What business outcomes would justify adding another title (like chief digital or transformation officer) to your role instead of hiring someone else to perform that function? Are there certain industries where this makes more sense than others?

Transformation cannot be a separate function, it is rather a principle and discipline that should be embedded within each function, change is best driven from within.

Separation creates silos, competing priorities, and overlapping roles that disrupts rather than streamlines.

Everything is now digital, you can't draw a line  between what is digital and what is analog.

Solution is for everyone to think digital, and behave transformative.

Think of how the following concepts evolved: RSCA (Risk and Control Self-Assessment), Risk-Based Audit, Zero-Trust, Embedded Risk, Embedded Audit, and others ... All are based on introducing change from within.

People living the problem can be solve it without breaking something else.

An excellent question and one that I recently walked a client organization through. In my experience, this decision hinges on organizational culture, transformation scope and pace/timing of the change, leader capability, and operational capacity. 

Business Outcomes That Justify Dual-Title Approach:
The most compelling justification occurs when you need to accelerate transformation while maintaining operational excellence. Adding the digital/transformation title to an existing leader makes sense when:

Speed is critical - You can't afford the 6-12 month ramp-up time of an external hire when market pressures demand immediate action

Cultural integration is paramount - The transformation requires deep organizational knowledge and established relationships that would take years for an outsider to develop (and an existing leader is capable, and has the respect of those most impacted by the change)

Resource optimization - You need to demonstrate fiscal discipline while still investing in transformation (particularly relevant in current economic conditions for many organizations)

Continuity of vision - The existing leader already champions the strategic direction in question or one(s) that is immediately adjacent or related. By adding the title, it formalizes their expanded influence.

Industry Context Matters Significantly:

Healthcare systems and hospitals are ideal candidates for this approach: The regulatory complexity, clinical workflow integration, and risk-averse culture mean transformation leaders need deep industry knowledge. A sitting CIO or COO who understands HIPAA, clinical decision-making, and patient safety protocols can drive digital initiatives more effectively than an external hire learning these nuances.

Mid-market financial services also benefits from this model: The regulatory requirements, risk management, and customer trust issues make internal promotion safer than external recruitment.

Retail healthcare (e.g., CVS Health, Walgreens): works well with dual titles because the pace of change requires someone who understands both the healthcare regulations and retail operations intimately.

Potential Assessment Framework (Key questions to consider):

Organizational Readiness:
* Does the culture value internal promotion and cross-functional leadership?
* Is there board/executive support for expanding an existing leader's scope?
* Are there sufficient resources to backfill or strengthen the original role (if the leader's attention is directed elsewhere, is there someone to maintain the direction for the existing responsibilities?)?

Transformation Criticality:
* Is this a "bet the company" transformation or incremental improvement?
* How tight is the timeline for initiation and outcomes?
* What's the risk tolerance for leadership continuity?

Leader Evaluation:
* What is the existing leader's:
** Track record of managing complex, multi-stakeholder initiatives
** Demonstrated ability to influence without direct authority
** Existing relationships across the organization
** Bandwidth and energy for expanded scope
** Longevity if this transformation could take an extended period of time

Capacity Assessment:
* What is the strength and autonomy of current team?
* Is there the ability to delegate operational responsibilities within the existing responsibilities within the necessary timeframes to initiate, run, and achieve value in the transformation role?
* Can the infrastructure to support expanded role (e.g., staff, technologies, data, governance) be created within reasonable timeframes and within any constraints from the other "Capacity Assessment" questions?

When to Hire Externally Instead:
If the transformation requires entirely new capabilities (e.g., AI/ML expertise, major cloud migrations, customer experience redesign) that don't exist internally, or if the cultural change needed is so significant that an "insider" might lack the credibility to drive it.

Option to Consider: 
Consider conducting a focused (e.g., 90-day) assessment period where the potential leader takes on specific transformation initiatives while maintaining their current role. This pilot approach allows you to evaluate capacity, effectiveness, and organizational response before making the permanent structural change.
The dual-title approach works exceptionally well in healthcare because transformation success depends more on organizational navigation and stakeholder management than pure technical expertise - skills that experienced internal leaders often possess (if they are successful).