Scott Leith
December 2, 2007
TOPIC # 3: The different role and scope of the job of the CTO vs the CIO in information systems in an organization.
TITLE: The role of the CTO can benefit an organization, even when the title cannot.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of the problem................................................................... 3
Body of the paper................................................................................. 3
Defining the CTO.................................................................................. 3
Focus on the role, not the title............................................................ 5
Difference between the CIO and CTO............................................... 6
When companies need a champion of technology and innovation. 7
When companies don’t need a CTO................................................... 8
Conclusion.............................................................................................. 8
Reference lIST..................................................................................... 10
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
It has been argued that the establishment of a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) is damaging to an organization. The belief is that the Chief Technology Office creates strife because of its title, stifles ingenuity because of its role as lead innovator, interrupts the chain of command by inserting itself between the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and his/her subordinates, and is unaccountable for its realm of responsibility (Meyer, 2007). At the same time, organizations are facing an increasingly overwhelming number of decisions to make regarding their information resources. A company must have somewhere to turn for advice about their technology because these choices will affect their bottom line (Tweney, 2002).
BODY OF THE PAPER
DEFINING THE CTO
Microsoft’s former CTO, Nathan Myhrvold was asked once, “What is a CTO?” His response: “Hell if I know.” Once, Bill Gates postured with him what were some examples of great CTOs. Myrhvold said, “After about five minutes we decided that, well, there must be some, but we didn't have on the tip of our tongues exactly who was a great CTO, because many of the people who actually were great CTO's didn't have that title, and at least some of the people who have that title arguably aren't great at it.” (Brockman). The role of a Chief Technology Officer and even the title associated with that role varies from one organization another based on their needs and their organizational structure. The constant is that the role typically falls into one or more of the following categories: genius, administrator, director, executive, and advocate (Smith, 2007).
The genius category allots the CTO the responsibility for researching emerging technologies, planning the future technology efforts of the company, and coordinating with the company’s engineers for the development and integration of the new technologies (Meyer, 2007). This role is most suitable for small businesses which have a lot of new technology to coordinate in a small amount of time, and in organizations where their technology is core to their success. The genius character is typically skilled at innovating, has vision and confidence and capitalizes on technology opportunities. These individuals often make large contributions to the company’s product offerings or competitiveness through technology innovation. Successful figures filling the genius role include Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Smith, 2007).
The administrator CTO is the caretaker of Information Technology requisitions. The key responsibilities are ensuring products and services that the organization uses live up to expectations and vendor claims. This CTO negotiates contracts, reviews product performance, and compares technical specifications by calling upon an expertise that other executives and purchasing departments simply do not have. This role is common in government organizations (Smith, 2007).
Companies with large research and development efforts often establish a director type of CTO. This individual is usually in charge of the research and development department and has a C level position in order to better align the R & D efforts with the company’s strategic objectives. A director CTO would be responsible for ensuring this division benefits the company’s market position while maintaining an R & D environment conducive to successful development efforts (Smith, 2007).
An executive CTO can be similar to the director role but focuses on managing the business rather than the department. This individual does not create the innovation but manages the innovation process. An executive CTO contributes to the strategic goals of the company and examples abound in organizations such as Intel, GE, IBM, and Lockheed Martin (Smith, 2007).
The advocate CTO advances the company by focusing on how the customer interacts with the organization. By delivering a customer experience above and beyond that of their competitors through harnessing emerging technologies, Rob Carter, the CTO of FedEx, set himself at the top of the field and earned much recognition in the Information Technology community. This individual does not create the technology but acquires it and employs it to capitalize on an opportunity that changes the company’s place in the market. While this role is often performed by CIOs, CIOs in general are focused on internal processes while the CTO focuses externally on the customer’s perspective (Smith, 2007).
FOCUS ON THE ROLE, NOT THE TITLE
When discussing the Chief Technology Officer position, it is necessary to focus on the role not the title. The title does not specifically define the role, nor does the role require the specific title of CTO. A wide variety of titles have referred to these roles. The title must be based on the organization’s structure. What is important is that the position is placed in the organization so that it has the appropriate amount of responsibility and so that its impact is not limited by the hierarchy.
A decision every company must face is whether to establish this position as a C level position. The Chief Information Officer has traditionally been IT’s champion at the executive table. Some companies will keep it this way with the CTO answering to the CIO. Others will have the CIO answerable to the CTO depending on the strength of the company. Considerations should include whether there will be one individual filling the role for the entire organization or whether there will be one per division. Also the type of industry should be considered. A technology retailer places more emphasis on technology contributions that a stable and steady construction company. Oracle has a Chief Gaming Officer and so would not scoff at a Chief Technology Officer title (had they not already had one) and many companies are establishing other C level information technology related positions such as Chief Information Security Officer.
Placing the position correctly in the organizational structure is a topic of hot debate. The position’s responsibilities should not overlap with others. System Administrators who innovate in their own area of responsibility and specialization should not be discouraged to innovate because a CTO has been hired. Chief Technology Officers should not be tasked with issuing processes and mandates to others who understand those tasks better than the CTO to begin with (Meyer, 2007). Again the correct title and place within a hierarchy is different for different companies and in different industries but the position must be created where it is given the best opportunity to contribute.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CIO AND CTO
The differences between the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Technology Officer represent a division of responsibilities and they complement each other to achieve the balance so often fought for in today’s Information Technology departments. Foremost is the balance between business and technology. CIOs are more likely to have a business background as compared to the technical background common for CTOs. The positioning of CIOs above CTOs reflects the emphasis on business driving technology. CIOs have operational and managerial strengths while CTOs have technologist strengths. Both CIOs and CTOs must be strategists but it is perhaps slightly more important for CTOs. CIOs focus internally on business processes and controlling projects and expenditures. This is often referred to as a bottom line focus compared to the top line interested CTOs. CTOs look for new opportunity to create revenue and offer new services. They often act as a customer advocate focusing on the perspectives of those outside the organization (Smith, 2003). These differences compliment each other and make for a more complete fulfillment of management needs.
WHEN COMPANIES NEED A CHAMPION OF TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
A Chief Technology Officer with a seat at the executive table should be a champion of technology and innovation. This is needed when the organization relies on the strategic use of technology to achieve future goals. A company also needs such a champion when they can benefit from someone who advocates for how technology can help external customers. Often, this does not just benefit the company; it keeps them at the top of the market and ahead of their competition (Smith, 2003).
Shortfalls come with only having a CIO. The CIO often has no time to research new technologies. While a CIO focuses on building up a business skill set, the technology skill set ages and companies must make technology decisions based on current industry knowledge (Smith, 2003). In other companies technical innovation or proposals of new systems is left up to one team. This means systems may not meet the needs of everyone in the organization or it may conflict with other systems. Also, existing systems may not be fully utilized across the organization. Internal teams may not focus on external opportunities. Individuals on these teams are experts in their own specialty, not broad technologies or technologies outside of the scope of their tasks. This team may also lack the perspective to coordinate integration projects objectively (Meyer, 2007). A CTO as the champion of this process helps alleviate these concerns.
WHEN COMPANIES DON’T NEED A CTO
Not every organization needs a Chief Technology Officer. Some have their roles addressed by a number of different individuals in such a way that they already achieve the same goals as bringing on a CTO would address (Meyer, 2007). Some companies are not technology centric or introduce little new technologies. In organizations which do not need to pursue new technologies fulltime, a CTO is a luxury (Tweney, 2004). Hiring a CTO in a basket weavers’ conglomerate would probably be a bad decision. Alternatives include contracting out for CTO responsibilities on a temporary basis. Essentially, if a CTO would not meet the needs of the organization, they should not hire one.
CONCLUSION
Chief Technology Officers are champions of technology and innovation. They can be the genius, administrator, director, executive or advocate. The title they hold is not important, what is important is that responsibilities of the CTO are addressed in each organization because technology and innovation are essential in today’s marketplace. Piling the CTOs responsibilities on the CIO is acceptable only in organizations with little new technology, because the roles of the CTO and CIO are different and are too much for one person in any large or fast paced environment. It is equally important that each organization carefully place the CTO position within their hierarchy so that this position has responsibility for its tasks and the ability to execute them. When organizations do this successfully, they become more competitive and more successful in their industry.
REFERENCE LIST
Brockman, J. (n.d.). Nathan Myhrvold: The chef. Digerati web site. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://www.edge.org/digerati/myhrvold/myhrvold_p2.html.
Meyer, N. D. (2007, June 30). CTO: A dangerous title. CIO Magazine. Article 121904. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://www.cio.com/article/121904/.
Smith, R. (2007, July 1). 5 Patterns of the Chief Technology Officer [Electronic version]. Research-Technology Management, 50 (4). Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.ctonet.org/documents/5PatternsofCTO.pdf.
Smith, R. (2003, July 1). The Chief Technology Officer: Strategic responsibilities and relationships. [Electronic version]. Research-Technology Management, 46 (4). Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.ctonet.org/resources/SmithR_CTOStrategy.pdf.
Tweney, D. F. (2002, April 11). Does your company need a CTO? [Electronic version]. Business 2.0. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://dylan.tweney.com/writing.php?display=301.
No comments:
Post a Comment