.png)
In an era where the digital network is no longer the "plumbing" but the foundational layer of societal continuity, this CIONET Trailblazer, featuring Peter Willekens, VP SME-LE Operations at Telenet Business, explores the critical evolution of the CIO's role. The discussion delves into how network incidents have escalated to societal disruptions, pushing technology decisions into the boardroom. It examines the risks of fragmented connectivity and the essential shift toward a "Managed Secured Network." Ultimately, Peter explains how CIOs can transition from technical stewards to "guardians of trust," focusing on anticipatory resilience, controlled delegation, and "engineered trust".
Many people still view a network as just the "plumbing" of a company. In a critically connected infrastructure, it is no longer possible to treat the digital network as a background operational layer.
For a long time, networks were invisible when they worked, and only noticed when they failed. In sectors like healthcare or public service and other critically connected infrastructure, that distinction no longer holds. The digital network has become the primary delivery mechanism of care, services and public trust.
Today, clinical systems, citizen platforms, emergency services and operational processes are all real‑time, interconnected and data‑driven. When the network is unavailable or compromised, the impact is immediate and tangible: delayed care, disrupted services, or loss of public confidence. In that context, the network is no longer a technical utility in the background, but a foundational layer of societal continuity.
When a network incident shifts from being a technical nuisance to a societal disruption, how does that change the way an operations team has to think?
That shift happens the moment an incident affects people rather than systems. At that point, it is no longer just an IT issue; it becomes a governance and accountability issue.
Operations teams must then think beyond uptime or response times. They have to consider public impact, regulatory consequences, reputational damage, and accountability toward patients, citizens or employees.
This requires a shift from reactive troubleshooting to anticipatory resilience. It’s no longer about fixing incidents faster, but about designing networks to predict and anticipate failure and thereby deliver on the promise of a self-healing network.'
Traditionally, IT departments bought connectivity from one vendor and security from another. Why does this fragmented, component-based approach now represent a significant risk for large, multisite organisations?
The model where connectivity and security are bought, designed, and operated as separate components has become a material risk for large, multisite organisations because it no longer matches how modern networks are used or attacked. What once offered flexibility now introduces complexity, blind spots, and operational fragility. Threats no longer respect the boundary between “network” and “security.” When these domains are sourced, operated and governed separately, organisations lose end‑to‑end visibility and clear ownership, especially during incidents. Threat actors will exploit integration gaps, policy drift, and human delays, all of which are amplified by a component-based approach.
In complex, multisite environments, the lack of coherence increases risk. What looks like flexibility on paper often turns into a delayed response and unclear accountability in practice.
There is a move toward "Managed Secured Networks" as a single governed system. How do you explain this shift to a CIO who is worried that integrating network and security might actually create more complexity instead of less?
That concern is understandable. On the surface, integration can feel like adding another layer. But in practice, most of the complexity CIOs experience today doesn’t come from integration; it comes from fragmentation.
In many organisations, connectivity, security and operations are managed as separate domains, often by different teams and vendors. Each component may be optimised on its own, but together they create unclear ownership, overlapping tools and blind spots, especially during incidents.
A Managed Secured Network doesn’t remove complexity; it reorganises it. Instead of spreading responsibility across multiple silos, it brings network and security together into one coherently governed system, with aligned policies, shared visibility and clear accountability.
For the CIO, the key difference is not technical; it’s operational and strategic. Complexity shifts away from day‑to‑day coordination and firefighting, and becomes designed, predictable and governable. In regulated and high‑impact environments, that predictability is what ultimately reduces risk.
The role of the CIO seems to be migrating from being a technical steward to becoming a "guardian of trust." What are the specific pressures - regulatory or otherwise - that are pushing technology decisions into the boardroom?
Technology decisions now carry institutional consequences.
Regulatory frameworks, data protection obligations, cyber‑resilience requirements and public scrutiny have pushed IT topics firmly into the boardroom. CIOs are increasingly accountable not just for systems, but for the continuity, integrity and credibility of the organisation itself.
Trust - from regulators, citizens, patients and partners - has become a strategic asset. And safeguarding that trust is now part of the CIO’s mandate.
A major tension for any leader is the "illusion of control." When you talk about "controlled delegation," how can a CIO share responsibility with a partner like Telenet without actually diluting their own personal accountability?
This tension is very real, and experienced CIOs will recognise it instantly. The illusion of control is the belief that doing more yourself or keeping everything in-house increases accountability. In reality, at scale, it often does the opposite.
Controlled delegation is not about giving accountability away. It is about re-anchoring accountability at the right level and being explicit about what is delegated, what is not, and how control is exercised.
Delegation requires more clarity. It only works when governance is explicit.
Controlled delegation means clear role definitions, shared operational visibility and well-defined escalation paths. The CIO remains accountable, but no longer needs to control every operational detail personally.
By consciously sharing responsibility with a trusted partner within a governed model, accountability is distributed rather than diluted.
We often hear that "more is better," yet the trend in critical infrastructure seems to be moving toward fewer vendors. Why is a deep, accountable partnership more valuable in a crisis than a broad ecosystem of specialised point solutions?
In a crisis, coordination matters more than optimisation. A broad ecosystem of point solutions often leads to finger‑pointing, delayed decisions and fragmented responses.
It’s not about limiting innovation; it’s about ensuring that someone is accountable when it truly matters.
Trust is a word used frequently in business, but in an environment of zero-trust principles, how do you practically build a relationship where a partner is allowed to manage the "crown jewels" of an organisation’s infrastructure?
Zero trust does not eliminate trust in partners. It replaces implicit trust with engineered trust.
That distinction is what makes it possible to let a partner manage the “crown jewels” without surrendering control or accountability model.
Because systems assume no implicit trust, human and organisational trust become even more important. That trust is built through transparency, continuous governance, auditability and long‑term collaboration.
Allowing a partner to manage critical infrastructure is not blind trust — it is a deliberate governance decision.
Between the shortage of specialised IT-talent and the need for 24/7 vigilance, is "managed" networking still a luxury choice, or has it become a structural necessity for organisations to survive?
For many organisations, it has become a structural necessity.
The combination of scarce specialised skills, continuous operational demands and growing regulatory complexity makes full in-house management increasingly unrealistic.
“Managed” does not mean giving up control. It means exercising control differently, through shared ownership and continuous governance.
If these are strategic choices that define an organisation's long-term resilience, what is the one question a CIO should ask themselves today to determine if their current network architecture is actually fit for the future?
If the business changed direction tomorrow, for whatever reason, would my network architecture adapt by design, or would we need exceptions, workarounds, and heroics to keep up?
That single question exposes whether the architecture is resilient and future-fit, or merely working today.
--
