This article is right on target with a re-organization that I am planning for my recently acquired organization. Having one Senior Director focused on the standard job of IT - infrastructure and support, and the other focused on new implementations and partnering with internal customers (and potential ones trying to do it on their own). In addition, I am setting up 2 additional teams that cross both needs: one focused on internal development (customizations, small custom programs, tools) and the other on tier 1 and 2 customer support for all systems. I would be interested if you have any contacts that have tried this approach and either succeded or failed.
Tsippora Dingott
VP IS

My $0.02 worth is based upon the needs rather than just focusing on the title of CIO itself. In some organizations the sheer size may constrain the different aspects of the CIO into a single position. In organizations such as these, the hiring manager (CEO or COO)needs to be aware of the differing demands on the CIO and focus the search for the person with the necessary skill set to fulfill both roles.

If the CIO is worth his/her salt, he/she will see the need to divide the research and maintenance roles into different direct reports--whether those are individuals or departments. As a "C" suite manager, the CIO will be required to lead and direct at a high enough level where he/she should not have a need to become a major player in either function. This is where the managing and delegating portions of the job come into play. Of course, if the researching and maintenance functions become sufficiently large in a organization, then there is no reason why the CIO cannot have a Director level manager heading up each of these departments.

It seems that my thoughts are tending more toward keeping both functions under the CIO position. My reasoning is more directed at insuring that the research function is guided by the maintenance function so that both are working toward a common goal and both are using the same criteria in their respective roles. Pure research without the benefit of knowing what the maintenance challenges are seems as if it could go down a less than ideal solution path because the research people are not involved in the day to day operations of the company's IT infrastructure. Of course, with too much influence from the maintenance function, the research side could become bogged down and fail to be innovative enough to look for new and better solutions to the operational challenges. This is where the CIO must be able to step in and maintain the balance between the groups. To place this responsibility on a COO or CEO would not be the same because the CIO should have the necessary technical background to know when--and when not--to intervene and tweak the balance between these functions.

Greg G.
Dir. IT

I really do not agree that this can work. I currently work for an organisation where this was the case for a few years. A few months ago a single CIO was appointed and we are now starting to move forward again.

Having two individuals trying to take the lead creates a lot of tension between the teams reporting to these two individuals. Unless there is very good governance to ensure that the two organisations (development and support) are aligned, all decision making and forward movement is slowed down. The business feels the effect of this and often becomes frustrated with the IT organisation. The overall effect on the business is not necessarily a good one.

A strong CIO who has the ability to make well informed decisions and is supported by a good team, definitely benefits the business in the long run.

I think the concept of having a specific focus on innovation vs operations is a sound concept, and I offer the following opinions in support of it.

1. True innovation in IT comes from the business users. Unless you understand what they deal with day to day it is difficult to foster innovation. Make sure you have roles in IT that focus on working with the user base at all levels, and give them enough time in their role to experience the day to day business dealings.

2. It is important to have a group who's time is not driven by the operational side of IT. That being said, it is important to not create a perceived "premadonna" team within the IT ranks as well. If people are dedicated, there needs to be a rotation concept that allows more people in the department to experience this role. In addition, this brings the innovation experience gathered back into the operational side of IT...very important.

3. Consider using technology councils to accomplish the same concept. Councils can be run by the architecture group and comprised of people from across the different IT functions. This allows people to participate without having to remove them totally from their operational responsibilities. Councils can form and disband as needed.

4. Try to create a "fast track" process for proof of concept projects or sandbox efforts. The initiatives in the innovation teams need to be able to move quickly and not be encumbered by the normal operational process environment. Once something is proven, prime time use needs to go back through the normal IT operational discipline.