THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Information Technology50-State Average Grade: C+
One state's chief information officer likes to tell the story of a sign he once came across at a gas station in rural Georgia. “I know you’re lost,” it said. “But don’t worry. You’re making great time.’ ”
That’s about where most of the states are right now when it comes to information technology. They’re far from sure just where they are headed. But they’re getting there very quickly.
From the state perspective, there isn’t much choice. Technology changes so rapidly that no one can build a blueprint for an ideal system. Yet systems must be built. All that’s known for certain is that the product is expensive, it is important, and if serious mistakes are made, many people in state government are going to wind up looking dumb. That’s why those who make IT decisions don’t call them “cutting edge”—they call them “bleeding edge.”
More and more states are responding to this pressure by elevating the importance of information technology in their state’s management scheme. The vast majority now have some kind of strategic IT planning process. Quality varies widely, though. In Hawaii, all departments establish annual plans, but nobody much looks at them after that. Utah’s strategic planning methodology, on the other hand, involves all the cabinet members, who try to find ways for technological improvements to help them with their individual missions.
Given the general wisdom that Year 2000 problems have crowded out funding for other major IT projects, it was surprising to discover that many states are in the process of replacing at least one major central system. Florida has a new integrated human resources system in the pilot stage. Illinois has made money available to set up a data warehouse that will give managers far easier access to a variety of information. Iowa is beginning full implementation of a new financial accounting system, with direct interfaces to a new human resources project that comes on line this June. And the “Montana Prime” effort will give that state a comprehensive, integrated system for finance, human resources and budgeting in the next couple of years.
Unlike human resources, in which many states continue to defend a highly decentralized process, information technology is moving rapidly toward centralization almost everywhere. On the other hand, the more sophisticated states understand the possibility of combining this consolidation with greater agency freedom to make smaller decisions and procurements without a lot of red tape. Most have established a master contracting process through which agencies can make simple purchases, such as PCs, without needing to go through any kind of bidding process.
The best evidence of centralization is the growing number of states that have appointed a chief information officer (though precise titles vary). In quite a few of them, including Virginia, Utah, Delaware, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia and New Jersey, the CIO reports directly to the governor. Other states are considering making such a move.
In some places, there has been opposition to doing this on the grounds that it exposes the information agency to unwanted pressure. In New Hampshire, for example, the CIO-equivalent position was moved from the governor’s direct supervision to the Department of Administrative Services. As the current holder of the job explains, “We have a governor’s election every two years here. When the position reports to the governor, it can become a political position. Reporting to the Department of Administrative Services brings continuity and consistency.”
The CIO has a crucial job, no matter where in state government he or she is placed. Legislators often know—or think they know—a lot about capital management and budgeting. But many admit to being ignorant about computer systems. Even in Washington State, home of Microsoft and Boeing, “there aren’t very many people in the legislature who naturally either know about or care about technology,” one close observer reports. Where such an information vacuum exists, a chief information officer has a great deal of power to fill it and influence the direction of the appropriations process.
Many states are taking steps toward standardizing their technology, though the trend seems to be away from very specific standards that call for purchasing PCs from a single vendor, for example, toward a more general set of rules with as much buy-in as possible from the agencies. “We’ve established a statewide architecture,” explains John Nold, executive director of Delaware’s information services office. “It’s developed by consensus but does provide for some wiggle room to permit innovation. If someone wants to depart from the standards, they apply for a waiver.”
Curiously, despite widespread agreement that training is crucial for information technology specialists and end users, very few states have centralized that process; they have left it to the individual agencies. A surprising number of states cannot even give a detailed response to questions about the quality of their IT training, though almost all agree that they could use more.
The siren call of the Internet intrigues them. Many states now have detailed Web sites where citizens can call up all sorts of information about jobs and tourism, and often find a lovely full-color photograph of the governor, available to be printed out. But even the most advanced states are looking for ways to use the Internet more for transactional kinds of work: paying vendors; processing tax returns; letting citizens register to vote or apply for jobs, renew driver’s licenses, get hunting and fishing licenses, and on and on.
The most consistent weak spot in IT management lies in the states’ inability to determine just what the benefits of an expensive new computer system really will be. States that analyze return-on-investment or do cost-benefit analysis are in the minority, even though the importance of such data is undisputed. Virginia’s governor recently kicked back a whole list of IT projects to the state’s CIO, demanding better cost-benefit numbers. But even well-managed Virginia doesn’t have a formal means for making sure that the promises made are actually kept.
One notable exception to the rule is Tennessee. That state lends agencies the money to launch many of its capital IT projects, but requires in exchange an analysis of costs, benefits and risks, and an account of how the agency will pay the state back, whether through cost savings or increased revenues. And Tennessee forces the agency to make good on its commitments. Says Bradley Dugger, chief officer for information resources: “We had one agency that said they would pay for their project out of reduced personnel costs. They came back and said, ‘Sorry, we can’t do it.’ And we said, ‘No, you are going to do it.’ And they had to come up with the reduced positions.”
Copyright © 1999, Congressional
Quarterly, Inc.
Reproduction in any form without the written permission
of the publisher is prohibited. Governing and
City & State are registered trademarks
of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.