What's In a Name - CIO or CBT?
George F. Colony the CEO over at Forrester Research has been suggesting that we stop calling what we do "Information Technology" and instead call it "Business Technology". He makes his case in an August, 2006 article available at Forrester Research (free registration required) called "My View: IT to BT". Brian Gillooly over at Optimize Magazine Blog reports that his was also a theme at a Forrester IT Forum and cites it as "More Evidence The Shelf-Life Of The "CIO" Title May Be Shrinking". Along with this is some discussion of changing the Chief Information Officer (CIO) title to Chief Business Technologist (CBT).
The thrust of this argument is that the focus has shifted from simply operating the mechanics of information technology to being an integral part of the business. Colony states "business is technology and technology is business". While I do certainly welcome more focus on the business aspects I'm not sure I completely agree with Colony.
There is no question that IT/BT is crucial to business today. But then so is Human Resources, Marketing, Production, Supply Chain etc. Should we change their names to Business Resources, Business Analytics, etc. etc. My point is that a name change is just that - a name change and nothing more. If it helps you focus on what you should be doing then fantastic. But merely changing the name alone doesn't change what you do and how you do it.
Heather Clancy reporting on the IT Forum talks about the BT initiatives at GM and Best Buy. She reports that the GM CIO Ralph Szygenda has hired 1,000 business strategists since 1996. Given the decline of GM that is a very scary statement. It is also a good example of where technology isn't the business and probably never will be. As a manufacturer the product is the business and until GM starts making a decent product that customers want they won't be successful no matter what technology they employ. Maybe they should have hired 1,000 marketers and designers instead.
Best Buy is an interesting contrast. As a retailer their product is the shopping experience and this is a case where perhaps technology is the business as it really can be the reason you shop there. Gillooly reports that Robert Willett the Best Buy CIO has renamed the titles for people on his team to help promote more of a business technology culture. When you read Clancy's description of what Willett is doing at Best Buy it is apparent there is some actual substance to "business technology" than a mere name change. In looking up Willett on the Best Buy website I noticed his title is "Chief Executive Officer - Best Buy International & Chief Information Officer" indicating a true business and technology connection.
For me the bottom line is - it doesn't matter so much what you are called but what you do.
What do you think, should it be CIO or CBT?
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
- Business Technology (BT): a better acronym for IT by Frank Scavo
- Tech: Call it Business Technology, not IT? by Stephen Simmonds
- Let's Get Strategic!
- Or the posts in the "Strategy & Management" category
Posted by Mike on
June 7, 2007 in
Information Technology
, Strategy & Management
| Permalink
Tell a Friend
View blog reactions
In The News
About Mike
Hmmm....
I think the focus needs to be more on "information" and less on "technology." Business leaders don't need technology. What we need is accurate, reliable, timely information with which to make better decisions faster and easier. If some of that info comes from a technology platform, and some of it comes from flesh-and-blood interactions with human beings, so much the better.
How great it would be if you were called the Chief Business Information Officer. (Yeah, I know, four letters makes a lousy acronym.) If I have to choose between CIO and CBT, I'll choose the one that focuses on information.
Posted by: Kent Blumberg | Kent Blumberg | Jun 7, 2007 11:50:25 AM
Kent,
I tend to agree about the focus. "Business Technology" makes me think of copy and fax machines. It seems to put the focus on hardware which is where Colony was trying to avoid.
Mike
Posted by: Michael Schaffner | Michael Schaffner | Jun 7, 2007 1:52:54 PM
Great distinction. I think the best of you CIO-types (and you are one of the best I know) focus on the "software" between the ears of your internal customers - on their brains and on what those brains need to work at optimum effectiveness.
Posted by: Kent Blumberg | Kent Blumberg | Jun 8, 2007 4:34:28 AM
Mike,
I agree. How much of an inferiority complex do we in the IT field have? Ever since Nicholas Carr's "IT Doesn't Matter," we've been doubling and tripling our efforts to prove our importance to the Business. Instead of spending time trying to rename ourselves, we ought to just do our jobs well. If it's warranted, someone else will come up with a new name for us.
Posted by: Nick McCormick | Nick McCormick | Jun 8, 2007 8:56:21 PM
Nick,
I guess it is the old "actions speak louder than words" axiom.
Mike
Posted by: Michael Schaffner | Michael Schaffner | Jun 9, 2007 10:24:58 AM
Mike and Nick,
I agree you have to do your jobs well. However, you also have to continue marketing. That's a three step process: design your value delivery system, deliver that value (do your job well) and communicate that value to your customer. That's where a reasonably accurate title helps.
Posted by: Kent Blumberg | Kent Blumberg | Jun 9, 2007 3:54:20 PM
Agreed, good marketing is essential. It is important both externally to your users and also internally to your employees to help them implement the strategy. However, before you slap a "new and improved" label on your product it would be good to make sure that it really is.
Mike
Posted by: Michael Schaffner | Michael Schaffner | Jun 10, 2007 8:35:46 AM
There is some valid arguements to call it as BT. But, I think what we really provide is the technologies to process and communicate information. There is layer above that which really operates the business and they are responsible for business operations whereas we are repsonsible of managing the technology for information that lies behind that. So, we are really more toward I than B. So, IT is more suitable.
Everyone today understands that IT is the lifeblood of any business. SO, we really dont have to fuss about renaming it to get any added recognition.
Posted by: Yasas | Yasas | Jun 10, 2007 10:25:14 PM
Yasas,
I can see both sides of the argument but no overriding reason for a change so I'd be inclined to leave it as "IT".
Your comment about "to get added recognition" raises an interesting question(s). Do we get the recognition we deserve and do we deserve the recognition we get?
What do you think?
Mike
Posted by: Michael Schaffner | Michael Schaffner | Jun 11, 2007 6:42:16 PM
I personally think we have got the due recognition or at least we are in the midst of getting that recognition.
As a BA/Consultant, I continously talk to business and business system users and I clearly see an increase in confidence in us than it was ever before. They see us as ultimate helpers of business even though most of them have had some bad experince with regard to IT, unfortunately. Yes, they know the business operations better than us, but can they operate without us providing them with best technology solutions? Definitley Not.
Refer to the 'prdutivity Growth' section of the following text on Aussie IT industry by Australian Information Industry Association.
Quote
"According to a government report released in March 2006, the ICT industry contributed to some 85% of productivity growth in the manufacturing sector and up to 78% in the services sector in the last two decades."
So, we are getting the recognoition, may be its not up to the level that we would like it to be, but its on the increase. One thing thats important for technology is to keep the momentum going on this increase in recognition is to be Business focused and run by business rather than IT. Business driven projects are much more succeful than IT driven projects.
While we are having this discussion on IT and BT, there is another discussion on IT Vs. ICT. ACS,of which I am also an active member, promotes ICT as oppose to IT. We introduce ourselves as "The Australian Computer Society (ACS) is the recognised association for Information & Communications Technology (ICT) professionals". This is why in my previous comment I explained what we do as 'technologies to process and communicate information'. Communication plays a major part in IT, therefore in the bigger scheme of things, it should be included in the naming. Without that C componenent, IT won't work. Today we are taking steps to promote this component of IT as never before and this identification shows the change of scope and focus in our industry because a national organization which initally started for Computers, then moved to IT, and now to ICT. At this stage, given all my reasonings, I dont think we should move towards BT.
http://www.acs.org.au/tb/ntsig.htm
http://www.acs.org.au/tb/
Posted by: Yasas | Yasas | Jun 11, 2007 9:56:47 PM
Sorry forgot to provide one link which I have used to quote
http://www.aiia.com.au/i-cms.isp?page=909
Posted by: Yasas | Yasas | Jun 11, 2007 9:58:31 PM
Yasas,
The emphasis on communication is an interesting aspect. It does a lot to help make the transition from data to information.
Mike
Posted by: Michael Schaffner | Michael Schaffner | Jun 12, 2007 9:46:41 PM