My provocation earlier this week (Nobody needs a Chief Information Officer) has generated a great deal of interest and reaction so far, most of which is so diverse it simply re-inforces my view that the role of Chief Information Officer is so poorly defined and so poorly targeted to justify calling into question the necessity of the role.
Here is a sample response (from a CFO community at linkedin.com) “Where would IT tree up to? Who would be qualified to manage, plan and lead the IT goals?”
To which I replied: Who says there has to be a function called IT?
Just because we have had IT in the past, doesn’t mean that we actually need an IT function. In most organisations of size a more appropriate terminology would be IS (Information Services), with subsidiary units such as Service Development, Service Delivery and Service Support.
Nevertheless, the role of a Chief Information Officer is poorly defined and confusing in too many organisations, particularly when too readily combined with its “logical” counterpart: a Chief Technology Officer, often creating double the confusion. Nobody could ever accuse us of doing things by halves.
This problem isn’t just about job titles though, it is about delivering effective information systems in an ever-changing world, populated by uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity. Achieving and sustaining our future relevance in this turbulent context will need a radical new approach to the way we deliver value to our enterprise stakeholders.
You may also like to read:
