I’ve been presenting to our board quarterly for five years now. The relationship has evolved from awkward and transactional to genuinely productive. The difference isn’t that I learned to speak “business language” or that they learned technology. It’s that we figured out what each side actually needs from the other.

Here’s what I wish every board member understood about what their CIO needs to be effective.

Strategic Direction, Not Technology Decisions

I don’t need the board to decide whether we should use AWS or Azure. I need them to tell me what the business is trying to accomplish over the next three to five years so I can build technology strategy that supports those goals.

Is the company planning international expansion? That changes our data residency requirements and infrastructure approach. Are we pursuing an acquisition strategy? That affects how we think about integration capabilities and system consolidation.

The best board conversations I’ve had started with business strategy and worked backward to technology implications. The worst started with a board member asking why we weren’t using some technology they’d read about in a magazine.

Give me strategic context and business objectives. Let me translate that into technology decisions. That’s literally what you’re paying me to do.

Realistic Timeframes for Major Initiatives

When the board gets excited about a digital transformation initiative, they want it done immediately. I understand the urgency. But enterprise technology projects are measured in quarters and years, not weeks and months.

Our ERP replacement took two years from vendor selection to go-live. That’s not because IT was moving slowly. It’s because migrating decades of data, reengineering business processes, training hundreds of users, and testing everything properly takes substantial time.

I need the board to understand that speed and risk are inversely related in major IT projects. We can move faster, but only by accepting more risk. Sometimes that trade-off makes sense. Usually it doesn’t.

Set realistic timeframes based on the actual complexity of the work, not based on what the sales presentation promised or what you wish was possible.

Budget Flexibility for the Unexpected

IT budgets are forecasts, not prophecies. Despite our best planning, unexpected needs arise. Security incidents require immediate response. Critical systems fail and need replacement. Regulatory requirements change and force unplanned work.

I need some budget flexibility to handle these situations without coming to the board for emergency funding every time something unexpected happens. A contingency budget or the authority to reallocate within IT spending lets me respond to emerging needs without bureaucratic delay.

The alternative is that I defer important work because it wasn’t in the approved budget, or I spend months building a business case for something that needs to happen immediately. Neither outcome serves the organisation well.

Support When IT Says No

Sometimes IT has to say no to business requests. No, we can’t deploy that application because it failed security review. No, we can’t integrate with that partner’s systems because they have inadequate security controls. No, we can’t meet that timeline because it requires cutting testing that keeps production stable.

These decisions are rarely popular. The requesting business unit usually escalates to their executive, who sometimes pressures IT to find a way.

I need the board’s backing when IT makes risk-based decisions that disappoint business stakeholders. If the board undermines those decisions, it signals that IT’s risk assessments don’t actually matter. That’s when bad things happen.

Support your CIO’s judgment on technology and security decisions, even when it means telling other executives no. If you don’t trust their judgment, get a different CIO. But don’t keep one you don’t trust and then overrule them on technical matters.

Understanding of Technical Debt

Technical debt is invisible to most board members until it causes a visible crisis. They see that systems are working, so they question why IT needs to spend money modernising infrastructure or refactoring applications.

I need the board to understand that technical debt accumulates like financial debt. It slows down new development, increases operational costs, and creates risk. Paying it down is necessary maintenance, not optional nice-to-have work.

When I present a project to modernise legacy systems, I’m not asking permission to play with new technology. I’m trying to address accumulated technical debt before it constrains the business or causes an outage.

Treat technical debt reduction as essential business investment, not IT pet projects. The cost of deferring this work is almost always higher than the cost of addressing it proactively.

Honest Feedback on IT Performance

Most board members are polite about IT performance even when they’re privately frustrated. They’ll say everything is fine in board meetings, then complain to the CEO later that IT isn’t responsive or business-aligned.

I need honest, direct feedback about where IT is falling short. I can’t fix problems I don’t know exist. If business units are frustrated with our service delivery, tell me directly. If the board feels they’re not getting adequate reporting or transparency, say so.

The feedback loop needs to be direct and constructive. Vague complaints about IT being “too slow” don’t help me improve. Specific examples of where we missed expectations let me investigate, understand root causes, and fix underlying issues.

Advocacy for IT’s Role in Strategy

In many organisations, IT is still viewed as a cost centre that supports the “real” business. This attitude limits what technology can contribute.

I need the board to position IT as a strategic capability, not just operational support. That means including IT leadership in strategic planning discussions from the beginning, not just asking us to implement decisions after they’re made.

It means recognising that competitive advantage increasingly comes from technology capabilities. It means investing in IT when that investment enables business outcomes, not just cutting IT budgets when looking for cost savings.

The CIO can advocate for IT’s strategic role, but it’s far more effective when it comes from the board and CEO. That sets the tone for how the rest of the organisation views technology.

The Relationship That Works

The best board-CIO relationship I’ve seen is collaborative and strategic. The board provides business context and strategic direction. The CIO translates that into technology strategy and execution plans. Both sides trust each other’s expertise and judgment.

It requires regular communication beyond quarterly board meetings. It requires the board investing time to understand technology’s role in the business. It requires the CIO connecting technology initiatives to business outcomes.

When this relationship works well, IT becomes a competitive advantage. When it doesn’t, IT becomes a bottleneck and source of frustration. The difference often comes down to whether the board knows what their CIO actually needs and is willing to provide it.