Leader: Rename CIOs? Or dump them altogether?

A catch-up with several analysts from Ovum this week started to shed new light on silicon.com's ongoing debate about the future of the chief information officer, the CIO.

There are two separate things going on. First, we have run a competition on the back of our CIO Forum event as well as asked readers for a new name for that post. More on that in a moment. Second, there is a debate as to whether the CIO and, in some quarters, such as Gartner Group, the whole IT department will even exist in a few years.

(And this is on a slightly more analytical level than a playful poll this publication ran recently asking 'CIO - tech, exec or a waste of space?')

Good new names for the CIO have been hard to come by. For one thing, CIO sits neatly with CEO, CFO, COO and these days CMO, CSO and even now CCO - for chief marketing, security and compliance officers respectively.

We've admitted ourselves that our competition winner walked away with the prize not so much for coming up with a perfect name but for encapsulating much of what we would like a CIO to be. Aptly it was a professor that won.

Readers who have subsequently added to the debate, many quite eloquently, have tended to focus on the execution and responsibility necessary for any top tech post.

The view of one reader, Bill Moroz, was that CIOs must focus on successful implementation as much as strategy and also said: "It's almost like some are ashamed of the IT label they have earned by successfully working their way up over the years. I think this is unfortunate."

Another reader, Bobby Kordet, plumped for 'Information Assurance Manager' on the basis of this person being responsible and about quality of delivery, security, IT HR and so on. Basically somewhere where the buck stops, a safe pair of hands - our interpretation.

Thanks to these two and the other readers who gave and are still giving their views. Only we see differences here coming from those within an IT set-up and those from other parts of a business or from the advisor community.

So returning to Ovum, just one of a number of groups we can term 'advisory'. We are currently running a story about how IT services companies and users must collaborate more and in better ways than they do now. Part of the issue is that successful use of IT isn't just about correctly aligned systems or the right agreement (increasingly) with an outsourcer, for example. It is about both sides of the equation.

But when that comes good - for surely it will, more and more - do we need a CIO? The ongoing general debate is about whether we need a chief of info as much as we need a chief of electricity. Both should just be utilities and it could be argued heads of other lines, be it marketing, HR, finance, sales or other, would have their own tech responsibilities.

Interestingly Ovum analysts silicon.com spoke to this week would still see a role for a chief technology officer (CTO) at many organisations, and not just high-tech companies we presume. And any general IT control? Echoing other suggestions we've heard, they would simply see that becoming part of the chief operating officer (COO) role.

If you would like to contribute to this debate, post a Reader Comment below or email us at editorial@silicon.com.