(note from ColinB – this comment links to an article about the premature demise of the CIO on a blog published in Hebrew)

The question that keeps arising is why we need a COO/CFO-type person who is responsible for the technical/IT side of the business? Why are CIOs so often undervalued or underestimated? Comments have been made here suggesting that the role is not well defined. In my experience, it can only be well defined by the incumbent. The CIO defines the role and the responsibilities, just as the CEO and COO do in every successful organisation. The problem is that most ineffectual CIOs (and this applies to COOs and CEOs as well) either do not understand the technology they are trying to manage or the business there are trying to service.

This stems from a several factors:

1. There is no real definition of what an IT practitioner is. You can define a barrister or a CPA or doctor, attach a speciality and you know exactly what you’re buying. With IT it’s more the case of “many years experience of IT”. What does that mean? Support? Security? Application Development? Integration? Once we, as a profession, can properly define the product we are selling. CIOs like CFOs and CEOs will naturally evolve and float up to the board.

2. The perception of the profession is a real problem. Because everyone has a PC at home, they all think they’re experts. How many times have I heard: “IT isn’t all that difficult!” or “This is a very simple system. I want to communicate in real time with all my offices around the word and I don’t want to spend more than £20K”. If these systems are so easy to build (anyone can send an e-mail!) then the person to run the technical function doesn’t have to be of the highest calibre or can be in a completely different profession – like an accountant. Oh yes, let’s make the CFO head of IT! Excellent! Problem solved!

We do need a head of technology as technology allows a business to run. If it is badly managed, the bottom line suffers. In one way you are right. We don’t need the hordes of CIOs who think they know what they’re doing, but are completely out of their depth and can’t make a difference to the balance sheet. This function requires a professional technology practitioner with the right entrepreneurial mix and the ability to lead. I doubt I’ll see such a change anytime soon.

Experts within the field of Information Systems who are capable of developing and implementing strategies that optimise the use of information within the business, so that the business achieves its investment objectives should play a prominent role within the organisation.

Whether this role is permanent or not is another matter. For example, once the information system has been implemented it is debatable as to whether the information system will require continuous large scale improvement; maybe in a few years time perhaps when the objectives change.

The skills involved in developing information systems strategies require an in-depth knowledge of the operation of the business and a clear understanding of the business plans and objectives. In addition, the ‘Information Systems Practitioner’ must be conversant with the capabilities of technology and how that can be applied, be aware of the changes that are needed within the business to instigate the information systems and clearly understand the benefits that the information systems will bring.

A good example of an information system is that described by Peter Checkland and Sue Holwell in Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field ISBN-13: 978-0471958208; the information system designed to bring down enemy aircraft during the Second World War. If ever there was justification for a CIO then this is the sort of scale of information systems CIOs should be working with although clearly not necessarily having the same purpose!

Unfortunately from all of the CIOs I have met very few meet this criteria with a large proportion seemingly involved in technical matters and having little regard or understanding of what their business is about.