The CIO Challenge: Bridging The Gap Between IT &CEO

If the implementation of technology is to be successful, themanagement team must be just that–a team. Otherwise, the projectwill not deliver the desired (required) results.

Unfortunately, information technology does not have a very goodtrack record, and this is largely the result of a “throw it overthe transom” mentality when it comes to management involvement inIT projects.

Is it any wonder that the acronym for the chief informationofficer (CIO) is often referred to as “Career Is Over,” with theaverage service time for the position in steep decline through theyears?

While I was planning a CIO panel for next year's ACORD AnnualConference, one suggestion was a session on the “Confessions of aFormer CIO.” Is this really a thankless job or what? Or is it thetypical whining from scapegoats who represent the failure oforganizations to come to terms with the need for the businesspeople to have some skin in the game?

Perhaps its a bit of both. One fellow put it bluntly and saidthat its all about ham and eggs. The pig is definitely committed,but the chicken only gets involved. It really seems like werehaving a ham sandwich.

CEOs have classic complaints about IT budgets, schedules anddeliverables, and not without reason. When you review thestatistics on failed IT projects or tech overspending, the numbersare disappointing.

But I also sense a lack of understanding of IT and the role ofCEOs in IT's ultimate success.

I have always said that it is the responsibility of the CIO tobridge the gap between IT and business, not the other way around.(See my earlier column on how “Insurance Seeks To Span the DigitalDivide” in the May 22 technology trends supplement of NU.)But show me a CEO that doesnt “get it” and Ill show you (more oftenthan not) a CIO not doing his or her job.

Of course, sometimes the problem is more personal thanintellectual. But nevertheless, the relationship between CEO andCIO will speak volumes about IT strategy and its overall success inthe organization.

One CIO told me that the CEO must have basic knowledge about howIT interweaves throughout the business, and must buy into thedevelopment cycle of major initiatives. Failure to spend therequired time to understand the process usually leads to anxiety,but more importantly, it is the reason why it may fail to deliverrequired results. “Show me an IT failure and I will almost alwaysshow you an organization-wide failure,” he quickly snapped.

The reality of todays environment requires the CEO to trust andto communicate with the CIO frequently. On the other hand, the CIOmust have detailed knowledge of the organizations operationalunits, and be able to talk at the business level. In this way, theCEO can understand in general what it will take to be successfuland the impact overall.

For better or worse, the modern CEO needs to understand the ITprocess just as they would any other strategic area of the business(such as claims, underwriting, actuarial, distribution). Its nolonger a back-office service, and can be as vital as the otherdisciplines on the CEO radar screen. In most cases, IT isinextricably linked to the business process itself.

Organizations are truly changing the way they do business, andIT is the enabler. But this is the part of the equation everyoneseems to forget. In fact, the process and cultural changes are asvital as the technology itself.

Perhaps its the words we use when we talk about systems, like“install” and “maintain,” that reinforce our perception aboutsystems as computers. You buy one and install it. When it breaksdown, you call a service technician in to fix it. Today, we are allpart of the “system.”

The lack of quality business unit support in a strategic ITinitiative is an obstacle to success. Unfortunately, they areusually too involved in their own work to commit the necessary timeto IT projects. Yet it must be part of the workload.

If a business leader is unable to be a true senior sponsor of aproject for some reason, the CIO can act as a surrogate workingwith the business partner. But communications between the two mustbe strong.

Consequently, the CIO must have business knowledge, skills, andunderstanding to determine the needs of the business and whatsystems have the best bottom line benefit for the organization.

Within the organization, the CIO must build consensus among themanagement team as to the benefits of any system, and obtain thebusiness unit's commitment for continued support and high-qualitystaffing to assist in the project development.

The key to success is to assemble the right team of people onany project. The CIO must orchestrate the chemistry of the team,ensure that all members contribute, and maintain a realistictimetable to meet delivery dates.

The CIO must also set the expectations and not over-commit tothe results and time to achieve. This is one of the major reasonsprojects fail or disappoint users. They are oversold from theonset.

There is no magic formula for this increasingly important andchallenging role in the organization. The CIO must be abusinessperson first and a technologist second.

Its time to shed the stereotypes from a bygone era. IT cannottell the business what it can or cannot do. IT can explain whattools are available and what is possible and at what cost.

Our business process is increasingly complex and we needincreasingly sophisticated tools to make it appear simple for allof us–especially the customer. So the new breed of CIO must perfectthe craft in a noisy world of alliances, collaborations andcoalitions, both inside and outside the organization. Is it anywonder they often burn out so fast?

Gregory A. Maciag is president and chief executive officerof ACORD, the non-profit industry association based in Pearl River,N.Y., with offices in Belgium and the United Kingdom.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property &Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, August 19, 2002.Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serialpublication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as anindependent work may be held by the author.