Models of CTOs: which role matches your business needs?

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 by Bob Gourley | No Comments

In his classic work describing the state of the Chief Technology Officer discipline ”The Role of the CTO”, Tom Berray of Cabot Consultants articulates four models of CTOs:

  • The Infrastructure Manager
  • The Big Thinker
  • The Technology Visionary and Operations Manager
  • The External-facing Technologist

These well defined models were based on discussions with hundreds of technologists as well as written surveys. It remains the definitive work on CTO roles, and has been referenced by some of the greats, including the personal blog of Amazon CTO Werner Vogels. Werner writes there: “I believe Tom Berray’s quadrant gives the best framework for reasoning about what makes CTOs successful.” I have to agree.

As a CTO, I immediately appreciated Tom’s groundbreaking work in describing the community, since it helped me talk with people about my own role. Too frequently people misunderstand what a CTO does, in part because CTOs perform different roles in different enterprises. Ambiguity can impede effectiveness so the clarity of this model has been very helpful.

Ambiguity over the role can also contribute to challenges for organization seeking a new CTO, which leads to another important aspect of Tom’s work. He provides a mapping of CTO roles to organizational needs in a way that can help companies determine the best type of CTO for their needs.

If you are preparing a search for a CTO, a study of Tom’s framework can help provide context which can ensure you are looking for the right set of skills. If you already have an executive on your team responsible for technology strategy, you may want to ask them if they are familiar with this study, since it may help them in their dialog with others over their role.

Bob Gourley is the co-founder and CTO of Crucial Point LLC and is the former CTO of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Bob blogs on enterprise IT at CTOvision.com

There Must be Something in the Water

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 by Brian Lustig | 7 Comments

Somewhere along the line - as partisan mudslinging increased over the Iraq War - the concepts of patriotism and service to one’s country became contorted to fit the various political agendas. One pundit argues that it is unpatriotic to question the War, and a politician comes back and says it would be unpatriotic not to.
1418547012_c3832c3b5b_m.jpg

All of this political rhetoric faded - if only for an afternoon - when I listened to CACI Chairman Jack London speak of his 12 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy at the ExecutiveBiz “Been There Done That” lunch series event held last month. Mr. London cited and how traits and skills developed during military service – tenacity, integrity and commitment – contributed to his success in a corporate environment. These three traits overlap with the stated Navy Core Values Charter, under which the servicemen pledge honor, courage and commitment. It was evident that afternoon Mr. London’s passion for serving his country had nothing to do with politics, and instead was in many ways shaped by two centuries of ancestors who served in the U.S. military.

Interestingly enough, it turns out that Mr. London is not alone among government contractor executives when it comes to a Navy background. Cross checking Navy alumni with some of the largest and most respected government contractors in the DC region and you are left with a who’s who of local business leaders. While there is no shortage of executives who served time with other branches of the military, Naval experience seems top pop up frequently on their resumes.

photo-bill_hoover-sm.jpg

Mr. London’s reflections on the Navy’s role in shaping his professional and personal development mirror those of Bill Hoover, President and CEO of American Systems. During his spotlight interview with ExecutiveBiz, Mr. Hoover, a veteran officer of the US Navy and US Naval Academy graduate, shared that time with the Navy taught him to set his goals high and help others believe they are capable of accomplishing anything.

photo-jerry_agee-sm.jpgJerry B. Agee, Corporate VP and President, Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, joined the company in 1987 following an extensive career as a U.S. Naval Intelligence officer. During his ExecutiveBiz interview, Agee credited his time with the Navy in providing the foundation for a leadership role. He added that the Navy was a uniquely dynamic environment requiring rapid but sound decisions, and that officers learned how to analyze the big operational picture.

While each man’s path was a little different, the final destination was the same. And the more you listen to these executives talk about their personal and professional experiences, the less coincidental it becomes. At a high level, you see a group of men who passionately served their country for years – in some cases decades. When their active tours of duty ended each looked for outlets where they could continue to serve in some way. Logically, each found himself with a company in some way responsible for arming the military and other agencies with the weapons, technology and expertise necessary to protect citizens.

But that could hold true for every branch of the military, so what is it about the Navy? Dig a little deeper and you find that these executives cite a powerful combination of leadership skills and marketable IT and technical skills that their active duty service in the Navy provided – skills that became readily transferable to the corporate environment.

photo-jim_ballard-sm.jpgThe IT and technical skills are on full display when perusing the background of Jim Ballard, Perot Systems Government Services (PSGS) group. During his 24-year career in the United States Navy, his field assignments included: Repair Officer; USS McKee (AS-40); Nuclear Repair Officer; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Planning Officer; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. His naval headquarters assignments included: Deputy Program Manager and Technical Director for ocean engineering programs; Director of Submarine Safety and Quality Assurance; and Major Program Manager for Nuclear Attack Submarines.

Translation: if I were locked in a room with a ticking bomb that needed to be diffused in 30 seconds – and Jack Bauer was unavailable – Mr. Ballard would be my man.

photo-phil_nolan.jpgPhil Nolan, Chairman, President and CEO of Stanley, Inc., was even more direct in addressing the dual set of skills he acquired during his time on active duty in the Navy. In a December 2006 ExecutiveBiz spotlight interview, Mr. Nolan spoke of how working on a daily basis with contractors provided an essential understanding of the government-contractor relationship and the ins and outs of the selection process. Those tangible skills, Mr. Nolan added, were supplemented with the Navy’s emphasis on teamwork and leadership that he took with him to the private sector.

Earlier I spoke of perspective, and how it is often hard for those with strong viewpoints to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Perhaps the most valuable takeaway for these executives when it comes to providing services and support for men and women in the military is that they’ve been there. They understand the perspective of the soldier during both times of war and peace.

photo-brad_antle.jpgBrad Antle, CEO of SI International, hinted as much when he told ExecutiveBiz during his spotlight interview that serving in the Navy on both active duty and the Reserves offered an appreciation and sensitivity for what it means to be a soldier. It isn’t a bunch of suits making business decisions thousands of miles away from the front lines, but instead these former Navy servicemen have been there, and understand what it takes for those serving in the Navy - and other branches of the military - to do their jobs successfully.

While active duty service may have officially ended for each man, their employers, the region and the country benefit each day from their unwavering passion and commitment to the country they still serve.


Brian Lustig is co-founder of Lustig Communications, a Rockville, MD-based communications firm that works with growing technology and government IT firms. Lustig is also a contributor to local business and industry publications.

Medium-Sized Contractors Feeling the Squeeze

Friday, September 7th, 2007 by Karen Mortensen | 1 Comment

Capitol DomeIsn’t it always a company’s goal to grow? Not necessarily, according to a Washington Post article published earlier this week. If it means the firm will have a hard time winning essential government contracts, staying small might be the best bet. 

According to the Post’s analysis, medium-sized contractors have been getting squeezed out of the picture as more and more government dollars go to the largest firms. At the same time, these middle children don’t qualify for special small-company contracts. Stuck in the middle like Jan Brady, they’ve been left frustrated lately with fewer and fewer government dollars.

Mid-sized businesses used to dominate the contracting market. So why the sea change? The government has altered its method of awarding contracts. Whereas individual contracts used to be assigned by individual agencies, now we’re seeing more government-wide contracts. That means in order to compete for the job and handle the work, a company has to be quite large.

So, if you’re a mid-sized company and you want to stay in the game, what do you do? Mergers and acquisitions. It’s one option many firms have already undertaken or are seriously considering. In fact, the Post shared some interesting statistics from Richard Knop, head of the defense and government contractors group at BB&T Capital Markets, Windsor Group. According to Knop, defense companies “became aggressive buyers of services and technology companies” after the 9/11 attacks. He added that the sector has recently seen about 400 mergers and acquisitions every year.

What about companies that don’t want to merge or buy out other firms? They had better have a darn good niche so they can compete for appropriately-sized contracts rather than the huge ones that are out of reach. Either that, or they could look for opportunities to be part of a larger team in drafting a wider-ranging proposal.

The final option—one that some have chosen—is simply to stay small. With government dollars specifically set aside for small businesses, this could be the best way for some companies to remain secure and profitable—and for their executives to sleep at night. (Signs of too much stress include excessive hair loss, ingestion of 15 Excedrin or more per day, and uncontrollable toe-tapping.)

Doing the Shuffle at L-3 Communications

Friday, August 17th, 2007 by Karen Mortensen | No Comments

L-3 Logo

What’s in this week’s mailbag from New York–based L-3 Communications, the sixth largest defense company in the United States? A few changes at the top. General (Retired) Charles F. “Chuck” Wald has been appointed L-3’s new Corporate Vice President of International Business. Leaving that position is Ted McFarland, who is taking on a new role as Vice President of Strategic Planning for Washington Operations. And finally, L-3 has created a brand new position for Gino Malatesta as Corporate Vice President for Planning.

With the changes in L-3’s executive ranks, Wald will now be responsible for helping grow international business for the firm. He should be well suited to the position, as he has vast international military experience from more than 35 years in the Air Force. Most recently, he was Deputy Commander, Headquarters US European Command (USEUCOM) from 2002 to his retirement from the Air Force in 2006.

Now a local player, Major General Ted McFarland will be reporting to General (Retired) Jimmie V. Adams, Senior Vice President of Washington Operations. McFarland joined L-3 in 2003 after serving as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force for International Affairs. Like Wald, McFarland’s military experience is extensive, and both men have logged more than 3,000 flight hours. L-3 has offices in Arlington, Virginia, and a number of its divisions are located throughout the DC region.

In his new role at L-3, Gino Malatesta will manage internal financial planning, forecasting, and analysis. Malatesta has more than 23 years of financial management and planning experience in the aerospace and defense industries. He previously served as L-3’s Senior Group Vice President for Finance. 

L-3 is a prime system contractor in aircraft modernization and maintenance, C3ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) systems, and government services. L-3 is also a major provider of high tech products and services.

With 2006 sales of $12.5 billion and a workforce of more than 63,000 employees, L-3 is a contracting behemoth. Washington Technology ranks L-3 number nine on their list of the top 100 federal prime contractors nationwide.