogs to read regularly. ..bruce..

By: Peter Kretzman

Peter Kretzman — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:09:33 +0000

Thanks for the comment, “hi”. I actually think the CTO/CIO is a different species of problem, titling-wise, from the COO, CFO, et al. The other execs you name tend to be already part of the strategic decision-maker body, with the frequent exception of the HR exec. And no one says, for example, that the CFO shouldn’t concern himself or herself with the specifics of the accounting system, and just set financial direction for the company. They expect that person to do both. It seems to me that only with IT does the dichotomy seem to arise: people tend to feel that the chief technology executive should be EITHER mainly strategic or purely tactical. And that dichotomy, that either/or mentality, is what I reject.

I personally like the CBTO title that’s been proposed, since it emphasizes that the technology in question is of and for the Business.

By: hi

hi — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:56:04 +0000

Should that person have the title of CIO or CTO?

This is a valid question. Words matter. The fact that you had to revisit this issue based on observed trends is evidence.

I am not sure why “strategy” is attached to “CIO”. The “I” stands for information which is transformed from data and translated to wisdom when “that person” does her/his job well. Allow me to use your words…

CFO: “…a senior executive who is part of the strategic definition for the company, and who can ensure that the day-to-day decisions in…” “… will be made accordingly. ”

CHRO: “… a senior executive who is part of the strategic definition for the company, and who can ensure that the day-to-day decisions in…” “… will be made accordingly. ”

COO: “… a senior executive who is part of the strategic definition for the company, and who can ensure that the day-to-day decisions in…” “… will be made accordingly. ”

I believe a person with balanced skill sets is key too. It is key for any C-level position. Let’s devise an acronym for the C-level information technology leader to be more succinct while realizing that words culminating to clear definitions or points matter.

How about CITO? I am serious. I am not trying to be funny.

By: The title issue: CTO vs CIO, and why it’s the wrong question

The title issue: CTO vs CIO, and why it’s the wrong question — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:55:45 +0000

[...] post on CTO/CIO Perspectives, “The title issue revisited: CTO vs. CIO“, August 30, [...]

By: Nathan Torrence

Nathan Torrence — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:50:05 +0000

Interesting post. It seems as though there are many CTOs/CIOs who have this pendulum effect going on. While there are plenty that consistently fall in one “camp” or the other (CIO vs CTO), I imagine that most find themselves trying to strike the balance you speak of, but fall in to the trap of swinging from one side to the other. Instead of making decisions from a balanced perspective its more moving from a period of “strategy” based decisions to a period of “technology” based decisions.

By: Scott Booher

Scott Booher — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:26:22 +0000

Peter, a good post, thanks. You correctly point out the apparent swinging of the pendulum on the title/role issue. My own sense is that many of the posts on this topic (along with much of material on best practices), tend to fall into binary, either/or extremes that are not in any way representative of the real world we live in. Those binary headlines garner page views but not much else. It’s not likely that a mature CIO would show up to the Board room promoting either of these extremes – rather they would judiciously calculate WHAT IS NEEDED for their company, at its level of maturity, considering the individuals involved (customers, C-team), where the staff is, etc. This is, after all, what the organization is paying for (pragmatic leadership), not blind obedience to whatever new leadership extreme is promoted in the trade rags that week…