Citation
A comparative review of information technology management practices in selected state governments

Material Information

Title:
A comparative review of information technology management practices in selected state governments
Creator:
Kresslein, John C.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
81 pages.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
State governments -- United States -- Data processing ( LCSH )
Information storage and retrieval systems -- Management ( LCSH )
Information services -- United States -- States ( LCSH )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
This report presents an analysis of information technology management practices in selected state governments.The focus is on approaches of strategic management in central state governments.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
Classification:
Y 3.T 22/2:2 In 3/4 ( sudocs )

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

f f}J j) I A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SELECTED STATE GOVERNMENTS This contractor document was prepared by an outside cont~actor as an input to an ongoing OTA assessment. It does not necessarily reflect the analytical findings of OTA, the Advisory Panel, or the Technology Assessment Bo.ard. Project Report: Prepared for The Office of Technology Assessment by PR-84-14 (K-84-20) John C. Kresslein Research Analyst Donald A. Marchand, Ph.D Director The Institute of Information Management. Technology and Policy College of Business Administration University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina (803) 777 5766 December 1984 ,7 J; 1 Id ,'/ .-;, ); I I

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables e e a e e e e e I e e e I I I I I e e e e e I I I I I I e I I I I I I I I I I e I I e e Executive Summ~ry Acknowledgements I I e e I I I e I I I e e I I I I I I I t, I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I e I I I I .............................................. Chapter 1: Introduction Definition cf Information Technology .... Selecting the Sample I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I 9 I I I Deve 1 oping the Survey Instrument ... Chapter 2: Profiles of State Gcvernment Management of Information Technology Approaches to the Ca 1i fcrni a Minnesota ..... ......................................... ................................................ Florida .............................................. .................................................... Texas Virginia .................................................. New York ... South Carolina ..... Chapter 3: A Comparative Analysis of Infonnation Technology Mana,gement Practices ................................................. Planning Operations Training I e a a I e a e a a I a I e I I I 8 e e I a e e e e a I a e I 8 e e I e I I e a e e ................................................. Chapter 4: Conclusions: Implications for Information Technology Management in the Federal Government ..... Appenaix 1 Opportunities for Further Research ................ Appendix 2 Survey Questionnaire t Footnotes ........................ ., ............................. PAGE -; ; ; -v vi -vii 1 2 3 5 13 21 ZS 29 33 3E 42 46 47 52 60 62 67 Bibliography 68

PAGE 3

LISi OF T,~BL:S 2-1 Chart Summarizing i:S8 Goal$ ., ....................... 2-2 Agency Funding Process for Data Processing Technology in Minne:sota State Government 3-1 Suntnary of Infonnatioo Technology Planning ............. 3-2 SurT1T1ary of I nfonna ti on Technology Operaticr.s ........... 3-3 Suntnary of I nfonna ti on Technology Training ............. 3-4 SurTITla ry of Infonnation Technology Controls ............. i PAGE -14 20 43 45 48 so

PAGE 4

EXECUT:VE SUMMARY This report presents an analysis of information technology management practices in selected state gcvernments. The focus is on approaches to strategic management in central state governments. The analysis is concentrated primarily in four major areas of importance: pianning, operations, training and manageria; and technical contro1s affecting agency decisions with respect to networkino, hardware and software selection and application development. The study concer.trated on information technoiogy management, rather ~han the broader concern of information management in state governments. Information technologies for purposes of this study are defined as data ~recessing, telecorrmunications and office systems technologies. Selecting the states to be included in the sample involved four (4) steps: 1. The establishment of selection criteria. 2. A review of the annua 1 reports pub 1 i shed by the Nati ona 1 A ssoc i at ion of State Information Systems (NASIS) entit1f:d ~fonnatior. Svstems Technolooy in State Governments. 3. A search for states which conformed tc the selection criteria. 4. Confinnation of the sample with professionals in the field of information technology management. There were two (2) basic criteria against which states were measured for purposes of deciding whether or not to include them in the sample: 1. The degree of management innovation. ii

PAGE 5

:. T~e extent to wnich the diversity of innovation in the sample was representative of information technology management -strategies in state governments. States were selected according to how they measured against these criteria dS determined by the author after having read documentary reports ~eleased by various states on their information technology management practices. The author also consulted various professionals 'Nith intellect u a 1 a n d p ro f es s i on a 1 i n t ere st s i n the f i e 1 d The states ultimately selectea are believed to represent the diversity cf approaches to IT management which is 1 i ke ly to find in a more comprehensive study of the fifty states. Included in the sample were California, ~innesota, Florida, Texas, /irginia, ~ew York, and South Carolina. Data were collected through numerous phone interviews and correspondence with senior executives in state governments responsibie for information technology rnanagement. State officials generously providea relevant documentation, all of 1.t1hich is cited in the bibliography appended to this report. The report presents profiles of information technology management strategies in each of the seven states, a comparative dna1ysis of the states '"'ith respect to planning, operations, training and controls. A special section suw~arizing trends in information technology management as represented by the sample and implications for ~ederal policy is also inc 1 uded. Advances in information technology are such that the lines of demarcation which have separated data processing. telecommunications and office systems are becomi~g less obvious. This has the potential for having profcund implications for the separate and distinct management structures which have been built around data processing, telecommunications, and office systems technologies, respectively. The data suggest, however, that 11-1hile there are numerous organizational and financial obstacles to be overcome in responding to the convergence of information technologies, it is possible to reconcile the realities of the marketplace ~ith those of the state government and develop a c_oh~rent managemP.nt strategy consistent with iii :J .. ; COPY .AVAILA8Lt

PAGE 6

appropriate political, organizational, financial and cultural characteristics. .Thus, no single model of information technology management exists. Each state is assuming a posture consistent witn circumstances in which it finds itself. The data supports the conclusion that many states in the sample are taking a pro-active stance toward information tech no 1 ogy management and are moving toward managing inf ormat ion resources as 1.-1el1. Furthermore, there is a recognition among senior executives in state governments that infonnation technologies, appropriate ly applied, can represent a cost-effective solution to a problem without having to aad personnel. State officials recognize that information technologies and resources are tools which can enhance the quality of service delivery by improving the infonnation and labor intensive operations of state government. Among the specific conclusions drawn from this study are the following: 1. The oversight of information technology planning and acquisition continues tc be selectively centralized in certain state govern ments. 2. Most states in the sample have elevated responsibility for overseeing the planning and acquisition of information tech nologies. to senior management levels in state governments. 3. Most state gov13rnments represented in the sample are not only managing the technology itself, but are beginning to manage information resources as ~ell. 4. As micro-computers become increasingly popular, end users are assuming more responsibility for their own information process; ng; but at the same ti me, there is more concern about the quality and effectiveness of consolidated information resources serving multiple users in state governments. 5. ~ariy states represented in. the sample are beginning to look at data precessing, telecommunications anc office systems, not as separate technologies to be managed separately but as converging technologies to be managed ir. a more integrated fashion. iv -,... -.j .'. 1~~h.,~.~H

PAGE 7

6. While it is not specifically evident from the data, one can infer from the data that state officials no longer look upon informa tion technologies as tools to augment the activities of support staff; instead, while traditional transaction processing applications such as finance and pavroll continue, information technologies can be expected increasingly to support the delivery of services. 7. States are responding to a variety of legal, -political, geographic and technological constraints in devising models of information technology management that are most aopropridte for them. V

PAGE 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report woula not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of a number of people representing the Federal Government, the National Association of State Information Systems, and each of the states inc 1 uded in the study. I have had the opportunity to ta 1 k with many of these people on several occasions, and each time I found them patient and willing to help me understand more completely the topic about which I was writing. To these public servants whose names follow I extend a debt of gratitude. National Association of Stdte Information Systems Mr. Carl W. Vorlander California Mr. Steve Kolodney, Office of Information iechnology Mr. Harold Kneedel, Law Enforcement Data Center Ms. Betty Reader, Department of Fair Employment and Housing Ms. Cliarlotte Luallin, Department of Fair Employment and Housing Florida Mr. Mike Hale, Information Resource Commission Mr. Edwin Levine, Joint Legislative Committee on Information Technology Minnesota Nancy Abraham, Information Services Bureau, Department of Administration South Carolina Mr. Ted Lightle, Di.vision of Information Resource Management Dr. Larry Hamilton, formerly of the Division of Information Resource Management and now an independent consultant. vi

PAGE 9

New York Texas Mr. John Heinson, Division of Te1ecommunications Mr. Peter Lynch, Division of the Budget Mr. Paul Fisk, Division of the Budget Mr. Charles Wintons, formerly with the Automated Information Systems Advisory Council Mr. George Rutherford, Purchasing and General Services Commission 'lirginia Mr. Hal Moye, Department of Information Technology Mr. Lee Watlington, Department of Agriculturi and Consumer Services I wou 1 d a 1 so 1 i ke to thank Dr. Dona 1 d A. Marchand, Di rec tor of the Ir.stitute of Infor:nationManagement, Technology and Policy for his invaluab 1 e assistance and sharing with me his perspective and insight into the information technology and management practices of the federal and state governments. Of cc~rse, I am much indebted to Ann Brannon, Faye Henderson and Marjie Martens of the Institute staff who worked through numerous revisions of this report to prepare it in its final fonn. Every attampt has be~n made to confirm the accuracy cf the information in this report. Should there remain errors in fact or interpretation I accept full respcnsibility. Moreover, the views expressed in this report should not be interpreted as reflecting the opinions of the Office of Technology Assessment or the University of South Carolina. vii

PAGE 10

CHAPTER ONE Introduction The purpose of this study is to investigate approaches to managing information technology in the state governments of selected states. The focus of this report is on information technology management strategies in each of seven states with particular attention to strategies the states have adopted for the planning and operation of data proces~ing, telecorrmunications, and automated office systems in state government. These states have been selected for study because they reflect a diversity of approaches to the management of information technology. Definition of Information Technology Information technology (IT) for purposes of this study includes data processing, telecommunications and office systems. The analysis of management strategies will incorporate the various ways states have defined these techno1ogies. The study focuses primarily on central state government. The fol lowing chapters wil 1 highlight the management structures in each state. The emphasis in every state is on 1 ong-range p 1 ann i ng at the agency level with responsibility for overseeing the planning process vested in a staff support agency reporting to the Governor or some central policy group. A variety of technical and managment controls are being exploited in most state governments in the sampl~ for the purpose of focusing IT expenditures by agencies in directions that are consistent with the strategic focus of central state governments. 1

PAGE 11

In the remainder of this chapter r will explain the research methodology employed. Analysis and conclusions are presented in subse quent chapters. Chapter 2 presents a summary of information technology management practices in the states. Chapter 3 offers a comparative analysis of statewide approach~s to information technology management and explores the reasons why states have moved in the direction that they have. Conclusions from the preceding analysis and implications for Federal information technology management policies are reserved for Chapter 4. Selectinq the Sample The seven states inc 1 udea in this ana 1 ys is a re defined as using di verse approaches to the management of information techno 1 ogy. The process of selecting the sample involved four steps: 1. The establishment of selection criteria. 2. A review of statewide reports entit1ed Information Systems Technology in State Governments publishea annually by the National Association of State Information Systems (NASIS). 3. A search for states which would conform to t_he selection criteria. 4. Confirmation of the sample with selected individuals in the field of information technology management. There were two basic criteria en which states 1Nere eva1uated for purposes of their inclusion in the sample: 1. The degree of management innovation; 2. The extent to which the diversity of innovation in the sample was representative of the innovations in information technology management in all the states. These criteria resulted from discussions the author had with ~r. Fred Wood of the Office of TechnoTogy Assessment 2

PAGE 12

Confirmation of the sample with selected individuals with expertise in this area was necessary because to rely on National Association of 1 State Information Systems (NASiS) reports~ alone for iaentifying states which conformed to the selP.ction criteria was insufficient. The level of detail on each state to be found in the annual NASIS reports was inadeauate for the need at hand. Furthermore, information inc1uded on the states in NASIS reports is supplied by the states themselves. Therefore, it was necessary to confirm what information was available in those reports with NAS IS of fi c i a 1 s and appropriate offi c i a 1 s in the state governments. To ensure that a sample was representative would have required that a preliminary survey of all fifty states be done and a sample drawn on the basis of pertinent selection criteria. Because of the scope of this effort and because of rapid changes in state programs, the se 1 ecti on process whtch was followed is intendea to take advantage of the expertise and insights of those working in the fie 1 a of state government management of information technology. This advice was reinf:>rced with an independent literature .review, the results of which convinced the author that the seven states proposed to the: Office of Technology Assessment for inclusion in the sample were as close to representative cf the diversity of rr management strategies employed in the states as possible. The seven states finally selected were: California, New York, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Minnesota, and Virginia. Developing the Survex Instrument A copy of the instrument appears as Appendix 1. The questionnaire ,s divided into four sections: Planning, Operations and Training, Controls, and General Corrvnents. The section on Planning clarifies the nature of information technology planning in the states and the policies and procedures governing that process. Operations and Training focused to the extent possiblt:! on the nature of the uses to which information tech no 1 ogy is app 1 i ed in the states, responsibility for operations and the policies and procedures governing the training of IT users. Controls over the use and management of information technology focused on 3

PAGE 13

any technical and/or managerial controls at either a central state or agency level. These include budgetary controls, control over acquisition of new systems or conversion of existing systems, security, and communications standards and protocols. Ir. order to understand the political ar' organizational climate which characterizes state Ii management, the "Genera 1 Comments II section '"as inc 1 uded. Respondents \,ere asked to i den ti fy those factors they be 1 i eved most influenced the approach that their states have thus far taken to the managemerit of i nfcrmati on techno 1 ogy. Respondents 'Nere a 1 so asked to identify any other potential respondents in state government. This report does r.ot include a special section describing information technology procurement practices, although procur~ment is dn important management function. :nstead, where procurement oversight is exercised as a means of managing the diffusion of information tech nologies throughout state governments the author has recognized that ro 1 e and incorporated procurement as a factor to be considered when discussing a state's overall management strategy. The questionnaire was used as a probing device to generate responses from contacts in each of the states. Because states vary in their political and economic environment and organizational structure, some of the questions posed were more re1evant to some than to others. Thus, by using the questionnaire as a probe, respondents were permitted tc explain in detail the circumstances in which their own states find themselves, focusing on those di mens i ans of the study most germane to them. 4 ~LS! ~DPY 4 VAILA&tt

PAGE 14

CHAPTER TtJO Profiles of State Government Aoproaches to the Management of Inf orma t fon Tech no 1091 This chapter offers a descriptive analysis of IT management practices for each state in the sap,ple. For each state a su1T1T1ary of the management structure for IT pianning, operations, training and control systems is presented. A state by state comparison along edch cf the dimensions of planning, operat~ons, training, and controls is reserved for C~apter 3. CAL I FORNIA A. Planning California emphasizes strategic planning for information technology at beth the agency level and in central state government. The Office of information Technology in the Department of Finance oversees IT planning by agencies and shares res pons i bi 1 i ty with the Department of General Services in shaping statewide policy for telecommunications. Infonnation technology is aefined as all computerized and auxiliary .~utomated information handling, including systems design and analysis, conversion c,f data, computer programming, information storage and retrieval. voice, video, and data communications, requisite system controls, simulation, and all related interactions between people and machines. It is, therefore, broadly defined; and agencies include plans for data process ing, personai computers, office systems, and telecommunications in their annual IT p 1 ans. 5

PAGE 15

Agencies are required to submit annual upaates of their IT plans along with their annual budget requests. This strategy facilitates the objective of strategic planning at the agency level at the same time it vests oversight responsibility for information technology expenditures in the Office of Information Technology. Requests for additional funding for information technolog,y must be reviewed by the Office of Information Technolo9y which evaluates the proposal in terms of the agency's Ii plan. The Department of Finance makes the final decisicn on whether tne request is sent to the legislature for consideration. r n conjunction w'fth their request for funding for i nforma ti on technology, agencies SlJbmit the results of feasibility studies which document the costs dnd benefits of the proposed system. In doing the feasibility studies to justify funding requests for information tech nology and in conductin,g post-IT implementation reviews agencies can solicit the assistance of the Office of Information Technology. OIT is organized along four units which include policy planning and education, te1ecommunications, consulting support, and statewi.de oversight. The Consulting Unit assists agencies in preparing studies and addressing information management issues upon request; and one official in a sma11 agency with a hardware budget of approximately $30,000 and three d~ta processing systems employees reported that this assistance was especial ly beneficial to her agency and probably others of comparable size. Agencies conduct post-implementation eva1uations _of !T projects and those evaluations are subject tc audit by the Department of Finance's Program Review Unit. Agency planning serves two primary functions in that it forces agencies to consider information technoiogies as tools to be exploited in the service of the agency's mission while at the same time providing the Office of Information Technolog) with a contextual basis on which to evaluate the agency's budget request and IT project proposals. This is consistent with the role that the state sees for IT in support of service del iver1 by state agencies, boards, and commissions. IT is seen as a set of tools which can make workers more productive: while helping to contrci personal service costs to state government. 6

PAGE 16

The Office of Information Technology is responsible for developing plans and policies ccnsistent with its functional responsibilities including policy-making, promoting i~tcr-agency coo~dination, reviewing agency budget and procurement requests, providing t,chnical assistance, and promoting the use of IT where appropriate. In adva,icing the use of IT and in prcmu 1 gating po 1 i c i es for IT use ana management, 0 IT is advised by the California Forum on Information Technology (CFIT), an advisory group comprised of representdtives from each Executive branch agency. Governed by an Executive Committee, the CFIT is organized along a conrnittee system which includes standing committees on telecommunications, legislation, security and confidentiality, personnel and ed;.ica tion, and innovation and demonstration. CFIT satisfies a legislative mandate for the creation cf a "user committee." Yet. CFIT also facilitates the strategy adopted by OIT in its relations with end-user agencies. OIT sees its role as that of providing a pol icy framework within which agencies can apply information technology in the most appropriate manner to satisfy their information requirements. The degree of oversight and the extent to which CIT becomes involved in overseeing the planning and implementation of information systems depends on the 1 eve 1 of expertise and experience an agency has with respect to information technology. CFIT provides an agency presence and expert advice into Oii's aecision process thereby serving to heighten OIT's awareness of agency needs and concerns with respect to IT while at the same time serving as a communications link between OIT and executive branch agencies themselves. The Office of Information Technology is responsible for coordinating telecommunications procurement with agenFies and the Department of General Services. OIT and General Services have engaged in a coordinated effort in teiecommunications planning, procurement, and technical assistance. Along with the Telecommunications Committee of the CFIT the OTT and General Services have developed a telecommunications p1an for state government which calls for the state to construct a aigital backbone telecommunications network linking ten locations around the state. I II 7

PAGE 17

~dditional areas beyond t~cse discussed in which Oii has or is deve1oping plans and policies: public ciccess to non-confidential information heid by state gcvernment; security; state data cerit1::rs; personnel management issues including cua1ifications9 tes!~~g and training; office automation including multi-use~ office systems provid ing word processing, electrcnic filing, mail and calendaring; a~d emergency communications. B. Operations Certain data process~na ooerations are cantralized in cne of the state1s three major consolidated data centers: l. Teale Data Cer.ter which incorporates seven ma~or state agencies and provides services to 150 state custcmers. 2. Health and Welfare Ddta Center which inci~des ten departments within the health and welfare program dreas. 3. Justice Data Center which serves the Department cf Justice and maintains a telecommunications network for all police agencies in the state. Each of the data centers has its own communications architectures. Other data centers exist throughout th~ state but do not prov1de services to anyone but themse 1 ves. The:y a re the Franchise Tax Saa rd which processes tax forms; the Motor Vehicle Canter with five mainframes for motor vehicle licensing data; the Cepartment of Transportation, Board of Equa 1 i zation and the Department of Water Resources. These are considered single-agency, dedicated-use centers and not data centers for the purpose of statewide policy. OIT is responsible for policy governing the consolidated data centers and has addressed or is seekirig to address, pending funding, 8

PAGE 18

such issues as determining 3gency-data center assignments and contingency planning and disaster recovery. Many state agencies operate their own information processing tt:chnoloyy. Agencies have in-place substantia1 investments in informa t-i on tE:chno 1 ogy and a re free to upgrade, redesign, or otherwise a 1 ter their operating strategics consistent with approved information technology plans. To facilitate the acouisiticn of personal computer~ GIT has dev~1oped a policy governing PC's functioning as stand-alone proces sors and PC's 1 inked together and/ or to a mainframe "if the netwcrk i ng or communication function is incidenta~ to the primary purpose of increasing individua1 productivity."2 This po1icy is designed to encourage agencies to adept policies for the use and management of PC's, which, if approved by OIT, will simplify th~ agency justification process necessary to acquire PC's by permitting the agency to by-pass nonn.,l Oii procurement reviews fc,r PC's. The Department of General Services is responsible for providing teiecommunications structures for voice, radio, and, to a limited extent, data transmissions. The state is committed to using information technology to improve ~roductivity in the ar:livery of public services as an alternative to adding personnel. For this reason the Office cf Information Technology has given priority emphasis curing the budget process to funding innovative uses of information technology. One example is the Automated Identification System in the Department of Justice which is designed to automate the manual process for identifying fingerprints. thereby permitting investigators access to 4.5 million subjects. The system promises a 98% accuracy rate:, a reduction in the dmcunt of ti me to ~dentify a print from several days to a few hours, a reduction cf ninety positions, and an on-going annual savings of $2,000,000. Subsystems will provide immediate access to 11,COO,OOO names and associated crimina 1 records through an automated name-index fi 1 e and a std. tewi de II cc 1 d s~arch11 capability which will permit investigators to match latent 9

PAGE 19

finget;:irints taken -=ram the scenf! 0f a crime against the prints of l.: million active criminal subjects.3 ihe Office of Information Technology is in the process of developing a policy for public access to non-confidential state-held databases through te~e, --munications 3nd remote terminals. OIT is awaiting the second of two consultants' studies addressing the vu1nerabil~ty of state databases ta unauthorized access and related issues associated with providing direct public access. OIT has studi,=.d the use of telecnnferencing as an alternative to state travel. The results of that study suggest that, as yet, telecon ferencing is not an economical alternative. OIT in conjunction with General Services is also studying the feasibility of telecommuting as an alternative war~ arrangement for certain state employees. In the area of telecommunications, mention has already beer. made of the statewide backbcne neb,ork. Establishing communications among only three of the ten locations around the state ~hich will benefit from the network will satisfy 80% of the telecorTITlunications traffic in state government. C. Training The state sponsors a variety of employee educational and training programs in information technology for state employees. The State Library sponsors a computer 1 i teracy program designed to improve the level of understanding among non-technical per5ons of information technology. The program combines traditional reading assignments with programmed instruction. The Office of Information Technology and General Services have worked together through General Services' EDP Education Program to develop a training curriculum for personal computer users. 10

PAGE 20

OIT's Consuiting Unit wil~ also provide assistance to agency managers in developing IT plans or in developing feasibility studies or post-imp1ementation reviews. D. Controls The state employs a variety of managerial and technica1 controls tc influence the acquisitions, use, and management of information technology in the agencies. The primary emphasis is on the use of controls tc facilitate planning and innovative system development within agencies. Thus, the budget, IT p 1 anni ng and procurement review processes pro vi de centra1 state government with the means to oversee and encourage IT use in the agencies. Agencies whose information requirements make necessary communication with one of the consolidated data centers must conform to the appropriate protocols. E. General Corrm~r.ts Ca 11 forni a has adopted a s ta tewi de strategy for information technology that is broad in terms of the scope of technologies covered and yet respects the integrity of a gene i es' current IT i nv~s tments. The state is cormiitted to a policy of using information technologies in all departments, boards, and commissi~ns where they represent a costeffective alternative to other means of handling information. The thrust of the approach embodied in the policies promulgated thus far by the Office of Information Technology has been to create an environment that permits agencies to pursue their own technology strategies ccnsis tent with the requirement for IT planning at the agency level. The state is influenced in its statewide approach by a number of factors. The state is exploiting the level of investment in both the ccriso 1 i dated data centers and the techno 1 ogy al ready owned by a gene i es 11

PAGE 21

themselves. The data centers espec.ic:11y represent major information resources for the state and when combined with those resources in the agencies including mainframes, minis, and micros, the information processing alternatives available to agencies are extensive. The state government and O IT as the overseer of IT use and management in the state, in particular, is taking steps to ensL.re that end-users take advantage of the best 11mix" of information processing resources avaiiable. The decline in the unit cost of information processing makes infonnation technolcgy availabli: to consumers who might have no tradition of in-house processing whatsoever. Thus, the state is taking steps to encourage departments, boards, and commissions of every size to use information technology where it represents a cost effective alternative to other options. California is influenced by the fact that it is home to a substantia1 part of the infonnation processing industry. The state's goal is to maintain a competitive procurement environment that will allow agencies to procure hardware, software and relat!!d peripherals at the 1 owes t cost consistent with their ne~d to purchase eau i pment that is compatible with existing systems. Finally, the state recognizes the need to maintain a central state government presence in those areas which cut actoss agency 1 i nes or in which more than one agency has an interest. Thus, ther,e is a ce.ntra 1 po1icy focus with respect to security and telecommunicatic,ns. 12

PAGE 22

MINNESOTA A. Planning Minnesota Statute 1982, Section 16.90 authorizes the Department .of Administration to design and maintain a master p1an for information systems in the State. Within the Department of Administration responsibi 1ity for information technology management is vested in the Information Services Bureau ( ISB). ISB is actively engaged in promulgating policies governing a broad range of management issues associated with the design and use of information technology in state government. These policies, which include ISB support for the SNA, state telecommunications network; operating languages in ISB mainframes, a genera1 strategy for local area networking within the capital complex and networking for microcomputers, suggest a strategic direction for the state which is broad in its scope for i nforma ti on technology. I S8 has i denti fi ed eleven goals to ensure that the state is using appropriate technology consistent with the need to satisfy its information requirements. A summary of the goa 1 s appears in Tab 1 e 2-1. The Information Services Bureau reviews all expenditures for information technology and establishes. operational guidelines for ISB facilities used by executive branch agencies. Excluded from oversight are the legislative and judicial branches of state government, local governments and public colleges and universities. ISB in conjunction with the User Advisory Council, an advisory group consisting of representatives of user agencies, encourages planning at the agency level and will assist agencies in IT planning, but executive branch agencies are not required by law to submit information technology plans for review by ISB. !SB ccns~sts of eight (8) divisions responsible for planning and operations and is the focus of information technology management in Minnesota state government. These divisions are: 13

PAGE 23

TABLE 2-1 CHART SUMMARIZING ISB GOALS GOAL/DESCRIPTION RESULT l. Ensure that all executive bra.i1ch agenImproved strateqic and information systems cies maintain and refine information planning by ISB and customer ageILcies, system plans. thus ensuring more effective 11se of technol-ogy. 2. Publish statewide stJrategic computer, Customers, Govemor, and Lagislature as-telecommunicatiorus network, and ofsured that ISB understaJlds and ca.11 meet lice automation plans. coming demands for processing a.i,1d data transfer. 3. Manage effective procedures for the Clear, precise review and approval mechaapproval, acquisition or development, Ilisms will be ap~liad uniformly and judimaintenance, and auditing of informaciously, leading to more efficient structurtion system components. ing and operations. 4. Provide policy maJcers and analysts with End-users rely less on technicians for data easy ac:cesa to the state's data base. access and aid. s. Maintain an accurate and easily acces-An environment where data, programs, sible inventory of state information reequipment, and personnel are identified sources and standards for data and and shared. equipment. 6. Provide and promote high-quality costCwstomer satisfaction with accurate, on-eilective analysis, design, and protime, in-budget system development. gramming services. 7. Maintain centrally managed computer Adequate, responsive, reasonably priced services customers view as reliable, eicomputer services for customer agencies. ficient, easily accessed., and reasonably priced. 8. Provide a variety of technically sound Customers satisfied with types and costs of telecommunications services and sysservices provided. tem.s to state agencies at reasonable costs. 9. Communicate further with customer Good relations and mutual trust with cusagencies and within DOA about plans, tomer agencies. Espirit de corps maintained services, and costs. with.in ISB. 10. Recruit and/ or develop quality data Minimize the problem oi maintaining soprocessing professionals within the ex ph.isticated data processing staff. ecutive braJ1ch. 11. Coordinate major telecommunication, Sharing of plans and mutual understanding computer, office automation, and in.for of problems with other governmental entit-mation system strategies with other ies. public agencies. Source: Managing the Information Services of ~innesota State Government. Published by the Department of Administration, State of .Minnesota, September 1983, p.28.

PAGE 24

1. Aool ication Services Division: Provides application system aevelopment resources for both new systems and modification of existing systems. The Division provides feasibility studies, systems analysis, design, programming and implementation of tested systems for executive branch agencies. 2. Faci1ities Manaaement Division: Operates the centrally managed computer facility anc provides teleprocessing and time sharing services, data processing services, technical support for central and distributed computer syst~ms, and data entry services. 3. Plannino and Support Division: Provides information planning ana training support to ISB and executive branch agencies and provides administrative and financial services to the Application Services and Faci 1 ities Management Divisions mentioned above. a. T~lecommunications Division: Provides and manages voice and data corrvnunications for state agencies; audio; radio; and video systems; and state operator services and administers the state's emergency 911 telephone service. S. Intergovernmental :nformaticn Systems Advisory Council: Ccnsists of 25 members appointed by the Commissioner of Administration, representing state and local units of govern ment. The Council awards supportive contracts for the development, implementation and growth of automatc::d information systems within local government, promutes sharing of hardware and software, and promotes standardization. 6. Cable Communications Division: Provides general staff support to the Minnesota Cable Corr.munications Board (MCCB), a seven-member regulatory body appointed by the Governor. 15

PAGE 25

7. P.ecords Manaaement Division: Serves a 11 state agencies and units of local government by coordinating and overseeing the forms management system, the stat~ records system program, and state centra1 micrographi.cs services. 8 Data Privacy Division: Assists state agencies, political subdivisions, and the genera 1 pub 1 i c in interpreting 1 aws germane to data privacy and public records. Tr.e Division a1sc has rule-making authority under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. In additiont ISB receives counsel from four advisory groups: 1. State Information Systems Advisory Council (SNAC): Consists of high level informatiun systems mar.agers from private industry. 2. User Advisory Council (UACl: Consists of assi~tant and deputy commissioners from agencies in the iax~cutive branch of state government. UAC gives user agency mandgement the opportunity to voice concerns t to advise on po 1 icy, and to promote a unified directfon in information processing growth and practices. 3. Systems Advisory Council (SAC): Consists of systems office supervisors from state agencies (''Systems offices" ccnsist of the agencies' own data processing analysts and programmers. They advise on procedural and operational issues~. 4. User Council on Office Systems (UCOS): Consists of word processing supervisors and cffi ce managers. The UCOS group advises I SB on issues. For examp 1 e, the Cour.c i1 recommended career paths for word processing operators and promulgated guidelines instructing agencies to do their own needs assess ments for word processing. 16 ~;;r COPY AVAILA8tt

PAGE 26

IS8, working with the User Advisory Council, promotes agency planning for information technology. ISB recognizes ano tries tc persuade agency managers that information is a va1ueo resource which can help the agency personne 1 fu 1 fi 11 their mandates under the 1 aw. Thus, ISB tries to move agencies tuward strategic planning for information technology linking !T planning to the business plan of ~he agency. To surm,ari ze: 1. There is no formal. single document which qualifies .as an IT plan developed by ISB with which executive branch agencies must comply. Instead the strategic direction for the state is bound in a comprehensive series of pcl icies and regulations governing !SB computing sites and the state supported network. These statutes, standards, guidelines, and the installation of state-supported technologies provide the parameters within which agencies develop their strategies for the use of information technology. 2. ISB recognizes that planning at the user 1eve1 is in the interest of the line agency and tries to move agencies toward strategic planni-ng for information technology through the User Advisory Council. Other advisory councils provide additional input into the ISB decision-making process while at the same time providing a co111munications link between ISB in the: Department of Administration and other executive branch agencies. 3. Agencies are encouraged to plan for data ~recessing, telecommunications, and office systems, and ISB is promulgating guidelines for planning, procurement, and security. !SB is currently working with a planning group to develop a process and a format for applications planning in the agencies. ~ecommen~ations .for further action to improve information management in agencies were promulgated by the Governor's Blue Ribbon CoflTflittee on Infonnation Policies in its report dated November 1984. 17

PAGE 27

8. Coeraticr.s Responsibility for central data procc:ssing sitas is vestea in a central processing ur.it in the Facilities Management Division of !SB for data processing appiications run on ISB mainframes. User agencies are responsible for their own hardware and software to run applications that are unique to them. Telecommunications operations are managed by the Telecommunications Division of ISB. Four inter-related divisions within rse deliver DP and telecommunications services: Applications Services, Facilities ~anage ment, Plctnning and Support, and Telecommunications. Office automation in the form of word processing, shared 1ogic systems, and personal computers exists in Minnesota State government. rsa has negotiated a standard contract which allows agencies to purchase PC's at a 30% cost reduction. Most us~rs of word processing are clerical personnel, but the state's Department of Transportation (DOT) is an example of an orgar.ization which is implementing office automation from the top/down. DOT has implemented the Professional Office System (PROFS) which is used by the Commissioner of Trans porta ti or., Deputy Commissionert Assistant Commi"ssionert Division Directors and Assistant Directors for electronic mail corrmunications. C. Training The Information Services Bureau conducts all EDP training through its Training and rnformation Center. The Center, open since October 1982, contains dumb terminals connectea to ISB's ccmputer center, a TI-900 mini-computer, and personal computers. The Center provides training and advice on computer-based automation to beth technical and non-technical personnel. 18

PAGE 28

D. Controls IS8 has issued policies fer EDP and word processing equipment, data confi aenti a 1 i ty and security. EDP operations, persor.ne 1 and app 1 i cations. These policies and guidelines and the statutes under which ISB op~rates provide the strategic direction for the state with respect to information technology. ISB promulgates and/or maintains a set of technical and procedural controls which affect the cecisions governing the use of information technology. First. ISB maintains a centrai data processing site to service state agencies. ISB's communications standard for the data communications network enforces a technical standard with which agencies must come into compliance to opero.te in the networked environment. Secondly, I SB maintains contra 1 over the acqu is iti on of data processing tech no 1 ogy. A 11 computer equipment (defined as a11 hardware which is primarily used to er.ter, transform, store, and retrieve data under the control of an application program) located within an agency site, with the exception of dumb terminals connected to the ISB network which are owned by ISB, is owned or 1 eased by the end-user agency. User agencies a 1 so own or lease their own persona 1 computers and word processing equipment (defined as a specialized set of EDP equipment, consisting of a haraware configuration ana programming, designed to work with. textual data). E. General Cormier.ts ISB is involved in the funding approval process for aata processing systems in state agencies. Figure 2-2, the Agency Funding Precess, illustrates the steps each agency in Minnesota state government must follow in order to obtain budgeting approval for information technology. ISB reviews all funding requests for information systems which agencies make to the Department of Finance as part of the biennial budget process. ihe Department of Finance presents the request with I SB Is recommenda ti ~n to the Governor where a decision is made whether or not to include the request in the Governor's budget. Agencies are ultimately responsible for demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Departments of Administration and Finance thcst the proposed system is cost beneficial and will support the.information requirements of the agency's operations. 19

PAGE 29

STEP ONE STEP TWO STEP THREE STEP FOUR FIGURE 2-2 AGENCY FUNDING PROCESS FOR DATA PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY !N MINNESOTA STATE GOVERNMENT An agency proposes funding of an informaticn system to the Department of Finance during the biennial budgeting process just as it wcu 1 d any other funding proposa 1. Unlike other investment proposals, rss reviews the request and piovides an evaluation. The Department of Finance presents the request and its recommendat i ans to the Governor and a decision is made regarding inclusion in the Governor1s budget. The agency seeks legislative approval for its funding. In addition, ISB makes a cumulation of al 1 of the executive branch agencies' funding reouests for information systems and presents it to the Legislature. If the Legislature provides f~nding far development of an information system, the agency must then define the system in more detail and justify to the Commissioners of Administration and Finance that the system is cost-beneficial and will effectively meet agency needs (M.S. 16.955). 20

PAGE 30

FLORIDA. A. P1anning In 1983 the Florida 1egis1ature enacted the Information and iechnology Planning Act. The Act was the product of a two-year study by the Joint Select Committee on Electronic Data Processing of information technology management and operations in state government. One of the pr i n c i pa l f i n d i n gs was the 1 a ck of em p has i s g i v en to IT p 1 an n i n g i n state government. Legislators discovered that there was, primarily, concern with contra 1 ii ng the acquisition cf hardware rather than with planning for and managing information technology as a strategic resource. Based on this and other findings the legislature revised the -Florida statutes thereby creating the Information Resource Comnission (IRC). The IRC is thE! central planning and policy organ for information technology in state government. The Information and Technology Planning Act mandated a statewiae planning process fer Odta processing hardware, software, services, supplies, personnel, facility r~sources, mainte nance, training, and related resources. Consistent with its responsibilities as the central plarning and policy organ in state government IRC provides instructional guidance for agencies in preparing information technology plans. IRC is responsi.b1e for reviewing and approving agency plans to insure technical feasibility, the validity of the methodology used tc determine cost estimates, measurable benefits to be derived, and consistency of the plan with IRC policies. IT planning is linked to the biennial budget process. Agencies requesting funding for information technology resources must cite the section of their approved.IT plan where the resource is identified when requesting funding. 21

PAGE 31

In preparing their agency information resource plans agency managers dre encouraged to think in terms cf application requirements as well as hardware. Managers developed profi~es of each application representing relevant functions in the operation of that department. In addition, managers are encouraged to think in terms of the physicai re~cu rces in the form of disk drives, memory upgrades, and office au tomati on systems required to run needed applications. The legislature recognized and the IRC has embodied the philosophy that information is a rssource that must be managed. Thus, one of the goals in requiring agency level planning is to shift primary emphasis from contro11ing physical technology to managing information resources by application. B. Ogerati ans One of the conclusions drawn during the Leg-islature:1s two year study of e 1 ectroni c data pr11cess i ng (EDP) management and opera ti ans in state government was that t!1e concentration of planning and operations responsibilities for EDP posad a potential conflict of interest for the agency singularly responsible for those functions. Therefore, the Information and Technology Planning. Act separates responsibility for planning ana op6i:.t.;t;11s. The IRC is not responsible for data processing operations. Each state agency retains primary responsibility for managing dp operations within its own organization. The Division of Communications in the General Services Department is respcnsible for managing state government's network for voice. While some data are transmitted over these lines primarily reserved for voice, the state functions with twelve separate data networks which have been built arouno each of the major data canters. Examples incluae data networks for Motor Vehicles, Transportation, and Law Enforcement. The !RC has policy responsibility for data ne!working and has recommended a feasibi 1 ity study for an integrated voice and data network for state gave rnment. 22

PAGE 32

C. Training The IRC is responsibie for training and providing technical dSSis tance to end-user ager.cies. The !RC has just completed the first full year of implementing the Information and Technology Planning Act so the training program is not yet fully operational. The IRC does provide technical and managerial assistance to end user agencies in preparing information resource plans for data process ing hardware, software, services, supplies, personnel, facility re sources, maintenance, training and related resources. D. Controls The I RC is res pons i b 1 e for a number of manageri a 1 and techni ca 1 policies and procedures designed to emphasiz~ information technology as a resource to be exploited in support of the agencies' objectives. The IRC is responsible for developing the guidelines to be used by ag~ncies in preparing IT plans and for re'liewing and approving plans once submit ted. The Information and Technology P1dnning Act also empowers the IRC to review all information technology acquisitions by agencies to ensure the integrity of the agency p 1 ans. The Act authorizes the Executive Office of the Governor to withhold operating funds from an agency until the I RC certifies that a proposed acquisition is consistent with an approved IT plan. The IRC is developing policies govt=rning data communicatiuns. It has already promulgated standards for office automation to ensure compatibility amon; systems. E. General Comments Florida is in a period of transition, moving from a highly centralized management strategy to one that is more consistent with a philosophy that recognizes the strategic value of information technology 23

PAGE 33

and resources and 'Hhich recognizes the drup in the cost of computing which puts computing power directly into the hands of ~nd-users. The current strategy is cne which reccgnizes the need for centra1 state government oversight in planning and policy development whi~e retaining managerial and cperational responsibilities in end-user ager.cies. This strategy is the product of a two year study by the State L~gis1ative Joint Committee on Electronic Data Processing. The Ccmmitte:~'s assessment of the state's strategy for the management and use of e1ectronic data precessing was itself the result of a concern among elected and data processing professionals that the state's cwrrent strategy had outlived its usefulness. Among the conclusions at the end of the two year study which served to support efforts to design an a1ternative management strategy for the state were the following: 1. State government put too much emphasis on contro11ing the acquisition of hardware at the ~xpense of p1anning for and managing the information resource itself; 2. State government had centralized policy and regu1atory authority in the hands of an organization also responsible for operating a large data processir.g center. The Legislative Committee conc1uded that this situation posed the threat of a conflict of interest and was inconsistent with the high powered, low cost computing technolog_y available tc ena-user agencies. There was no one accountable at a senior 1eve1 in the agencies for the management and use of the information resource. And there existed a rieed for statswide standards governing such issues as security, disaster planning, networking and office automation. The Legislature responded with the Information and Technology Planning Act of 1983 which provided for the structural recrganizaticn and statutory authority necessary to aaaress the problems ar;ci shortcom i~gs of the existing state management strategy in a changing technologica 1 environment. 24

PAGE 34

Thus, the Legislature created th~ IRC comprised of the Governor who serves as the Commission Chair ar:d all members of the Cabinet. Through the Information ana Technology Planning Act the ~egislature also required each agenc):' head or his designee tu serve as the agency's information resource manager with responsibility for developing and implementing the information resource plan. This provision was included to ensure accountabi 1 i ty for information resources at senior 1 eve1 s in the agency. The legislature failed to authorize additional funding to coincide with this addea responsibility so scrr.e agencies have delegated the information resource management function tc a staff 1 eve 1 person rather than a senior executive. TEXAS A. P1anning The central management authority for overseeing infonnation technology planning and policy-making is the Automated Information Systems Advisory Counci 1. The counci 1 is composed of seven members from both the public and private sectors. The Governor appoints three members, the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House of Representatives each appoint two. The statute authorizing the creation of the Ccunci 1 grants it rule-making powers. Pursuant to that authorization the Council has adopted rules requiring all agencies with automated information systems tc submit biennial plans for all such systems to the Ccunci 1. Automated information systems is defir.ed broadly "to include data processing, communications networks ar.ci office automation technologies. The Councii is not required to develop a Statewide Master Plan into which agencies must come into compliance. However, it is empowered to II adopt guide 1 i nes to aid state governmenta 1 bod i ~s in making economical and efficient use of automated information systems, the computers on which they are autc,rr.ated, or related services. The guidelines shall include, but not be limited tc, the areas of long-range planning, common data bases, networking, applications, shared software, 25

PAGE 35

security, and disaster recovery. Moreover, through its rule-making pc'l,er the Cou nc i 1 is ab 1 e to compe 1 comp 1 i a nee. Cour.c i1 ru 1 es require agency plans to include: 1 2. 3. 4. s. A statement of the strat~gic objectives to b~ obtained through the implementation of the automated information system, An explanation of the current technological environment, An explanation of the assumptions and constraints which are built into the planning process, A description of the decision and review process used by agency management, and A schedule for the next two years of proposed acquisitions and major conversions of automated information systems. The Council is required to make a report of its activities to the legislature. However, it alone is the policy-making authority for automated information systems and is designed to operate ind~pendently of the direct influence of the Executive branch and the Legislature. B. Operations The Council is not involved directly in any operations. Data processing facilities are operated by the 120 data precessing departments in state government. Responsibi1ity for data communications and voice communications rests with the Data Procsssing Directors and the Telecommunications Services Division, respectively. The Automated Infonnation Systems Advisory Ccunci 1 does not assume planning responsibility for the State's PBX syst~m. In the drea of office automation the Department of Human Resources has invested S30 million in a network called Wellnet. In addition, both the Legislature and the Governor's Office are using data processing technology to serve constituent requests for public information. 26

PAGE 36

Responsibility for operating intercity telecommunications services for voice and data is vested in the Telecommunications Services Division of the State Purchasing and G.aneral Services Commission. This unit leases a telecommunications network from the telecommunications industry. Its responsibility rests solely in ensuring that this technology is available. End-user agencies cwn their own or lease their own modems, parts, and processors. When agencies want to purchase tele corm1unications equipment they can seek the advice of the ie1ecommunications Services Division, but that unit has no authority to initiate efforts to influence an agency's decisions in this area. Where central control does exist in the area of telecommunications it exists at the procurement end of the process. There is no automatic central state government involvement in the planning of an ag=ncy's telecommunications requirements ihe State has had two i ndepenaent studies done to r~commend a 1 terna ti ves to the present 1 ea.sed a rrangerr.ent. One recommend at i en being made to the Legislature is for a backbone microwave network, a portion of which would be owned by state government. C. Training Whi'le the Council perc~ives that training end users in operating the various automated information systems is important it will not assume any direct responsibility for delivering training services. The Council is empowered to develop policies governing training in the cas~ of data processing and automated office systems. However, those policies have yet to-be developed. D. Controls A combination of managerial and technica1 controls are at the disposa 1 of the Automated Information Systems Advisory Counc i1 The Council is authorized to review all data processing budgets for every 27

PAGE 37

agency classified as a "state government body," defined as any board, commission, department, institution, office, or ct_her agency, including an institution of higher education, that is in the executive branch of state gove:rnment. It also includes any such offices of the State Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, a Court of Appeal, and the State Bar of Texas or other judicial agency. The Council is also empowered to oversee all procurements depending on the budget of the agency and the amount to be expended. Procurement approval is ultimately the prerogative of the State's Procurement Cammi ss ion but the Ccunc i 1 provides advice cri the size, capacity and other pertinent features of the system to be purchased. Prior to final approval any agency which wants to purchase any $ystem at all must submit a justification statement tu the Council. The procurement process including supporting documentation is designed to force agencies to think more strategically about their information technology expendi tures. Fina 11 y, the Council is empowered to promulgate guidelines for disas~er recovery and system security. Action on these is in progress. In the meantime, there are in place voluntary guidelines for disaster recovery published by the Texas Association cf State Supported Computer Centers (TASSC), comprised of the Directors of the State's data process ; ng centers. No similar central state government planning influence is present in agency procurements of telecommunications equipment. ire role of the Telecommunications Services Division is merely an advisory one. The Division has no formal authority to merge agency procurements; and the only formal authority is vested in the Division which does the actual purchasing of the equipment. F. General Comments Texas represents _a unique blend of strong pol icy-making and weak chief executive influence. The Autcrr.ated Information System A.dvisory 28

PAGE 38

Council can compel compliance with its rule-making powers and unlike its counterparts in the other states, it is net restricted solely to the ~xecutive branch. The Council has the authority to oversee and approve budget requests for informati.on technology and shares a role in the procurement process. However, it is the rule-making power which enables the Council to enforce its policies and guidelines. VIRGINIA A. Planning Virginia has developed a comprehensive Master Plan for data pro cessing, telecommunications and office systems in state government. Developed by the Management Analysis and Systems Development Department (MASO) of the Secretariat of Administration and Finance in 1982, the plan was designed to position the state to take advantage of the divestiture of AT&T in telecommunications and the declining costs and in creasingly powerful infonnation processing tools on the market. MASO identified seven major goals, providing a strategic direction for the state and recommended strategies for achieving those goals at the agency level. Among the goals established at that time: 1. Improve the quality of policy and management decision-making through the appropriate application of information technology resources; 2. Jmprove white collar productivity through office automation; 3. Consider the value of inforn@tion technology as a resource and make decisions to invest in new technologies or resources in light of the prospective return on investment as compared to other investment alternatives; 29

PAGE 39

4, Maximizt.. the use of available data processing arid word pro cessing resources including sharing resources among state agencies; 5. Minimize the costs of hardware, software and services wherever possible; 6. Improve the cost and operating efficiency of the state's telecommunications facilities; and 7. Improve the efficiency by which effective applications systems are developed. Policies governing the management of information technology are the responsibility of the Department of Information Technology (DIT). DIT consists of three formerly separate organizations which have been reorganized into a single department: Department of Computer Services, Department of Telecommunications and MASO. The Department of Information Technology has both planning and operational responsibilities. The elevation of all automated infonnation systems management responsibilities to a department level status reflect_s the state's commitment to information technology as a productivity support tool during the 1980's and beyond. Agencies are required to develop annual information technology plans. The Department of Information Technology is responsible for issuing planning guidelines and reviewing plans once they have been submitted. The present guidelines require agencies to define their goals, prepare a synopsis of what information systems they currently possess and identify these systems they plan to develop. B. Operations The Department of Information Technology operates four mainframes, a Sperry 11/92, an IBM 3084 Q, Amdahl V-8, and an Amdahl V-5. Agencies 30 UST COPY AVAllA8LL

PAGE 40

have the option of local processing on site and/or establishing communications links with a DIT data processing center. All responsibility for telecommunications is vested in the Department of Information iechnology. DIT operates the state government telecommunications system for voice and data. The Department of Information Technology is marketing the Sperry link office automation system to customer agencies. In order to test the productivity benefits of office automation the Department of Computer Services initiated a pilot project in 1983 involving thirteen of its senior managers and ten secretaries. The Department tested electronic mail, calendaring, electronic filing/retrieval, word processing, and data processing applications. As a result of this project which tested the Sperryl ink office automation system the Department realized actual gains of 15.4% in time savings for managers, 29% for secretaries, and a 212% increase in output resulting from word processing. On the basis of these results the Department of Information Technology is pursuing a program to implement office automation statewi'de. The Department's plan fer office automation includes efforts to: 1. Continue testing the Sperrylink Pl software with the intention to include it as part of the Sperry operating environment at the Department cf Computer Services (DCS). 2. Continue to use existing Sperrylink workstations for normal office operations. 3. Order additional workstations for staff member5 who will need access to the office system under the collocated environment. 4. Evaluate other products that potentially meet DCS require ments, inc 1 udi ng co 1 or graphics, uni versa 1 works ta ti on, PC capabilities, along with standard O.A. functions. 5. Develop requirements for micro-mainframe integration of application systems resident on DCS computers that are seen as likely candidates for integration with our office system. 31

PAGE 41

6. Develop an Office Automation Steering Committee at DCS to continue the necessary review of procedures and make reconmen dations for new standard operating procedures. 7. Assist customer agencies in their development of office automation capability, with integration of their office systems with the DCS computer environment, and with QA technology education. C. Training The Department of Information Technology provides end-user training in data processing and office automation. The Department maintains a bank of training workstations for both the Sperry and IBM Systems. A staff dedicated solely to training proviaes instruction to both Department of Information Technology staff and agency customers. D. Controls The Department of Information Technology exercises procurement review powers over all data processing and office automation tech nologies. At the time this study is being completed the Department of Information Technology is completing its reorganization merging with it a formerly separate Department of Telecommunications. That department has been res pons i b 1 e for cverseei ng the procurement of a 11 te 1 ecommuni cations equipment and will continue to do so once the reorganization is completed. DIT is responsible for issuing standards for data processing. The two-tiered approach to data processing requires agencies which want access to DIT mainframes to conform to the communications stanaards. The Department of Information Technology recognizes the potential for problems resulting from the proliferation of microcomputers in state government. .DIT is completing a study on the subject and will be forthcoming with a PC policy. 32 Hf.~l COPY ~VAlLALL

PAGE 42

E. General Comments Virginia has responded to the convergence of data processing, telecommunications and office systems by merging three formally separate organizations which had formerly exercised planning and operations responsibilities in those areas. The state has established a strategic direction for information technology and committed itself to using information technology and resources as strategic resources to improve productivity. To that end the state has embarked on a program to support office automation in state government, issued standards and guidelines for data processing, provided end-user training, and initiated efforts to assist agencies with other management problems such as system security and data confidentiality. The scope of the Virginia management strategy is very broad in that it covers many management issues and is very centralized in both its planning and operations. The approach Vi rgi ni a has ta ken is driven by changes in the techno 1 ogy which made a fragmented management structure unworkable. At the same time there has been a recognition that in an age cf declining revenues information technology represents an alternative to having additional personnel. To realize the benefits of information technology requires a coherent management strategy which takes into account data processing, telecommunications and automated office systems. NEW YORK A. Planning Planning for data processing and office automation is required of agencies which must submit EDP office automation plans along with their annual budget requests to th~ Division of the Budget. ielecommunica tions planning is the responsibility of the: Division of Telccorrmunica tions of the Department of General Services. 33

PAGE 43

Planning for major information systems involving more than one agency or which involve personnel or finance issues is. generally conducted through steering committees comprised of representatives of the relevant central management departments and user committees consisting of representatives of those departments interested in the system. B. Operations Operations are highly decentralized with central state government retaining an interest in standards for hardware and software in systems that affect more than one agency and/or financial or personnel management issues. The Division of Telecommunications operates inter-city and intra-city LATA services. C. Training The Governor's Office of Employee Relations has been offering training for selected agency managers in the use and ~anagement of new information technologies for the past several years. The Office of General Services also offers a variety of video and interactive training courses in various phases of information management. The Governor's Office of Management and Prcductivity is beginning to supplement the training efforts of the Governor's Office of Employee Relations. D. Controls There are no centrally designated technical standards for data processing or office automation. Agencies are granted automony in their selection of EDP and office automation hardware, software, and internal network i n g fa c i 1 i ti es and per i p her a 1 s so l on g as the an n ua i p l an i s 34

PAGE 44

understood by the Division of the Budget tc be reasonably justified and is co~sistent with the agency's overall mission. E. General Comments To understand the approach to planning adopted by New York it is r.ecessary to understand the development of EDP i r. state government. During the 19501s and 19601s, a period of large mainframes, the State adopted strict centralized controls over the acquisition of mainframe computers. Such central controls vested in the EDP Unit of the Division of the Budget were abandoned in 1983 in favor of a pol icy that would grant user agencies more autonomy in developing EDP systems that would meet their needs. This shift in polic) does not apply, however, to statewide systems involving more than one agency. The decision to grant more autonomy to end-user a gene i es in deve 1 oping their own EDP and office automation systems is a product of the widespread diffusionof computer technology in state government which is manifested in a substantial investments in technology by individual agencies; the ~xpertise on the part of individual agencies reflected in knowledge about their programs and the information systems required to manage those programs; and the rapid dee 1 i ne in the unit cost of computing. Rigid centra 1 contro 1 over EDP acquisition and development in the a gene i es is no longer justified. Much of the responsibility for EDP and office autorr,ation planning resides in the user agency. The current po 1 icy is des i gne:d to take advantage of the program expertise in each department while protecting the substantial investments in information technology that already exist within departments. Thus, the Division of the Budget uses the annua 1 budget process to review plans for hardware acquisition and software acquisition and development in light of the department's mission, the sense of direction as de~onstrated in the annual agency plan, and the ability to the agency to articulate a logical and coherent approach to adopting technolcgy in support of th~ agency's mission. 35

PAGE 45

SOUTH CAROLI NA A. ':lannin_g South Carolina is developing, simultaneously, both a technical and a management infrastructure to support the use of information technology in reducing personal service costs while improving service delivery. The technical infrastructure is grounded in the statewide backbone micrc-w~ve network and the technical standards for office automation and data processing developed by the state's Division of Information Resource Management. Consistent with a management strategy that takes a comprehensive view of data processing, office systems and telecommunica tions technologies, the Office of Information Resource Management of the Division of General Services (now reorganized as a separate Division of Infonnation Resource Management) has developed a statewide Master Plan for information technology which is designed to position the state to take advantage of convergence of infonnation technologies. DIRM has responsibility for overseeing the planning and acquisition of all autcmated information technologies including data processing, telecommunications and office systems. DIRM reviews all information technology plans submitted by agencies annually. DIRM requested 1 ine agency input into the Statewide Master Plan through the agency planning process. To encourage agency input DIRM developed a planning manua 1 which recommended but did not mandate a planning approach. Agencies were requested to submit three-year plans by September 1982, which would then be updated every year thereafter. The requirements of the Conso1idated Procurement Code enacted by the South Carolina General Assembly in 1981 mandate that agencies develop their own information technology plans which would then be fed into the State's Master Plan. DIRM took a participative approach to developing its own Master Plan and supplemented the request to agencies with a planning manual to guide agencies in their planning process. 36

PAGE 46

B. Oeerations DIRM is constructing a statE:-owned microwave network that wi 11 form the backbone of a shared communicaticns network for voice, data and video faci 1 itating agency access to data centers around the state and supporting office automation statewide. The network is designed as an integrated network to carry voice, data, video, and radio transmissions simultaneously. The system which will ccnsist of thirty-seven towers is being built around the eighteen microwave towers which are already in p 1 ace and are used for one-way trar,smi ss ion and broadcast by South Carolina Educational Television (SCETV). The system which will be completed by 1986 will serve al: state agencies and is expected to save over $100 million over the next. twenty years. Construction of the microwave network will reduce the dependency of the State on intercity Education Televi-sion (ETV) video systems currently leased from the telephone industry. With Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Systems, the state will replace the intra-city ETV cable distribution system currently leased from the telephone industry. At the same time the network will allow economical commur.ications among the state's sixteen major data processing centers. The microwave system will facilitate communications among data centers, permitting transmission, exchange and sharing of text and data, thereby supporting office automation statewide. In the area of office automation, the Office of Information Resource Management, originally part of the Division of General Services initiated the Office Productivity and Automation Project during the Fall of 1981. Since then there have been three evaluations of the first phase of the project, a pilot study of office automation in three departments within the Division of General Services. The second phase of the project called for the expanded use of office automation in state ~gencies. The Office Automation Section of the Division of Information Resource Management provides technical and management assistance to managers in other agencies who want to invest i ,, office autcma ti on. 3i

PAGE 47

To date, office automation has beer. installed at four sites within the Capitol Complex including Wang processors ir1itially designed for the Legislative Printing System but to which office automation features have since been added. The Legislative Services Group, an ann of the State Legislature, uses two Wang VS 100 processors which support over two hundred terminals. Terminals, which have been in place since February 1982, are distributed among House and Se~ate member offices; and members and staff have access to terminals and printers located on the floor of thE: House and the Senate chambers. The sys tern prepares 1 eg is 1 at i ve journa 1 s, ca 1 endars, bi 11 s, and amendments, and tracks a 11 bi 11 s and amendments through the legislative process. Members have direct access to word processing, data processing, and key word search, which provides up-to-date information on any bill and direct access to the South Carolina Code of Laws. DIRM has also provided assistance in implementing IBM 8100 systems in three sect i ens of the Office of the Governor. Other ins ta 11 a ti ens which are part of or soon to be part of the office automation network in the Capitol Complex include the Executive Director of the Budget and Control Board, the 1-!calth and Human Services Finance Commission, the Department of Agri cu 1 ture, the Division of Human Resource Management, Department of Social Services, the Office of the Secretary of State, Department of Insurance, the Division of General Services, and the Division of !RM. Personal computers are fast becoming a primary information process ing tool supporting managers and professionals in State Government. DIRM does not want to preclude agencies form investing in these low cost, high powered tools and is committed to a goal of ~nhancing local control over information processing. At the same time, DIRM has ex pressed concern that PC's, which are becoming a popular office auto mation tool, conform to state standards for office automation for the purpose of document trans fer and sharing. Tu accommodate the influx of PC's while adhering to the goal of local control over information processing the Division of IRM has purchased a software package provid ing English-language like query capability and dcwr.loading of data from 38 \~ 1 ,;twy A~AILAilt

PAGE 48

the DIRM mainframe to the local PC. DIRM is one of sixteen data centers in state government. Plans are to link PC's to .th~ niainfrz.me using leased lines or di a 1-up lines. This approach wi 11 permit ~nd-users control led access on a pre-authorized basis to state government data bases. C. Training In June 1981 the State Legislature enacted the Consolidated Procurement Cede which consolidated authority for overseeing the procurement, management and use of information technology in the Division of General Services. Since a major reorganization of General Services this authority is now shared by the Division of .nformation Resource Management. The Division of General Services was authorized to provide in-house training to State employees who are working with office automation technologies and other computer-based technologies. DGS created the R~search and Training Unit to provide training. The Unit is ~quipped with its own training staff and faci 1 i ti es inc 1 ud i ng I BM 8775 terminals as well as personal computers of various types. The Legislative Services Group providing offi~e automation capabilities to the State Legislature also provides training to members of the Senate and House of Representatives. The training consists of introduc tory instruction to members and user support on an "as needed" basis. D. Controls Pursuant to its powers authorized by the Conso 1 i dated Procurement Code the Division of Information Resource Management has promulgated technical standards for office automation. DIRM exercises initial review authority over all IT purchases proposed by state agencies. If the proposal is compatible with state technical standards, ~he State Master Plan, and is reasonable in the 39

PAGE 49

context of the agency's functiona 1 needs, it is forwarded to DGS for competitive bidding procurement. South Carolina has taken major steps in acquiring, using and managing information as a strategic rescurce. To support the implementations of IRM statewide the Division of Information R=source Management has made available to senior executives in state government a manual entitled A Manager's Guide for Implementing Information Resource Management (IRM) In A State Agency. The Guide is written in a non-technical style for the lay person just beginning to introduce himself to the information management function. The manual describes the evolution of information management; advises the reader on critical organizational, human, financial and other factors to be considered when implementing IRM; and recommends strategy for initiating an approach to information resource management consistent with the characteristics of the organization. A number of state agencies have begun reorganizing along an information resource management ( IRM) model, vesting responsibi 1 ity for managing data processing, office systems, and telecommunications in a single department managed by a senior executive in the agency. The State's Division of Human Resource Management has contributed to this effort by approving an agency level IRM Director position series in the compensation and classification codes. E. General Comments State government has employed a variety of technical and management standards to encourage agencies to focus on the strategic value of information resources to be used in support of the agency Is mission. Among them: the oversight authority granted DIRM in the State Procurement Code; the promulgation of communication standards for office auto m~tion and data processing; the statewide Master Plan for Technology into which agencies have had input; 40 oEST COPY AVAILhYLL

PAGE 50

the IRM director series for agencies authorized by the Divi sion of PersonnEl; the participative approach taken by DIRM in encouraging and working with agencies in developing strategic plans to meet statewide and agency needs. deve 1 opment of a technical infrastructure f ocus~d on es tab1 i shi ng ca communications network to enhance and facilitate central state government and agency ability to access, ex change. and share data and otner technical and human re sourc...es. In addition, the University of South Carolina's Institute cf Information Management, Technology and Policy has contributed to this effort through its research, publications, and consulting activities. The Institute has had a close working relationship with the State Budget and Control Board and has been the principal resource for the Board in dddressing the numerous management and policy issues associated with the State's initiatives in this area. The Institute has conducted every major related study for the Board beginning with a significant report in 1981 identifying serious deficiencies in the State's approach to managing telecowmunications, data processing and office systems. Since that time, the Institute has supported state government with management policy assistance in helping individual agencies develop information resource management plans. They include Midlands Techniccll College, the South Carolina Tax Commission, the State Development Board, South Carolina Department of Mental Retardation, Department of Social Services and the Health and Human Services Finance Commission. The Ir.stitute continues to play a key role as a source of consulting research support, as well as helping to use University resources to assist state agencies to improve the management of information resources. 41

PAGE 51

CHAPTER THREE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The previous Chapter provided a state-by-state description of informa tion technology management in the states. This chapter will serve to present on analysis of each management issue as it is addressed across the state s amp 1 e 1. Planning Figure 3-1 presents a surm1ary of the planning issues as they are addressed in each state. For the most part i.nformation technology planning occurs at the level of the end-user agency under the supervision of a central oversight authority. a. Organizing the Planning Function There is no single model for information technology planning. Two states, Virginia and South Carolina have organized separate departments at senior policy levels in state government. California, Virginia, New York, Minnesota and Florida use the budget process to encourage agency planning. Texas and Florida have created separate corrmissicns with powers to formulate a broad range of policies governing information technology. Minnesota vests responsibility for setting a strategic direction for the use of information technologyin state governments in the Commission of Administration under the direction of an Assistant Co111T1issioner of the Information Services Bureau (!SB). b. Statewide Strategy_ Two states, Virginia and South Carolina, have adopted state master plans for information technologies including data processing, office 42

PAGE 52

FIGIJk[ 3-1 MANAGfMENT ISSUE.S: ORGANIZING THE PLANNING FUNCTION CALIFORNIA NEW YORK FLORIDA SOUTH CAROLINA TEXAS VIRGINIA MINNESOTA Off ice of Central oversight Con111iss ion composed Div ts ton of AutOfflclted lnfor-Department of Information Systems Information for planning for of Governor and lnfonnation Resource mat 1 on Sys terns Information Bureau of the Technology in systems affecting Cabinet Office Management of Advisory Council Technology of the Convni s s i oner Department of more than one State Budget and cons 1s ting of of Administration finance agency or personControl Board members of nel or ftnanctal public and pri-management. Off tee vate sectors, of Te lecomnuniappointed by cations. General Governor and Services ts pursuing legislature telec011111unicattons planning tn absence of 1egts lat he mandate STATEWIDE STRATEGY Strategic Plan for Strategy for EDP Statewide strategy Statewide pan for dp, Strategy for Statewide strategy Statewide strategy Telec011111untcations. planning by for dp, te 1 ecomtelec011111untcations, planning and for dp, telecomfor dp, telecom-Statewide Strategic agencies municattons office systems poltcy development municattons, office muntcattons, data processing systems office systems ~,., AGENCY LEVEL PLANNING n 0 ""0 Oil oversees agency Dhtsion of the IRC reviews agency DIRM reviews agency AISAC regulations CIT reviews agency I SB works wtth -< > plans submitted to Budget reviews plans which must IT plans submitted require biennial IT plans submitted its User Advisory < Department of agency EDP plans be submhted tf annually plans annua 1 ly Council to encourag Finance along with submitted with agency ts going agency planning budget requests annual budget to request funding ., requests for IT resources r-rSCOPE OF PLANNING DP, OA, Te1e DP, OA DP, OA, Te1e VP, DA, iele OP, OA, Te1e OP, OA, Te1e OP, OA, Te1e 'I!~

PAGE 53

eJtomation and telecommunications. One state has adopted a strategic plan for telecommunications only. However, the absence of a state "master plan" should not be interpreted as suggesting that states are failing to take a strategic focus with respect to investments in information technology. The existence of a Master Plan mer'ely suggests that a state has documented its strategic direction in a single source. Other states, especially California, Minnesota and Florida, are also thinking strategically, providing a management framework within which agencies can plan and operate, the boundaries of which consist of regulations, guidelines, and standards promulgated by a central policy group. T~lecommunications planning is one area where central state government can play a pivotal role because it can act as a coordinating influence for the fragmented data processing operations in state governments. Thus, South Carolina is constructing a microwave network to provide unified data, video and voice communications and shared networking capabilities f~r agencies in state government; and New York is considering a similar option for its Emerging Disaster Preparedness Program. California plans to construct a digital backbone telecommunications network, and a network has been proposed for the State of Texas as a more economical alternative to its present system leased from the t~lecommunications industry. c. Agency Planning Most planning occurs at the agency level under the supervision and guidance of the state's centra 1 management authority. It is reoui red in all states except ~innesota where the Information Systems Bureau works through the Users Advisory Council to encourage planning for technology and applications development. In most cases agencies are encouraged to consider all of their information technology requirements in an integrated fashion. d. ~cope of Planning States have responded to the convergence of technologies and begun to require that agencies consider information technologies as a single re source encompassing data processing, telecommunications and office systems. 44

PAGE 54

CALIFORNIA Hult ip le data centers serving numerous agencies; subs tantia 1 investment in IT in end-user agencies Separate figure 3-2 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ISSUES DEGREE OF CENTRALIZATION OF OPERATIONS RESPONSIBILITIES IN STATE GOVERNMENT NEW YORK Very decentralized; substantta l investments in IT in end-user agencies Separate FLORIDA Decentralized in agencies; nine agencies share a DP utility Separate SOUTH CAROLI NA Consolidated Data centers; substantial IT investments wt thin agencies OPERATIONS AND PLANNING TEXAS Decentralized Separate untts Separate w1thtn Division lnforinatton Resource Management VIRGINIA Dual strategy. Decentralized except for telecomnuntca ttons which ts the responstbtltty of the Department of lnfonnatton Technology; on operated mainframes Separate untts within Department of Information Technology MINNESOTA Colnbinatton of centrally managed dp sttes and distributed processing in the user agencies Separate units with Information Systems Bureau

PAGE 55

The lone exception is New York where the Budget Office reviews plans for data processing but no ethers. 2. gperations A summary of operations in the states is presented in Figure 3-2. a. Centralization of Information Technology Responsibilities in State Government As one would expect data processing operations is a local end-user responsibility, although states do operate numerous data centers to serve multiple agency needs in particular functional areas. For example, Ca 1 i forni a' s Hea 1th and We 1 fare Data Center serves ten state departments within the health and welfare areas. If there is one arEa in which states have sought to centralize control over operations it is in telecommunica tions. South Carolina is moving steadily in this direction by supporting shared communications networking between agencies and consolidated data centers. Virginia vests all responsibility for telecommunications planning and operations in the Office of Telecommunications which has been reorganized under the State's Department of Information Technology. Other states including California and Texas are considering or have developed plans for state owned or leased backbone telecommunications networks. b. Operations and Planning Three states subsume 1 imi ted responsibility for data processing and telecommunications operations within a single parent organization responsi ble for planning as well. Otherwise, planning and operations ar~ separate functions allocated to separate groups within state government. There appear to be three major reasons for this approach. First, state agencies, particularly larger agencies in states like California and 46

PAGE 56

New York, huve a tradition of data processing on which to build current investments in information technology~ States are not going to abandon this approach to operations which has enabled agencies to tailor their automated information systems to satisfy their information precessing requirements. Secondly, the proliferation of microcomputers in the orga nizations placing computing power directly in the hands of end-users is simply contrary to the notion of central control. To realize the productivity potenti a 1 of the mi croccmputer end-users must be free to deve 1 op their own applications as required by_ their information needs. ~~here central state governments can play a significant role in the use of the microcomputer is in the networking arrangement when central state governments supporting a telecommunications network require agencies to conform to communications protocols if they choose to participate in the network for data transmission or for office automation functions such as document sharing a distribution or electronic mail. Third, states are anxious to provide agencies with as many alternative technical solutions to satisfy their information requirements as possible. Thus, they are reluctant to restrict agencies to the one or two alternatives supported by the same organization which is responsible for assisting in the development of and/or reviewing agencies plans for information technology. The assumption of such dual roles is seen in a number of states as a conflict of interest. 3. Training Figure 3-3 presents a sulTITiary of the principal management issue associated with training: Location of Training Respcnsibility. Training is recognized as critical by every state, but states vary in their approach to this vital function. One state incorporates responsibility for IT training in other state employee training programs. Another 47

PAGE 57

CALI FORNI A State OP Education Program operated by General Services, in conjunction wtth Office of ITi State library ,. '~ .. .. ., ... !J.'.j_ure 3-3 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION HCtfNOLOGY TRAltllNG LOCATION OF TRAINING RESPONSIBILITY NEW YORK Shared by Office of Employee Relations and Office of General Services. Genera 1 Services has haining center for EDP management and operations FLORIDA SOUTH CAROL INA Information Resource Division of General, Commtsston I Services 1 Florida's Information and Technology Planning Act of 1983d vests responstbtltty for end-user tratntng tn the Information Resource Con111tsston (IRC). State governnent ts tn a period of transttton wtth respect to its management strategteSi and stnce tts creation the IRC has been prtmartly involved tn advancing ?T planning in state agencies. TEXAS VIRGINIA Automated lnfonnatton Department of Systems Advisory Information Council has Technology pol 1cy making respons 1h11 tty for training, only. No direct training responsibility MINNESOTA Training and I n format ton Center in the lnfonnat1on Services Bureau

PAGE 58

merely absolves central state government of any responsibility whatsoever. Two others vest responsibility for designing and delivering training services to the same group as that responsible for IT planning. Minnesota, South Carolina and Virginia have, in operation, special facilities dedicated to training in the use of data processing and office sys terns t~chno l ogi es. 4. Contra 1 s Figure 3-4 presents a summary of pertinent control issues. The states have adopted a variety of measures to insure a more coherent approach to information technology use and management as the descriptions in Chapter 2 will attest. However, prominent among the means of control are the budget review and procurement approva 1 processes. Centra 1 state government IT management authorities are also empowered to issue guidelines for IT management. a. Investing in InfonTiation Technology As An Alternative to Escalating Labor Costs States are interested in controlling the growth of state government in terms of reducing the numbers of emplo~ees and associated costs. Informa tion technologies are seen as appropriate remedies to satisfy information requirements while foregoing the need to add personnel when technical solutions are feasible and cost/effective. Most states in this sample link planning for information technology to the agency budget planning process. All states rely additionally on procurement review for controliing IT expenditures. By far the more significant control mechanism, though, is the up-front linkage of IT planning and budgeting oversight. It is during this phase that agency managers and senior executives are considering various alternatives to technical problems. It is during this phase that the decisions are made concerning such issues as the utility and/or technical feasibility of a proposed system or whether to develop one in-house or utilize the services of a consolidated data center. 49

PAGE 59

CALIFORNIA Budget Process, Procurement Process; Feast ht 1 tty studies and post-imple mentation evaluations Office Information Technology NEW YORK Budget and Procurement process Dhtston of the Budget, Office of Teleconmuntcations Fiqure 3-4 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONTROLS FLORIDA Procurement Process, Budget Process I nforina t ton Resources Conmtsston (Developing pol tcy on conmuntcattons) Control and IT Expenditures SOUTH CAROLINA Procurement Process DI RM works wtth Budget and Control Board and House Ways and Means Convntttee tn responding to agency functtontng requests for IT IT POLICY GUIDELINES Dtvtston of lnfonnatton Resource Management; Dfvtsfon of Genera 1 Services ,~c-;' '-j -TEXAS Budget Process, Procurement Process Automated lnfonnatton Systems Advisory Council VIRGINIA Procurement Process, Budget Process Department of Information Technology MINNESOTA Central control over a 11 systems pri111arily through through the procurement process, although 1S8 does review IT budget requests from execut Ive branch agencies lnfoniatton Systems Bureau

PAGE 60

Thus, by requiring review of agency IT budgets, however, states are not only attempting to control costs but are also attempting to ensure that agencies are thinking strategically about their information technology requirements. That is, states a re requiring that agencies diagnose their technology needs and evaluate the most cost effective alternative to meeting those needs. b. IT Policy Guidelines Six states have empowered IT planning agencies to issue guidelines for end-user a gene i es. The Automated I nfonna ti on Sys terns Adv is cry Council in Texas is capable of enforcing its policies and guidelines through its rule-making authority. Other states seek a combination of budget and/or procurement review process to influence agencies to enforce central state government policies and guidelines. Policy guidelines are significant because they provide the parameters or framework within which agency managers and senior executives are able to make critical decisions governing planning and investment for information technologies. Thus, policy guidelines promulgated by a senior policy authority in central state governments are defacto state plans because it is through these policy guidelines that th~ states express their strategic directions for infonnation technology. The range of topics with which policy guidelines are concerned include all of the relevant management issues associated with the use and management of information technology. Thus, states have developed policy guide lines for contingency planning and security of hardware, software and data; office automation; networking; personal computing; and data sharing. 51

PAGE 61

CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Advances in information technology are such that the lines of demarcation which have traditionally existed between separate technologies are being breached. This has profound implications for the formerly separate management structures which have been built around each technology. State officials are reconsidering the fragmented approach to information technology management that has characterized information technology management in state governments, the federal government, and private businesses. This reconsideration reflects a recognition that information resources and technologies are tools to improve the information and labor intensive operations of state governments. In many states persona 1 computers and word processors in both stand al one and networked environments are providing employees with direct access to on-site computing power. Where consolidated data centers exist in state government states are not abandoning them in favor of microprocessors in the hands of end-users. Instead, the penetration of the microcomputer adds an additional layer of computing power available to end-users. Thus, it makes no sense to discuss the concentration or distribution of computing power or to otherwise discuss DP operations as either centra 1 i zed or decentralized. Similarly, states are not centralizing all management responsibility in a single central state government authority. Instead, states are structuring a management framework which permits departments, boards and commission as much latitude as possible to tailor information systems according to their unique requirements, consistent with an overall state strategy as manifested in the state master plan as defined by major investments in statewide telecommunications networks and/or policies, ~ules and guidelines. However, not all states have chosen to respond to the convergence of technologies in the same manner. Political traditions, the 52

PAGE 62

magnitude of the geographic area to be covered by management apparatus of a state government, and major investments in existing systems have prevented most states from centra 1 i zing tota 1 contra 1 over information tech no 1 ogy management, operations, and planning. This study has focused on the management structures in place in central state governments which are in the process of being developed. Every state included in this analysis is confronting an uncertain technology environment and diverse organizational frameworks. It is for these reasons that no single model of IT management existsir although patterns of oversight are emerging. Each state is responding to the particular circumstances in which it finds itself. For these reasons, I have drawn upon seven themes which emerge from the preceding discuss ion and a round which I wil 1 present cone l us ions and the implications they have for government high technology policy. 1. Oversight of Information Technology Planning and Acquisition Continues to be Selectively Centralized in the States. State Governments are responding to a variety of economic, market and political stimuli and realizing that the distribution of computer power into the hands of end-users demands a coordinated effort by a central state government authorities to oversee IT planning and procurement by agencies. Many states already have a tradition of selective oversight of information technology planning and/or procurement especially in the area of data processing. State governments have al so exercised contra 1 over p 1 anni ng and operations of telecommunications, although responsibility for this technology has usually been vested in a separate department, usually of General Services. What is emerging now, however, is the recognition of planning responsibilities for data processing and telecommunications, and, to a lesser extent, automated office systems. California, South Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia, Texas, and Florida have centralized at least planning responsibility for all information technologies in a single agency. State governments have recognized as has the federal government, that there is a need for policies and guidelines governing the use and management of information technology. In addition, the federal government a~d 53

PAGE 63

certain states. including South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, as well as California and Minnesota have recognized the strategic value of information resources and technology. These states are takinga proactive posture towards the management of these resources as evidenced by this report. The federa 1 government has a 1 so p 1 aced i tse 1 f among those who have taken a proactive stance. The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) has released a draft of its circular dealing with the management of federal information resources. This circular represents OMB's commitment to implement those provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 concerning general information policy, information technology, privacy and the maintenance of federal records. This 0MB circular in conjunction with similar policies and activities in certain state governments is evidence that the informa tion resource management (IRM) concept is being implemented as a management strategy in the federal government and in selected states. The Genera 1 Services Admi ni strati on has es tab 1i shed guide 1 i nes for purchasing of EDP equipment but, like their State counterpdrts, GSA officials recognize that they do not have the expertise to second-guess line-agencies with respect to type of system being procured. Furthennore, by the time a department is ready to purchase a piece of hardware or software, critical decisions governing the nature of the system's use, its feasibility, or whether or not it offers an appropriate solution to the prob 1 em at hand have a 1 ready been made. Thus, the procurement process alone contributes little value to the strategic focus of departments, boards and commissions in search of technically feasible, cost/effective solutions to satisfy their information requirements. 2. States Have Elevated Responsibility for the Oversight Function to Senior Policy Levels in State Government. In recognition of the degree to which states are seeing information technology as a valuable tool in support of service delivery states have vested res pens i bi 1 i ty for i ~formation tech no 1 ogy po 1 icy at the highest levels of state government. From this level of influence central state government authorities are in a better political position to enforce 54

PAGE 64

statewide policies and standards governing the planning, acquisition, networking and use of information technologies. The Federal government has elevated responsibility for IT management as well. The experiences of the states in the sample suggest that those which have elevated management responsibility anc! have been active in implementing legislative mandates with respect to planning and policy develop can influence the allocation of information technology resources. Moreover, those resources can be allocated according to essential informa tion requirements as defined by 1 i ne personne 1 res pons i b 1 e for service delivery who are involved with middle and senior managers in defining the agency's IT strategy. Clearly, the lesson to be learned is that mere restructuring of the organization is insufficient to bring about the desired changes with respect to the use and benefits of information tech nology. State governments must emulate the pro-active posture of the federal government and selected states in this sample in order to realize the true productivity potential, defined either quantitatively or qualitatively, that low cost, information technology has to offer. 3. State Governments are Moving in the Direction of Managing, Not Just Technology, But Information Resources As Well The data provided in this study suggests that the first step in developing a coherent management strategy for information resources is to gain management contra 1 over the techno 1 ogy. The Federa 1 Government has attempted to do this through the Brooks Act of 1965. Later efforts to manage information as a strategic resource were reflected in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and continue to be reflected in the recently released 0MB circular. Several states in this sample are beginning to move in the direction of managing information as reflectad in preliminary efforts to oversee the development of new applications and to make available public records. They are joined by the Federal government which is moving to imp 1 ement the information resource management ( I RM) concept pursuant to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 55

PAGE 65

The experiences of the states in this sample are testimony to the claim that any strategy that will eventually lead to information management begins with addressing the management is5ues associated with the technology itself. Furthermore, the move toward information management is not necessarily directed, in all cases, by centrai state government. While central state government can stabilize a policy framework for information management, line department boards and commissions in state government are responsible for addressing their information requirements and planning for applications to meet those requirements. 4. Sttntrol of Technology Resources is Increasingly Distributed Into the Hands of End-Users, and at the Same Time There Is More Concern About the Qual it, and Effectiveness of Corporate-Wide Information Systems There is no question but that states maintain consolidated data centers as one component of their overa 11 i nformat~i on processing strategy. Yet, in addition to this degree of technology control, end-user agencies continue to provide for their own information computing and processing needs. This trend is becoming more acute as the cost of computing continues to decline and the acquisition of microcomputers becomes an even more attractive alternative to other computing solutions. In fact, the technology environment which state policy-makers must address is rapidly approaching not one er two, but three 1 eve 1 s of computing solutions for end-user agencies: the consolidated data center serving multiple user agencies; the in-house data center; and the micro-computer. The advent of the microcomputer is forcing states and the Federal government to deve 1 op management po 1 i ci es for security, confi den ti a 1i ty, end-user training, procurement and networking that will protect the integrity of the data and ensure its compatibility and the privacy of citizens, but will not restrict end-use access to the microcomputer alternative while at the same time enhancing the utility of the micro as a partner in the inventory of available technological solutions. 56

PAGE 66

5. States Are Taking an Integrated Approach to IT Management In response to the convergence of the tech no log i es as understood in the IT marketplace, states are positioning themselves to respond by taking an integrated approach to data processing, telecommunications and automated office systems planning. They are beginning to look at these technologies not as separate systems, but as integrated systems offering a tota 1 so1 ution to their information technology requirements. Furthermore, the experiences reflected in this study suggest that states will develop their planning and operations strategies for IT around their greatest strengths. Thus, Minnesota, Ca 1 i fern i a. Florida and New York are developing a strategy consistent with their investments in consol idated data centers. South Carolina is building its strategy around an integrated, backbone microwave network which will provide shared communica tions capabilities between agencies and sixteen data centers around the state. The state has also implemented a series of management initiatives including a separate Division of Information Resources Management of the Budget and Contra l Board and an I RM Di rector series in the personne 1 classification codes to facilitate the implementation of the IRM concept in state agencies. Virginia and Texas are developing strategies consistent with the traditions in those states. 6. Technology is Being A_e,glied Increasingly to Support the Delivery of Services A 1 though the study was 1 imi ted in the extent to which data could be obtained in IT applications, one can infer that states are moving away from using data processing technology for primarily traditional transaction processing applications such as finance and payroll. States are realizing the importance of information technology in controlling the growth of all operating and personal expenditures. And it is this realization in conj~nction with anticipated reductions in state revenues and increasing demands for se:rvices that is encouraging developments in the expanded use of investments in information technology. While the traditional, 57

PAGE 67

administrative support ~pplications of IT will continue, the application of information technology for service delivery will become increasingly visible over time. It is at this level of use that the real productivity potential of information technology lies and federal policies should encourage states to take a more aggressive approach to managing their information resources. 7. In Designing the Appropriate IT Mana-Ssement Model States a re Responding to a Variety of Constraints. The states are responding to a variety of legal, political, geographic, and technological constraints which influence to a varying degree the nature of their responses to the need to manage information technology. They are: a. The fact that the convergence of data process i ng, office automation and telecommunications is very dynamic because of changes in underlying digital and lightwave technologies. b. The wide geographic area to be served by state government and the costs associated with networking over wide areas; c. The existing investments in information technologies to which end-user agencies are already committed; d. The fact that many managers are reluctant to take risks when confronting an uncertain environment characterized by more limited budgets and a technology marketplace that is dynamic. Nevertheless, states in this sample are overcoming many of these constraints and are reorganizing and redefining their management strategies in ways that are consistent with their political and organizational cul tures and management capabilities. Coherent strategies for managing information resources and technology are evident in every state in the sample. Given the alternatives for technology use available since the microcomputer, it no longer makes sense to discuss states as being centralized or decentralized in-t~rms of operations alone. States have adopted operational strategies that have both characteristics depending on the application and the cost of providing the service locally or in a 58

PAGE 68

consolidated data center. Similarly, every state is evolving long-term strategies (although plans are subject to change based on contingencies in funding or changes in the marketplace) that respect the integrity of current investments in IT and the expertise of line agencies. The experi ences related in the study demonstrate that it is possible to develop coherent strategies for managing information resources and technology and to address the variety of constraints that state governments ordinarily face in trying to improve information processing and their abi 1 i ty to deliver services. 59

PAGE 69

APPENDIX 1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH In considering questions for further research one should remember that the scope of the study was 1 imited to only seven states a.nd primarily to information technology management strategies adopted by central state governments. State and federa 1 po 1 icy-makers wou 1 d benefit from a more detailed study, broader in scope and encompassing a larger sample of states. Such a study would be more adequate to confirm the reliability of the conclusions drawn from the analysis reported here. However, the study which has 1 ed to this report begs a number of other issues worthy of consideration. 1. Clearinghouse of Innovations in Information Technology Management and Applications Develoement Clearly states are relying on information technology to continue to support service deli very at current or increased 1 eve 1 s in the face of tighter budgets and limited increases in staff size. State officials are constantly in search of innovations that will improvt! IT operations and management. Many have probably established their own information communications networks with counterparts in other states; but there is the potential need for a more systematic approach to identifying, classify1ng, and disseminating informat1on on innovative applications of and management strategies for infonnation technologies. State officials are working under severe financial constraints. At the same time, advances in technology are increasing the technical options to which these officials can avail themselves. The search for solutions as well as simply "keeping current" is a costly, time consuming process. A central clearinghouse for information 60

PAGE 70

might be a cost-effective alternative to the state official's lone search for advice from peers in other states. Whether there is support for such a service remains to be seen. Where such support sho~ld be located is unclear. There are a number of options including, the National Association of State Information Systems (NASIS) of the Council of State Governments, a university-based clearinghouse, a federally-operated clearinghouse and a clearinghouse maintained strictly by the private sector. Of special importance is the ro 1 e of the federa 1 government in adopting anyone of these options from the standpoint of providing funding and from the stand point of including the federal government as a subscriber to the clearing house. 2. Training in the Use of Information Technology A number of states reported in this study have already invested substantial resources in developing facilities dedicated especially to training of end-users in operating terminals, word processors and microcomputers. However, it is not clear that this trend is replicated nationwide; indeed, it is not rep 1 i ca ted by every state in the samp 1 e. As tech no 1 ogy becomes more and more a part of the way work is conducted in state government agencies, boards and corrrni s s i ans end-user training takes on added significance. Behavioral studies of IT implementation conclude that adequate training of end-users is essential if workers are going to overcome any fear they might have of technology and if they are going to use it. Both the tederal government and states share an interest in developing a workforce that is technology literate; and end-user training is certainly one way to achieve this goal. That there is a role for the federal government in providing funding or supporting training services er supporting the development of training facilities in state governments is worthy of examination. At the very least, government officials have got to recognize that end-user training in the use of computer-based and communications technologies, for which states are investing substantial sums of money cannot be treated lightly. There is ample evidence to support the claim that training is essential to overcoming resistance to technology and enhance the productive use of technology. 61

PAGE 71

APPENDIX 2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE STATE: DATE PHON~rr: NAME: PLANNING 1. Does the state have a strategic plan for IT? yes ___ no If yes, who is responsible for formulating and administering the State IT Plan? To whom are IT planners accountable? 2. If yes, please describe the strategic planning process for IT 2a. How comprehensive is the strategic plan? technologies covered?) 62 (What is the scope of

PAGE 72

2b. What is the time horizon covered by the strategic plan? 2c. Are agencies responsible for developing their own IT plans? yes ____ no -----2d. How are agencies held accountable to the provisions of the State IT plan? 2e. What specific procedures for designing and implementing IT systems are described in the plan? 3. Which technologies are covered in the State's Plan? 4. Why did the State take the approach to planning that it has? Was the planning process the result of some initiative by the Governor? Legislature. ---------------------B. OPERATIONS AND TRAINING 1. Are there agencies which have introduced office automation? yes ____ no -----la. Please describe the OA configurations in state government l. ,, '. 3. Can you identify two or more of the more i nnova ti ve users of office automation? AGENCY 63 CONTACT PERSON 1. 2. 3.

PAGE 73

2. Does the security? yes no state government have a formal, (Hardware and software, data security) written policy If yes,, what is it? _______________ _,_ __ on IT 3. Is money appropriated for IT security as a specific use item in the state budget? 4. 5. yes ____ no Are you aware of any information technology public? examples where state to actually deliver yes ____ no If yes, AGENCY 1. ------------2. ------------3. ------------EXAMPLE Is there an information locator system? (An of information resources (analagous to a telephone director) which does not contain but "points" the user to the pertinent information.) yes ____ no 64 agencies are using a service to the automated directory card catalogue or the actual database

PAGE 74

6. Does the state have a policy on training? yes ____ no 7. Does the state have an organization specifically vested with responsibility for IT training? yes ___ no Is there a contact person for training? 8. What is the instructional focus of IT training in the state. (See if respondent has inventory of training courses fer distribution). Is training merely concerned with the functional application of IT or does the state also have training classes in the management of IT uses, ergonomic issues, etc? C. CONTROLS 1. What technical controls for IT, such a~ state standards for communications, exist? 2. Are IT planning, procurement and audit processes employed as control mechanisms to enforce IT policies? 3. ~hat is the organizational structure for IT management in state government? 65 BtST COP~ AVAILAiLb

PAGE 75

Why is the structure designed in this way? --------------------------D. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. 2. What political, economic, or organizational have most influenced the approach that toward IT management? (Rank) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Which of these factors management structure for IT? 1. 2. 3. 4. s. are critical (Rank) to factors do your state ensuring a you has think taken coherent 3. Can you recommend any other individuals with particular insight into any of the issues we have mentioned? NAME AGENCY PHONE NUMBER -66

PAGE 76

1 2 3 FOOTNOTES The National Association of State Information Systems (NASIS) publishes an annual report entitled Information Systems Technolooy in State Government. The report summarizes various classes of aata supplied by the states. IT coordination and control, computer inventory, personnel, training, difficulties in EDP management, formalized plans and documentation, intergovernmental information systems relationships, applications, finding data security and privacy, and examples where applications were transferred between states. California, Office of Information Technology, Statewide Personal Comp u te r Po 1 i c y p 1 California, Office of Information Technology, Strategic Implementation Plan, p. 15. 67

PAGE 77

3IBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL National Association for a State Information Systems. Information _Systems Technology in State Government, 1982-i~Sj. (exington, Kentucky. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Mana1ement of Federal Information Resources; Notice and Request for ~u6 ic Comment. March l5, l985. Vorlar;der, earl W., Executive Director, National Association for State Information Systems. Interview. October 10, 1984. Vorlander, Car1 W. "State Information Systems," Book of the States, 1982-1983, Council of State Governments. CALIFORNIA Department of Fair Emp~oyment and Housing. Annual Report 1983-1984. Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Surrmary of Current Equipment and Proposed EDP Projects. Depdrtment of Finance, Office of Information Technology. "Statewide Personal Computer Policy. 11 15 Febrtia ry 1985. Department of Finance, Office of Information Technology, Strategic Implementation Plan, November 1984. Governor's Budget Summary 1985-1986 California Information Technology Advisory Board. Information Technology in California State Government. December 1982. California. Section 4820 of the State Administrative Manual. "State Information Management Policy. California. Section 4819.3 of of the State Administrative Manual. "State Information Management Authority and Responsib1l1ty." Framework to Develop Computer Information Public Access Policy. Prepared 6y Touche Ross and Company and EDP Auait Controls, Inc., for the Office of Information Technology, Department of Finance. January 1, 1985. Kneedel, Harold, Assistant Director, Law Enforcement Data Center. Interview, 27 March 1S85. KolodnE::y, Steve, Directer, Office of Information Technology, Department of Finunce. State of California Interview, November 9, 1984. 68

PAGE 78

Luallin, Charlotte, Associate Program Analyst, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Interview, 9 April 1985. Reader, Betty, Deputy Director for Administrative Services, California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Interview, 4 April 1985. FLORIDA Davies, T:,omas R. and Hale, Mike, "Implementing a Policy and Planning Process for ~anagi ng the Use of I nforma ti on Tech no 1 ogy Resources. 11 Paper presented at the joint national meeting of the 1984 Operations Research Society of America and the Institute of Management Science, Dallas, Texas, 28 November 1984. Florida Division of Electronic Data Processing. "Resolution on Data Processing Adopted by the Governor and Cabinet on February 16, 1982." A memorandum to all agency heads and data center directors, 28 October 1982. Final Report of the Joint Select Committee on Electronic Data Processing, 25 July l983. Overview of Comeuter Security. A Report of the Florida Legisiature, Joint Conm,ttee on Inrormation Technology Resources, January 1984. Remote Com1uter Access to Public Records. A Report of the Florida Leg1s ature, Joint CoJT111ittee on Information Technology Resources, January 1985. Hale, Michael, Executive Director, Infonnation Resources Commission, State of Florida. Interview, 30 November 1984. Levine, Edwin A., Staff Directer of the Joint Legislative Committee on Information Technology Resources. 26 March 1985. MINNESOTA Abraham, Nancy, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Administrition Information Services Bureau, State of Minnesota, Interview, November 5, 1984. Dethmers, Richard, 15Finding the Issues in Telecommunications," Minnesota Jou rna 1 September 18, 1984, p. 7. "Managing the Information Services of Minnesota State Government." An unpublished report by the Department of Administration, State of Minnesota, September 1983. Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Services Bureau. "EDP Applications Policy," May 26, 1981. 69 .. ., r--t ,, ~HAILiDL ,-.. ,.:,: ~Air) Ar I M L

PAGE 79

Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Services Bureau. "EDP Data Policy," May 26, 1981. Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Services Bureau. "State EDP Data Security Guidelines." October 1983. Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Services Bureau. "EDP Equipment Po 1 icy," May 26, 1981. Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Services Bureau. "EDP Operations Policy," May 26, 1981. Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Services Bureau. "EDP Personne 1 Po 1 icy," May 26, 1981. Minnesota. 1985-1987 Biennial Budget. Minnesota, Minnesota Laws, Section 65, (16 B 01). Minnesota. Report of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Committee on Information Policies. November l984. NEW YORK Heinson, John, Director of Telecommunications, State of New York, Interview, December 5, 1984. Fisk, Paul. Division of the Budget, Interview, 12 March 1985. Lynch, Peter, Deputy Director, Division of the Budget, State of New York, November 30, 1984. Office of General Services, Division of Telecommunications. A Mana~ement Plan for New York State Government Telecommunicat,ons, Facilities, January l982. SOUTH CAROLINA Black, Sena. The Information Technolo Carolina ~tate overnment. : o 1c1es ana Procedures and Volume II: Oraft Manual for State Agencies. Institute of Intonnat,on Management, Technology and Policy, University cf South Carolina, February 1982. Black, Sena H. and Kettinger, Wi1liam J., The Procurement of Telecommunications in South Carolina State Government. Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy, O"niversity of South Caro 1 i na, September_ 1981. Black, Sena H.; Kettinger, William J.; and Marchand, Donald A., Managin~ and Accounting for Information and Communication Resources in Sout Carolina State Government. Institute of Information Management, iechnology and Policy, University of South Carolina, April 1981. 70

PAGE 80

Black, Sena H.; Schechter-Schoeman, Sara; Ayres, Q. Whitfield; Kresslein, John C.; and Sifford, Paul. Information Resource Management: A Statewide Strategy. Institute of Information Management, Technology ana ~olicy, University of South Carolina., Apri 1 1983. Division of Information Resource Management, Information Technology Plannin9. Manual for State A9.encies in South Carolina "State Government. Columbia, South ~aro1ina, April !982. -.---Division of Information Resource Management, Office Automation Stan dards, Columbia, South Caro"lina, January l984. Division of Information Resource Management, State Plan on Office Automation, Columbia, South Carolina, January fggj_ Division of Information Resource Management, State Plan on Technology. Columbia, South Carolina, October 1983. Kettinger, William J., The State Office Automation Pilot Study: Progress Report 1. Institute of Information Management9 Technology ana Policy, On"Tversity of South Carolina, January 1983. Kettinger, William J. and Kresslein, John C~, An Initial Eva1uation of Productivity Benefits Achieved_.,rom SOAPS: Progress ReportJD 2. Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy, University of South Carolina, Ju1'' 1983. Kettinger, Wil 1 i am J. and Kress 1 ei n, Jann C., ~ona l Computers in State Government. Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy, On-Ivers i ty of South Carolina, May 1984. Marchand, Donald A.,. A Mana~er's Guide! For Implementina Information Resource Management J~M) In Astate 1Agency: I~stitute of Information Management, Technology ctnd Pohcy, On1vers1ty of South Carolina, June 1984. Schechter-Schoeman, Sara, The Foundations of Data Confidentiality in South Carolina: Statutes and Anarysis. Institute of Information Management. f echno logy and Poi icy, University of South Caro 1 i na, June 1983. Schechter-Schoeman, Sara; Muthuswamy, Balakrishnan; Donahue, Joesph; Kerschberg, Larry; and Sen, Arun, !~n Information Locator Ststem f..Qr South Carolina: Feasibilit Stu,j and Im lementatiun ..,trateg,;;. nst, tute o n ormat1on Management, ec no ogy and Pol ,cy, University of South Carolina, June 1984. Schechter-Schoeman, Sara; Williams, Jane; and Killingsworth, Brenda, Security Contingency Plannina and Auditing. Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy, University of South Carolina, July 1983. 71

PAGE 81

Williams, N. Jane, An Information Resources Training Program for South Carolina State Government: A Recommenced tourse of Action. Institute ot Information Management, Tecnnology and Policy, University of South Carolina, July 1983. TEXAS Rutherford, George, Director of Telecommunications Services, State Purchasing and General Services Commission. Interview, 25 March 1985. Texas, Seven Texas Register 1173, Chapter 201, Acquisition of Automated Information Systems, March 19, 1982. Vernon's Annotated Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas. Volume 12B, Article 4413 (32h), Automated Information Systems Advisory Council. Winston, Charles, Executive Director, Automated Information Systems Advisory Council, State of Texas, Interview, November 5, 1984. VIRGINIA Virginia, A memorandum to agency data processing managers entitled 11Corrmonwealth of Virginia Data Processing Policies and Standards Manual, Volume I,11 August 1, 1982. Virginia, A memorandum to heads of all state agencies and institutions entitled "The Commonwealth of Virginia's Information Management Strategies for the '801s, November 15, 1982. Virginia, Department of Management Analysis and Systems Development. Data Processing Guidelines for Information Security. Moye, Hal, Computer Systems Chief Engineer, Department of Information Technology, State of Virginia, Interview, 9 November 1984. ,i Office Automation: A Pilot Project." An Unpub 1 i shed report by the Department of Computer Services, Cormnonwealth of Virginia, January 1984. Wathington, Lee, Data Systems Manager, Virginia Department of Agricul ture and Consumar Services. Interview, March 25, 1985. 72


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EF9P24J8U_EDTMPJ INGEST_TIME 2017-06-01T19:23:48Z PACKAGE AA00055634_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES