No, I haven’t done a spectacular u-turn. In my earlier posting (Nobody needs a Chief Information Officer) I promised to write more about my vision for the future role of the CIO as Chief Integration Officer so here it is as a summary view…
There are probably as many interpretations of the role of Chief Information Officer as there are holders of the post, whereas the role of a Chief Integration Officer can be universally defined.
Furthermore, unlike the Chief Information Officer, the CIO as Chief Integration Officer will be a key function for the forseeable future, if not forever.
No individual, group, organisation or enterprise is a stand-alone venture. Our world is constituted from a myriad of interacting dynamic systems, some of which are well-connected [internally and externally] while others remain steadfastly apart. Nevertheless, at some points, these living systems interact with each other, directly or indirectly.
In an increasingly joined-up world, successful [viable] systems must effectively integrate with each other for mutual benefit. This should come as no surprise to anyone because, at the fundamental level of human interaction, we already do this every day – without thinking about it.
And yet, when it comes to our formal business systems [aka IT] we do not yet afford the same seamless integration. For sure, lots of people talk passionately about extended value chains, partnership collaboration or electronic data interchange. But when push comes to shove most enterprises have big gaps in their information systems – internally and externally.
I expect that many people will think that their own technology infrastructure is well-founded and well-connected. But an effective information system is more than IT – people, process and organisation are equally (if not more) important dimensions of an effective information system.
That’s why I feel so strongly that the premise of a Chief Information Officer is misplaced; because it consciously delineates unhelpful boundaries into our thinking, particularly where the current CIO definition is perceived to be interchangeable with Director/ Head of IT.
To overcome these unhelpful boundaries I think that it’s time to re-define the role of CIO, to become the Chief Integration Officer.
What is the function of a Chief Integration Officer? To ensure that the enterprise integrates effectively with other bodies (individual, corporate or statutory) in all formal and informal interactions.
How is this different from the function of a Chief Information Officer? Significantly different for several reasons…
Firstly the current CIO role is often complemented by a parallel CTO (Chief Technology Officer), leading to confusion of boundaries/ responsibilities in many organisations. A more appropriate reporting line for a CTO would be to the Chief Integration Officer, removing uncertainty of accountability for end-to-end integration of people, process and technology.
Secondly, the role of the Chief Integration Officer would be unequivocally recognised as a top-table function, rather than the uncertain position of a Chief Information Officer who can often be kept at arm’s length from the top-table, through reporting to the CFO or COO.
A consistently clear role of a Chief Integration Officer would facilitate trans-enterprise integration by providing natural mutual points of engagement and communication.
I could go on. But I will leave this summary for the time being. More to follow soon.
I would like to hear your views, though, because I believe the CIO debate is long overdue. Let’s get it on!
You may also like to read:
Colin
This job description sounds quite like a COO to me, though maybe more like a Foreign Secretary – dealing with external partners – compared to the Home Secretary / Interior Minister remit of a COO.
Would it be more helpful to think of a Chief Systems Officer? The CSO designs and maintains all the (manual, technical; internal/inter-company) systems and processes that enable operations to be successful.
Good luck in the BCS election…
Regards Nigel
Hi Colin,
I’m not convinced by this… though I agree with all you’ve said about CIOs and CTOs and the urgent need for a more integrated, joined-up approach.
But surely, the role you’ve described is one that is inherent in the role of CEO or Managing Director?
It is the chief executive’s job to make sure that there is a clear vision, a strategy to achieve that vision, and to ensure that all activities align to implement those strategies. Delegating this role of integration to someone else is an abnegation of responsibility. What is the CEO for if not for this?
A better solution is for the CEO to appoint Chief Engineers (or some equivalent title – Value Stream Manager is a good one), one per product or service line, to report directly to him/her. The role of the Chief Engineer is to provide entrepreneurial leadership and to be responsible for the success (commercial & technical) of ‘their’ value stream, in sustainably delivering value to customers at a profit.
In turn, the Chief Engineers (who have virtually no line-management authority) are the ‘internal customers’ of the functional departments, their workforce and leaders. Departments (a.k.s. Functions) are where specialists are grouped together, to benefit from mutual collaboration, learning, and continuous improvement. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of their function is the Head of Functions main responsibility.
The demands of the Chief Engineers require the Departments to work together, cross-functionally, ensuring the flow of value along the value stream pulled by customer demand.
External vendors can be considered to be Departments/Functions that just happen to reside outwith the organisation. They are subject to the same demands and constraints as the internal departments, in that they are required to ensure value flows with hiccup, to maximise the effective flow of value to the end customer.
The CEO’s role is to balance any conflicting demands from the Chief Engineers and the Departments/Function Heads.
Where’s IT/IS in all this? It’s just another enabler… whether it should be a distinct Department/Function is moot. Big IT is usually the wrong answer to the wrong question… a way to deal with failure demand generated internally. Usually, its better to address and remove the origins of the failure than to implement ever-larger IT systems to handle the symptoms.
Best regards,
Grant (PG) Rule
[...] HAP member, says getting certified means agencies … Mail (will not be published) (required) …Long Live the CIO! | Fighting the Trillion Dollar BonfireNo, I haven't done a spectacular u-turn. In my earlier posting (Nobody needs a Chief Information [...]