James Bond fans will be familiar with the codenames of M and Q. They will also be used to the arsenal of gadgets compulsory for budding super spies.

But how would they feel about taking on one of the most important MI6 acronyms of all… CIO.

The UK’s Secret Intelligence Service is recruiting a new chief information officer. The job advert says that MI6 wants someone capable of helping to defend the UK’s security and economic interests overseas.

Sounds a bit more exciting than making sure the chief executive’s BlackBerry is working, or that the helpdesk is meeting its service level agreements, doesn’t it?
And those meetings to discuss managing risk might take on a whole new level of interest if you were the spooks’ IT leader.

If you watched movies such as Enemy of the State or The Bourne Ultimatum and wondered if the scenes where the suspect’s every move was electronically watched from afar were for real ­ perhaps this is the job for you.

Mind you, perhaps your first question when you are asked in for an interview should be to ask why the email for interested parties to send CVs to MI6 is a Hotmail address…

The importance of technology to national security is well-known, and becoming increasingly high-profile.

Nato defence chiefs met last week to discuss new policies for protecting member states’ critical national infrastructure from cyber attacks.

The meeting came after Nato was unable to help Estonia defend itself against a massive electronic bombardment in May that disrupted government systems, news web sites and financial institutions.

As we become more dependent on IT, so we become more vulnerable to those who understand how to disrupt it.

But in their own way, IT directors in every organisation are used to facing this fact every day. Given the breadth of experience among the UK’s IT leaders in tackling security threats, there should be no shortage of applicants to MI6.

Shaken or stirred, Mr CIO?

A broad definition of intelligence might include the ability to learn from mistakes.

But it is equally important to be aware that circumstances that look similar from a distance may be quite different up close.

After the devastation of the IT sector following the dot com crash in 2000/2001 it is prudent to be on the lookout for signs of similarly disastrous exuberance – not least because technology so easily lends itself to hype.

Facebook is a case in point. Barely a day passes without its name cropping up in the media somewhere, and rumours of big firms willing to pay outrageous prices are rife.

Online social networking, and the broader concepts of Web 2.0, are clearly subject to a publicity bubble. But whether an investment boom, and bust, will follow is less certain.

The important point to remember is that the IT sector in 2007 is not the same as in 2000. And that even Facebook is not the whole internet.

When the dot com bubble burst the pop was heard throughout the economy. The problem was that the web was so new that the vision of a changed world it so swiftly created was replaced by an equally violent mistrust. Confidence in technology of all sorts was eroded.

Web 2.0 is undoubtedly full of potential. But it builds on an established basis. Internet technology is now embedded in modern life, in both the commercial and social worlds.

And the IT industry’s offerings are now sufficiently disparate for minor local difficulties in one sector to be absorbed.

The result is that flurries of interest – and even disastrous investments – in individual possibilities no longer threaten the stability of the whole.

Incipient bidding wars for as-yet-unproven businesses may be viewed with distrust. But the Nasdaq is high, “traditional” technology giants are doing well and overall industry growth remains strong.

Social networks may come and go. But the IT sector is smarter now.