Paul Ingevaldson has an interesting piece in Computerworld this week, "CEOs: Think Through your CIO Choice," that merit some discussion. In it, he makes the obvious suggestion that choosing a CIO that fits with the firm's needs will make for a longer and more fruitful relationship on both sides.
As my title suggests, Ingevaldson simplifies things a bit too much for my tastes by dividing CIOs into two camps. The first of these is the activist CIO, who in effect says, "Do it my way; no highway option," and expects the organization to agree to his approach. The other type is the collaborative CIO, who seeks to build consensus with other executives and stakeholders to define systems goals.
Now, most of my readers probably assume that the best option is
invariably the collaborative CIO, but this is not always entirely true,
although I might argue that in perfect world it might be. For
organizations with business leaders that lack an understanding of, or
interest in, how technology can be a business lever, the collaborative
CIO will be at a loss for collaborators.
As I said, the simplification here is that while the work-style
dimension is important, it is hardly the only criteria. While I don't
have time to elaborate on the point, companies, especially those that
might benefit from an activist CIO, should consider the CIOs investment
style: is she an operational efficiency maven who can give a
satisfactory IT platform for just a couple of percent of the top-line,
or is he an IT visionary who will build a castle, but expects six
percent of the gross to flow into IT?
Comments