A while back, Jeff Wacker wrote an article on the changing role of the CIO (sorry the link is no longer active). One of the things that was clear from that article is that the CIO is turning into much more of a non-technical role. Some people would say it wasn't technical in the first place.
The article talks about the various dimensions required in the future CIO function. This is similar to one of the examples some of the EDS fellows have used in our Next Big Thing presentation.
Organizations that expect change to be a disruption of the status quo are going to be overcome by those organizations built to take advantage of constant change. The CIO has a significant role to play.
A good example of the change in thinking required would be: if I were to ask you (my realtor or builder) to find/build me a house, you'd probably ask me about the first three laws of real estate -- location, location, location -- then you might ask me about the foundation or the square footage I’d need.
If I were to then say "I wanted a house built for continuous change," it would be a whole different matter. I’m talking about a motorcoach. I want something I can move from place to place, push out the walls when I get there. Configure to my needs of the moment.
Location does not enter into the picture, since that’s my problem not yours. I can reconfigure the house’s square footage based on my needs. Smaller to move down the road, larger when I need the livable space, so it is a different kind of square footage than before. I don’t need the same kind of civil or structural engineer support creating the home, but instead a mechanical engineer.
Jeff’s article is about that new kind of CIO that will be needed to support continuous change. They’ll be at minimum a catalyst of change within the organization, if not a reagent.
There were also some interesting points about what a CIO shouldn't be (e.g., Chief Inertia Officer).
