July 30, 2026
By Richard Edmondson
What technology leadership does your organisation actually need?
That was the question at the centre of a recent breakfast discussion hosted by Norman Broadbent, where a small group of Chairs, CEOs and Investors from across the Healthcare & Life Sciences sector came together to explore how organisations should approach technology leadership as digital transformation, AI, cyber security and data become increasingly central to business strategy.
Led by Richard Edmondson, Partner, Technology & Data, alongside Kerry Hillier and Luke Horrigan from our Healthcare & Life Sciences practice, the discussion focused not on technology itself, but on the leadership capability organisations need to achieve their strategic ambitions.
While every organisation around the table faced different challenges, a number of common themes emerged.
A shared sense of uncertainty
One of the strongest themes to emerge was that many organisations are grappling with remarkably similar questions.
The discussion highlighted challenges at both a strategic and practical level. How do we ensure our organisation is secure, future-ready and making the most of advances in technology? Should technology capability be built internally or accessed externally? Is it time to appoint a permanent CTO, or would interim, fractional or advisory support be more appropriate?
For one private equity-backed healthcare CEO, hearing that others around the table were wrestling with many of the same decisions was reassuring. Rather than searching for a single "right" answer, the discussion reinforced that technology leadership needs to reflect each organisation's strategy, maturity and ambitions.
One size does not fit all
The discussion also explored the different ways organisations can access technology leadership capability.
While some businesses may require a permanent CTO, others may be better served through interim, fractional or advisory support. This was particularly relevant for lower to mid-market, private equity-backed businesses, where the cost of a highly experienced CTO can be difficult to justify on a full-time basis.
Participants observed that many organisations already have capable technology teams delivering day-to-day operational requirements, but the challenge is access to experienced leadership around governance, investment decisions, transformation and risk.
There was broad recognition that technology leadership capability can be delivered through a variety of models depending on an organisation's stage of growth and strategic priorities.
Start with the business problem
Richard opened the discussion by encouraging attendees to start with the business problem rather than the technology itself.
Before considering whether to appoint a CTO, or indeed what type of technology leadership is required, organisations should first be clear about the outcomes they are trying to achieve. One attendee built on this by suggesting that organisations should think about the systems they are trying to build and then consider the combination of technology, processes and people required to make those systems work effectively.
This prompted a wider discussion around governance, decision-making and accountability, including the respective roles of executive teams, boards and investors. While approaches varied, there was broad agreement that the business challenge should determine the leadership solution, rather than beginning with a predefined view of the role or individual required.
Data readiness
The conversation also explored the importance of understanding an organisation's data before introducing automation or AI. This includes knowing where data sits, whether it is accurate and reliable, how accessible it is and whether it is joined up across the organisation.
There was broad agreement that organisations cannot expect AI or automation to compensate for poor-quality or fragmented data. Technology is only ever as effective as the information it is built upon.
Lessons from ERP implementations
Several attendees reflected on expensive and ultimately unsuccessful ERP implementations, often attributing these to insufficient planning and a tendency to view implementation as a technology project rather than a business transformation programme.
The discussion reinforced the importance of aligning technology decisions with organisational objectives, governance and change management from the outset, rather than allowing the technology itself to drive the programme.
Centralised technology versus business unit ownership
The discussion naturally extended to the question of ownership and organisational structure.
While some organisations viewed technology primarily as an operational function, others saw it as a key driver of transformation and business change. There was no consensus on where technology leadership should sit, with views varying between operations, transformation functions and standalone leadership structures.
Rather than adopting a standard model, attendees agreed that organisational design should reflect the role technology plays within the business.
Cyber security and risk
Where individual business units are implementing their own technology, attendees agreed this must be closely aligned with the organisation's data governance and cyber security capabilities. This was particularly important given the sensitive patient and client data handled by many organisations in the room. A growing number of systems can create additional access points and increase the potential for security breaches.
The discussion also explored the potential value of bringing in external cyber specialists, alongside interim or fractional technology leadership where appropriate, to assess an organisation's current position and determine the level of investment required to meet its risk appetite.
For organisations operating in highly regulated environments, cyber resilience was viewed as a board-level responsibility requiring appropriate leadership, governance and oversight.
Shared expertise and portfolio support
Many portfolio companies face similar challenges around cyber security, data governance, AI readiness and technology transformation. Participants considered whether access to a portfolio-level technology adviser, operating partner or experienced CTO could provide strategic guidance across multiple investments, while allowing the cost of that expertise to be shared.
While no single model emerged, there was clear interest in distinguishing operational technology management from strategic technology leadership, recognising that not every organisation requires a full-time executive, but every organisation needs access to the right expertise at the right time.
Final reflection
While the discussion explored a broad range of topics, one message remained consistent throughout: there is no single blueprint for technology leadership.
The organisations best placed to realise value from technology are those that begin with their business objectives, understand the capability they genuinely need, and build leadership models that reflect their stage of growth and strategic priorities.
Thank you to everyone who joined us and contributed so openly to the discussion. The quality of the conversation reinforced the value of bringing together senior leaders to share experiences and learn from one another. We look forward to continuing the conversation in the months ahead.