Management pundits have been predicting the imminent demise of the CIO role for years. Their premise seems to be that technology has become such an integral and mainstream part of doing business that it is no longer necessary or desirable to have this function managed separately from the other areas of the business. Many companies have followed suit by dropping the CIO role entirely or by placing it, like an unruly and irresponsible child, underneath the mature supervision of the COO or CFO. Why is the CIO role treated with such contempt and loathing? And why do companies feel that COOs or CFOs have the requisite expertise to manage an organization’s technology resources or drive IT strategy?

It’s likely that CIOs themselves are partly to blame for the bad reputation. As a group, they don’t have a great track record for managing expenses or expectations. Consequently, CEOs are tired of hearing CFOs complain about rising technology costs and COOs complain that they don’t have the technology they need to run the business. So, why not let them handle it themselves? But here’s where it gets interesting. Give it to the CFO and you’re likely to control costs and stifle innovation. Give it to the COO and you’ll likely get, and pay for, every bell and whistle they can dream up.

I could be wrong, but I thought the CIO was meant to be the voice of reason, the voice of an expert capable of communicating and implementing an IT strategy that balances many opposing factors such as cost and innovation, consistency and flexibility, security and freedom, in a way that aligns with the overall objectives of the organization. This approach will almost always entail difficult tradeoffs to be made, some of which will be unpopular, but necessary. Who wants to hear that they need to spend ten percent of the annual IT budget on desktop and network security? IT is not all about the latest toys and gadgets, and the CIO is not likely to win a popularity contest.

Nonetheless, some companies are so tired of the hassle and expense of IT that they will go to any lengths to outsource as much of it as they can. And there is no shortage of vendors offering to solve all their problems. However, while I agree that there are many opportunities for outsourcing both business (BPO) and IT (ITO) functions, I don’t think many CEOs would seriously consider outsourcing their entire business, so why do they think they could outsource all of IT? Would they seriously expect a vendor, or a group of vendors, to be looking out for the best interest of the organization?

I have no doubt that the CIO role needs to evolve to meet both the changing landscape of IT services and the growing expectations of a tech-savvy workforce. However, I believe that this new role, properly defined, will be more challenging, more exciting, and more necessary than ever. Please let me know what you think.