Goodbye to the Government CIO

Tony Collins reports that UK Government CIO, John Suffolk has already bade farewell to his colleagues and friends. I hope he isn’t replaced with a new Chief Information Officer.

John Suffolk is a good guy but I hope that the Government does not appoint a new Chief Information Officer, nobody needs one.

John has made great strides during his tenure and his approach has been refreshing and fruitful, despite the manifold Political and organizational constraints of the role.

From my perspective he is to be commended for doing a good job in very difficult circumstances.

Nevertheless I sincerely believe that the CIO as Chief Information Officer is a completely redundant concept.

So the departure of John Suffolk is an opportunity for Government Computing to move forwards to a new delivery model, from the top down.

For sure, UK Government Computing needs a major shake-up – mostly by dumping the techno-centric obsession that has defined the Political approach to problems for the past decade, or more.

http://www.SMSexemplar.com Grant (PG) Rule

Gosh! Colin, you’re not expecting business managers (and bureaucrats and politicians) to take responsibility for delivering value to their stakeholders, are you? What will you think of next?
- http://www.colin-beveridge.com Colin Beveridge
  
  Grant
  
  You are right on the button to play the stakeholder value card. When working as an interim CIO/ IT Director, I usually promoted a role/ mission statement for the IT/ IS function: to add persistent value to a successful organization.”
  
  However, this ambition is not always so easy to achieve, particularly in the public sector, due to the dynamic tension between the often short-term Policy drivers versus the inherent implementation lag of many technical functions.
  
  Government policy can, and often does, turn on a sixpence, while some public technology moves at near-geological pace. Unexpected cost and disappointment are too often the result.
John Suffolk

Colin, nice article. I think the problem/ issue is different to what is said. Call me old fashioned if you will but I am always keen to understand what problem I am trying to solve, or what objectives I am trying to achieve. Structure/ roles should be designed around this.

So the obvious question is what is Government trying to achieve, what are the overall objectives for the country, in the short, medium and long term?

The debate around centralise or localise or a hybrid, stems from an analysis of what structures will help us deliver our objectives. Let me give you an example, the debate about student fees is quite insightful about the way government works. Is it right that the most vibrant debate occurred in Parliament just before MP’s had to vote? Could you tell me what the objectives are for the education system?x could you tell me what options were considered to deliver those objectives? I wonder if we did proper business analysis as part of government policy formulation we might get a more robust? Considered? Holistic? Answer?

Best wishes

John

It is one of the reasons I decided to go now, as, as the advert says, the past is not a predictor of the future. All things should be “up for grabs”.
- http://www.colin-beveridge.com Colin Beveridge
  
  John
  
  many thanks for your comment, much appreciated.
  
  My campaign against the role of Chief Information Officer is far from a popular cause.
  
  But my perspective is that the Government (and other organizations) would benefit from ditching the Information Role and appointing a Chief Integration Officer, tasked with achieving internal and external coherence and congruence.
  
  This approach would go a long way to determining, properly, the ‘objectives’ you describe.
http://www.complyman.com Felicitas Freeman

Colin, you are right on the money! Well written piece.

TroubleShooter

Goodbye to the Government CIO