Skip to main content

The CIO - Technology-oriented Businessman or Business-oriented Technologist?

Recently, a question was asked:  should a CIO have a technology background?

This, of course, sparked an intense yet cordial and respectful debate on what type of CIO is the most effective.   Some argued that having a technology background was essential because - "duh!" - the CIO is managing technology.  Others argued that technology means nothing without it being surgically delivered to meet one or more business initiatives.  Therefore, they continued, the technology knowledge by itself isn't as useful as an in-depth understanding of how the business operates so that it can most effectively make use of technology to further its goals.

Let me ask this question of you:  does the paintbrush or the painter wielding the paintbrush actually paint a room?

I'm being disingenuous of course because the question belies my bias toward the latter, but I cannot deny that the second argument above resonates more greatly with me than the first.  I am reminded, in fact, of a discussion that I had recently on career movement with a very well respected professional acquaintance of mine, Ron Collier.  The discussion hinged on whether it made more sense to get a wide variety of experience in sales, marketing, R&D, etc. before venturing into management or not.

Ron's argument was that while this was a sensible approach, implementing it in reality would take far longer than was reasonably possible.  Instead, he countered, it made more sense to get into management first and hire people to work for you who were subject matter experts in the area you worked in (e.g. sales, marketing, R&D, etc.).  You'd learn from them the ins-and-outs of the business unit while continuing to build credibility as a manager who adds value to the business.

This hearkens to a statement I postulated in my previous series:

The purpose of each line of business is to design and implement a set of initiatives that do one thing:  make the company money.

Having said that, being a subject matter expert in anything that does not directly relate to making money isn't as useful as someone who is a subject matter expert in nothing but does know how to impact the business' ability to make money.  This brings us back to the initial question:  should a CIO be an expert in the business while knowing something about technology (and, arguably, more than his peers on the Executive Management Team)?  Or should a CIO be an expert in technology while knowing something about the business?

I think the answer is obvious.

A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with a CIO of a healthcare provider who was recently promoted into that position from his previous responsibility as the manager of the Infrastructure Operations group.  I came prepared to learn about his 12-18 month going forward strategy, only to find that he wanted to discuss specific features and functionality in two solutions that he was considering.

How would you have approached this meeting?  My personal opinion (and the way I executed) is to establish credibility in order to earn the right to speak later on higher level topics (read: IT strategy).  This meant addressing his questions even though I did not have the answers on hand by finding out the correct answers and conveying them to him in a timely fashion.  And although I haven't yet had the follow-up meeting with him, I certainly intend on helping him come to the conclusion (all by himself, of course) that developing a viable long term strategy will yield greater benefits to his division and him personally than any single solution could.

Do you agree or disagree?  Leave a comment to discuss.

Popular posts from this blog

"Ni jiang yi yang de hua ma?"

Last week, I wrote about the necessity of having a clear message . Because this topic is so important I decided to follow-up with another entry on this general subject. This week we will approach it from another angle. (For the curious, the title says " Do you speak the same language? " in pinyin, which is a transliterated Mandarin Chinese.) Recently, a good friend of mine (who is Chinese, ironically) and I were playing pool. He had to bank the 8-ball in the pocket to win the game, and since it was an informal game and bank shots are my area of expertise, he asked me for advice. I told him, "you just need to strike the cue ball with medium speed so that it hits the 8-ball right in the middle." He didn't believe me so we marked the positions of the balls, and then he took his shot only to watch the 8-ball sail past the pocket. "A-ha!" he exclaimed. "I told you it wasn't that easy." But when we reset the positions and I made an attemp

It's Easier to Fail at DevOps than it is to Succeed

Slippery when wet Since the term DevOps was coined in Belgium back in 2009, it is impossible to avoid the term whether in discussions with colleagues or in professional trade magazines.  And during the years while this movement has gained momentum, many things have been written to describe what elements of a DevOps strategy are required for it to be successful. Yet in spite of this, there is an interesting data point worth noting: not many organizations feel there is a need for DevOps.  In a Gartner report entitled DevOps Adoption Survey Results (published in September 2015),  40%  of respondents said they had no plans to implement DevOps and 31% of respondents said they hadn't implemented it but planned to start in the 12 months after the survey was conducted. That left only 29% who had implemented DevOps in a pilot project or in production systems, which isn't a lot. "Maybe it's because there truly isn't a need for DevOps," you say.  While that

Is No/Low-Code the Key to IT Nirvana?

 Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past year or so, you've seen the phrases low-code  and no-code  bandied about quite frequently everywhere you look.  You've probably wondered if this is something new that's here to stay or just a "flash in the pan."  Although the terms have been in the fore of the IT trade publications recently, Low Code Development Platforms (LCDP) (and the corresponding No Code Development Platforms) have been in existence since 2011.  Their roots can be traced to the 90's with 4th generation programming languages and GUI-assisted programming paradigms, e.g. IBM VisualAge for Basic, which was discontinued in 1998. For those of you who aren't familiar with either, the premise is that these platforms allow someone to quickly build applications using a WYSIWYG interface and a "click and configure" paradigm to Isn't this the source code to Roblox? rapidly build full applications with little or no coding requ