I've written on this subject on my own blog (http://www.peterkretzman.com/2007/07/10/the-title-issue-cto-vs-cio-and-why-its-the-wrong-question/). Probably the main thrust of my thinking on this is that there needs to be a single senior executive in a "position that concentrates on shepherding technology systems and strategy, from a high level viewpoint, throughout your company." That can be called CIO at some places, CTO at others, VP of Technology, whatever. The title itself is much less important than the span of responsibilities. Specifically, that person should have, in my view, management oversight of IT operational issues as well as strategy. It's an executive position, not an individual strategic guru. I've seen companies fail badly by not having a clear notion of this, so in that respect, I certainly agree with Chris Potts.

I've written on this subject on my own blog (http://www.peterkretzman.com/2007/07/10/the-title-issue-cto-vs-cio-and-why-its-the-wrong-question/). Probably the main thrust of my thinking on this is that there needs to be a single senior executive in a "position that concentrates on shepherding technology systems and strategy, from a high level viewpoint, throughout your company." That can be called CIO at some places, CTO at others, VP of Technology, whatever. The title itself is much less important than the span of responsibilities. Specifically, that person should have, in my view, management oversight of IT operational issues as well as strategy. It's an executive position, not an individual strategic guru. I've seen companies fail badly by not having a clear notion of this, so in that respect, I certainly agree with Chris Potts.