Re: Thank you Linda.
Linda, thank you for your commentary. I agree with some of your comments and not with others. First I'd like to say that the title CIO is a misnomer in my opinion. Generally the people with the CIO title are IT architects, chief technologists, or mission support managers. Very few are actually responsible for the development and management, other than data bases and web portals, of information. When I was the PACOM J2 Intelligence IT architecture chief, I never considered myself as a CIO, although I did have the good fortune to be invited to the Federal CIO Summit for the last 2 years before I retired from Federal Civil Service. The IT architecture is simply an enabler for the organization's mission, and in the case of Intelligence, it should enable what I consider to be the "vision" of Intelligence, i.e., to provide a "God's eye view and understanding" of what are and will be threats to our nation and people around the world. So I think the 2 Gartner statements are just gobbledygook. What the heck does "disruptive forces" mean? Is that the negative of enabling technologies? Should we still be using messengers on horseback to deliver hand-written correspondence? Totally agree on your comments on compliance, enough said. IT is not considered a strategic asset when the seniors don't see how it is a key enabler for their mission/business. As I sat in the morning intelligence brief and staff meeting, my focus was on how IT could better enable the analysts and staff to both gain and produce better knowledge – that was key to being able to better execute the mission. This approach resulted in both have a key voice on the staff and being tasked to support key strategic planning efforts. "CIOs" being treated like children sitting at the "adult" table are probably just "talking IT" vice providing relevant approaches towards achieving the Director's vision, goals, and objectives.