>> CAN WE REALLY JUSTIFY THE TITLE "CHIEF IoT OFFICER"?

Does the title you have truly make a difference with the opportunities available these days?

We have seen a number of education initiatives such as the Bachelor of Science: IoT being launched by a number of universities - but are we ready for the prime time of actually creating an executive position around the technology as has been proposed in a blog post by Jeff Kaplan, managing director of THINKstrategies? Why the time is right for a Chief IoT Officer.

The Internet of Things is radically different from the typical silo of knowledge bases such as cloud computing, mobile application development, security, data acquisition and analytics - as it can potentially involve and include all aspects of these fields.

Is it really possible for someone to have extensive knowledge in all of these areas - or is it be sufficient to have some foundations and the ability to elaborate and dive in further with a supporting, more knowledgeable team at your disposal? Jeff seems to hint on that question:

Only a specially designated IoT 'Czar', or Chief IoT Officer, with access and authority across every department can fully address all the challenges associated with IoT initiatives and provide the leadership necessary for success.
source: finishing quote from Jeff Kaplan

In most technical environments where people have a clue; this would be a joke. However, not all business dealings are done with like minded individuals, the majority of opportunities are decided by people who only know buzz words. In such cases your title might be the deciding factor.

I recently came across an article about Australian entrepreneurs flooding to Silicon Valley due to the blatant lack of how innovation happens these days. Being involved in technology still means suit and tie down under and it feels like your stuck in the 1990's on the set of Office Space.

I can so understand how an IoT specific title may help in such an environment.