Yes, I’ve had my shorts in a knot for quite some time now when I think of executive leadership in most companies, which have positions that don’t make sense, and those very companies may be missing the most important leadership post of all. First of all, technology is just a tool we use to get work done.

The wheel was a significant technological advancement at one time and is a significant tool for commerce and mankind. The cotton gin and steam engine were revolutionary tools at one time. Businesses have risen and fallen based on their use (or misuse) of tools and technology. Yet only in the last twenty years or so have corporations decided they needed a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to advise them and keep them straight on their use of tools. Admittedly, there is much more technology to deal with today and it is extremely complex and challenging to understand. Yet before we had CTO’s, company CEO’s didn’t have to understand how the technology worked. They just needed to know how the company could use the technology to satisfy a customer. CEO’s don’t need to know how SSL helps secure an Internet transaction for a customer. All they need to know is that it can be used to fulfill the customer’s desire for a secure way to transact business with them.

Assets can be used by companies in one of two ways to the benefit of a company. Some assets generally appreciate in value over time, such as real estate. Most assets depreciate over time and need to contribute to satisfying a customer, in excess of that depreciation, to justify holding it. Information is simply an asset like any other asset a company has. Companies have managed assets for hundreds of years without specific senior executive posts to manage them. To my knowledge, corporations have never had a Chief Asset Officer. So, why do they need a Chief Information Officer? Yes, it’s true, we have never had more information assets to manage than we have today. I have to ask the question from a chief executive perspective, why would a company handle information assets any differently than any other assets? Again, CEO’s don’t need to know about data structures or if a database is normalized. All they need to know is what information is useful in order to meet customer expectations and the cost of acquiring and retaining that information makes it profitable to do so.

If you accept the concept that a business IS those processes used to deliver value to a customer, then the most appropriate executive management position in support of a company CEO would have to be a Chief Process Officer. Now for those of you who don’t know me well and think I’m saying this because I feel some professional slight, I’ve been an IT professional for almost 30 years. I’m a frustrated geek. Information and Technology has comprised most of my professional life. That’s not why I’m saying these things. This is business and businesses have worshiped technology for much too long. I’m also not saying this because I actually believe we need one more over-paid chief executive position in our companies. What I am trying to say, in simpler terms, is that managing a business is managing its processes to consistently create successful customer outcomes. We should not be focused on technology and information. We need to be focused on our processes. If this focus is missing in the executive suite of any company, how can that company succeed in this hyper competitive 21st century global economy?

The good news is I have recently seen encouraging signs this may be changing (at least in form if not name) with some rare outside-in thinking CTO’s and CIO’s who are leading their companies into this process transformation. Cast no aspersions on these forward thinkers no matter how inappropriately titled. Whatever they call you, the hard question is, are you leading your organization’s transformation or hunkering down in the flat lands hoping all this change will just blow over?

Don Smith, CPP Lead Coach

Director - International Process and Performance Institute
www.ipapi.org