Discussion on:

Who thinks the CIO is important? The CIO, but hardly anyone else

Bigger problem is that most CIO's have no IT background. I spoke to another companies CIO who I know has an IT background about the others in the monthly area CIO meetings. Out of 12 that he knows of, 2 (including himself) have IT backgrounds, all the other CIO's have to "bring someone in" to do demonstrations as they lack any ability to use the products they are talking about. As more CIO positions get filled with Business majors, the more the title will fade away.

Most still report up through a CFO, BAD.
Some of the biggest companies may still do good business only because of their influence, positions, product in the market, but many are going out of date and way of the dinosaur with that model. If a business today can shut their data centers down and still do business for a while then maybe that will work. Otherwise IT is the new business and any business that does not recognize the importance and value the role that IT has in business and respect that at the leadership position is all doomed eventually.
A company that is technology driven by its IT department, relies very heavily on its IT, needs to have a clear role in the executive leadership, and never via the Finance department, is not longer an adjunct part of any SG&A of a company but the way a company does its business now. Either A CIO role equally on par in the executive level, or at least directly reporting to the CEO, but never the CFO
Now as for the experience levels, I have seen good and bad both with good amount of IT experience or not. So hard to judge any rule of thumb here, but if CIO's are going to be respected they have to be very business savvy. But many times I see CIO's that want to make all the technology decisions also and never trusting their people that need to be doing that, some think they know more than their people since they are the boss, Not always but that is where many fail. They need to drive process, projects, direction as leaders are supposed to do, hire good people and trust them to provide the information and technology directions the CIO needs and let their people do their jobs how they know how to do it best.
Most do not realize, is the people in the trenches that really know how to run the business, C-execs are clueless many times, they only count the numbers, provide direction and vision. But shop off the exec head, and the rest of the company will continue on autopilot with day-to-day operations for a long time just fine

no real surprises here. Because the conversations are still wrongly focused on the 'value' of technology. Sadly, if experience is a guide, nothing much will change until, and unless, the conversation moves forward, by finally recognising that IT has little real business value, except as a contributory factor - in combination with people, process and organisation. The role of the genuinely effective CIO is not to justify the value of IT, or even to interpose with business strategy; it is to make sure that the organisation is coherent and congruent, internally and externally, through effective information systems.

without being very conversant with the technology of IT? If it's possible to do all that without any IT knowledge, then the same can be said of the chief finance officer and the chief marketing officer, as they only provide support services to the business as well.

I think part of the problem is that any C level executive whom is not actually hands on with real responsibilities in their area of control, is going to be disconnected from what is actually happening at the coal face.

If I was starting a company right now, absolutely I would hire a CIO, but he would be a guy actually doing a lot of the work in that area himself, with his other team of experts ... in many ways they would be equals, he just happens to be the first go to guy for finding out what is happening in that area, and for disseminating requests to from other department heads.

Similarly, if I was the CEO I would expect the same of myself ... I do not think there is a point in spending the kind of money it costs for any of these roles if they are not doing hands on work in addition to heading up the company ... the trick is to ensure that each department is well enough resourced that when these people do need to get away for important meetings, they have adequate team mates to take over for them on any job being done ... and of course, the most important assistant they each need, is an EA/PA ... these ladies are the ones who are the real glue in many organisations, and too many people underestimate the importance of a good one.

It is no wonder that "just 35 per cent of their C-suite peers agreed". It is amazing that the CIO even got that percentage of acknowledgement from the "C" peer group. As ego centric as "C" level exec's are, they all think themselves are the only person keeping the company going, and the rest are dead wood. I also think Tazrox has a good point. The last large company I worked at, the Vice-president of technology didn't know squat about IT. His creditability was zilch to every one but his cronies.

Then everyone at the C-level is looking for the CIO...oops, we didn't think he was important so we fired him.