By Andy McCue, 4 October 2004 12:20
NEWS CIOs believe it is easier to teach a technologist about business than it is to teach a business person about technology.
The debate was sparked by silicon.com columnist and ex-CIO Rene Carayol's comments at the silicon.com CIO Forum last week that CIOs and IT directors have lost credibility in the boardroom and that CEOs would rather put a business person in charge of IT.
"There's a realisation [in the boardroom] that it is easier to teach a business person about technology than teach a technologist about business," he said.
We asked the silicon.com CIO Jury if they agreed, and the question caused some heated debate with the majority (seven) saying they disagreed and five saying 'yes' they did agree.
The statement angered Peter Dew, CIO at BOC, who even questioned whether Carayol had sufficient boardroom exposure to offer a viable perspective.
"In the boardroom we all have a 'professional background' that has enabled us to establish our career," he said. "Good business people make good business people irrespective of their professional background. IT is no different, or any more complex than other professions."
Frank Coyle, IT director at John Menzies Distribution, said he first heard Carayol's quote around 1986, two years before he joined the board. He said many IT failures are down to accountants posing as IT specialists "in order to supplement their CVs".
"Unfortunately, this trend is continuing, with MBAs seriously believing that they are businessmen with enough IT acumen to take over the IT director role. The resultant carnage is then left to the IT professionals to pick up," he said.
Kevin Lloyd, CTO at Barclays, who himself came from a technology background questioned the level of interest in technology by some business people.
"Little interest is expressed in developing real insight into technology and many still see the subject as a murky 'over there' issue with knowledge predicated on home experience of PC, which has little relevance in the corporation. I would say you'd find it easier to interpret a balance sheet than you would train someone to develop in J2EE," he said.
JP Rangaswami, global CIO at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, said the distinction between business people and technologists is false and that everyone needs an acute understanding of technology directions and shifts.
"I think the implications of new organisational models, new governance models, and new technology models actually bias the odds in favour of competent 'technologists', since emerging technology underpins each of those models," he said.
Others, including Colin Cobain, IT director at Tesco and Margaret Smith, director of business information systems at Legal & General, described it as a "trite statement" and said there is no simple answer as much depends on the individual and the organisation.
But one of those who supported Carayol's comment was Graham Benson, information services director and CIO at Screwfix Direct.
"If CIO's or IT Directors aspire to executive board positions, they must be business leaders first, and functional heads second," he said. "The traditionally perceived gap between IT and 'the business', which is normally perpetuated by technologists themselves, results in IT managers who are not business-savvy and therefore offer little at board level."
Follow this debate on silicon.com tomorrow when we will be publishing a full analysis on the subject based on the overwhelming number of responses and heated comments on this subject.
Today's CIO Jury wasÂ…
Graham Benson, information services director and CIO, Screwfix Direct
Colin Cobain, IT director, Tesco
Frank Coyle, IT director, John Menzies Distribution
Peter Dew, CIO, BOC
Kevin Fitzpatrick, CTO, Manpower
Phillip Jones, CTO, easyGroup
John Keeling, director of computer services, John Lewis Partnership
Kevin Lloyd, CTO, Barclays
Rob Neil, head of ICT services, Ashford Borough Council
Phil Pavitt, CIO, NTL
JP Rangaswami, global CIO, Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
Margaret Smith, director of business information systems, Legal & General
If you are a CIO, IT director or equivalent at a large or small company in the private or public sector and want to be part of silicon.com's CIO Jury pool, or you know an IT chief who should be, then drop us a line at editorial@silicon.com
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. Adrian Lee
If you have someone making big decisions on how IT is implimented, possibly saving or costing a company a lot of money, would you rather that person was a techie who knew what they were talking about, or an executive who thinks they know what they are talking about?
There's IT literate, and there's knowing computers. Someone more concerned over how much is being spent and a less accurate idea of what the benefits are, is going to be less able to make high end, board level decisions, than someone who knows a system, how it works, what it can and can't do, and a more accurate idea of pros/cons.
To say that a business person is more easy to train in IT than vice versa, probably means they prefer the size of the cheques they have to write when its a business person making the decisions, rather than an IT person. Despite the holes they end up with in how it all works...
How often are sacrifices made in security, usability, training etc... because of the money holders.
Surely you need someone with REAL IT knowledge to advise on those kinds of things and make big money decisions.
2. Alistair Thomas
From personal experience, any 'techie' that has advanced to a senior level has probably been a very good techie at some point and that involves passion, vision, commitment.
The white hot pace of change in technology means that you can't become too entrenched in any particular approach. You have to be constantly on the lookout for new developments. You have to build change into your thinking. Sometimes in a big project, it takes so long to get all the stakeholders to agree on a direction that when it becomes apparent that change is required, you can't face the agro of selling the change. Some might even worry about getting it in the neck for "not designing it right in the first place".
The biggest IT projects are often involved with "making people's lives easier or more productive". The biggest IT users are often huge people businesses serving huge people client bases. The analytical and creative skills so useful in IT don't always make for the most empathetic individuals. I know so many IT types that model the world the way they want it to be and hope it has some application in the wider world.
Putting 'pure' business people in charge of IT, (and certainly not accountants), is not the answer either. Someone who needs to put a dollar value on everything to appreciate it is not someone you want anywhere near problems where people are involved, or where creativity or dogged determination and long hours are required to reach a solution.
The bottom line is that any board member must have developed a mix of skills way beyond any speciality from which they grew out of. Any modern business that doesn't have IT right at the centre of its thinking is just waiting for the day when a organisation that does takes its business away.
3. Gary Thornley
When IT people understand the purpose of what their trying to achieve, it makes perfect sense to have someone who knows and understands the issues and key points/risks on which to base any decisions. At the end of the day the risks of any project ought to be shared between IT and the rest of the business as the outcomes are felt (positive and negative). I've spent the last 20 years in IT, but daresay that I could easily switch to another profession and make a real go of it given another 20 years. Would this make me a better CIO following that or not? I'd still be the same person, so I feel it's about a person's soft skills as much as hard (technical) skills.
4. Danny Jackson
I think all the points in this bulletin are more than valid, however, whether you have a Business CIO, a Technical CIO or even a COO, there still needs to be a transition from business requirement to IT solution/resolution and back again. A CIO from a technical back ground "may" be better equipped to do this.
Ultimately it goes back to investing in potential; if the business has an outstanding IT Manager/IT Person that both the Business & CIO values then the IT Manager/IT Person should be groomed, developed and moulded – who is a better equipped valued contributor; a person from the outside or some-one groomed from within that can learn about the business as they are developed? – There is no real wrong or right answer; it is whatever fits the business model the best.
5. Robert M
Alistar has captured almost all of the issues as to the question about tech or exec.
In short the best CIO's are hybrid creatures. During the day they need to be business savy. In the we dark hours they have to be techies. I have seen both sometime not in the same person! Firstly the have to exec to be able lead, understand the business, to make the decisions, and then tech to be able to understand all of the issues involved. After all "IT / tech" is as is all of the other depts/functions of a business is only a service to the business. THats the business of making money for the investors. Period.
An exec should have both the authority to be able to step in before issues become real problems and should also be the ambassador for his dept. and on tech / IT decisions to be able to defend the division from outside interference. Its the same with Finance. You'd excpect the CFO to know about Finance and make decisions appropriatly but as with IT et al, they do provide a service to the company (Pay, Cash, Paying the bills, Looking after the money....). Unfortunatley IT suffers from the fact the almost everyone seems to understand IT whereas IT professionals do not usually profess to know about other functions (Of course there are exceptions!). In fact we generally have Business Analysts who sole job is to try and understand the mysteries of business processes and the user requirements. Where IT fails is in being proactive in marketting/advertising IT self! We are usually running hard just to be able intepret user/business requirements.
To summarise a tech CIO or exec CIO is not the real issue. Its being able to manage the CIO function on behalf of the business.
6. Andrew Flack
I agree with Robert M... Mostly...
I would suggest that the answer is usually a balanced team. A good business-IT link is required, either within the same person or within a team that trusts and respects each other. If I had to choose an exec or tech, then the guy who can point out where it will screw up is the one who will save me money.
If mutual respect can be built up then things progress a lot less stressfully and generally have more profitable outcomes. This respect also needs to be fostered further down the tree, I have sometimes had to remind techies that the DHU they have been complaining about happens to be a professional within his own space, and shouldn’t need to be within theirs.
The 'Head of IT' in the current climate, needs to be capable in the boardroom of seeing what the business is really on about (rather than what may be presented as symptoms) and of coming up with original IT and Non-IT based business input, as well as being able to spot the 'devil in the detail' early on before the costs have piled up, whilst simultaneously running multiple cross related projects to time and budget.
He/she also needs to be able to represent the IT function to the rest of the business as well as the business to the IT dept, and hopefully in the appropriate language for each, rather than just spouting the words.
As a CTO (currently) I have always preferred to take on 'Support Developers' who have done their front-line service face to face with real people, who have real problems and tempers to match (especially traders), have seen the problems up close, have a sense of both service and criticality and above all enjoy making it better. This is rather than backroom technophiles, who are great at fixing the problem presented but may be not so good at seeing that the problem can be avoided altogether if you change what you are trying to do.
Personally I may take it too far as I have been known to speak to end users, and listen to what they are trying to do, going to presentations to customers and prospects, giving training, even of passing on sales leads.
So maybe a Cynical techie, who has got his hands dirty solving real peoples problems, doesn’t get carried away by every new technofad, and can see where the money comes from and goes to in the business is what the business needs, but may not be what the board wants.
7. Steve Edwards
So, the question is, can a techie make it in the boardroom, or can a businessman make it as a techie? Clearly the answer is NO to both.
To be a techie requires a specialised skill set, to be a force on the board requires another specialised skill set.
To bring those skill sets together creates a commercially minded techie, whose value to the board is unsurpassed, and whose voice is recognised and listened to on all aspects of board life.