Moderna recently announced they are combining their IT and HR functions under a single chief people and technology officer. They say this will allow them to better design (or eliminate) roles based on what work people will perform, versus what technology will handle. Would you consider this at your organization? And do you think this scales to orgs of all sizes?

Having been through a similar CPTO move at an international airport ~8 years ago, it wasn't a positive experience. The move placed IT in a less than ideal position. HR - although people focused, is in reality risk focused. IT should be relationally oriented and focused on delivering value to the business - taking risks is part of this. There are synergies and benefits to be clear (process, innovation, equity and role based focuses for example), but IT was hampered by the employee experience with HR. A restructure subsequently moved IT to be part of the CFO's office which was better for the organization as a whole. As others have mentioned, the leader in charge of the CPTO makes all the difference, and this is just one example.

It's an interesting move and I can see where the thinking came from but ultimately it's going to come down to the quality of individual. It's not a role that widely exists (outside of small businesses/start-ups), so to apply it at scale is not about the the concept, but needing both the right candidate and the right board to work through the novel challenges.

I think a CPTO is a bold and forward-thinking move. There is so much discussion and cost put into expanding and improving technology and much less thought about improvement of workflows for employees. However, this could create a situation where operations gets less attention than it deserves, especially in manufacturing. Operations create the products to be sold and often times, technology makes those operations possible. This is why there is often discussions about IT/OT (Informations Technology and Operations Technology). You cannot remove IT from OT or production could suffer.

So, do you then also combine the COO position with the CPTO position for a COPTO position? When does it stop being effective and efficient?

That kind of bold move definitely caught my attention. In my experience leading IT in the public sector, I've seen the power of breaking silos—especially when aligning people strategy with digital transformation. While combining IT and HR under one leadership role could bring real value in rethinking workforce design, it also demands a maturity in both data governance and organizational agility. For smaller or mid-sized organizations like ours, I’d consider it more as a close collaboration rather than a structural merger. But the underlying idea—designing roles around human value-add versus what tech can automate—is something I strongly support.

This is a really interesting move. I think there are opportunities for HR and IT to work more collaboratively, and we know that teams will increasingly include both humans and bots. One of the challenges from a HR perspective is understanding the pace of change and adoption of emerging technologies into each environment. A tighter partnership would support role redesign linked to the roll-out of technology, and it might also channel additional technology investment into the HR domain (e.g. to support an understanding and mobilisation of skills). 
However, the sole purpose of HR is not just work re-design. Functions like building culture, engagement and leadership can't be tech driven.
On the technology side, there are challenges where system change is rolled out but not always well adopted as the people/ human impact is not well understood. Having a more human/ employee centric lens around technology adoption and change may in fact enhance the ROI on business transformation. 
I wonder if the different approach to problem solving and the mix of skills from the multi-disciplined team at Moderna will help innovate in ways that are more challenging in the current 'silos'.