There have been considerable misconceptions and differing opinions even amongst the same communities as to the difference between the IT Director and the CIO “Chief Information Officer” role. Even though definitions differ from business to business, ego to ego, and individual to individual my goal is to help distinguish the two on the open market which may help bring some clarity to the casual observer by explaining the ambiguity and why on occasion one takes great insult by being referred to as another.
What are the differences between the IT Director and the CIO? The definition that they are both the same and one definition came from America may have been true in the past but I think that they have evolved to quite different but critical roles within an organization. Going forward this is more a question of leadership vs. management or rather the percentage of focus applied. CIOs are 80% focused on leadership and 20% focused on management. Conversely the IT Director is 80:20 aligned to the management of the department. Both are critical to businesses but not necessarily at the same time. Businesses can operate a very long time, especially when they are running in a stable or in an expected steadily declining environment, without a CIO. It would be very difficult to contain one major incident such as a telecom failure, power failure or some third party attempting to breach your IT security if there were no IT Director at the helm (this occurs quite frequently behind the scenes without you noticing). Equally businesses would be at a considerable disadvantage if they appointed an IT Director with little experience in merging two departments, divesting a business, buying a separate business or extending a business’ profitability by designing new ways of providing innovative cutting edge solutions to its clients which is where the CIO shines.
The IT Director is responsible for managing the day to day technical and operational issues of the IT department including front and back of house IT services, for instance managing virus outbreaks, enabling the newest phone or PC to receive the company’s service catalog, or improving the internal customer experience using the service desk. At a minimum, they lead the Programme Office, Infrastructure, Application Development, Service Desk and, on occasion, the business relationship management group (BRM). They are accountable for achieving the contractual SLA’s set per service offering. Depending on the business and their priorities, the IT director is likely to report to the CEO, CFO, COO or CIO.
When they exist within a business, CIOs are board level members responsible for identifying, defining, selling and championing the long term technology strategies used and implemented by their teams for the business. They normally lead a team consisting of the IT Director, Quality leader (process), Security officer, CTO, and in some businesses the BRM group. They rarely get involved with operations aside from severe escalations and only actively interact with the IT operations during major transformation activities.
Very much like Allan Leighton describes in his book (On Leadership) focused on his experience on being a CEO, I believe it is the appropriate time for CIOs to be appointed as reoccurring interims or members of a consortium shared across multiple businesses depending on scale and expertise. Allan Leighton coined, “Going Plural”, that fits, CIO’s are likely to evolve into a type of non-executive director with a technology focus. In the end, the role of CIO is to help shape the future direction of the business understanding how to use IT as an enabler, they are not separate from but equal to and necessary additions to the other CxOs driving and representing the business.
These are my thoughts, do you agree? I, as well as many of the other readers, would be interested to read your opinion.
Through Willard Enterprises, I specialise in helping businesses achieve successful lasting change through IT transformation, process improvement, smart sourcing and providing IT transparency such as assisting you in completing department health checks. As always, if there is something I can do to help your business or someone you know deliver their next challenge, please contact me for more information.
I guess I wonder how these definitions of roles apply when applied to different company sizes. Is the role of a CIO or IT Director the same in a Fortune 100 vs a Fortune 500 or 1000? I would make the assumption that the percentage of time allocated to strategy and leadership vs management would vary greatly depending on the company size. Thoughts?
Forrest,
Great question, I spent the weekend considering a response. In my experience, I have found that the main difference isn’t a size of the organisation question but where the business/business unit is in its life cycle (Seed, Start-Up, Growth, Established, Expansion, Mature, Exit) and what is needed at the time. Most Fortune of the large Fortune listed businesses are consortiums of different businesses or businesses units either grown organically or through acquisition which are likely to be at various stages of life cycle maturity to enable them to leverage economies of scale or reduce third party costs.
I haven’t found of an example that doesn’t require a firm hand on operations between the initial seed phase and the Exit stage of a business, in which case the IT director is critical from end to end. Depending on the business’s product, a CIO’s talents are more often appropriately utilised at periods of transition, and are critical at the edges of the life cycle for seed and exit.
The question for Fortune 100 vs. 1000 I believe should be, is a unit of your business in constant flux and therefor do you need a CIO on a permanent basis or on retainer? I don’t think that the definitions should change but perhaps the leader/manager percentages may fluctuate depending on needs, just remember expecting more than 100% in a percentage will end in failure.
Do others agree? Forrest what are your thoughts?
following this train of tought – a CIO (80% leader) would be required for large organisations (where some parts would always be in a state of change) with a team of IT Directors and the smaller businesses only an IT Director with a sporadic visit of a CIO?
Is this a working model?
Jose,
I am seeing more and more businesses adopt this model and as such more and more businesses supplying IT Leadership/Management on retainer or day rate models for the mid tiered businesses. As we are currently at an early stage in the new evolution of IT departments (where home technology rivals that of the office and more and more consumers are technically adept), I haven’t found an Established business model in the countries I have experience in. That said, larger businesses (Fortune 100/FTSE 100) already adapt this model to a certain degree, it is unlikely to have CIO’s act at a more granular level than country/region with an overall Global head but there are more often or not numerous IT directors working in the same businesses running the day to day operations. This isn’t a cost decision but one of skillset.
Does anyone know of established working businesses that either confirm or denies this?
Very much related to my post at the weekend. where I wondered whether many organisations have forgotten about the ‘I’ in ‘IT’… 🙂
http://chrisweston.tumblr.com/post/47880406852/whyisthereani