Maximizing the Effectiveness of DoD and IC Chief Technology Officers

In the global arena of the 21st century, national security is inextricably linked to technological superiority. The nation that can develop, adopt, and integrate cutting-edge technology faster and more effectively than its adversaries will hold the decisive edge. To this end, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) and the Intelligence Community (IC) have established roles of the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) across the Services, Agencies and Activities. These positions are intended to be the North Star for technology strategy, guiding behemoth organizations through the turbulent waters of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and cyber warfare. Yet, for all their potential, the current structure renders many of these CTOs as senior advisors, esteemed voices in the wilderness whose counsel is often heard but rarely, if ever, mandatory. This advisory model is a fundamental flaw, creating a chasm between technological vision and mission execution. To truly harness the power of innovation and ensure America’s continued strategic advantage, the role of the DoD and IC CTO must be radically reimagined: they must be transformed from advisors into architects, with direct-line reporting to mission leaders and explicit sign-off authority on all technology acquisitions.

The fundamental disconnect lies in the separation of the CTO from the two things that drive any bureaucracy: budget and authority. A service branch CTO might identify a revolutionary new data analytics platform. They can write white papers, give compelling presentations, and even run a successful pilot. However, when it comes to enterprise-wide procurement and implementation, the decision-making power rests with Program Executive Officers (PEOs), contracting officials, and financial managers whose primary incentives are often tied to executing existing programs of record, managing risk, and staying within tightly constrained annual budgets. The CTO’s strategic advice is just one input among many and is easily overridden by programmatic inertia, parochial service interests, or short-term financial considerations.

This structure creates a phenomenon known as "innovation theater." The organization appears to be embracing the future, but the core processes that dictate what technology is actually bought and deployed remain unchanged. The result is a landscape littered with redundant systems, a "valley of death" where promising prototypes fail to transition to operational capabilities, and a persistent struggle to achieve true interoperability.

To understand how ineffective the government model is, one need only look at its commercial counterpart. In successful technology-driven companies like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft, the CTO is not a peripheral advisor. They are a central pillar of the executive leadership team, often reporting directly to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The commercial CTO's role is not merely to suggest technology but to deliver it.

A commercial CTO is responsible for the company’s technical vision and its execution. They have direct or significant influence over the R&D budget. They are empowered to dictate the foundational "tech stack" for the entire company, ensuring that different product lines and business units are building on a common, scalable, and secure platform. When a new product is proposed, the CTO and their team are not just consulted; they are integral to determining its technical feasibility, architecture, and alignment with the company's long-term strategy.

Crucially, the commercial CTO has the power to say "no." They can veto a project that uses a non-standard technology, block a departmental purchase of a redundant software suite, or halt a development that doesn't meet enterprise security standards. This authority is not seen as a bureaucratic obstacle but as an essential mechanism for ensuring efficiency, coherence, and long-term viability. By aligning technology decisions directly with business objectives at the highest level, the company avoids creating its own internal stovepipes. It prevents the costly mistake of having ten different teams trying to solve the same problem with ten different incompatible solutions. This fusion of authority, budget, and strategy is precisely what is missing in the government space. The goal of a commercial CTO is to maximize shareholder value by leveraging technology; the goal of a government CTO should be to maximize mission value, and the principles for achieving it are the same.

To fix this systemic weakness, a two-pronged structural reform is necessary. It is bold, will face bureaucratic resistance, and is absolutely essential for national security.

1. Direct Reporting to Mission Leadership

First, the CTO of a major component—whether it be the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (the de facto DoD CTO), a service branch CTO, or an IC agency CTO—must be a direct report to the ultimate mission lead. The DoD CTO should report to the Secretary of Defense. The Army CTO should report to the Secretary of the Army. The Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s CTO should report directly to the Director.

This is not a symbolic change of an organizational chart. Proximity to power dictates relevance. By reporting directly to the principal decision-maker, the CTO’s technological perspective is integrated into every strategic conversation, from budget formulation to operational planning. Technology ceases to be a support function, like facilities or logistics, and is elevated to a primary component of mission capability, on par with force structure and policy. When the leader responsible for winning the next war or preventing the next intelligence failure has their chief technologist as a direct report, the imperative to get technology right becomes central to their own agenda and accountability. This direct line short-circuits the layers of bureaucratic filtering that currently dilute and dismiss the CTO’s guidance.

2. Sign-off Authority on Technology Procurement

Second, and most critically, the CTO must be granted sign-off authority on all significant technology and technology-enabled acquisitions within their purview. This is the enforcement mechanism that gives teeth to their strategic vision. Before a PEO can award a multi-billion dollar contract for a new fighter jet, the CTO must certify that its sensor data architecture is compliant with JADC2 standards. Before an intelligence agency can purchase a new enterprise software license, the CTO must confirm that it does not duplicate an existing capability and that it adheres to the IC’s zero-trust security framework.

This authority would empower the CTO to act as the master architect for the entire enterprise, breaking down stovepipes from a position of power. The benefits would be immediate and transformative:

Critics will inevitably argue that this new layer of authority will slow down an already glacial acquisition process. This is a fallacy. The current process is slow and delivers suboptimal, fragmented results. The CTO’s sign-off would not be another bureaucratic hurdle in a long chain; it would be a strategic gateway that replaces dozens of disconnected and often contradictory reviews. By forcing critical architectural decisions to be made correctly at the beginning of a program, it would prevent the massive delays and cost overruns that occur when interoperability or security flaws are discovered years into development. It trades the illusion of short-term, localized speed for the reality of long-term, enterprise-wide velocity.

The United States is facing a generational challenge from strategic competitors who are ruthlessly integrating their national, economic, and military power to achieve technological dominance. America cannot afford to continue with a system where its most senior technologists are relegated to the role of well-meaning but ultimately powerless advisors. To win the future, the DoD and IC must empower their CTOs. They must give them a direct line to the mission commanders and the authority to architect the future. It is time to move the CTO from the advisory council to the command staff, transforming them into the master builders of our national security technological infrastructure. Anything less is a blueprint for failure.

Colonel William “Mac” McHenry (USMCR, ret./CIA ret.) supports the Defense Innovation Unit as the Director’s Senior Advisor and Intelligence Community Lead.  He brings over 30 years of executive experience in strategy development, partner engagement, and operational execution within DOD and the Intelligence Community. 

“The views expressed in the article reflect those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.”