Tech Chief Role Grows More Strategic, Survey Finds

The rise of digital capabilities continues to elevate the role of IT leaders across the enterprise, moving them beyond back-office tech hubs and increasingly closer to products, services and customers, Korn/Ferry International reports. WSJ: In a recent survey, 83% of 199 technology chiefs said their role was more strategic than it was three years ago. Another 67% said they were on their company's executive committee, up from 55% in a similar survey last year, the executive-search firm said. As they shift from back-office technicians, 81% said they are now playing a greater role with customers, products and services than they were three years ago. The survey included responses from chief information officers, as well as chief technology and chief digital officers, at large businesses in a range of industries. "Based on the need to drive results, many companies are leveraging and deploying results-oriented technology leaders to drive the intersection of technology, product and digital efforts," Craig Stephenson, Korn Ferry managing director, North America Technology Officers Practice, told CIO Journal. He said the impact and scope of CIOs, CTOs and CDOs on the business side of operations is evolving rapidly and expected to expand even more in the years ahead. Further reading: Nicholas Carr was right --IT died, but was resurrected

Why would we want "further reading"...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

...if the original topic was that boring?

In my job searches...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it turns out that "IT strategist" means "marketeer" these days.

So much for "growing more strategic".

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the concept of a marketing centric enterprise is starting to catch on. It was preached in the the business books almost 30 years ago, last time I looked. Maybe Googles and Facebooks are the materialization of the idea taken to the exponent, in fact. Now, if the businesses at large would wake up from their hierarchy induced measurement blindness and start taking customer and other relevant party interactions seriously. Designing interfaces and modeling behaviour and data are tough jobs for the committe

Re:

[Darinbob]

To me, "tech chief" does not mean "IT" or "CIO". Maybe it means that for some IT oriented companies whose product is a web page, but in general the CTO gets on the executive committee and the head of IT does not. Setting up a web page is not "tech", and neither is social media, online retailing, news, or blogs.

maybe....

[Anonymous Coward]

Its because all of the new products are just old products but "with a computer" and "over a network" in their patent filings?

Tech Chief role is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

The less C-level and management you have in your I.T. department the better off you are.
Tech chiefs and other tech leaders dont do much work, and just spout doo-doo like a software architect that no longer writes code.
Worked two places where there were no C-level people or presidents, and things went very smooth.
Management of any type should have to justify their existence quarterly. Any failings or lack or progress and they should be fired.
No CEO should ever make more than 2X anyone's salary, and on paper

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

I wouldn't hold to that as a hard and fast rule, but I agree in part: if you have a strong (general) C-Level strategist and manager/leader who can rely on (and listen to!) senior techs, then you probably don't need a CTO. But the same goes for CFOs and the like as well. The executive team is much like any other team in that its structure could (but sadly often doesn't) vary as a result of the strengths and weaknesses of the individual members.

In any case, before anything else, for the love of god, get

Re:

[draxbear]

Our CTO exists only to dash madly toward the next shiny thing to appear in tech news. This allows the company to save costs as we're not able to implement anything at all as a result. The old stuff just keeps chugging away doing the job whilst the next new shiny sucks up any free cash/resources that might have gone into updating or improving the existing infrastructure. The business is still under the impression the CTO is doing them a favour because they only interact with IT via him at levels high enough

More companies have customer facing technology

[im_thatoneguy]

If you still view IT as the help desk you're probably going to be outsourced. If though you work on being part of the product team helping deliver customer facing infrastructure that delivers measurable revenue to the company your job is far more secure.

If you can't play nice with the "evil marketing" and "useless C-Suite managers" then it's no wonder they replaced you with a remote IT service that doesn't give them attitude.

Re:

[coolmoe2]

As somebody in the remove IT industry I totally agree with you. Keep giving your clients grief we appreciate the business.

Re:

[Darinbob]

Far too often I do see some local IT teams as being distant, impersonal, and uninterested in what their hiring company actually does to make money. At which point outsourcing makes sense - do you want expensive local people who don't give a shit, or cheap remote people who don't give a shit?

Re:

[Darinbob]

In many companies, IT is the help desk and computer infrastructure and nothing more. Externally accessible servers are often managed by a different department (operations), or the company may not have any such servers. If your company sells a physical product or a software package, IT is not a part of the revenue stream and is there as a support system only. The same people who manage revenue generating products should not also be in charge of the enterprise computing support, those are two separate funct

tech chief role

[evana007]

I get to know some ideas about the working of IT leaders. this is really a very informative stuff. you may also read from Gmail Support USA [justabout.co]. CIOs, CTOs and CDOs impact in the business field. you will get the idea about these.