ted to a line level manager. Keeping the networks networking and the servers serving is neither strategic nor worthy of the perks and compensation of a C-level executive. If you find yourself avoiding meetings with the CIO for fear of being regaled with tales of SOAP, XML, SAP and other esoteric technologies, or look at his or her organization as a “necessary evil” and cost to be minimized, by all means, show him or her the nearest exit and find an accountant with some tech acumen to lower your IT cosGone are the days when the names of a company’s top leaders filled less than half a page of the annual report. The traditional executive leaders, the CEO, CFO and COO have a growing crowd of so-called officers jockeying for spaces in the executive parking lot. The Chief Information Officer, currently a fixture at most companies was just starting to get settled when CSOs, CCOs, CTOs, CROs, CMOs and myriad other C-something-Os have started jockeying for room in the executive suite.

This small army of execs can be broadly divided into two camps: strategic and operational. There is a valid case that the latter should not even be included in the C-suite. Positions like a Chief Security Officer provide no quantifiable benefit to the corporate bottom line, and although often masking it under the strategy moniker, a “corporate security strategy” is merely a set of policies and procedures to prevent catastrophic events. Similarly the Compliance, Risk, Disaster Planning and other positions are focused on producing operational plans to cover various risks. It is amazing that government regulations and environmental factors (terrorism, weather, etc.) have generated such fear and commotion as to spawn positions at the same level, in name if nothing else, as the CFO and CEO.

The CEO and CFO have long been the keepers and implementers of corporate strategy. They ultimately determine the markets and customers to serve, the product mix that will best serve them, and the resources required to effectively do so. The COO in most organizations also applies that strategy to the internal workings of the company, delivering an operational strategy to meet these three imperatives.

The CIO however, teeters between the two camps. In all too many organizations, he or she is strictly operational. Someone to develop a technology “plan,” and ensure it is delivered as cheaply, quickly and quietly as possible. Much like the new generation of C-something-Os, this type of CIO should be fired, or at best demoted to a line level manager. Keeping the networks networking and the servers serving is neither strategic nor worthy of the perks and compensation of a C-level executive. If you find yourself avoiding meetings with the CIO for fear of being regaled with tales of SOAP, XML, SAP and other esoteric technologies, or look at his or her organization as a “necessary evil” and cost to be minimized, by all means, show him or her the nearest exit and find an accountant with some tech acumen to lower your IT cost

of execs can be broadly divided into two camps: strategic and operational. There is a valid case that the latter should not even be included in the C-suite. Positions like a Chief Security Officer provide no quantifiable benefit to the corporate bottom line, and although often masking it under the strategy moniker, a “corporate security strategy” is merely a set of policies and procedures to prevent catastrophic events. Similarly the Compliance, Risk, Disaster Planning and other positions are focused on producing operational plans to cover various risks. It is amazing that government regulations and environmental factors (terrorism, weather, etc.) have generated such fear and commotion as to spawn positions at the same level, in name if nothing else, as the CFO and CEO.

The CEO and CFO have long been the keepers and implementers of corporate strategy. They ultimately determine the markets and customers to serve, the product mix that will best serve them, and the resources required to effectively do so. The COO in most organizations also applies that strategy to the internal workings of the company, delivering an operational strategy to meet these three imperatives.

The CIO however, teeters between the two camps. In all too many organizations, he or she is strictly operational. Someone to develop a technology “plan,” and ensure it is delivered as cheaply, quickly and quietly as possible. Much like the new generation of C-something-Os, this type of CIO should be fired, or at best demoted to a line level manager. Keeping the networks networking and the servers serving is neither strategic nor worthy of the perks and compensation of a C-level executive. If you find yourself avoiding meetings with the CIO for fear of being regaled with tales of SOAP, XML, SAP and other esoteric technologies, or look at his or her organization as a “necessary evil” and cost to be minimized, by all means, show him or her the nearest exit and find an accountant with some tech acumen to lower your IT cos

on producing operational plans to cover various risks. It is amazing that government regulations and environmental factors (terrorism, weather, etc.) have generated such fear and commotion as to spawn positions at the same level, in name if nothing else, as the CFO and CEO.

The CEO and CFO have long been the keepers and implementers of corporate strategy. They ultimately determine the markets and customers to serve, the product mix that will best serve them, and the resources required to effectively do so. The COO in most organizations also applies that strategy to the internal workings of the company, delivering an operational strategy to meet these three imperatives.

The CIO however, teeters between the two camps. In all too many organizations, he or she is strictly operational. Someone to develop a technology “plan,” and ensure it is delivered as cheaply, quickly and quietly as possible. Much like the new generation of C-something-Os, this type of CIO should be fired, or at best demoted to a line level manager. Keeping the networks networking and the servers serving is neither strategic nor worthy of the perks and compensation of a C-level executive. If you find yourself avoiding meetings with the CIO for fear of being regaled with tales of SOAP, XML, SAP and other esoteric technologies, or look at his or her organization as a “necessary evil” and cost to be minimized, by all means, show him or her the nearest exit and find an accountant with some tech acumen to lower your IT cos

vely do so. The COO in most organizations also applies that strategy to the internal workings of the company, delivering an operational strategy to meet these three imperatives.

The CIO however, teeters between the two camps. In all too many organizations, he or she is strictly operational. Someone to develop a technology “plan,” and ensure it is delivered as cheaply, quickly and quietly as possible. Much like the new generation of C-something-Os, this type of CIO should be fired, or at best demoted to a line level manager. Keeping the networks networking and the servers serving is neither strategic nor worthy of the perks and compensation of a C-level executive. If you find yourself avoiding meetings with the CIO for fear of being regaled with tales of SOAP, XML, SAP and other esoteric technologies, or look at his or her organization as a “necessary evil” and cost to be minimized, by all means, show him or her the nearest exit and find an accountant with some tech acumen to lower your IT cos

ted to a line level manager. Keeping the networks networking and the servers serving is neither strategic nor worthy of the perks and compensation of a C-level executive. If you find yourself avoiding meetings with the CIO for fear of being regaled with tales of SOAP, XML, SAP and other esoteric technologies, or look at his or her organization as a “necessary evil” and cost to be minimized, by all means, show him or her the nearest exit and find an accountant with some tech acumen to lower your IT costs by swinging the proverbial hatchet.

While a Chief Compliance Officer ultimately driving corporate strategy questionable if not downright laughable, there is room for the CIO that drives and delivers corporate strategy. In the competitive marketplace, technology that facilitates deep knowledge of markets, facilitates operations and exposes costs can be a true competitive weapon. While many companies purchase the latest analytics software, the difference between a spectacularly successful implementation and an expensive disaster is often the CIO. The strategic CIO sees the technology as an enabler of strategy. Whether that strategy is enhanced management reporting, new operational efficiencies or targeted, cost-effective customer relationships, the business processes the will deliver the strategy are at the forefront of their mind not the technology that will help drive the objective.