CIOs on the scrapheap - The Register wants your input for vox pop article

Is it important for a CIO to understand IT on more than a superficial level?

Is it important for a CIO to understand IT on more than a superficial level?

CIO: needed, if good?

OK, I'm going to play it the Jeopardy way: I give "answers" -more like opinions actually- to be discussed, you guys work out the questions.

Any structure with more than a dozen of users needs someone to filter and translate the demands coming from the base users and the demands coming from higher management -often changing, almost always contradictory- into something that can be acted upon in a consistant manner by the techies, without them having to constantly oppose pulling and pushing in random directions.

The CIO role can not in any case be taken over by, say, a CFO. The "I" is the most essential part of the job. You could actually call it "mediating IT Intern" and put it far down the food chain, it would be less efficient but still massively better than having the role played by a non-IT person. The important part here is that someone is needed to translate jibberish into real tech terms; where the solution might take 10 minutes to implement, it can take hours to figure out what the user want (phrased in gutter-media gibberish) or what higher management wants (phrased in MBA gibberish).

A CFO as "acting CIO" would just manage to badly translate Sun-level gibberish into MBA-level gibberish, losing all the real intention in the process while not making it more understandable at all.

It implies that the CIO must understand both sides: the tech, and the lusers/PHBs. He cannot be expected to be fully competent at the iron level, and must let his techies work out the best solution for the job. As always, micro-management won't work, and will actually be counter-productive, ensuring that 1) the best solutions are NOT chosen and 2) the people in charge of day-to-day operation will not feel involved and will let things go to shit at the first hint of a problem.

In summary, bad CIO < no CIO < good CIO.

tl;dr.

Didn't even finish the article. It turned out to be about some minor irrelevant willy-waving power-struggle / propaganda-campaign between C??-level assholes. Who cares? We're only kowtowing to their agenda by even thinking about it. Recommend that all ElReg readers save their precious braincells for something important, like killing them with beer, rather than contemplating these particular navels.

"Common" sense

A CIO needs to have more sense than to open an email virus that not only goes straight to a porn site but also causes everyone in their address book to get a copy of the same email. Ah the good old days of Outrage... Outhouse... Lookout... oh yeah, Outlook. Yeah, "see our new web page", that was precious coming from the CIO... fucking git.

Back on track, a practically minded CIO is a wondrous thing to have and it only gets better when he has the appropriate budget but can work magic with whatever he does have.

Speaking as a guy who has worn the CIO hat ...

... it's a superfluous position, designed to shift the blame for bad IT purchasing decisions to a sacrificial C*. In my mind, it's the wrong way to go about it. Manglement & IT are two completely different fields.

I personally think that largish corporations should have a Management Track, and a Technical Track, when it comes to advancement to more senior positions. Management takes care of management, and techs take care of the increasingly more complex technical side. And yes, they truly are parallel, again, I'm talking largish corporations.

Along with being a CIO at a small handful of largish corporations, I've also been the Sr. Member of the Technical Staff for a Fortune 50, and for a couple other Fortune 500s ... I know of what I speak^H[1] type.

Sadly, I don't expect traditional management to grok this within my lifetime.

[1] Gotta get used to that ...

All right, I'll play your silly game

Any CIO of mediocre grade or better must have well honed troubleshooting skills and an ability to think logically.

Given that these skills are always needed but in extremely short supply in management circles (being mostly arts majors), and are most applicable to the numbers environment of finance:

Should the role of CFO disappear cease to exist in 5 years time as their department functions are moved under the purview of the CIO?

Book-cooking-as-a-service (to make a loss look like a profit so management and sales get their bonuses) anyone?

Tune in next week when we explore why the Director of Marketing should be in charge of procurement and manufacturing.

What's a CIO?

The post is required, and must contain letters

I was CIO .... Bitch

If we assume for the purposes of commentard-ry that the cloud is going to take over the world the the CFO types are correct. Here's why. The role of a CIO is to mediate between the tech types and the finance types. Ideally having a foot in each camp. Knowing when to go to bat for more funding and just as importantly, knowing when the tech dudes are talking shite. Now if you are buying a serive then this C level mediation isn't necessary.

Questions for a prospective CIO...

1. What techniques do you use to identify those, in and out of the company, whom you can most easily bully?

2. As above, but sexual harassment.

3. A great decider: What do you expect the future to see as your greatest contribution to the destruction of this company?

CIO: Now I see that was my *real* job...

I've recently retired from a long and rewarding career in which my naturally insatiable curiosity served me well in that I always wanted to learn more...including IT functions since computers changed the game for my profession & I also find people fascinating. In retrospect, a perfect fit for my line of work and once promoted I supervised operations staff, worked as a training officer, training manager, records, policy team, client services manager, liaison to other agencies and local government, and finally manager of operations.

There's more: unofficial staff advocate as "mediator" between staff and IT, financial, and HR departments. It was fun to assist in never-ending equipment testing & surveys, and to be exposed to telecommunications puzzles and solutions. Our radio and systems engineers were (are) the best. If you are INTERESTED and sincere in wanting to learn and then contribute, people will share their knowledge wholeheartedly. Now I understand (since we had no CIO - we had a wonderful IT manager) through the previous comments that my devotion to our entire organization & not just units to which I belonged actually placed me as an unrecognized 'acting' CIO. Who knew???

I was a fine arts major in college - uninterested in math - in my 5th year of schooling something called 'the new math' came in and confused the fudge out of all of us kids. My father was an engineer and instilled in us to keep improving...to find the simple elegant solution...to read for knowledge & pleasure...and every dilemma a call for more research. Now that I am retired I am looking forward to learning how to code and get educated in more technical aspects. Not that I know where to start. That's my first step - finding out where that is! I don't have a plan to monetize anything, I simply wish to find out. I believe I was the perfect 'stealth' CIO. Now? Just enjoying myself, the Reg, and the incredible perceptions of the contributors.

Premise of the survey biased

Nice idea for some populist journalism but I think this starter for 10 is too flawed. I agree with Michael Hudson and others. The survey could probably have obtained the same answers by asking CFOs: would you like to grow your empire and be paid more by taking on the responsibilities of the CIO?

Bear in mind that when I was a new recruit the CFO generally *did* have the responsibility for information and were the defacto CTO. Over the year these responsibilities have been largely taken away from the CFO because as often as not CFOs only saw IT in accounting terms. Important as this is, the benefit of IT to the wider business was often not recognized or not recognized systematically. The costs of IT are all to clear while the benefits all too intangible. In my experience the CFO, as leader of the no sales department, is not always equipped to make these judgments.

Anyway its good for the CEO to have more 'C's underneath (TO and IO alongside FO, OO, MO, etc.) as it make divide and conquer a little bit easier. I don't expect the role to go any more than any other role is likely to go in response to internal corporate intrigue.

Proposed question

1. Does any CIO acually need to give a monkey's puff what the grunts think?

Chief watsits

I've never come across the CIO role, though I can see how it might be meaningful and important, depending on the business. CFO I can see a use for, but he/she should be kept well away from operational matters.

And what the hell is a COO (Chief Operating Officer)?

I've seen a steady rise in roles beginning with "Chief" and usually it is just role inflation, or the company having to bend over for certain people who know where the bodies are buried.

When I were a lad there was only one 'Chief' and that was the Chief Engineer, who was a god-like being. There was and could be only one, and he operated at the highest company level. And it was always he because women hadn't yet been invented.

Last time I heard of a CFO doing a CIO's job it ended with a sprinkler system being installed in the new server room because it was less expensive than halon. Granted that CFO was a moron, but even a moron CIO would have known better.

And yes, the sprinklers did get set off about six months down the road, at which time the CFO was told to go elsewhere for employment.