I’ve frequently heard the critique that a Chief Information Officer is really a Chief Technology Officer - on the basis that they don’t seem to spend much time on the information, or really understand it.
Well this has hit a nerve. Well written. 'a Chief Information Officer is really a Chief Technology Officer - on the basis that they don’t seem to spend much time on the information, or really understand it' is 100% correct. I would also add that they spend little, if any time thinking about the documents. Also, 99% if not 100% of CIO budget is focused on data systems. So how do we (the document side) even get a look in. I recently worked on a UK government programme that had already spent £20million consolidating (data) business systems but didn't give a second thought about the 350 fragmented, stand alone, unmanaged document repositories (excluding shared drives, sharepoint etc) across its IT estate. I presented a potential TOM showing an single ECM integrated with the new systems to capture documents and databases once closed. The reaction was if I had suggested building a rocket to the sun.
Thanks Alison! I've had a similar experience. Over a long arc, I've actually become sympathetic to CIOs. Most that I know are very busy, and business systems generally present well defined problems. I think document systems present less well defined problems, and the path of least resistance is generally paying for more storage - one that I think they're happy to take. How we get them off that path is a hard problem that I don't pretend to have clear answers for - just the heuristic that I think we need to work out how to present much more well defined problems with specific consequences. How does that gel with your experience?
Well this has hit a nerve. Well written. 'a Chief Information Officer is really a Chief Technology Officer - on the basis that they don’t seem to spend much time on the information, or really understand it' is 100% correct. I would also add that they spend little, if any time thinking about the documents. Also, 99% if not 100% of CIO budget is focused on data systems. So how do we (the document side) even get a look in. I recently worked on a UK government programme that had already spent £20million consolidating (data) business systems but didn't give a second thought about the 350 fragmented, stand alone, unmanaged document repositories (excluding shared drives, sharepoint etc) across its IT estate. I presented a potential TOM showing an single ECM integrated with the new systems to capture documents and databases once closed. The reaction was if I had suggested building a rocket to the sun.
Thanks Alison! I've had a similar experience. Over a long arc, I've actually become sympathetic to CIOs. Most that I know are very busy, and business systems generally present well defined problems. I think document systems present less well defined problems, and the path of least resistance is generally paying for more storage - one that I think they're happy to take. How we get them off that path is a hard problem that I don't pretend to have clear answers for - just the heuristic that I think we need to work out how to present much more well defined problems with specific consequences. How does that gel with your experience?
A spot-on articulation of the problems caused by these professional distinctions Karl!