Home

Do you believe revenue should be an official metric for CIOs? Why or why not?

Absolutely!  Every person in a C-Level is responsible for Revenue generation in one aspect or another.  If you are the CIO your job includes making sure the company is running the best-fit technology for your organization.  The tech that is going to return the highest ROI, smoothest processes and highest user engagement to name a few.  All these play a factor in revenue generation and business success.  

32472 views
25 comments
3 upvotes
Related Tags
Anonymous Author
Absolutely!  Every person in a C-Level is responsible for Revenue generation in one aspect or another.  If you are the CIO your job includes making sure the company is running the best-fit technology for your organization.  The tech that is going to return the highest ROI, smoothest processes and highest user engagement to name a few.  All these play a factor in revenue generation and business success.  
3 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Absolutely, all members of the C-suite should be measured by the same KPI's from CEO to CIO. Alignment of the IT strategy with that of the business should indicate where value-add occurs and if all projects are measured by ROI then this shouldn't be a problem. All IT activities should be revenue enhancing in some way and from my experience this can be difficult to prove. Using value engineering as a methodology can help enormously.
3 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Yes. If IT is supporting business with excellent solutions ROI should increase.
2 upvotes
Anonymous Author
The only time anyone should have revenue as a metric, is when they are directly or closely involved in achieving revenue. In a large majority of companies the CIO has no responsibility for generating revenue.  However, if the social media function has been misplaced (under the CIO) as opposed to Marketing (where it belongs), then there would be a revenue component.  There are scores of metrics by which to measure a CIO or IT department.  It should be noted that some metrics.  A quick example is the IT Costs as a percent of Revenue.  CEOs love this metric, but if you understand what’s being measured you will see that the CIO has no influence over the Revenue side of the equation and could be a hero or failure, based on the revenue generated from sales.
2 upvotes
Anonymous Author
I believe revenue should become official metric for CIOs as well like other C-Level executives. In this way, CIO importance in the organisation will gradually increase from cost center to profit center. If a CIO is working in a sales oriented company then he should also be an active member helping organisation in increasing sales and on the other hand facilitating company in providing real-time dashboards to gauge sales.     
2 upvotes
Anonymous Author
This question often leads to bogus outcomes. The CEO wants to tell the board that all of the exec team are measured on financial metrics (revenue, FCF, EBITDA...take your pick) but not all of them are equally empowered to affect the metric. So it should really be weighted on the ability to influence it. And there should be a 2-way street. It makes no sense to measure the CIO on revenue if the head of sales doesn’t enforce adoption of sales tools and allows operational problems to build which increases opex and reduces customer sat. So if you want the CIO to accept a revenue target, then also assign the other c-suite some IT metrics so we don’t get ridiculous amounts of shadow IT, duplication of data and other negative outcomes. My main point - hold executives accountable for the things they can do based on their scope of responsibility and what is reasonable in partnership with peers.
2 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Yes it needs to be an official metric for the CIO's too. Else it will be an academic endeavor for the CIOs in their organizations.
2 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Perhaps a better way to think about this and a "metric" is revenue attribution. Much like Marketing driving "top of funnel", the initiatives that the CIO drives should improve internal customer productivity and enable more substantial business outcomes, revenue being one of them.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
This is the ultimate question where “it depends”.   Hopefullu a company has made IT investments with ROI rationale/targets for revenue - in which case absolutely Yes
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
As part of the c-suit I do believe CIO KPIs should be same as CEO KPIs (Business) His/Her focus always should be to help CEO to achieve his agenda Things like revenue, Net profits, cash in hand, G&A , Backlog
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
I believe that there should be multiple metrics for revenue generation. CIO’s should have KPI’s that link to revenue generation or loss (service availability etc). However this does depend on the business in question and delivered products and services. Profitability is mostly awarded with bonuses which relate to revenue indirectly. 
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Yes!  CIOs need to be conscious of revenue and how their services can enhance revenue, either with direct revenue producing activities or (more likely) making other processes seamless and more effective.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
It should certainly be one of them but I would be wary of putting too much emphasis there.  We support all aspects of the business which means we impact all major stakeholders - Customer, Employees, and Investors.  So we should track metrics in each of those areas; Customer Satisfaction (NPS, Retention/Churn, if possible overall health score, etc.), Employee Satisfaction (Attract/retain, satisfaction, etc.), and Financial Results (Revenue, cost savings, etc.).  On top of that we also have a fourth area which is Risk that needs to be tracked.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Depending on the industry this metric can/should be a metric for CIO's but would require specificity.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Of course! IT impacts revenue, so it MUST be a metric. IT optimizes processes and services and that increases revenue, Offline services affect revenue...
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
I see a lot of traditional thought in this thread that is a root cause for why/how breaches occur. IT is a large expense for any company. If a company is having problem making their revenue goals, IT is one of the first levers the CEO or CFO pulls. We’ve gone from a Keep the Lights On model to a Push it until it dies, then act surprised model. What most executives fail to understand is that deep cuts in IT always have negative impacts on the security posture. Because the cuts are rarely done with security as a consideration, the additional risk that is added into what is already a dynamic and unpredictable model is not even understood let alone tracked in any risk register. Only post breach with a full root cause analysis can the cause be understood but even then, it is never linked to budget cuts or staff reductions. There is a minimum acceptable level if IT service that needs to occur, including refreshing hardware, updating applications and having the number of staff necessary to maintain the hygiene of the system at an acceptable level. IT needs to be held accountable for how they spend their budgets to reduce unnecessary expenses, but first a company must understand what the minimal acceptable level of support model looks like without negatively impacting the security posture. 
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
My bugbear with most security metrics is the lack of last mile linkage to revenue or cost of breach saved or cost of reputation saved. Often the metrics are IT based and failed to link to business bottom-line. For instance, what does it mean to the business when X number of vulnerabilities are patched within the remediation timeline? Or, what does it mean to the business when X number of intrusions are blocked at the IPS, WAF, NFW, AV, ATD, MDR, WSG, etc etc.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Well said, and to add to this, the CIO is always at risk if there is a significant security breach or if the business does not meet its objectives because of systems issues.  One company I had worked for, the CIO shut down significant portion of DR for about 3 years and saved a lot of money, and looked like a genius. Luckily, there was no disaster or significant disruption in business. 
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
All executives should have a revenue component in their MBO’s & metrics just like expense and profit margin. Depending where the CIO sits in the organization the weight of these metric obviously changes.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
I’m in agreement with Mike, where the metrics should be based on driving internal performance and productivity which produces or enables improved revenue outcomes. It also is based on the investments made to support those decisions.
0 upvotes
Anonymous Author
It is a component of the metric. The organization must also be protected from cyber attacks, which is a big cost.  The CIO job is to ensure that the business objectives are met and the organization strategic goals are achieve.
0 upvotes
Anonymous Author
It is one of metrics for CIO, nowadays Information technologies are main supporting processes/services for organizations, this means that yes, one of the mainc duties for CIO is to think about revenue for business.
0 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Absolutely! Growth is by far the most important aspect for any corporation and CIO + the CIO org need to have KPI based on growth 
0 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Depending on the type of business the company does, the CIO organization is an overhead to the company.  The CIO  responsible to support the business so that the business can carry out its mission and meet its objectives. CIO really does not generate revenue (maybe a software company selling a product or number of helpdesk calls), but the CIO is there to support the business and ensure systems are running efficiently and secure.  By their actions, CIO and reduce overhead costs, which is an improvement in revenue.
0 upvotes
Anonymous Author
Good question. I am on the fence with this. I had an employer that would make every meeting about EBITDA. It sounded good on the outside like we were on an uprise as a company. But it didn't really do anything for morale. So a profitable company can have miserable employees? Doesn't sound like a good measurement for success. "The world runs on money" is a falsehood perpetuated by an older generation. The truth is, the world is indifferent and society runs on people. Money is just the lubricant for society. If all else fails, the US has strong safety measures in the form of chapter 7 though 11. Bankruptcy is tool to allow people to take risks implementing good ideas and not losing their entire livelihood over it.
0 upvotes