🇳🇱
@fabio As someone who just took a company public as CIO and now starting out a new company I founded as CTO (and is well funded with a quickly growing team already) I have to disagree, though I do agree on the point about a VP or someone on the board.
A CIO is **not** a lesser position to a CTO, in fact it is a greater one from the perspective of an employee. A CIO when no CTO exists is exactly the same as a CTO. When both exist the CTO handles external relations and a CIO handles internal technology. Typicall neither report to the board, only the CEO reports to the board. Thought there are exceptions (both as CIO and CTO I sat on the board as both respective companies and am an owner in both companies).
The fallacy here is that you are assuming CIO is lesser to a CTO, that is certainly not the case. Also remember there are secondary titles, for example I was CIO **and** EVP (Executive Vice President) which actually meant as CIO I was explicitly above in rank to the CTO, the CTO literally had to report to me.
@freemo I guess it depends on the company and the person in charge, but my experience is with CIOs without CTOs. In such scenarios, my experience is that the CIO is spread very thin across multiple areas of competency. It’s not really a lesser position, but one that, without a good separation of areas of concern, risks diluting the impact by putting too much on the plate.
@fabio So your saying a CIO trying to do the job of both CTO and CIO is the issue? Therefore I assume you'd say the inverse is likewise true, that a CTO without a CIO is also spread too thin?
Nice paragraphs