I would suggest that the demands on the CIO to evaluate many different technologies, often simultaneously -- each the brain-child of some business constituent who "discovered" it -- in light of how it fits (or doesn't) into their current architecture, the kinds of resources that will be required to implement and support it, will it overlap/duplicate/interfere with something they're already doing, assess TCO, ROI, etc., and on and on... all while keeping data moving securely and smoothly through the various systems that process it, responding to everyone's super-important "emergencies," etc., with limited resources and tight budget constraints; and that's only the half of it! I started as a programmer in 1968 and lived through the wild-n-wooly early days when we patched stuff on the fly; but things were a lot simpler then. Innovation, such as it was, was ad-hoc, just like nearly everything else was. By comparison the complexity a CIO must deal with today is almost mind-boggling: ad-hocracy doesn't work (if it ever did); "innovation," especially, has to be carefully managed. Not all ideas are good ones, even if the EVP of Good Things him/herself thought it up.

I suggest that the companies whose people are pushing for "innovative new tools" should allow the CIO's to do their jobs, and give them more resources if that's what it takes. Better yet, they should set up an Innovation Process, add these innovative new tools to the Innovation Portfolio, and include the CIO in the Innovation Team that manages the portfolio using a Stage & Gate methodology to enforce rationality in deciding what innovation is necessary, and what is just noise.

And if a CIO is truly "technically challenged," I would imagine that he/she has people on staff to rely on, who are up to the technical challenge.

Isn't it odd how no matter how much the technologies change and how complex the infrastructure becomes, the people that an IT leader has to deal with haven't changed all that much in 40 years?

Bravo, Steven! Well said!

I believe the main issue lies with the role of CIO. In my opinion, this role should be 90% strategic, with operations being handled by other individuals/departments, but reporting directly to CIO. This would inherently focus the CIO on how he/she can innovately achieve the IT department AND company strategy/vision. The firms I have worked for have had the CIO hands in too many pies, which, in my estimation, limits their efficacy and in turn, squelches innovation. I also think that the idea of IT moving more into the business units will increase in the near future due to this fact.

Innovation is not a tool/technology/application/etc... It is a mind-set for looking how to do things differently, with the end goal to benefit the company, customers and stakeholders.

Humans remain humans irrespective of one's status or stature, trying to stifle the growth, development and innovation at every moment possible. They never get tired or they think that it's part of their work to nib every growth at the very sign of budding itself.

I do agree with these comments.

Isn't innovation the thing that rocks the ICT cradle?
Can we still imagine this written conversation on an old-fashioned bulletin board?

To be competitive, any company faces the challenge to innovate. There is an opportunity for ICT to be part of business innovation. Of course, all depends on the maturity of the "environment."

Innovation doesn't need to be revolution; it can be well-planned evolution. Look at nature: it is highly unlikely that a seed becomes a tree within a second.