Would the appropriate engineering analogy then be professionally recognized/credentialed technology teams rolling up into to a similarly credentialed General/Chief Technology Officer who also reports directly to the board?
If we believe wikipedia, GCs used to mainly report directly to the CEO, and still do for smaller firms. For larger firms, it's not unusual for GCs to report to the board in conjunction with CEOs[1].
Going back to the idea of technologists reporting up to technologists, this is probably the same end state where the Professional Engineer (PE) designation for "software engineers" in the US is ultimately trying to get to. I think it's the NCEES and IEEE that are driving this[2].
It doesn't seem to me that you'd endorse the NCEES-IEEE vision for other reasons articulately expounded on at length on your blog, but would like to get your thoughts on it nonetheless since I don't think it's been touched on much in this forum recently.
If we believe wikipedia, GCs used to mainly report directly to the CEO, and still do for smaller firms. For larger firms, it's not unusual for GCs to report to the board in conjunction with CEOs[1].
Going back to the idea of technologists reporting up to technologists, this is probably the same end state where the Professional Engineer (PE) designation for "software engineers" in the US is ultimately trying to get to. I think it's the NCEES and IEEE that are driving this[2].
It doesn't seem to me that you'd endorse the NCEES-IEEE vision for other reasons articulately expounded on at length on your blog, but would like to get your thoughts on it nonetheless since I don't think it's been touched on much in this forum recently.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_counsel
[2] http://www.todaysengineer.org/2009/Sep/Software-PE.asp