The role discussed in this article is nothing new. It is just a slight repackaging of a divisional CIO role or BRM role which has been common in organizations for at least 10 to 15 years. Frankly, I don't see the need to create another "officer" level position. It will tend to create more confusion at the executive leadership table than the amount of benefit it might bring. The corporate CIO along with his or her peers should comprise the leadership team, period. Senior (probably VP level) roles reporting to the CIO should be embedded within divisions or functions to ensure relationship management, IT strategy, and demand and portfolio management are properly executed and governed with leadership in these organizational groups (assuming of course this is the right model for the organization; there are other valid models as well).
And the comment about it being too difficult and expecting too much for CIOs to have broad business acumen is a bunch of hooey. You can develop strong acumen across a broad range of business functions. I know because I have done it. If the person in the CIO role does not have this and can't develop it, then they should be replaced. If the candidate for the role does not have it to begin with, they should not be considered for the role. It's a requirement and is needed. Get over it. And the way to address this is not by creating more executive roles. The resolution is to put the right person in the right role to begin with!
And finally, the business acumen issue is typically not about the CIO lacking broader business skills, especially in larger organizations where the model in this article may apply. The real issue is that the leadership of the other functions are unwilling to listen to input from people outside of their organization or from people who did not grow up in their organization. A CIO can have the best business acumen in the world and can often times offer a great external perspective on how to resolve business problems or how to improve a business process, but he is often ignored or even ridiculed.
There are too many books and papers discussing how to fix the "IT problem" by changing IT or it's leadership. While there are certainly things that IT can do to improve, much of the improvement today hat is needed to "fix IT" is a change in the behaviors of business leadership. It starts with the CEO sponsoring a culture of respect and true collaboration amongst the business functions including IT. Ideas, improvements and problem resolutions can come from any group including IT....not just from the organization owning the process or problem. Next, the CIO should always report to the CEO. No more IT being part of finance. It belittles IT and makes IT a cost center. Third, no more IT decisions made without IT. Make it a firing offense for any business function to acquire technology without consulting IT (notice I said consult; IT may let some functions do things on their own with the right business case, risk profile, etc). No more shadow IT groups either. What goes on today is akin to every business function going out and having their own separate procurement and A/P processes and issuing their own checks for expenditures. Finance would have a fit if a division or function even brought this up today, much less went out and did it. But it's generally accepted that a group can go out and buy it's own technology with few reprecussions just because they need it fast and think they are a bunch of experts because they can go out and buy a smart phone or PC for the home.