There wasn't much thought or analysis in the editor's response.

There are two distinct kinds of CIO's in the industry. CIO's of smaller IT organizations tend originate from the infrastructure area. Smaller organizations typically use packages and do not develop many applications.

CIO's of very large organizations tend to be business executives with minimal technical knowledge.

This means there isn't a single solution. Addressing infrastructure problems is easier because the vendors are interested in selling solutions. Developing and supporting quality business applications is a challenge that very few CIO's have solved.

I found the editor's response to be dismissive of a very real problem.

CIO magazine should publish an article that describes the role of a CIO and then see how many CIO's actually have those responsibilities. I would be interested in the results.

While some CIOs may not be up to the task as to what's next, some pundits are also not up to the task of predicting what the face of computing will be.

As a university faculty member, current student and a CIO, I feel obliged to say Chris is out of touch with both students and universities, which happen to be adopting Google, iTunes and other new new things faster than many corporations are or will and perhaps much further than Chris himself has. Chris' ignorance of what some of universities are doing shows clearly. We are adopting this with the expressed intent of being relevant, but in a way that even a zillion free web services can't.

In addition, having analyzed Chris' long-tail argument for some time now, Chris has some terrible misunderstandings about exactly what is going on in his beloved long tail. Web 2.0 is Commerce 101. It is also Knowledge Management 301. And FYI, I'm actually bullish on some features of Web 2.0 for companies and universities, but not for the naively optimistic reason's Chris offers us. I was also at the conference Chris talks about. He probably feels dissed since many of us CIOs didn't uncritically and enthusiastically adopt his perspective.

From his blog it is clear that Chris lives in a land made up of his own myths. At least he shares this in common with some (not all) of our faculty. On this specific matter, he is clearly just a notch below a pulp fiction writer. Skeptical experience tells me that those who bray this loudly usually fear their own diminishment.

Vince Kellen CIO, DePaul University

Show me the IT Leadership staff that isn't in total ad-hoc firedrill response mode nearly 100% of the time. Strategists, they ain't. Sad to say...

They respond to trouble tickets and disable user permissions. They practice saying "No", not "What if..." And they block the ports used by the most popular services, from Skype to Second Life, which always reminds me of the old joke about the English shopkeeper who, when asked what happened to a certain product, answered "We don't stock it anymore. It kept selling out."

Although more eloquently-stated, I've heard this argument a number of times. Almost always it was cloaked in the guise of "you're hurting my productivity" but the truth was "you cut off my access to kazaa and I'm none to happy about it".

Keeping the lights on is important. Every morning, 1,500 people log in to our network and they expect their apps to work. Making sure their data is protected and that they have access to it 99.999% of the time is mission-critical to us.

But the thing is... if you design it right to begin with the lights more or less stay on all by themselves. If that's all we concerned ourselves with, I'd need access to Second Life at work (although actually I'd prefer World of Warcraft) because there'd be nothing for any of us to do.

In my division, we spend quite a bit of time looking at new products and technologies, often at the suggestion of someone in our end-user community. Both the CIO and I were once system and database administrators and we're constantly pushing our staff to blaze new territory learn new skills.

But just because something is new and/or popular doesn't mean its a wise choice for an enterprise. Determining which ones are right for us and which ones are here-today-gone-tomorrow is a major part of our jobs. We're entrusted with the care and delivery of our end-users' data and we're also stewards of how our technology dollars are spent; we have a responsibility not to jump on every fad or buy into the hype for every "next big thing" that comes along.

We're constantly growing and branching out in new directions, but we're also firmly rooted in the business and I.T. principles that have come from years of experience in this field. That, in my opinion, is what a good CIO brings to the table... the knowledge to make the right decisions for the enterprise.

Our job is to find ways to use technology to advance the goals of the enterprise... not to find excuses to implement things because they're new, cool, or will look good on our resumes.

Ok, I'm not one to normally engage in a public dialog but this is too just to rich to stay out of the fray....

These are all valid and interesting points for consideration. However, the core issues (my point of view) are around how does any top level leader balance the 'rest of the world' beliefs and demands against share / stake holder realities. Web 2.0 or any other label is just a title to describe 'market-tecture' of selling change to the masses. Yes, there is a lot of technology available directly to consumers, much more than ever before. All of the ‘they don’t need you CIOs’ comments are fair, until the two ‘guys’ running the server out of their garage offering that next version of ‘MySpace’ loose your personal data. Then you expect that someone – out there in the ether – can apply the basic technology household type stuff – backwards to unwind the identity theft problem you now personally have in ‘you life’. We do have an obligation to change our terminology to more consumer friendly, but we also have an obligation to make sure our employees / consumers are not harmed by the bad parts of mass consumer technology either. This is what I think is the intersection of the issues we need to be discussing……

You could argue that a CIO acts as the technology based balance between the forces, both good and evil. Our greatest challenge is connecting the disparate parts of our organizations with our wide variety of consumers. Technology today is that bridge, often only seen as a barrier. CIOs are a position to help lead the pace of change, not just manage the projects to change technology platforms. However, we (CIOs) are way to comfortable acting / presenting / measuring success like the power company. Looking for a seat at the 'table'? Make one. Understand your consumers, stake and shareholders needs and wants. Understand your industry and hold others to the same standards of insight. Talk about what matters, not how you build networks. Have a solid foundation that is measured against real world facts – cost per unit, revenue per customer, products versus applications.

First step forward, obligate your business leaders provide real measures for ROI that you require your technology to perform against (stop the 99.99 % availability mentality). A system that works perfectly and does not solve for customer problems - that you get paid for (one form or another) - is like a tree falling in the forest. Take the 50% that was invested on unsuccessful projects and reinvest it in ones that connect your customers and services / products better. Be willing to experiment, manage it well and stand by basic principles (Second-life nude avatars’ do not belong in the work space!). Deal with people as people, do not assign a label based on age or beliefs. Stop the debate about ‘them and they’ and start the dialog about ‘ us and our customers’.

My .02