CIO Dashboard

IT Czar - A New IT Leadership Role?

by Chris Curran on January 14, 2010 [email] [twitter]

Print Friendly Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF

Holmgren Saying Goodbye by Tlianza

With the NFL playoffs in full swing*, most of the league’s teams are on the sidelines thinking about how to get better for next year. Most of the introspection involves evaluating coaches and players. One new front office hire that is particularly interesting is Cleveland’s recruiting of Mike Holmgren as its new president. He is known as the architect of very successful Green Bay Packers teams (75-37 record) and the cultivator of a high quality coaching tree, which included Andy Reid, Steve Mariucci, and John Gruden.

What is interesting about Holmgren’s hire is that it is modeled after Bill Parcells role at Miami - The Football Czar.  He’s not the head coach and he’s not the GM (who usually handles personnel).  Instead, he is something else.  It is a role that leverages his expertise as a position coach, a head coach and a GM.  One that sees the bigger picture and is able to evaluate players AND coaches from a fresh and more independent perspective.  It is a position created to drive the “rebuilding” of a program - something Miami and Cleveland badly need.  In Parcells’ case, he took an 1-15 team and got it into the playoffs the next year with an 11-5 record.  Part of the Parcells formula is to bring in a core of coaches and players that he trusts and who know his systems, both offensively and defensively.

What could all of this mean to an enterprise and specifically, to the Information Technology function?

The IT Czar

The default IT organization is some derivative of the “Apps, Ops, Other” model, in which one group (or set of groups) deals with building and maintaining business applications, one groups deals with computer operations and support, and one group (or a few groups) deals with everything else, which usually includes IT planning and budgeting, enterprise architecture training, HR and measurement/reporting.  Of course, more complicated and/or sophisticated organizations deviate from this, but most have this basic lineage.

One of the downsides of this model is that the CIO is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the team (“the coach”), the personnel (“the GM”) and the executive roles of strategic planning and alignment.  As I’ve detailed here, I believe that some people are just not cut out to wear all of these hats at once.  But, with the team’s collective strengths in mind, a CIO can build a leadership group capable of succeeding across the market and business cycles.

What if we apply the Football Czar model to IT?  What if we think about the traditional CIO role as really two roles:

  1. IT COO - runs the IT organization day-to-day, Apps and Ops
  2. IT Czar - technology strategist and representative in senior business leadership discussions, IT COO reports to the IT Czar along with Planning, Architecture and Measurement/Analysis

While they don’t call it anything like a “czar,” one of my financial services clients is structured in a similar way.  In their case, the IT COO and CTO report to the CIO.  The model has promise in their organization but has caused the CIO to become too disconnected from the IT organization and their issues.  But, maybe that’s the point?

* sorry Toby, another Yank centric post

Related posts:

  1. CIO Leadership Stories - Lead By Example
  2. CIO Leadership: Listen to the Guy on the Ground
  3. 3 CTO Role Models
  4. CIO Leadership Stories - Learning to Learn
  5. What’s the CIOs Role in Compliance?

Did you enjoy this article? Please subscribe to CIO Dashboard to receive the latest posts!

  • http://www.peterkretzman.com Peter Kretzman

    I agree that the default IT landscape is what you sketch: Apps, Ops, Other, and I like that way of describing it.

    Where I disagree, and strongly, is that different executives should be responsible for IT strategy on the one hand and IT operations.

    I do understand that there are lots of individuals who don’t wear both hats well, but I think that there are some who do, and it’s key to find someone who does. What’s often missed when people pitch for this division (Chris Potts is another strong proponent of it, and I’ve discussed it with him) is that there’s a huge strength in having responsibility for both strategy and day-to-day factors integrated with each other at the senior level. In fact, one frequent cause for perceived IT department failure is when there’s “ivory tower” strategy that doesn’t translate well to the real world.

    I’ve argued this at greater length on my “CTO/CIO Perspectives” blog, in a post called “The Title Issue Revisited: CTO vs. CIO”. It’s at
    http://www.peterkretzman.com/2009/08/30/the-title-issue-revisited-cto-vs-cio/
    I describe there some of the downsides I’ve seen in separating out strategy from day-to-day concerns, and what happens in the long run when this is done.

  • http://www.peterkretzman.com Peter Kretzman

    I agree that the default IT landscape is what you sketch: Apps, Ops, Other, and I like that way of describing it.

    Where I disagree, and strongly, is that different executives should be responsible for IT strategy on the one hand and IT operations.

    I do understand that there are lots of individuals who don’t wear both hats well, but I think that there are some who do, and it’s key to find someone who does. What’s often missed when people pitch for this division (Chris Potts is another strong proponent of it, and I’ve discussed it with him) is that there’s a huge strength in having responsibility for both strategy and day-to-day factors integrated with each other at the senior level. In fact, one frequent cause for perceived IT department failure is when there’s “ivory tower” strategy that doesn’t translate well to the real world.

    I’ve argued this at greater length on my “CTO/CIO Perspectives” blog, in a post called “The Title Issue Revisited: CTO vs. CIO”. It’s at
    http://www.peterkretzman.com/2009/08/30/the-title-issue-revisited-cto-vs-cio/
    I describe there some of the downsides I’ve seen in separating out strategy from day-to-day concerns, and what happens in the long run when this is done.

  • Amit Jayaswal

    Hi Chris, Great thought. I agree that getting new perspective (read fresh) or outside perspective is definitely helpful but I have few reservations on the same lines as Peter mentioned above. One of the challenges I see in companies is in translation of strategy, so my concern is the more layers we create the wider the gap will be. Somehow we should seek for a person who can drive “balance” ..

  • Amit Jayaswal

    Hi Chris, Great thought. I agree that getting new perspective (read fresh) or outside perspective is definitely helpful but I have few reservations on the same lines as Peter mentioned above. One of the challenges I see in companies is in translation of strategy, so my concern is the more layers we create the wider the gap will be. Somehow we should seek for a person who can drive “balance” ..

  • http://elliotross.wordpress.com Elliot Ross

    Chris, Peter -

    Forgive me if I am out of place - being as I am SME - and trying to learn more

    In one way -are we not looking at the same thing via different lenses?

    At its simplest, we are looking at CIO span of control. And in larger enterprises, it would seem to make sense to go with a team based approach (ie as this Gartner article by Irving Tyler)

    http://blogs.gartner.com/road-notes/2010/01/12/a-partnership-approach-for-developing-the-it-leadership-team/

    I readily agree that CIO level cannot be so divorced from operations that they cannot maintain at least a relevent level of of detail.

    If we forget the titles for a moment - with sheer size, intricacy, and scope of enterprise IT……….

    Doing it “alone” sounds difficult

    Best Regards

  • http://elliotross.wordpress.com Elliot Ross

    Chris, Peter -

    Forgive me if I am out of place - being as I am SME - and trying to learn more

    In one way -are we not looking at the same thing via different lenses?

    At its simplest, we are looking at CIO span of control. And in larger enterprises, it would seem to make sense to go with a team based approach (ie as this Gartner article by Irving Tyler)

    http://blogs.gartner.com/road-notes/2010/01/12/a-partnership-approach-for-developing-the-it-leadership-team/

    I readily agree that CIO level cannot be so divorced from operations that they cannot maintain at least a relevent level of of detail.

    If we forget the titles for a moment - with sheer size, intricacy, and scope of enterprise IT……….

    Doing it “alone” sounds difficult

    Best Regards

  • http://www.peterkretzman.com Peter Kretzman

    Elliot, I’m totally in agreement, and I really like the article you linked to. However, my remarks didn’t pertain to the undeniable necessity of building a cohesive management team within IT. There’s no sensible person who believes that a CIO can do it alone.

    However, what many propose (as covered in my blog post that I linked to) is pulling the CIO completely out of day-to-day concerns and into a purely strategic realm, as indicated by their occasional slogan, “there is no T in CIO” (i.e., technology is secondary). While I certainly agree that technology is hardly the principal concern of today’s CIO, I say that it can’t be ignored or left up to people who lack the big picture of approach, strategy, and long-term cost/benefit aspects.

    I also happen to believe that lots of different organization models can work, depending on the mix of skills and temperaments of the people involved. So having an IT COO reporting to the CIO, as Chris mentions in his post, may not in actuality be all that different from having (for example) a VP of Infrastructure reporting to the CIO, a situation that I’ve implemented and seen succeed well. So in that respect, I agree with your point that this may be “different lenses.”

  • http://www.peterkretzman.com Peter Kretzman

    Elliot, I’m totally in agreement, and I really like the article you linked to. However, my remarks didn’t pertain to the undeniable necessity of building a cohesive management team within IT. There’s no sensible person who believes that a CIO can do it alone.

    However, what many propose (as covered in my blog post that I linked to) is pulling the CIO completely out of day-to-day concerns and into a purely strategic realm, as indicated by their occasional slogan, “there is no T in CIO” (i.e., technology is secondary). While I certainly agree that technology is hardly the principal concern of today’s CIO, I say that it can’t be ignored or left up to people who lack the big picture of approach, strategy, and long-term cost/benefit aspects.

    I also happen to believe that lots of different organization models can work, depending on the mix of skills and temperaments of the people involved. So having an IT COO reporting to the CIO, as Chris mentions in his post, may not in actuality be all that different from having (for example) a VP of Infrastructure reporting to the CIO, a situation that I’ve implemented and seen succeed well. So in that respect, I agree with your point that this may be “different lenses.”

  • http://www.midwestitsurvival.com John Bauer

    I am going to have to side with Peter on this one. I’ve worked in large IT organizations where the IT strategy group had no responsibility for any operational aspect of IT. This department within IT became known for producing great PowerPoint slide decks of cancer curing visionary architectures that didn’t translate to solid, real world successful implementations. Once this group was given an increased level of operational responsibility, their designs and solutions, over time, became increasingly more practical and implementable.

    Personal blog plug: http://bit.ly/Ya8TQ

  • http://www.midwestitsurvival.com John Bauer

    I am going to have to side with Peter on this one. I’ve worked in large IT organizations where the IT strategy group had no responsibility for any operational aspect of IT. This department within IT became known for producing great PowerPoint slide decks of cancer curing visionary architectures that didn’t translate to solid, real world successful implementations. Once this group was given an increased level of operational responsibility, their designs and solutions, over time, became increasingly more practical and implementable.

    Personal blog plug: http://bit.ly/Ya8TQ

  • Chris Curran

    Wow, thanks Peter, Elliot and John for the meaty discussion. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.

    On the topic of splitting the operational duties out from the CIO, I too, would like the CIO as an individual to be versed in projects (investments, development) and process (ops) but I can’t think of anyone who is deep in both. In fact, I think the two worlds are very different and results in internal friction in many organizations I see.

    It is also worth having the discussion on responsibility vs accountability for both strategy and day-to-day. I’d be interested in your thoughts regarding which day-to-day area of the IT organization you would put strategy development (if they should be combined).

    In all cases, a team approach is essential. I think combining the day-to-day in one roll across Ops and Apps is something few do and is worth looking at.

    -Chris

  • http://www.peterkretzman.com Peter Kretzman

    Wow, I’m surprised that you don’t know “anyone who is deep in both.” I liken it to a head coach, who had better know both offense and defense deeply, even while having people work for him as defensive and offensive coaches. I consider myself as having honed both areas over the course of my career, and I know many peers who’ve done so as well. Granted, you still see people at this level who haven’t, but frankly, I see them most often as I come in to help fix a turnaround situation that’s been caused by that tunnel vision.

    What creates the internal friction you describe is when you DON’T have someone who is strong in both facets. I worked once as a VP of IT (ops) under a dev-oriented CTO, for example, and his inability to take operational concerns into account caused a lot of friction.

    Strategy is up to the CIO principally, working with his peers (CFO, VP of Sales, et al). In some companies, I’ve had the luxury of having a strategy/architecture group, reporting to me directly as CTO. I was responsible not only for directing their work so that it provided maximum business benefit, but for ensuring that it didn’t become an ivory tower effort, separated from day-to-day concerns.

    Finally, I don’t quite understand your last sentence, Chris, because I think it is actually more common for one role (call it CIO or CTO, depending on what the company has decided) to be responsible at an executive level for both Ops and Apps, with suitable people under them to manage each area specifically.

  • http://www.peterkretzman.com Peter Kretzman

    Wow, I’m surprised that you don’t know “anyone who is deep in both.” I liken it to a head coach, who had better know both offense and defense deeply, even while having people work for him as defensive and offensive coaches. I consider myself as having honed both areas over the course of my career, and I know many peers who’ve done so as well. Granted, you still see people at this level who haven’t, but frankly, I see them most often as I come in to help fix a turnaround situation that’s been caused by that tunnel vision.

    What creates the internal friction you describe is when you DON’T have someone who is strong in both facets. I worked once as a VP of IT (ops) under a dev-oriented CTO, for example, and his inability to take operational concerns into account caused a lot of friction.

    Strategy is up to the CIO principally, working with his peers (CFO, VP of Sales, et al). In some companies, I’ve had the luxury of having a strategy/architecture group, reporting to me directly as CTO. I was responsible not only for directing their work so that it provided maximum business benefit, but for ensuring that it didn’t become an ivory tower effort, separated from day-to-day concerns.

    Finally, I don’t quite understand your last sentence, Chris, because I think it is actually more common for one role (call it CIO or CTO, depending on what the company has decided) to be responsible at an executive level for both Ops and Apps, with suitable people under them to manage each area specifically.

  • Chris Curran

    On the last point I should have explained more clearly. What I haven’t seen so much in larger organizations is someone with a hands-on day to day responsibility for Ops AND Apps. What I usually see is that the Ops and Apps leaders run their own domains and coordinate with the CIO who is dealing with strategy, budgeting/investment management, etc. - more indirect management from the CIO. All I’m saying is that a COO type role could help integrate and balance priorities across Ops and Apps at a more granular level.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention IT Czar – A New IT Leadership Role? — CIO Dashboard -- Topsy.com

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • Steve Romero, IT Governance Ev

    Very interesting post and great discussion. I can see merit in each of the points raised in the comments. I believe the roles that lead IT can be sliced and diced in countless ways and I would never advocate a single approach.

    What I do advocate is an acute understanding of the decisions that need to be made, and the appropriate assignment of accountability for those decisions. CIO, CTO, COO, EIEIO…have as many “O’s” as you desire. The success of any organizational structure is dependent on a clear understanding of the decisions that must be made and who is accountable for those decisions. (Notice I didn’t say, “Who makes the decisions.”)

    Ultimately, whatever roles he or she may deem needed, the CIO is accountable for ensuring the decision-making constructs produce the desired results.

    Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist
    http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/

  • Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist

    Very interesting post and great discussion. I can see merit in each of the points raised in the comments. I believe the roles that lead IT can be sliced and diced in countless ways and I would never advocate a single approach.

    What I do advocate is an acute understanding of the decisions that need to be made, and the appropriate assignment of accountability for those decisions. CIO, CTO, COO, EIEIO…have as many “O’s” as you desire. The success of any organizational structure is dependent on a clear understanding of the decisions that must be made and who is accountable for those decisions. (Notice I didn’t say, “Who makes the decisions.”)

    Ultimately, whatever roles he or she may deem needed, the CIO is accountable for ensuring the decision-making constructs produce the desired results.

    Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist
    http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/

  • Pingback: A new proposed role — the “IT Czar” : Bruce F. Webster

Previous post:

Next post: