some assembly required: building a digital government for the 21

Some Assembly Required:

Building a Digital Governmentfor the 21st Century

Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at Albany / SUNY

1999 Center for Technology in GovernmentThe Center grants permission to reprint this document provided that it is printed in its entirety

2 Designing the Digital Government of the 21st Century

Report of a Multidisciplinary Workshop Held in October 1998

Some Assembly Required:Building a Digital Government for the 21st Century

Sharon S. DawesPeter A. Bloniarz

Kristine L. Kelly

Center for Technology in Government

University at Albany, SUNY

Patricia D. Fletcher

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

March 1999

This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 99-181.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

© 1999 Center for Technology in Government

The Center grants permission to reprint this document provided this cover page is included.

Report of the Multidisciplinary Workshop 3

Sharon S. Dawes, Committee ChairDirector, Center for Technology in Government

University at Albany, SUNY1535 Western Avenue

Albany, NY 12203Phone: 518/442-3892 Fax: 518/442-3886

Email: [email protected] Bikson, Senior ScientistRand Corporation, Behavioral Sciences DepartmentDept. 1700 Main St.Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138Phone: 310/393-0411 x 7227 Fax: 310/393-4818Email: [email protected]

Peter A. Bloniarz, Research DirectorCenter for Technolgy in GovernmentUniversity at Albany, SUNY1535 Western AvenueAlbany, NY 12203Phone: 518/442-3892 Fax: 518/442-3886Email: [email protected]

Lawrence BrandtProgram Manager for Digital GovernmentNational Science FoundationDivision of Advanced Scientific Computing4201 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1160Arlington, VA 22230Phone: 703/306-1981 Fax: 703/306-0589Email: [email protected]

Angela CoppolaU.S. Central Intelligence AgencyAdvanced Analytic Tools Plaza A, Room 2S30Washington, DC 20505Phone: 703/281-8015Email: [email protected]

Patricia D. FletcherDepartment of Information SystemsUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County100 Hilltop CircleBaltimore, MD 21250Phone: 410/455-3154 Fax: 410/455-1073Email: [email protected]

Robert E. Greeves, PrincipalThe Council for Excellence in Government403 John Marshall Dr. NEVienna, VA 22180-3550Phone: 703/938-3150 Fax: 703/938-9126Email: [email protected]

John L. KingDept. Information & Computer ScienceUniversity of California at IrvineIrvine, CA 92717Phone: 714/856-6388 Fax: 714/856-4056Email: [email protected]

Timothy Loewenstein, ChairBoard of Supervisors Buffalo County, NebraskaChair, NACO Telecom Subcommittee9393 Second AvenueKearney, NE 68847Phone: 308/865-4736 Fax: 308/233-0000Email: [email protected]

Jerry Mechling, Program DirectorStrategic Computing & TelecommunicationsJFK School of GovernmentHarvard University79 JFK St.Cambridge, MA 02138Phone: 617/495-3036 Fax: 617/496-1722Email: jerry_mechling/fs/[email protected]

Alvin Pesachowitz, Chief Information OfficerU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWest Tower, 401 M. Street, S.W., Mail Stop 3101Washington, DC 20460Phone: 202/260-4600 Fax: 202/260-0835Email: [email protected]

Carolyn Purcell, Executive DirectorTexas Department of Information Resources300 W 15th St., Suite 1300Austin, TX 78701Phone: 512/475-4720 Fax: 512/475-4759Email: [email protected]

James Ruda55 Airport Rd.Dudley, MA 01571Phone: 508/943-0111 Fax: 508/949-7626Email: [email protected]

Jerry Sheehan, Education & Outreach CoordinatorNational Center for Supercomputing Applications605 E. Springfield AvenueChampaign, IL 61820Phone: 217/244-6012 Fax: 217/244-1987Email: [email protected]

Greg Woods, Deputy DirectorNational Partnership for Reinventing Government750 17th Street, N.W., Suite 200, Box 100Washington, DC 20006-4607Phone: 202/632-0150, x 121 Fax: 202/632-0390Email: [email protected]

Organizing committee


AcknowledgementsMany people contributed their talents to the October Workshop and this report. Larry Brandt, ProgramOfficer at NSF, encouraged us to create an event where practicing government managers, social scientists,and information and computer scientists could meet and compare their needs and resources. The WorkshopOrganizing Committee designed an excellent program and identified the experienced, imaginativeparticipants who articulated the issues and ideas reported here. Special thanks goes to Sally Goodall, DavidConnelly, and Stephanie Simon of the Center for Technology in Government for their indispensablecontributions to the workshop and the production of this report.


Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 6

1. Background: the dimensions of American government ..................................................................... 10What constitutes “government?” .......................................................................................................10Who cares about the way government works? ...................................................................................11Government services are a fabric of public and private threads ..........................................................12Public policies shape information content, flow, and infrastructure ....................................................13

2. The new web: technology, policies, people, and organizations ......................................................... 15Technology and digital government ...................................................................................................16Human and organizational factors ....................................................................................................19Policy, management, and technology march to different drummers ....................................................21

3. Government needs for the 21st century ............................................................................................. 23Interoperable systems that are trusted and secure ..............................................................................23Models for electronic public service transactions and delivery systems ...............................................24Better methods of IT management ....................................................................................................24Methods and measures of citizen participation ..................................................................................25Models for public-private partnerships and other networked organizational forms ............................25Intuitive decision support tools for public officials ............................................................................26Archiving and electronic records management frameworks and tools ................................................26Matching research resources to government needs ............................................................................27

4. Designing a multidisciplinary research enterprise for digital government ......................................... 28Applied research challenges and opportunities ..................................................................................28Existing research models ...................................................................................................................29

5. Digital Government Program recommendations ................................................................................ 301. Support research at the Federal, state, and local levels as well as investigations

into intergovernmental and public-private interaction .......................................................................302. Attend to issues of “governance” as well as “government” in the digital age ......................................303. Encourage methods that describe, account for, and evaluate questions of

service integration and environmental complexity .............................................................................314. Seek innovative funding models that build a larger resource base for

Digital Government initiatives ..........................................................................................................315. Link research and practice in an ongoing exchange of knowledge, needs, and experiences .................316. Create a practitioner advisory group for the program and include

practitioners in the review panels ......................................................................................................32Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................32

Selected references ................................................................................................................................ 33

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 34Appendix A. Workshop summary ............................................................................................................34Appendix B. Workshop participants ........................................................................................................37Appendix C. Background papers .............................................................................................................38

Table of Contents


Government remains essential in the Information Agesociety. Although there is debate over structure andoperation, government’s objectives are indisputable:maintaining collective security, administering justice,providing the institutional infrastructure of theeconomy, ensuring that vital social capital is enhancedthrough improvements in health and education andthrough strong families and communities. In its role asa service provider, government needs to be fullycapable of delivering high quality, effective, affordableservices. However, in cases where government itself isnot the best delivery vehicle, it must engage or allowothers in the voluntary and profit-making sectors tocarry out this role. Information technology, already anessential part of government operations, will continueto be vitally important to administration, decisionmaking, and direct service delivery. It will also becritical in the evolving relationships betweengovernment and other kinds of organizations, andbetween government and citizens.

Today, government is being transformed along severaldimensions. Where it was organized to actindependently or according to rigid rules, it is nowinvolved in complex patterns of interdependence.Traditional methods of public management based onhierarchical notions of “command and control” arebeing replaced by approaches that depend oncollaboration, negotiation, and incentives amongpartners. The boundaries between government andbusiness that served as clear lines of separation are nowblurring as public-private partnerships emerge toaddress increasingly complex problems and goals.

Citizens are coming to expect vastly differentperformance from government. They are littleconcerned with which level or unit or organizationdelivers a service, but are increasingly concerned thatthose services be sensible, cost-effective, convenient,and of high quality.

Government has been at the forefront of informationtechnology research and application for decades. Weoften take for granted that many traditional functionsof government, such as the Social Security system andnational defense, would not operate at all withoutinformation technology. However, today’s technicaltools, including digital communications and advancednetworking, are beginning to offer transformationalvalue to many more functional areas. We can alreadysee their potential in relatively rare governmentapplications that engage citizens directly. TheInternal Revenue Service e-file and Telefile programsallow taxpayers to file their returns electronicallyusing technologies as simple as their telephones. TheSanta Monica Public Electronic Network (PEN)provides myriad information services to thatSouthern California community and serves as avirtual host for public discussion of important civicissues. Advanced computing and communicationstechnology make programs like these technicallyfeasible, but alone they are insufficient for achievingthe kinds of services that the public demands anddeserves. Leadership, management strategies,organizational structures, cross-boundaryrelationships, financing mechanisms, informationpolicies, and public participation and acceptance are

Executive summary


all equally crucial elements of effective 21st Centurygovernment services. This extraordinarily complexcombination of technical, organizational, economic,human, and political factors explains why applicationslike e-file and PEN are not at all common. Suchprograms present huge challenges along all of thesedimensions, and because they are governmental, publicscrutiny, the limitations of public funding, and thenecessity of providing for universal access presentenormous risks of failure.

In 1997, the National Science Foundation launchedthe Digital Government Program to support researchprojects that will help move American governmenttoward the promise of transformed public services.The program fosters broad connection betweengovernment information services providers andresearch communities, and seeks innovative research toimprove agency, interagency, and intergovernmentaloperations, as well as interactions between citizens andgovernment.

Clearly, no single domain of knowledge will besufficient to the challenge. Computer and informationscience, the social and behavioral sciences, and the fullrange of public policy domains and managementdisciplines need to be actively engaged. However,effective partnerships among disciplines and betweenresearchers and practitioners face formidable barriersof their own. Different value systems, vocabulariesand conceptual frameworks, and lack of awareness andexperience of one another all mitigate against the kindof multidisciplinary collaboration that is needed.

In October 1998, a workshop sponsored by the DigitalGovernment Program was convened by the Center forTechnology in Government of the University atAlbany/SUNY to address these challenges. Theworkshop focused particularly on the environment inwhich government information services are developed.It recognized that government programs and servicedelivery mechanisms are developed in a complexmulti-layered Federal-state-local system in which manyorganizations play significant and different roles. Italso emphasized that development efforts must dealwith interactions among the political, organizational,technological, economic, and human factors that shapethe implementation environment.

Government needs for the21st centuryBy paying special attention to the needs of governmentprogram managers, workshop presentations anddiscussions were designed to lead to research ideas thathave the potential to be of pragmatic use ingovernment. Eight specific needs emerged from thediscussion.

Ø Interoperable systems that are trusted andsecure. Current system developmentmethodologies cannot deal well with the scopeand diversity of users, customers, andstakeholders that are involved in largegovernment information systems. Research isneeded to understand the potential for and thelimits of system integration and scalability intechnological, organizational, and political terms.

Ø Methods and measures of citizen participation indemocratic processes. Internet technologies canfacilitate a more personal involvement in theinstitutions and processes of government. Easypublic access to information, electronic voting,instant public opinion polls, and otherpossibilities raise important questions about thenature of citizenship, the role of politicalleadership, and limits of change in democraticinstitutions.

Ø Models of electronic public service transactionsand delivery systems. With the proliferation ofthe Internet among government agencies andcitizens, it is possible to offer new services,integrated services, and self-service in ways andplaces never before possible. New methods ofauthentication, record-keeping, security, andaccess are all needed, as well as new methods ofmeasuring costs and benefits.

Ø New models for public-private partnerships andother networked organizational forms. Giventhe diversity of players involved in deliveringgovernment services, developing effective ITsystems often requires new coalitions of partnersat all levels of government, and between


government and the private and nonprofitsectors. The complexity of the resultingorganizational and technological relationships isdaunting. Considerable legal, economic, ethical,political, and technological questions attend thisevolution to new organizational arrangements.

Ø Intuitive decision support tools for publicofficials. Technologies and data standards thatencourage information search, selection, analysis,and sharing can strongly influence the nature andeffectiveness of decision making by electedofficials, senior executives, and programmanagers alike. The use of new tools by decisionmakers may also have implications for publicparticipation and open government.

Ø Archiving and electronic records management.More and more information now resides inelectronic rather than physical files, generatingnew issues around record definition and content,version control, public access, ongoingpreservation, and the ability of government tomaintain history and accountability.

Ø Better methods of IT management. GovernmentIT managers need ways to design and maintainmore efficient, flexible, and affordable systems.Design processes, project and contractmanagement, leadership models, and strategiesfor dealing with a shortage of IT professionals areall critical areas for applied research.

Ø Matching research resources to governmentneeds. Applied research is usually not rewardedby academic value systems. As a consequence,researchers often pursue theoretical researchinstead of field work. Practitioners generallycannot or will not wait for the results oftraditional research to influence their decisions,therefore, they seldom make use of researchresults. The best forms of research on DigitalGovernment must overcome these obstacles andlead to readily useable knowledge.

Applied research challengesand opportunitiesWhile the needs outlined above present more thanample opportunities for applied research, traditionalresearch models and a historical lack of connectionbetween research and practice present seriousobstacles to success.

First, although academic research can have asignificant influence on government practices, thegovernment and research communities have verydifferent value systems that need to be taken intoaccount. Government is risk-averse by design, andresearch is quite the opposite. Government managersoften need quick answers, while researchers tend totake a longer-term view. These differences need to betaken into account through the development of newmodels for informing and integrating practice andresearch.

Like government, research has its own disciplinaryspecialties that deepen and expand knowledge withineach field. To meet the needs identified above,researchers not only must advance knowledge inindividual fields, but must also find synergy acrossthem. In particular, social and information scientistsneed to work together.

The intricate interdependencies of governmentprograms require a holistic line of research thataccounts for the interactions among levels ofgovernment and between the public and privatesectors. Access to venues for this kind of research willrequire trusting long-term relationships betweenresearchers and government managers, as well assubstantial multi-year funding.

Finally, policy guidelines, organizational forms, andtechnology tools constantly interact with one another,generating many questions and conflicts about what istechnically possible, organizationally feasible, andsocially desirable. Research that focuses on theintersection of these domains is inherentlymultidisciplinary, complex, and difficult to design andmanage, but essential to achieving the goals of DigitalGovernment.


Digital Government Program recommendations

The complexities of the public sector environment,pressing practitioner needs, critical research challenges,and 35 specific project ideas (see p. 18) emerged fromthe workshop discussions. Together, these led to sixrecommendations to the National Science Foundationfor furthering the goals of the Digital GovernmentProgram:

1. Support research at the Federal, state, and locallevels, as well as investigations intointergovernmental and public-private interaction.The Digital Government Program shouldemphasize the multi-faceted nature of Americangovernment and encourage projects that look atevery level of government, at multi-level functions,and at programs that link the public, private, andnonprofit sectors.

2. Attend to issues of “governance” as well as“government” in the digital age. Informationtechnology can play a significant role intransforming not only government services andadministration, but also the working of democraticinstitutions. Projects that focus on the nature andeffects of “digital governance,” the roles and rightsof citizens, and the functioning of civil societyshould be included in the Digital Governmentresearch program.

3. Encourage both social science and technologyresearch, multidisciplinary projects, and researchdesigns and methods that address serviceintegration and environmental complexity. Inorder to be successful, the research program willneed to address the interplay among technical,management, policy, and organizational factorsinfluencing the information systems that supportgovernment operations. With this diverse set ofresearch questions and objectives, the programshould encourage research in both social andinformation sciences and welcome a variety ofresearch methods, particularly ones that directlyinvolve system users and beneficiaries.

4. Seek innovative funding models that build a largerresource base for Digital Government initiatives.At present, the NSF funds allocated to the DigitalGovernment Program are quite modest and areinsufficient to support sustained research into thecomplex questions posed at the workshop. NSFshould consider innovative funding models toincrease the amount of resources available tosupport the program by finding co-sponsors andleveraging complementary investments alreadybeing made by other organizations.

5. Link research and practice in an ongoing exchangeof knowledge, needs, and experiences. Given thewide communications gap between the academicand government practitioner communities, and thesignificant opportunity for improved practicesthrough collaboration, new methods are needed fordisseminating research results to practitioners andfor infusing research with the problems of practice.NSF should encourage the development oforganizational structures, information sharingmechanisms, and funding methods to bridge thegap between these two cultures.

6. Create a practitioner advisory group for theprogram and include practitioners in the reviewpanels. If the Digital Government Program is tosucceed in integrating research and practice,practitioners must have a major role in settingpriorities and selecting projects to be funded. Anadvisory group made up of practitioners from allthree levels of government would assist in programdesign, in attracting government funding andresearch partners, and in disseminating results.Practitioners must also participate in reviewingproposals that seek to study their areas of expertise.This will also help insure the relevance of projects,access to venues for field research, and an audiencefor the research results.


Government is the means by which society pursuesessential objectives: maintaining collective security,administering justice, providing the institutionalinfrastructure of the economy, ensuring that vital socialcapital is enhanced through improvements in health andeducation and through strong families and communities.When people talk about “the government,” they oftenmean elected officials in Washington or the state capital.They might also mean the array of government agenciesthat watch over the environment, collect taxes, buildroads, fight crime, or conduct a host of other activities.Government can also mean the local tax assessor, thetown clerk, city hall, or a tribal council. Government isactually a dynamic mixture of these goals, structures, andfunctions.

By any measure, American government is big andpervasive. A variety of domestic Federal functionshave broad effect throughout the United States: socialinsurance programs like Social Security and VeteransBenefits; a national tax code; the postal service; land,wildlife, and other resource management programs;environmental quality and remediation projects; thenational park system; the interstate highway system.In the mid-1990s, these and other non-defenseprograms and agencies employed about 2.1 millionpeople and spent about $1.6 trillion.

State and local governments represent an even largerforce. Of the 19.5 million people employed in civiliangovernment jobs in 1995, 85 percent were employedby states (4.7 million) and localities (11.9 million,including about 5 million public school employees). Inmost functional areas, including public health, welfare,and safety, state and local employment exceeds Federalnumbers by wide margins. Total expenditures of stateand local funds for these programs was approximately$1.3 trillion in 1994. Of the $1.6 trillion in Federaloutlays noted above, $218 billion or about 17 percentwas in the form of intergovernmental transfers ratherthan spending on direct Federal functions.

The sheer number of units of government is, of course,concentrated at the local level. In 1992, there werenearly 39,000 general-purpose units of localgovernment in the United States (about 3,000 counties,19,000 cities, and 16,000 towns), plus more than14,000 school districts and more than 31,000 specialdistricts handling public water works, sewer systems,fire protection, and other special local functions.

These patterns of employment, spending, andresponsibility mean that most people and organizationsinteract with government at the state and local levels.

American government comprises a variety of actors playing multiple roles, a complex and variablesystem of federalism, and an increasingly interconnected array of public and private organizations addressing essential societal goals.

1. Background -the dimensionsof Americangovernment Private

Federal State

Local

Nonprofit

Public

What constitutes “government?”


Many government programs and functions operate atmore than one jurisdictional level, with Federal, state,and local agencies playing different roles in a singleprogram. Public education, for example, is governedby local boards of education, who make district-levelpolicy and carry out statewide curricula requirements.State education departments set those uniformrequirements, certify teachers, and distribute state aidto local school districts. In most states, elementaryand secondary education is funded through acomplicated mixture of mostly state and local funding,with small amounts of Federal aid available fortargeted programs, such as Head Start and schoollunches.

While elementary and secondary education have longbeen under mostly local and state control, other multi-level public programs have been designed andcontrolled with a much more forceful Federalpresence. In recent years, design and controlresponsibilities for some of these programs, publicassistance being the most notable, have been“devolved” to the states and often from there to localcommunities. At the same time that decision-makinghas moved to the state and local levels, however,Federal oversight has been expanded and tied toincreasingly detailed flows of information aboutspecific activities and performance. For example, thewelfare reform law of 1996 (PL 104-193) gave statesbroad authority to redesign their cash assistanceprograms and to create strong welfare-to-workprograms in their place. This grand devolution ofdiscretion, however, has been accompanied byrequirements to track and report nearly 200 separatedata elements to the Federal government. Many ofthese require entirely new information systems thatconnect states to localities, localities to one another,and states to their counterparts around the country.

This richly interconnected environment complicatesmany aspects of government operations, but it alsoprovides a setting in which many actors areexperimenting with new tools and new ways ofworking. As a result, the public sector seems toprovide a more supportive environment for the spreadof innovation. The fact that electronic benefits transfer(EBT) is now the preferred method of benefitsdistribution across all Federal programs is testament tothis fact. EBT began more than ten years ago as anexperiment in Ramsey County, Minnesota. It wasdeveloped by the county human services agency inresponse to a local crisis in which no bank would cashwelfare checks without a user fee. Cited by the FordFoundation Innovations in American GovernmentProgram, EBT spread among state welfare agencies,and then to other kinds of programs. In 1994, a taskforce created by the National Performance Reviewcalled for a single electronic delivery method for allFederal benefits.

Who cares about the waygovernment works?Consider the possibilities for a Digital Governmentfrom the point of view of the people and organizationswho interact with government services, rules, orinformation: private citizens, businesses, nonprofitorganizations, and government agencies and employeesthemselves. Often, reports and recommendations forimproving government urge that public agencies paymore attention to their “customers,” or more activelyengage their “stakeholders,” or focus on “the citizen.”These terms usually serve to focus attention on the“person in the street.” While this is undeniablyimportant, they also tend to downplay or ignore theroles and importance of the others. It therefore seemsuseful to outline the full range of actors concernedwith the way government works.

Customers are the direct consumers of specificservices. Retirees who receive Social Security benefitsare customers; so are the families who vacation in stateparks and the parents who bring their children topublic health clinics.

The interconnectedness of thepublic sector can encourage

the spread of innovation


Stakeholders are specific individuals, organizations, orgroups that have an interest in the existence, design,cost, or outcome of a government action or program.Advocacy organizations, other units of government,and those subject to government oversight orregulation are all stakeholders in the programs thatengage them. Employers, for example, care aboutproposed changes in minimum wage laws, and healthcare advocates are stakeholders in the development ofmanaged care regulations.

Citizens are individuals who have defined rights andresponsibilities in democratic processes andinstitutions, such as the right to vote or the right offree expression. When your neighbor enters the votingbooth or rises to speak at a town meeting, she is not aconsumer of government services, but an activeparticipant in the democratic process.

Government agencies and public officials can be cast inthe customer and stakeholder roles just as individualsor businesses can. A county may be the customer ofthe state health department and rely on it to provide afull range of public health services that the countymight otherwise need to perform. States arestakeholders in many Federal programs, such as theInterstate Highway system, ready to debate andinfluence the laws and policies that define them.

Often, the same person or organization plays several ofthese roles. A physician is licensed by a state board ofmedical examiners (making him a regulated entity),benefits from the extensive research resources of theNational Library of Medicine (of which he is acustomer), is active in committees of the State MedicalSociety which try to influence health care policy (astakeholder), and personally urges his local schoolboard to consider a tougher attendance policy (acitizen exercising his right to free speech and publicparticipation).

Given all these roles and relationships, the form andfeatures of “Digital Government” can potentiallyinfluence every kind of government service, regulatoryprogram, decision-making process, and institution ofgovernance.

Government services are afabric of public and privatethreadsIn an increasing number of situations, responsibility forpublic functions is divided between governmentagencies and one or more non-governmentalorganizations. A common administrative example isthe outsourcing of information technology functions toprivate corporations. Both businesses and governmentagencies have tried to cut their costs and sharpen theirfocus on their core missions by hiring outsidecontractors to perform ancillary functions for them.Computer centers, printing and distributionoperations, and travel services are all areas wheregovernment agencies have taken advantage of privatesector expertise to streamline their operations.

A more long-standing and common example is foundin many human service programs where governmentagencies define, regulate, and fund programs that areactually operated by nonprofit (and, increasingly, byprofit making) service providers. Sometimes thesesame programs are also offered by governmentagencies directly. Shelters for homeless people are acommon example at the local level. State and localgovernments define and regulate programs that areoperated by many different nonprofit agencies such asthe Salvation Army, church groups, and speciallyorganized not-for-profit corporations. Day careprograms are usually operated by nonprofitorganizations or private individuals after being licensedby state agencies. Often the government agenciesprovide training, conduct inspections, and set rates ofpayment or regulate the fees that providers can chargeto their clients. Local trash collection, probably theoldest example of this phenomenon, is now privatizedin most communities. Private sector operation ofprisons and other correctional services represents oneof the newest, and more controversial, examples of thistrend to mix public and private activities in a singleprogram operation.

Most interaction withgovernment takes place atthe state and local levels


Other major public services are a more looselyconnected, but equally complex, combination ofpublic and private operations. Safe public air travel,for example, relies on effective interaction amongFAA regulation and air traffic control, private andpublicly owned airports, and commercial airlinesoperating as private concerns, regulated publiccarriers, and charters.

Public policies shapeinformation content,flow, and infrastructurePublic information policies have a defining influenceon the use of information and technology in bothgovernment and society. Some policies affect societalvalues such as intellectual property rights, rights offree expression, personal privacy, and access toinformation and to the infrastructure that delivers it.Other policies set forth the principles of informationand technology use and management withingovernment.

Policies related to the free flow of information insociety were reflected in the Telecommunications Actof 1996, designed in part to foster a NationalInformation Infrastructure (NII) as a necessarycondition for universal access and continued economicgrowth. Intellectual property rights were updated bythe passage of the Electronic Intellectual Property Actof 1998. The NII has its problems, however. A 1995Harris & Associates public opinion poll showed amajority of people (51 percent) were very concernedabout threats to their personal privacy — a figure thathas increased every year since 1977. The InternetAlliance recently reported that state legislaturesconsidered more than 700 bills related to the Internetlast year, on topics such as protecting children,controlling unwanted commercial e-mail, andprotecting consumer privacy online. This year, theyexpect the number of bills to double. These growingconcerns over the effects of the Internet on personalprivacy, free expression, and electronic commercehave led to Federal and state statutes and a series ofcourt cases, all concerned with the challenges that newtechnologies present for personal, political, andeconomic values.

Polices about access to government information havealso been evolving. The U.S. Federal government isthe largest producer of information and publications,worldwide, a distinction unlikely to change given thecurrent emphasis being placed on extending its reachthrough use of the Internet and World Wide Web. Thecreation, analysis, dissemination, storage, and disposalof Federal government information is guided by aplethora of policy guides, including the Freedom ofInformation Law (FOIL), the GPO ElectronicInformation Access Enhancement Act, and theElectronic Records Management rules of the NationalArchives and Records Administration (see Table 1), alldesigned to manage these information resources whileinsuring their accessibility and availability to theAmerican public. These laws and guidelines have pavedthe way for the current information-aware legislativeenvironment.

Federal and state information policies increasinglyaddress the acquisition, management, and use ofinformation technologies. This fast-paced majorreorientation to government’s use of information andinformation technologies is attested to by a spate ofFederal and state policies enacted to better manageinformation resources and better capture the resultsfrom their use.

The Clinton administration recognized the value ofinformation and information technologies in reportsand recommendations, such as those from TheNational Performance Review, making clear the highstatus of information on the national agenda. TheGovernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) isdesigned to improve the confidence of the Americanpeople in the activities of the Federal government byholding Federal agencies accountable for meetingperformance objectives and program missions. GPRAmandates long-range strategic planning, annualperformance planning, and performance-based

Public information policiesaddress both societal values

and practical goals


Table 1. Federal Laws and PoliciesGoverning Information Resources

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (PL 104-106)

Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996

(HR 3802)

Electronic Intellectual Property Act of 1998

Executive Order No. 12864, President�s Advisory

Council on the National Information Infrastructure

Executive Order No. 13011, �Federal Information

Technology�

Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (5 USC 552)

Government Performance & Results Act of 1993

(PL 103-62)

GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act

of 1993 (PL 103-40)

Improvement of Information Access Act of 1991

OMB Circular A-130

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended

(PL 104-13)

Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 522a)

�Raines Rules� October 25, 1996 OMB Memorandum

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PL 104-104)

budgeting. Agency information technology plans mustbe aligned with the agency program goals, and mustindicate specifically how information technology willcontribute to mission attainment. The Clinger-CohenAct redirects Federal agencies’ attention from ITacquisition management to IT investment management.It also creates a chief information officer position in theagencies, reporting directly to the agency head, whoseprimary responsibilities are information managementand development of an information architecture. GPRA,Clinger-Cohen, and a variety of other Federal statutesand rules clearly elevate IT to a top level function inFederal agencies. What this means and how it will beaccomplished in the long run remain to be seen.

States have developed information policies that oftenmirror, but sometimes differ from, Federal principles.Most states have adopted Freedom of InformationLaws, for example, but some have outlined theconditions under which fees may be charged beyondthe marginal cost of reproduction — a departure from

a key tenet of the Federal policy. Minnesota, Florida,and Kentucky have long histories of attention to datacontent and public access issues. Most state policies,however, focus on the management of informationresources and technology. Florida’s CIO Council, forexample, has recently issued policies that focus ongovernment data as a statewide asset, and that treatsecurity issues under the rubric of risk management.California has also paid close attention to policies andpractical guidelines that evaluate risk in ITdevelopment. Massachusetts presents a portfolio of ITinitiatives to its legislature each year, focusing on totalcosts and benefits rather than one idea at a time.Similarly, New York’s policies rest on principles thatfavor interagency cooperation and statewide benefitsover the needs of individual agencies.Texas is a leader inpolicies and activities related to electronic commerce.

Local governments are also information policy makers,with authority over cable TV franchises, as well asresponsibility for the use of information andtechnology to support local government functions.New York City, for example, has recently issued anexecutive order creating a Technology SteeringCommittee with wide ranging responsibility forcoordination and oversight of technology strategies andinvestments. Philadelphia is credited with using ITinvestment strategies to help accomplish a majoreconomic turnaround.

Viewed in its totality, American government is anorganism of structural and functional complexity inwhich Federal, state, and local levels all play critical,intertwined roles. In addition, government and theprivate and nonprofit sectors often share responsibilityfor public programs and resources. Moreover, publicinstitutions and services, and the policies which guidethem, are evolving to account for these changingrelationships and for the effects of rapidly advancingtechnology. Information technology, already deeplyembedded in most government operations, willcontinue to be vitally important to administration,decision making, and direct service delivery. It will alsobe a critical factor in the evolving relationshipsbetween government and other kinds of organizations,and between government and citizens. All of theseelements, and their intricate dynamics, represent richareas for new research.


One of the specific goals of the Digital GovernmentProgram is to speed innovation, development,deployment, and application of advanced technologiesinto useable systems. Two existing examples helpillustrate how this goal might be achieved.

At nearly $100 billion a year, Medicaid may be thehighest cost domestic program offered by Americangovernment. Because of its size and cost, even smallamounts of error or fraud cost taxpayers millions ofdollars. In Texas, a new fraud detection program isfueled by one of today’s most advanced applications ofinformation technology — neural networks thatidentify patterns in data that suggest areas ripe forinvestigation and corrective action.

Safe streets, schools, and downtowns are prerequisitesfor economic growth and civic engagement. Publicsafety is therefore often the number one concern oflocal governments. To help fight crime, the New YorkCity Police Department has infused local policing withprecinct-by-precinct incidence and performanceinformation, backed up by management processes andpolitical commitment to use that information to directpolice operations throughout the City. This consistentand sophisticated marriage of information,management, and policy direction is an equallyadvanced use of information technology — eventhough the technology itself has been commerciallyavailable for years.

The Texas system uses a “leading edge technology” tosupport an important programmatic goal, where theNew York City example incorporates commonly-available technology into a “leading edge application”that is part of a broad programmatic strategy. What,then, is an “advanced application of informationtechnology” in government? The results of theOctober 1998 Workshop suggest this definition:“Advanced applications of information technology ingovernment are well-integrated combinations of policygoals, organizational processes, information content,and technology tools that work together to achievepublic goals.”

Given that definition, what might 21st Century DigitalGovernment look like? Fully developed, these now-unusual situations will be commonplace:

Ø A couple expecting twins and planning to renovatetheir home will use their television to submit andreceive all the necessary plans and permitselectronically via e-mail and the Internet. Therewill be no need to take time off from work or todevote precious Saturday mornings or familyevenings to visit their town hall, planning board,building inspector, or zoning commission.

Ø An enterprising young man who wants to open alakeside restaurant catering to boaters will use hishome PC to apply for all the business permits heneeds in one sitting through one World Wide Website — despite the fact that his business is of

Technology

People

Organizations Policies

Advanced applications of information technology in government are well-integrated combinations ofpolicy goals, organizational processes, information content, and technology tools that work togetherto achieve public goals.

2. The new web -technology, policies,people, and organizations


concern to the state and local healthdepartments, Federal and state tax agencies, thestate environmental protection commission, thelabor department, and local zoning andeconomic development officials.

Ø A government disaster response coordinator willuse wireless communications, multi-mediaanalytical tools, and dynamic and staticgeographic data from Federal, state, local, andprivate sources to direct a massive recoveryeffort following a devastating ice storm. Theseintegrated and constantly updated informationsources will help restore bridges, roads, powergrids, telecommunications services, watersupplies, health care facilities, homes, farms,schools, and businesses.

Ø A state legislator considering a proposed taxpackage will apply easy-to-use advanced dataanalysis tools to assess the impact of theproposed legislation on citizens in her district,post this analysis on the Internet for the voters toread, and poll voters for their opinions. Thelegislator will hold a virtual “town meeting”through the Internet where she can present heranalysis of the bill and gather feedback from herconstituents.

Technology and digitalgovernmentThe technologies involved in these transformations— networking and the Internet, decision supportsystems, electronic commerce, knowledge discoverytools, geographic information systems — are notnecessarily the most advanced tools available. Publicsector innovations tend to result more often from theinfusion of well-developed technologies into thecomplexities of governmental programs andprocesses, in an environment with many stakeholdersand competing values. In this section, we highlightsome of the technologies that support thistransformation. We also point out special issues thataffect how government takes advantage of thesetechnologies and identify areas where additionalresearch is needed.

Networking and the InternetIn a relatively brief span of time, the Internet has led tosignificant changes in how public agencies disseminateinformation, how government staff interact with eachother and with people outside government, and howgovernment delivers services. The most obviousexamples are government WWW sites. Agenciesranging in size from large Federal departments to smalltowns and villages have public Web sites, designed tomeet their high-priority objectives — economicdevelopment, tourism, information about governmentservices, purchasing, statistical data, or selected servicetransactions. An electronic mail address on the Website makes elected officials accessible to theirconstituents and allows citizens to communicatedirectly with public employees.

In addition to person-to-person communication, theInternet is increasingly being used to exchange databetween organizations. This includes record-orientedtransactions, real-time querying of remote databases, aswell as larger exchanges of complete GIS data sets orother databases integrated into data warehouses.Processing of workers compensation claims, forexample, may involve real-time transactions againstdatabases from a half-dozen organizations to verifyeligibility.

The use of the Internet for public purposes inevitablyraises the issue of equal access. In 1997, about 17percent of private households in the U.S. had directaccess to the Internet and these were concentrated inmiddle- and upper-income areas of cities and suburbs.Often those most in need of government services arethose least likely to have access to the Web. Ruralareas, with less likelihood of having high-performancetechnologies such as ISDN or cable modems, are at adisadvantage, as are lower-income households, grass-roots community organizations, and small businessesthat often lack direct access. While Internet accessthrough schools, libraries, or other public places isincreasingly available, people without direct accessremain at a disadvantage compared to the connectedminority. Given this uneven distribution of access tothe Web, traditional service delivery throughtelephone, mail, and face-to-face interactions will beneeded for many years to come.


Collaboration toolsCommunication tools support and nurture linkages andrelationships that were not possible through moreformal means of communication. More and moreoften, we expect people, including government staff, tohave and use electronic mail. Discussion listservs andshared Web sites routinely connect distributedorganizations and virtual communities, fosteringincreased discussion and cooperation among those whoshare a common interest. Easy public availability ofsuch information as government contracts or grantprograms fosters greater equity and efficiency ofgovernment purchasing and the distribution of publicresources.

Videoconferencing is another technology that ismaking its way into standard government practice. Forexample, video technology is used today to interviewcrime victims who would otherwise have to travel longdistances to a police precinct or court house. Atpresent, however, the use of videoconferencingtypically consists of dedicated facilities linked bytelephone lines. As a result, the technology tends to beused in a localized and specialized fashion. As Internetvideoconferencing technology matures, it is likely thatmany more such interactions will take place.

These relatively ubiquitous capabilities are beingaugmented by more advanced collaborative tools insuch areas as distance learning, just-in-time training,and anytime-anyplace meetingware. Use of the Internetand video conferencing techniques to deliver entirecurricula from remote sites extend higher educationand lifelong learning to many who would otherwisenot be able to attend classes. Distance courses inspecialized topics enable elementary and high schoolstudents to pursue studies unavailable to them in their

home districts. Thanks to networked collaboration,these students can even conduct joint scienceexperiments with their counterparts around the world.Although the pedagogic effectiveness of alternatemodes of study and instruction are still beingevaluated, it is clear that network-supported learningwill play an increasingly important role in the future ofAmerican education.

The Internet also has the capability to extend expertiseacross physical distances. In medicine, for example, aspecialist can expand his sphere of effectiveness,without traveling, by remotely reviewing diagnostictests. This technological capability has not yet beenextensively used in the U.S., though, in part because itrequires changes in insurance rules as well as changesin the culture and traditions of medical practice.

Knowledge management and analysisData visualization, knowledge extraction, dataintegration, and digital library technologies have putthe power of distributed information to useful social,scientific, and individual purposes. Data mining toolsaid in identifying fraud and abuse in governmentprograms. Data warehouses gather and integrate datafrom disparate sources, and data management andknowledge discovery tools are used to conductplanning and program evaluation in areas ranging fromcapital construction, to economic forecasting, to theperformance of schools. Technologies such as dataintensive computing environments facilitate the use ofinformation from disparate heterogeneous databases.Digital library technologies are emerging to help usersfind and use information and records regardless ofphysical format or location.

Today use of these advanced analysis tools variesconsiderably across agencies and levels of government,and it is too early to tell which applications will bemost useful and adaptable. Applications of thesetechnologies are limited today by at least threeimportant considerations: poor or variable dataquality, the willingness and ability of organizations toshare information across their boundaries, and, whenapplications involve information about people, threatsto personal privacy.

Advanced IT applications ingovernment must integrate

policies, processes,information, and technology


Government, particularly at the Federal level, isalready an active partner in the research needed todevelop and employ this next generation of datamanagement applications through such projects as theNext Generation Internet, the Partnership forAdvanced Computational Infrastructure, and theDigital Libraries initiative.

Security mechanismsThe exchange of information through a network is nota new phenomenon in government. In the past,telecommunication was accomplished using dedicatedpoint-to-point connections between pairs of agencies,or through secure value-added networks. TCP/IPnetworks are now replacing these facilities. The use ofthese Internet protocols facilitates communicationbetween partners because only a single connectionneed be maintained to communicate with all partnerson the network. However, the communication channelmust retain properties that duplicate those found inearlier modes of communication: secure and privatecommunication, authentication of messengers, integrityof messages, and stability of the network.

One way to achieve this goal is to create a separatenetwork, closed to all but trusted communicators. Thismodel works for certain types of transactions, but sincegovernment agencies often work closely with manyother organizations, a more affordable and opensolution is needed. At present, there are no commonlyimplemented models of security architecture thatprovide a trusted basis for electronic interactions. Thearray of issues, and the limited choices of technologiesand strategies has led to very slow progress indeploying these architectures. In such an environment,it is not surprising that issues of security dominatemuch of the discussion in government aboutnetworking.

Document management and preservationAn increasing number of important governmentrecords are now stored exclusively in electronic media.Many of these records contain multi-media formats,and they are often associated with automatedworkflow and electronic document repositories.Depending on the circumstances, informal information

such as electronic mail messages may be part of anofficial government record. Few guidelines exist foreffectively managing digital public records, yet theirnumbers grow dramatically every month.

Preservation of electronic records is a particularchallenge, as the media, software, and hardware usedto create records and maintain them for active use arereplaced with new generations every few years.Ironically, while the records of the 17th and 18th

centuries remain readable today, our own generation ofrecords is rapidly disappearing due to technologicaladvances. At the same time, government archives areincreasingly trying to accommodate the digitization ofhistorical records in order to make these holdings morewidely accessible to more users.

Finally, with the increasing availability of informationin electronic form, it is becoming easier to useinformation for purposes beyond the original reasonfor its collection. Yet most government records systemsare created without regard to the needs or preferencesof secondary users, whether they are in different unitsof the same agency, in other organizations, or arefuture users whose interests come into play long afterthe records have served their primary purpose. Moreextensive research into archives and recordsmanagement theory and practice are needed to resolvethese issues.

User interfacesThe standard user interface and the World Wide Webbrowser, itself a product of NSF-sponsored research,have done much to extend useful computing to everyarea of our society. The standard interface, commonlybased on Microsoft Windows, flattens the learningcurve needed for each new application. The Webbrowser’s ease of use and widespread publicacceptance have led many agencies to use thistechnology in direct public contact.

One attractive feature of the WWW is its ability tointegrate information and services from separateorganizations into a single user presentation. Thistechnique has been used to develop Web sites thatserve as a portal to all that a government unit has tooffer. Today, most of these sites are limited to a single


level of government, and do not represent trueintegration of services. Instead, they typically providean extensive table of contents of many agencyprograms and services. However, many governmentagencies have begun re-orienting their Web servicesaround the needs of users rather than around theirorganizational structures.

Further advances in user interfaces are likely to focusboth on simplicity and increased power. Digital librarytechnologies, for example, will put the power ofmultiple databases to more effective uses. Datavisualization technologies allow users to manipulatelarge data sets to get a better understanding of theinformation they contain. Research into theinteraction between people and machines, includingspeech recognition and 3D modeling, will likely lead toinnovations in the way people perceive and use theinformation environment.

Large systemsThe models and processes for designing anddeveloping large, complex systems have advancedmuch less than the specific technologies they mightemploy. While all organizations face this issue, thedevelopment of large government information systemsface special challenges that lead to an especially risk-prone environment. Typically, a significant number ofparticipants and organizations have a stake in thesystem. This may be due to the innate complexity ofthe underlying program or existing systems, tolegislative mandates, or because a large number oforganizations play a role in the system developmentprocess. In addition, because of government fundingrules, multi-year projects must usually be developedwith a series of single-year budgets. Because they aredeveloped with taxpayer dollars in a public setting,these projects are subject to a high level of externalcriticism and public scrutiny. In such an environment,it is very difficult to maintain consistent approaches toarchitecture, data definitions, data collection,information quality, data integration, and overallsystem functionality.

These complications add time, cost, and complexity tothe development life cycle. As a consequence, design

and implementation may take years, conflictingdirectly with the rapidity of technological change. Bythe time they are completed, the best technologies forthe job may well have changed. For example, therecent redesign of the air traffic control system by theFederal Aviation Administration was begun before thewidespread commercialization of global positioningsystems. Such major technology shifts can causewholesale changes to system design in the middle ofthe development process.

Existing software development models such as thewaterfall and spiral models do not deal explicitly withthese kinds of changes. Prototyping, while very usefulin some projects, seems to have less utility in dealingwith the complexities of these large systems with theirenormous interoperability issues, and longdevelopment times.

Human andorganizational factorsMost of the research currently conducted to supportgovernment’s transition to the digital age is focused ontechnology itself. However, given the complexity ofthe environment, the need for government applicationsto work well in a variety of settings, and theinterdependence of so many players, technologyresearch alone is insufficient. Other powerful factors,discussed briefly below, shape the ability ofgovernment to adopt and deploy IT effectively.

Human factorsThe degree to which individuals accept newtechnologies and the manner in which they learn andadapt to them are all factors to be considered in thedeployment of new tools. Recent studies about thesuccess of information systems in organizations suggestthat more than 80 percent fail to achieve theirobjectives or to be implemented at all. The foremostreason for failure is the lack of involvement by systemusers in design and deployment. Lack of attention touser needs and preferences is a common weakness inthe design and deployment of advanced technology.


In government information systems, with theirtendency to be used in a wide variety of physicalsettings by users who may have markedly differentlevels of interest and skill, this is a particular problem.How can we design technologies or systems that workin both a large urban setting and a small rural one, orin an affluent organization and a shoe-string operation,where the technology tools likely to be available tousers are not the same? Beyond questions of design areconsiderations of user training and support. Too often,new systems are accompanied by one-shot trainingprograms, often out of synch with the actualimplementation schedule, that do not provide forongoing updates or active user support.Universal design principles have been developed toguide us toward systems that are more useable, more intune with the way people think and act, and moreadaptable to the different ways that people work andlearn. These principles, such as the ones developed atthe TRACE Center at the University of Wisconsin,focus on such topics as accommodation of a wide rangeof individual preferences and abilities, ease ofunderstanding regardless of a user’s experience orknowledge, and tolerance for errors. Any system couldbe made more usable by incorporating these principlesin design. Moreover, as government moves towardmore systems that offer self-services to the public,these design principles will increase in importance.

Organizational learning and adaptationJust as human factors circumscribe the use of newtechnology, organizational design and behavior alsofigure prominently in the adoption and use of newtechnology. In turn, successful adoption of newtechnology has a significant effect on organizationalviability and performance. While Industrial Ageorganizational forms are well suited to the technologiesof efficiency and specialization, Information Agetechnologies presuppose organizations that thrive oninformation flow and sharing, asynchronouscommunication, and analytical thinking.

The organizations of the Industrial Age had structuresand cultures which facilitated hierarchical decisionmaking, specialized and narrowly defined jobs, andefficiency in production. In the Information Age, the

structure and culture have evolved to createorganizations where decisions and communications canoccur anywhere in the organization, jobs are fluid, andflexibility and attention to customers are highly valued.Here, technology is viewed as an enabler to meetingthe mission and goals of organizations, rather than as acontrol mechanism. Automation is no longer analternative process in organizations; it is a basicprocess. Indeed, IT is now often considered a strategicasset that adds value to the routine transactions andprocesses of organizations.

Successful organizations today are characterized byinsistence on knowledge, productivity, and innovation.In order to capture the value of these key variables,organizations must engage in constant change. Thenew models for change reflect the idea that change isdiscontinuous, that is, it cannot be controlled oranticipated. These models call for organizations to“think outside the box,” to improvise, to unlearn thepast, and to stretch beyond their current capabilities.Information technology is a necessary ingredient in thisdiscontinuous change environment. Recent historyshows that IT can both drive and enable change. Thecritical factor in these changes is the ability oforganizations to select appropriate technologies,implement and diffuse them, and adapt to new ways ofworking, even when there is little experience and noclear-cut rules or procedures to guide them.

As organizations experiment with new technologies,they change business processes, communicationsmethods, work flows, decision making, and even thebasic structure and boundaries of the organizationitself. With technology embedded in organizationalfunctions, geography and time are no longer restrictive,nor are traditional hierarchical and departmental

What is technically possiblemay not be organizationally

feasible or socially orpolitically desirable


barriers. By incorporating information technologyinto an organization’s infrastructure, new options ofstructure, culture, decision making, teamwork,leadership, and communication become available.Inevitably, organizational norms are reshaped.

Emerging organizational forms and newmodels of collaborationPeople sometimes associate a government program orservice with a single public agency. Most everyoneexpects that the local Social Security Office is theplace to file for Social Security retirement benefits; ifyou need to renew your driver’s license, you contactthe Department of Motor Vehicles. But what if youwant a fishing license or need to find a nursing homefor your elderly mother? When you drive to work ona snowy day, who plows the roads you travel oroperates the bus that takes you from the county youlive in to the one where you work? Who really paysyour Medicare claims? All of these public services areoffered through a complicated set of public-public andpublic-private linkages. Some are formal and well-defined, others are more dynamic and ad hoc.

Interorganizational networks are emerging in nearlyevery dimension of work and society. Traditionaltheories of exchange and resource dependence, basedmostly on private sector research, are inadequate toexplain either the partnerships and collaborativemodels or the mixed models of cooperation andregulation that are becoming prevalent in theoperation of government programs. These networkedforms of organization are emerging in every domainfrom health care, to social insurance, to infrastructure.Networked information systems are just one feature oftheir structure and operation. These organizationalentities also encompass new forms of communication,decision-making, financing, and accountability.

Consider the National Spatial Data Infrastructure(NSDI) in which Federal, state, local and tribalgovernments, along with the private sector andacademia, are working to develop and promote betteraccess to geospatial data. Geospatial data plays a keyrole in helping communities synthesize informationrelevant to complex economic, social and

environmental issues, but these data are often difficultand expensive to locate, obtain, and integrate. TheNSDI features a national data clearinghouse and otheractivities to help organizations and individuals knowthe characteristics of data, find and access data ownedby others, obtain common sets of data to use asbuilding blocks, and transfer and integrate data amongusers and providers through the use of data models andstandards for common classification systems andcontent.

In the State of Washington, a high speed InformationNetwork for Public Health Officials (INPHO), allowslocal health professionals to share information aboutprevention services, emergency notices, training, andhealth reports, and gives them the ability to act quicklyto solve public health problems. A joint project of theWashington State Departments of Health andInformation Services, local health jurisdictions, and theFederal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,INPHO offers access to timely, relevant, accurate andauthoritative information to support local decisionsand actions. As an example, local officials wererecently able to compare DNA samples with others in anational database allowing them to quickly identify andrespond to outbreaks of E-Coli.

Policy, management,and technology march todifferent drummersThroughout our history, developments in technologyhave emerged much faster than the evolution oforganizational forms. Global communications haveeliminated the barriers of time and place, and digitalinformation has broken the bond between informationand its physical format. Yet, most agencies andbusinesses are still organized for the physicallimitations of the Industrial Age. They continue to relyon specialization of tasks and command and controlmanagement structures. Public policies lag farther stillbehind technological evolution. Only in the past fewyears have policy makers begun to tackle the policyimplications of global telecommunications and to movebeyond the policies developed when information was amatter of printed media and limited broadcasting.


The pace of technology responds to the forces ofscientific inquiry and innovation. Organizationalchange more reflects the ability of humans to recognizeand adapt to changes in their environment. Thisslower process is especially difficult in the public sectoras it is bound by civil service systems, one-year budgetcycles, and rules and procedures cast in both statuteand regulation. Finally, by design, public policieschange only when there is a broad consensus thatchange is needed and will move our nation,community, or society in a desirable direction.

The interaction of these three domains generates a veryimportant societal debate because what is technically

Domains of Digital Government

Policy

TechnologyManagement

possible may not be organizationally feasible or sociallyor politically desirable. Recent court decisions aboutthe transmission of objectionable material over theInternet are an excellent case in point. The technologyhas made it possible for anyone, anywhere to postadult-oriented information on the World Wide Web.Much of this material would not be readily accessibleby children in most other media, but on the WWWvery few limitations can be imposed that protectchildren but do not also infringe the rights of adults.Elected officials, interest groups, informationprofessionals, states, and courts are all struggling withthe issues this generates around free speech, protectionof children, the role of the market, the applicability ofexisting laws, and the meaning of communitystandards.

Meeting the goals of the Digital Government Programrequires research that spans policy, management, andtechnology domains. Valuable as focusedinvestigations are, they are insufficient if they remainlocked in disciplinary niches. We also needinterdisciplinary approaches designed to understandthe interrelationships among policy, management, andtechnology factors. To do this will require change inthe way research is conceived, funded, and conducted,as well as changes in the way research results aredisseminated and used. The following sections discussthe workshop results in terms of specific researchneeds, broad research challenges, andrecommendations for dealing with them.


The October 1998 workshop discussions reflected thedimensions of government and the changingtechnological and organizational landscape. Workingin small groups organized by level of government andresearch discipline, the government participantsdiscussed the challenges they see in the years aheadand researchers debated the strengths and weaknessesof their current approaches. As a result, theparticipants produced a list of eight criticalgovernmental needs which can be translated directlyinto research themes. These needs collectivelycomprise key questions of understanding,development, testing, evaluation, and dissemination ofnew knowledge about how government might operatein the digital age. The participants also reviewed thehistorical ways in which research and practice interactand discussed potential changes that would make thisrelationship more valuable than it is today. The resultsare discussed below and are illustrated in Table 2 bysome of the potential research projects that weregenerated in a “marketplace of ideas” conducted at theend of the workshop.

Interoperable systems thatare trusted and secureMany information systems that support governmentservices need to be both trusted and interoperable.Interoperable systems are ones in which several

systems based in different organizations work smoothlytogether. Trusted systems have built-in security andauthentication features that allow their users to assumea high level of safety and integrity. Such systems mustdeal effectively with several difficult issues thatemanate directly from the complex and dynamicenvironment of public programs. First, systemdevelopment methodologies are needed that deal wellwith the scope and diversity of users, customers, andstakeholders that are involved in governmentinformation systems. Second, research is needed tounderstand the potential for, and the limits of,integration across technological, organizational, andpolitical dimensions. Third, because most governmentservices are expected to be available in consistent formin every community, systems must operate with equalquality on both very large and very small scales.

Key research questions:

Ø What institutions, laws, and policies are needed tosupport interoperable government systems?

Ø How should the costs of interoperable systems bedistributed among the participating organizations?

Ø What is the role of government in thedevelopment of standards?

Ø What tools and approaches work best for smallergovernments and agencies?

Ø What are the technical, legal, policy, andmanagement issues surrounding authentication inthe public sector?

Models

Tools

Methods

3. Governmentneeds forthe 21st century

Measures

Alignment

Government managers have critical needs for models and tools to shape, manage, and evaluate 21st

century services. These needs present research opportunties for both information and social scientists,and can provide a venue for more active and useful interaction among research disciplines and betweenresearchers and practitioners.


Better methods ofIT managementEvery government IT manager is looking for ways todesign and maintain more successful systems. Efficientdesign processes, tested and documented methods ofproject management, software development, andsystem upgrades and migrations are all needed.Practitioners want ways to build learning into the ITmanagement process and to anticipate and plan forfuture technological capabilities. They seek leadershipmodels and ways to bring and keep IT on the agendaof top executives and elected leaders. The cost of IT,and its distribution across different players, is a majorconcern. This issue covers a broad terrain, rangingfrom the costs of upgrading aging infrastructure forearly adopters, to the costs of implementing systemsthat require participation, but do not cover the costs,of other organizations. Contract management andoversight of outsourced development and operationsare becoming critically important, as is the need to dealwith the shortage of IT skills in the labor market. ITmanagers also need ways to assess the applicability ofprivate sector business models to governmentinitiatives and ways to engage private companies in theoperation of public service systems.


ØWhat improvements in design processes will leadto more successful systems?ØWhat are the common characteristics of successful

government IT projects?ØHow do and should practitioners identify and

adopt “best practices?”ØWhat methods can government employ to better

anticipate changes in the technology environment?ØHow should resources be distributed between

infrastructure and applications?ØWhat are the characteristics of effective

outsourcing arrangements? What skills,techniques, and knowledge must governmentcontract officers possess?ØWhat methods of enterprise planning work best in

which environment?

Models for electronicpublic service transactionsand delivery systemsCurrently in the U.S., approximately 90 percent of allgovernment services are still delivered in a face-to-facemode. With the proliferation of the Internet amonggovernment agencies and citizens, it is now possible tooffer new services, integrated services, and self-servicein ways and places never before possible.

The ability to transact business or have an actual say ingovernment in an electronic environment could bringthe benefits of disintermediation, a more productiveand less costly method of service and informationdelivery. The public could benefit from informationand services that are directly accessible and available allthe time, without the intervention of a publicemployee. Such service models, however, require newmethods of authentication, recordkeeping, security,and access. They need to be supported by analyses ofcost-effectiveness that take into account more than thecosts and effects internal to the government. Theyneed to recognize that not all citizens will be able orwilling to interact with government in this new way,and that multiple points and methods of service will berequired in many instances.


ØWho benefits from “one-stop” service models andhow should those benefits be measured? Similarly,what are the costs and who pays them?ØHow can services be made available to those who

can’t or won’t use electronic means?ØWhat are appropriate risk management methods

for making the transition from traditional toelectronic services?ØWhat criteria should determine whether value-

added services should be provided by governmentor by the private sector?


Methods and measuresof citizen participationInternet technologies can facilitate a more directinteraction between citizens and government throughthe development of a digital democracy or electroniccommons. The Internet and the World Wide Webmake this a viable next step in our democracy. Castingone’s vote on the Internet, attending Congressionalhearings or City Council meetings via the Web, instantgeneration of public opinion polls, interactivecandidate debates, and easy public access togovernment data are but a few of the potentialoutcomes. However, important questions about theeffect of digital democracy abound: To what extent,and with what consequences, will this capacity enablegreater involvement of citizens in their owngovernance? Will more or different kinds of citizenparticipation change the nature and role of politicalleadership and democratic institutions? Will instantexpressions of personal and public opinion improve ordegrade the quality of public discourse and formalpolicy deliberations?


ØWhat knowledge and technologies must citizenspossess in order to participate in electronicgovernance?ØDoes the existence of electronic means of

communication improve citizen participation indemocratic processes?ØWhat is the potential for intelligent agents and

customized interfaces to change the way citizensparticipate in government?ØHow must the processes of governance change to

account for electronic participation?ØHow does electronic participation affect citizen

trust in government?

Given the diversity of players involved in deliveringgovernment services, the development of effective ITsystems may require new coalitions of partners at alllevels of government and between government and theprivate and nonprofit sectors. The complexity of theresulting organizational and technological relationshipsis daunting. Different public agencies operate underdifferent, sometimes conflicting, authorizing statutesand appropriate funds through separate, but relatedprocesses. Federal, state, and local levels carry outdifferent, but overlapping, constitutional purposes.There are considerable legal, economic, and ethicalissues associated with private companies engaged inpublic programs. The technology architecture andinfrastructure associated with networks ofinterdependent, but separate, organizations is notsubject to the same planning, support, or financingmethods that characterize more traditionalorganizational forms. Answers to these and otherquestions related to integration of functions andtechnologies are critically needed.


ØWhat are the conceptual and practical dimensionsof “virtual agencies?”ØWhat are the characteristics of effective service

delivery networks made up of multiple publicorganizations or mixtures of public and privateorganizations?ØHow can public agencies leverage private sector

innovations to improve services to the public?ØWhat are the limitations of private sector

involvement in the delivery of public services?

Models for public-privatepartnerships and othernetworked organizational forms

Government needs

generate questions for


Archiving and electronicrecords managementframeworks and toolsWith most information now created in electronicrather than physical form, issues such as recorddefinition and content, version control, public access,and ongoing preservation affect the ability ofgovernment to function efficiently and maintainhistory and accountability. Government officials needto provide for long-term preservation and use ofrecords in a technology environment that values andencourages rapid change and innovation. There areissues related to management and preservation of bothsingle- and multi-media records. Questions aboutprinciples and methods of access by internal andexternal users, for both primary and secondarypurposes, present a host of policy, management, andtechnology problems.


ØWhat is a public record?ØWhat technical infrastructure is needed to

maintain a digital archive?ØHow can deteriorating traditional records be cost-

effectively transferred to long-lived media?Ø For records worth long term preservation, when

would a summary suffice and what would itcontain?ØWhat tools will support intelligent scheduling,

appraisal, and retention of digital records?ØHow can we compare the cost of archiving to the

value of the archived record?

Intuitive decision supporttools for public officialsThe advent of technologies and data standards thatsupport and encourage information search, selection,analysis, and sharing may change the nature andeffectiveness of executive decision making. Many kindsof public officials make decisions in a variety ofsettings under a wide array of conditions. Electedofficials at the Federal, state, and local levels makepolicy decisions; appointed and career governmentprofessionals decide how to interpret policies in thecontext of program and agency operations. In somecases the decision process is very structured, in othersit is more informal. The kind, amount, and timelinessof information available and the openness of thedecision process are also strong influences on thedecision-making process. These tools may also haveimplications for public participation and opengovernment.


ØWhat tools are effective in integrating legacydatabases to support policy deliberations andmanagement decisions?ØWhat are the conditions for successful use of

advanced simulation and modelling of social,technical, and physical systems?ØHow do decision makers value these tools

compared to other ways of deciding?ØWhat kinds of decisions need to be supported by

technology and in what ways?ØWhat tools are best in situations of information

overload? Information insufficiency? Variability ininformation quality?

Research

generates new knowledge to meet


Table 2. Preliminary Ideas for Digital Government Research Projects

Matching research resourcesto government needsApplied research is not often rewarded by academicvalue systems. As a consequence, researchers oftenpursue theoretical research instead of field work.Government agencies often will not or cannot wait forthe results of traditional research to affect theirdecisions. On the other hand, useful research findingsoften go unnoticed because the form and outlets inwhich they are disseminated are unknown orunattractive to practitioners. The most valuable formsof research must involve a variety of activities that leadto ideas that government can use directly. They alsodemand research relationships that benefit bothresearchers and practitioners.


Ø What research-based products are used by, anduseful to, government practitioners?

Ø What methodological innovations can speed theproduction of research results and thedissemination of useful knowledge?

Ø What are the characteristics of successfulpartnerships between government agencies andacademic researchers?

Ø What institutional relationships between highereducation and government lead to relevant andtimely research for government use?

Ø What methods can researchers employ to betteranticipate the future knowledge needs ofgovernment?

Assess the readiness of communities to engage inelectronic citizenship

Assess the integrity and integratability of data from anetwork of multiple sources to answer overarchingquestions about the social and economic effects of IT

Case studies of electronic public service modelsClearinghouse of resources for the development of

data standardsCo-evolution of local government services and citizen

involvement in service designComparison of several structured forums for electronic

democracyCoordinated collection, analysis, and integration of

community intelligence in government ITdevelopment

Cost-benefit model for government archivesCreate government-academic research cooperatives

responsive to government IT needsDesign a prototype digital agencyDesign and prototype selected public utility services to

the home / highwayDesign functional requirements for archiving Welfare

Reform dataDevelop and assess alternative scenarios of

government IT operationsDevelop and test alternative policy regimes for

authenticationDevelop Web-based tools to manage electronic

recordsDigital government scenario development, utilization,

and evolutionEffectiveness of decision support tools for public

officials under varying conditionsEmpirical assessment of the diffusion of �best

practices� in government IT

Explore the relationships among the design process,resource management, and knowledge managementas components of IT management in government

Filters and agents for interacting with the White Houseonline

Identify the characteristics of effective human servicedelivery networks

Improve courtroom production through use of ITworkflow tools

IT and the support of civil society: helping voluntaryorganizations complement the work of government

National virtual clearinghouse for government researchneeds

National virtual clearinghouse for IT research relevant togovernment

Promoting professional learning and knowledgemanagement in government IT

Prototype of a digital archive for national GIS dataRole of XML and competing standards in integration of

data systemsSecurity agents for self healing and aware networksSelf-organizing information networks that provide a

single window into the data sources of separateorganizations

Tools for mapping the content and contact points oforganizational networks

Understanding and developing best practices throughanalysis of informal contacts among organizations

Web-based information resource to support IToutsourcing by government

Web-based support for volunteer-run after schoolprograms

White paper for legislators re: management of recordsin the electronic age


Applied research challengesand opportunitiesThe needs stated above present many opportunitiesfor applied research, but traditional research modelsand a historical lack of connection between researchand practice are serious obstacles to success.

Divergent objectives limit communicationbetween researchers and practitionersFirst, although academic research can have asignificant influence on government practices, thegovernment and research communities have verydifferent value systems that need to be taken intoaccount. Government is risk-averse by design, andresearch by its nature tries to push us beyond what wealready know. Government managers often need quickanswers, while researchers tend to take a longer-termview. Practitioners want sound, empirically-groundedadvice as they make decisions; they have less interestin lessons learned from retrospective analysis orlaboratory experimentation. They welcome objectiveinformation, but avoid researchers who seem to have apolicy agenda of their own. These different ways ofthinking about the world are both valuable and needto be linked in new models for informing andintegrating practice and research.

Research, like government, is organized intospecialtiesLike government, research has its own specialtystructures that organize education, discourse,information sharing, and funding around specificdisciplines. These structures focus on and continuallyexpand the depth and sophistication of knowledgewithin each discipline. However, they also tend toprevent people in one field from seeing the issues inanother – even when they are common to both. Tomeet the needs outlined earlier, the researchcommunity must find ways to combine perspectivesand disciplines to achieve not only advances in eachfield, but synergy across them. Many of the issues andopportunities of government in the digital age combinea need for invention, implementation, and evaluation,and this implies a need for the social and informationsciences to work together. Studies of program andorganizational design, implementation, andperformance (the traditional province of socialscientists) are needed as much as those aimed attechnological design, development, and deployment.

Research that views government holistically ishighly desirable, but complex and expensiveBoth traditional forms of federalism and the newdemands of devolution exemplify the extraordinaryinterdependence among public agencies in the conductof government programs. Similarly, the nonprofit andprivate sectors are increasingly important actors in the

Researchers need to recognize and address a number of barriers that stem from the tenuous relationshipsbetween research and practice and from the disciplinary traditions of research itself. Several models offerideas for designing a research enterprise that reduces these barriers and forges more mutually beneficialconnections among disciplines and between practice and research.

Practice

Research

4. Designing a multidisciplinaryresearch enterprise forDigital Government


delivery of government services. These intricateinterdependencies require a holistic approach toresearch that accounts for the interactions among levelsof government and between the public and privatesectors. The integration of complex informationsystems into even more complex organizational andpolicy environments is a very poorly understoodprocess that is fraught with risk and prone to failure.The integrative models and rich explanations thatwould help make these endeavors more successfuldemand long-term, multi-site studies of realorganizations. Sustained access to venues for this kindof research requires trusting, long-term relationshipsbetween researchers and government managers, as wellas substantial multi-year funding.

Digital Government is inherentlymultidisciplinaryFinally, the concept of a Digital Government lies at theintersection of three domains of knowledge: publicpolicy, organizational behavior and management, andinformation technology. Throughout our history,developments in technology have emerged much fasterthan the evolution of organizational forms and policyguidelines. Despite their different cadences, thesethree domains constantly interact with one another,generating many questions and conflicts about what istechnically possible, organizationally feasible, andsocially desirable. Research that focuses on theintersection of policy, management, and technology isinherently multidisciplinary, complex, and difficult todesign and manage, but essential to achieving the goalsof Digital Government.

Existing research modelsPast long-range research investments and several existingapplied research programs offer models for a robustprogram of applied Digital Government research.

From about 1975-1990, NSF and private funderssupported the Urban Research in Information Systemsprogram (URBIS) at the University of California atIrvine. URBIS looked at IT use in a wide array ofmunicipal government functions, from lawenforcement to public works to general fiscal

administration, through two major waves of datacollection across a whole level of government. Itsfindings and conclusions constitute a significantportion of our knowledge about the effects of IT ongovernment. One of the largest and longest-runningstudies of computerization in any sector, URBISillustrates that studies of this magnitude are bothworthwhile and feasible.

Today, the Center for Technology in Government (CTG)at the University at Albany/SUNY conducts appliedresearch projects with New York state and local agencies.The Center leads teams of agency staff, corporatepartners, and university faculty in a process of problemdefinition, stakeholder analysis, prototype development,and cost-performance evaluation. The results helpagencies decide whether and how to pursue their ITprojects. The same results are generalized to the extentpossible and widely disseminated to practitioners inhandbooks, presentations, and Web-based tools.Scholarly articles present new knowledge or extendexisting models in the literature of public managementand information science.

In Quebec, Canada, a not-for-profit organizationcreated by the Provincial Government conducts asimilar program of applied research projects. Le CentreFrancophone d’Informatisation des Organisations(CEFRIO) is funded by a combination of governmentsupport and corporate membership fees. The projects,which focus on both public and private sectorconcerns, are commissioned by the CEFRIO board ofdirectors and conducted by universities throughoutQuebec. Practitioner-oriented results includehandbooks, diagnostic tools, and education programsoffered by CEFRIO. The university researchersincorporate results into their ongoing research andscholarly publications.

The Program on Strategic Computing andTelecommunications in the Public Sector at HarvardUniversity’s John F. Kennedy School of Governmentconducts leadership workshops and action researchinvolving emerging and existing government programsthat focus on such topics as IT innovation ingovernment, performance measurement, and the role ofpolitical leadership. The program produces case studiesfor executive and university education, as well as reportsand scholarly articles.


1. Support research at the Federal,state, and local levels as well asinvestigations into intergovernmentaland public-private interaction.The innovations and experiments that abound at thelocal, state, and national levels provide countlessopportunities for grounded research. As the FordFoundation Innovations in American GovernmentProgram shows, ideas that emerge in every corner ofthe nation have the potential to mature into advancedapplications that can be adopted in many other places,and even become nationwide service models. TheDigital Government Program should thereforeemphasize the multi-faceted nature of Americangovernment and encourage projects at each level ofgovernment. It should also support studies of multi-level functions and programs that link the public,private, and nonprofit sectors. A multi-level, cross-sectoral research program would have significantbenefits:

ØBetter appreciation for the singular capabilities,needs, and issues present at each level ofgovernment.Ø Increased understanding of how the

interconnectedness of government agenciesaffects the administration, performance, andcost of public programs and the deploymentand performance of information systems thatsupport them.

ØBetter understanding of the role of the voluntarynot-for-profit sector in the delivery of governmentservices.ØNew models for managing private sector

involvement in government operations and betterunderstanding of the applications and limits ofprivate sector business models for public sectorfunctions.Ø Improved models of the process of innovation as

well as better understanding of the diffusion ofinnovation in the public sector.

2. Attend to issues of “governance” as wellas “government” in the digital age.Information technology can play a significant role intransforming not only government services andadministration, but also the working of democraticinstitutions. Projects that focus on the nature andeffects of “digital governance,” the roles and rights ofcitizens, and the functioning of civil society should beincluded in the Digital Government research program.In doing so, the program will:

Ø Encourage both analysis and reflection about theeffects of emerging technologies on citizens andnon-governmental institutions.

Ø Account for the role, capabilities, and preferencesof citizens in decisions about how to usetechnology in the service of democracy.

Ø Understand how the infusion of technology atdifferent points in the democratic process affectsthe distribution and exercise of power.

Complexities of the public sector environment, needs identified by practitioners, and researchopportunities and challenges that emerged from the workshop discussions led to six recommendations tothe National Science Foundation for furthering the goals of the Digital Government Program.

5. Digital GovernmentProgram recommendations


3. Encourage methods that describe,account for, and evaluate questions ofservice and system integration andenvironmental complexity.In order to be successful, the research program willneed to address the interplay among technical,management, policy, and organizational factorsinfluencing the information systems that supportgovernment operations. With this diverse set ofresearch questions and objectives, the program shouldencourage research in both social and informationsciences and welcome a variety of research methods,particularly ones that directly involve system users andbeneficiaries. These might include:

Ø single and comparative case studiesØ experimental testbedsØ single and multi-site field researchØ surveysØ longitudinal studiesØ network analysesØ evaluation studies

4. Seek innovative funding models thatbuild a larger resource base for DigitalGovernment initiatives.At present, the NSF funds allocated to the DigitalGovernment Program are quite modest and areinsufficient to support sustained research into thecomplex questions posed at the workshop. NSFshould consider innovative funding models to increasethe amount of resources available to support theprogram. The following mechanisms should beexplored:

Ø Encourage cash or in-kind matching by granteeinstitutions. This option should not become abarrier to participation by smaller institutions orjurisdictions. In-kind matches could include suchitems as access to internal data, sponsorship ofadvisory committees, dissemination of projectresults, and similar activities that further thepurposes of the research.

Ø Use Digital Government grants to add a formalresearch component to applications projects thatare or will be sponsored by government agencies.In this way, Digital Government grants will

encourage formal evaluation and documentationof empirical results, leading eventually to moreformal models of organizational and systemperformance.

Ø Engage other federal research agencies and privatefoundations in jointly funded research. Thequestions likely to be posed by Digital Governmentresearch projects are of deep interest to a varietyof funding organizations. NSF should pilot test afew grants that combine funding from severalsources to determine the feasibility andeffectiveness of a mixed funding model.

Ø Explore partnerships and incentives for theprivate sector to participate in the programthrough use of private research and developmentassets, and by including private sector strategicrequirements for Digital Government services inthe program design.

5. Link research and practice in anongoing exchange of knowledge, needs,and experiences.Given the wide communications gap between theacademic and government practitioner communities,and the significant opportunity for improved practicesthrough collaboration, new methods are needed fordisseminating research results to practitioners and forinfusing research with the problems of practice. NSFshould encourage the development of organizationalstructures, information sharing mechanisms, andfunding methods to bridge the gap between these twocultures. Specific recommendations include:

Ø Sponsor workshops on topics of importance toboth practitioners and researchers to provideopportunities for members of both communities toexpress their needs, explain their capabilities, andexplore mutually beneficial activities.ØRequire researchers funded under the Digital

Government Program to prepare reportsspecifically for a practitioner audience periodicallythroughout the grant period.Ø Sponsor one or more Web sites that support

practitioners’ use of research skills and results andresearchers’ quest for field tests and other practicalvenues for their investigations.


6. Create a practitioner advisory group forthe program and include practitioners in thereview panels.If the Digital Government Program is to succeed inintegrating research and practice, practitioners musthave a major role in setting priorities and selectingprojects to be funded. An advisory group made up ofpractitioners from all three levels of government wouldassist in program design, in attracting governmentfunding and research partners, and in disseminatingresults. Practitioners must also participate inreviewing proposals that seek to study their areas ofexpertise, whether they be specific policy areas (such aspublic health or transportation) or functional domains(such as service delivery or regulatory affairs). Thiswill also help insure the relevance of projects, access tovenues for field research, and an audience for theresearch results.

To build a digital government for the next century, thenation needs to assemble and employ an array oftalents and resources. Evolving technologies will surelycontinue to be a catalyst and agent of change,generating increasing need for technological researchand development. The change that technology bringswith it demands equally serious research investmentsinto questions of political, institutional, andorganizational response and adaptation. To meet thesechallenges, NSF’s Digital Government researchprogram must foster multidisciplinary, multi-methodresearch. This research program must extend acrosstime and physical and political geography, and belinked in mutually beneficial ways to the goals and thepractice of government.

Conclusion


Selected references

Altschuler, A.A. & Behn, R.D., eds. (1997). Innovation in American Government: Challenges, Opportunities,and Dilemmas. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. (1996). Government Direct: A Prospectus for the ElectronicDelivery of Government Services, [Online]. Available http://www.open.gov.uk/citu/greenpaper/index.htm.

National Partnership for Reinventing Government. (1993). Access America: Reengineering Through InformationTechnology, [Online]. Available http://www.npr/gov/library/reports/it.html.

National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. (1998). Fostering Research on theEconomic and Social Impacts of Information Technology: Report of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1998). Digital Government Program Announcement – NSF98-121, [Online].Available http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf98121/nsf98121.htm.

President’s Information Technology Advisory Council. (1999). Information Technology Research: Investing inOur Future, [Online]. Available http://www.ccic.gov/ac/report/.

Schorr, H. & Stolfo, S.J. (1998). Towards the Digital Government of the 21st Century: A Report of the Workshopon Research and Development Opportunities in Federal Information Services, [Online]. Available http://www.isi.edu/nsf/final.html.

United States General Accounting Office. (1999). Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: AGovernment-wide Perspective – OCG-99-1, [Online]. Available http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:cg99001.txt.pdf.

United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Managing Technology: Best Practices Can Improve Performanceand Produce Results – T-AIMD-97-38, [Online]. Available http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY97/abstracts/ai97038t.htm.

United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Measuring Performance: Challenges in Evaluating Research andDevelopment – T-RCED-97-130, [Online]. Available http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY97/abstracts/rc97130t.htm.

United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Measuring Performance: Strengths and Limitations of ResearchIndicators – RCED-97-91, [Online]. Available http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY97/abstracts/rc97091.htm.


Designing the Digital Government of the 21stCentury: A Multidisciplinary WorkshopThe National Science Foundation’s program on DigitalGovernment supports experimentation and researchto improve the information-based services thatgovernment provides to citizens or uses internally tocarry out its mission. On October 5-6, 1998, 67researchers and government practitioners convened ina workshop funded by this NSF program to discussways that government practitioners and academicresearchers can collaborate to produce innovative andeffective information-based government services.Held in Arlington, VA, and led by the Center forTechnology in Government at the University atAlbany/SUNY, the workshop was designed to identifyand develop research themes and projects that canfurther these goals.

This workshop was one in a series funded by NSF topromote interaction between researchers andgovernment practitioners. The October 1998workshop focused particularly on the environment inwhich government information services aredeveloped. It recognized that government programsand service delivery mechanisms are developed in acomplex multi-layered Federal-state-local system inwhich many organizations play significant anddifferent roles. It also emphasized that developmentefforts must deal with interactions among the political,organizational, technological, cultural, and humanfactors that shape the implementation environment.

The workshop had several goals:

Ø Propose criteria for investing in research activitiesthat will have the greatest positive impact ongovernment programs, services, and customers.

Ø Identify issues, opportunities, and themes forcross-disciplinary research to foster the creation,adoption, and diffusion of innovative and effectivegovernment IT applications.

Ø Recommend ways to build mutually beneficiallinks between researchers and the informationservices and government managementcommunities.

Ø Develop ideas for specific research projects thatwould contribute to more effective use of advancedtechnologies in government.

Ø Recommend criteria for evaluating the effectivenessof the research program.

To help focus attention on research that would havepractical implications, the workshop participants wereasked to take a “program-centric” view of theinformation content and processing needs ofgovernment operation. By paying special attention tothe needs of government program managers, workshoppresentations and discussions were designed to lead toresearch ideas that have the potential to be ofpragmatic use in government.

PreparationTwo activities helped set the stage for the workshop.During the summer, the organizing committee issued acall for papers addressing the themes of the workshop.A variety of academic researchers, private consultants,and government practitioners responded; from thesubmissions, 18 papers from a variety of perspectiveswere selected to serve as a backdrop for the workshop.These were made available on the workshop Web sitefor the participants to examine before the workshop.Several authors were invited to attend or makepresentations at the workshop. In a second activity, theworkshop organizers conducted a review of award-winning government applications to identify exemplaryuses of IT in government that could serve tounderscore the “program-centric” theme of theworkshop. From this group of several dozenprograms, a total of six were selected for presentationat the workshop. These served as examples of therange and depth of uses of IT at all three levels ofgovernment.

The workshop organizing committee then invitedadditional participants to represent a broad mixture ofstakeholders: government officials and managers fromFederal, state, and local levels; researchers from avariety of fields including social, information,computer, and computational science; andrepresentatives from the private sector, nonprofit

Appendix A. Workshop summary


organizations, and the international government ITcommunity. Altogether, a total of 67 peopleparticipated in the workshop.

PresentationsThe workshop began with small group discussionsdesigned to elicit participants’ impressions ofgovernment information systems as citizens, publicmanagers, and researchers. Some common themesemerged from this discussion, including a desire to takeadvantage of technologies that provide one-stop-shopping, the lack of funding for government ITinitiatives, resistance to cultural, organizational, andtechnical change among government organizations, andthe general risk-averse nature of government. Thesediscussions also pointed out the extensive involvementof non-governmental organizations in the delivery ofpublic services and the difficulty of designing anddelivering services that are of uniform quality in theface of a wide variety of local conditions.

Following this discussion, the workshop continuedwith presentations of government applications andacademic research capabilities. The six governmentapplications that were highlighted represented all levelsof government, addressed a variety of governmentpolicy and management objectives, and had differentlevels of scope and complexity. Some of theseprograms use IT to help achieve single programobjectives: the IRS e-file program, a Texas initiative todetect fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program, and acomputerized statistical and monitoring program of theNew York City Police Department. A second set ofpresentations focused on programs that cross theboundaries of organizations or levels of government:the Federal Geographic Data Committee and itsNational Spatial Data Infrastructure initiative, theWashington State Public Health Network, and thepublic community network of Santa Monica, CA. Theresearch presentations covered the state-of-the art infour relevant areas: overarching issues of informationand society, applied research commissioned bygovernment agencies, trends in computer andinformation science research (including a summary ofthe initial workshop funded by the Digital Governmentinitiative in May 1997), and trends in social scienceresearch that pertain to government use of IT.

Workshop participants also heard from Thomas Kalil,Director of Science and Technology for the NationalEconomic Council, on Administration goals andinitiatives relevant to the Digital Government Program.NSF Digital Government Program Officer LarryBrandt reviewed the goals of the program and outlinedthe nature of the proposals received in response to thefirst round of project solicitation in September 1998.

DiscussionsThe participants divided into five homogeneous groupsto brainstorm about approaches to linking governmentpractice and academic research. The three governmentgroups (comprising Federal, state, and localpractitioners, respectively) were asked to identifygovernment’s current and future administrative andservice delivery needs that advanced IT can help meet.The two research groups (in information technologyand social sciences) were asked to identify researchtopics and approaches that can contribute to moreeffective use of advanced technologies in government.From these discussions, eight key needs andopportunities emerged:

Ø Interoperable systems that are trusted and secure.ØCitizen participation in democratic processes.ØElectronic public service models and transactions.ØNew models for public-private partnerships and

other networked organizational forms.Ø Intuitive decision support tools for public officials.ØBetter methods of IT management.ØArchiving and electronic records management.ØMatching research resources to government needs.

In subsequent discussions among the participants, anumber of issues emerged that need to be addressed tomake research collaborations more effective.

ØAlthough academic research can have a significantinfluence on government practices, thegovernment and research communities have verydifferent value systems that need to be taken intoaccount. Government is risk-averse by design, andresearch is quite the opposite. These competingvalues need to be addressed through thedevelopment of new models for informing andintegrating practice and research.


ØWith the devolution of government services andincreased demand for measurable performance atevery level, all levels of government need to beaccounted for in the research program. Sincecitizens and businesses most often interact withgovernment at the state and local levels, the needsfor intergovernmental support and research aresignificant. Similarly, the not-for-profit andprivate sectors are important actors in the deliveryof government services and need to berepresented in the research topics explored underDigital Government.Ø In order to be successful, the research program

will need to address the technical, management,policy, and organizational factors that go intosuccessful systems. With this diverse set ofresearch questions and objectives, the researcheffort should include a variety of researchmethods, including case studies and experimentaltestbeds.ØGiven the wide gap between the academic and

government practitioner communities, and thesignificant opportunity for improved practicesthrough collaboration, new methods are neededfor disseminating research into practice and forinfusing research with the problems of practice.NSF should consider the development oforganizational structures and funding methods tobridge the gap between these two cultures.Ø Information technology can play a significant role

in transforming not only government services andadministration, but also the working ofdemocratic institutions. Projects that focus on thenature and effects of “digital governance” shouldbe included in the Digital Government researchprogram.

Specific research ideasAs part of the workshop activities, participants wereasked to develop specific research projects that wouldhelp address the needs identified in their discussions.A total of 35 ideas were developed by groups ofresearchers and practitioners working together. Thetopics ranged from investigations on the forms ofelectronic democracy, to the role of XML in theintegration of data standards, to the management ofpublic records in the electronic age, to the creation ofnetworked virtual organizations for the delivery ofpublic services. We expect at least some of thesepreliminary ideas will be among those submitted to theDigital Government Program in future rounds offunding.

Additional material pertaining to the workshop,including the agenda, presentations and papers, isavailable on the workshop Web site at http://www.ctg.albany.edu/research/workshop/digitalgov.html


Kim Viborg Andersen, Copenhagen Business School,Denmark

Yigal Arens, Information Sciences Institute, University ofSouthern California

Bennett Bertenthal, National Science FoundationTora Bikson, Rand Corporation

Peter Bloniarz, Center for Technology in Government,University at Albany, SUNY

Larry Brandt, National Science FoundationJames C. Collard, Local Government Consultant

Eileen L. Collins, National Science FoundationNoshir Contractor, University of Illinois at Urbana-

ChampaignAngela Coppola, Central Intelligence Agency

Sharon Dawes, Center for Technology in Government,University at Albany, SUNY

Marshall DeBerry, U.S. Department of JusticeErnie Dornfeld, City of Seattle

William Dutton, University of Southern CaliforniaJon Eisenberg, National Research Council

Douglas Engelbart, Bootstrap InstituteAmy Finley, San Diego Supercomputer Center, National

Partnership for Advanced Computational InfrastructurePatricia D. Fletcher, University of Maryland, Baltimore

CountyMichael Fraser, National Oceanographic & Atmospheric

AdministrationGerard Glaser, National Science Foundation

Robert E. Greeves, The Council for Excellence inGovernment

Jane Griffith, National Research CouncilAmarnath Gupta, San Diego Supercomputer Center

Stephen H. Holden, Internal Revenue ServiceAjit Kambil, New York University

John L. King, University of California at IrvineAndrew Kline, Alaska Lieutenant Governor’s Office

Kenneth Kraemer, University of California at IrvineRamayya Krishnan, Carnegie Mellon University

David Landsbergen, Ohio State UniversityKlaus Lenk, University of Oldenburg, Germany

Timothy Loewenstein, Buffalo County, NebraskaWinifred Lyday, National Association of Counties

Worthy N. Martin, University of Virginia

Terrence Maxwell, New York State Forum for InformationResource Management

Philip G. McGuire, New York City Police DepartmentJerry Mechling, Strategic Computing & Telecommunications

in the Public Sector, Harvard UniversityJohn J. Moeller, U.S. Geological Survey

J.D. Nyhart, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyBarbara O’Keefe, University of Michigan

John O’Looney, Institute of Government, University ofGeorgia

James P. Peak, Intelink Management OfficeCindy Peck, Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Thomas Prudhomme, National Center for SupercomputingApplications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Carolyn Purcell, Texas Department of Information ResourcesRaghu Ramakrishnan, University of Wisconsin

Ann Redelfs, San Diego Supercomputer Center, NationalPartnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure

Priscilla Regan, George Mason UniversityNicolau Reinhard, Universidade de Sao Paulo-Brasil

Mary Reynolds, Illinois Lieutenant Governor’s OfficeDaniel Robey, Georgia State University

James Ruda, Town of Dudley, MassachusettsRonald Seymour, Washington State Department of Health

Denise Shaw, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJerry Sheehan, National Center for Supercomputing

Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignJ. Timothy Sprehe, Sprehe Information Management

AssociatesEswaran Subrahmanian, Carnegie Mellon University

Gilles Trempe, Centre Francophone d’Informatisation desOrganisations (CEFRIO), Quebec

Lisa Westerback, U.S. Department of CommerceJory Wolf, City of Santa Monica

Maria Zemankova, National Science Foundation

Appendix B. Workshop participants


In preparation for the workshop activities, we issued a Callfor Papers to researchers and government practitioners forbackground papers addressing the themes of the workshop.The organizing committee selected the following papers toprovide a backdrop for the workshop activities. All papersare available on the Workshop Web Site at http://www.ctg.albany.edu/research/workshop/background.html

G. Scott Aikens, “Nexus: The Policy and Ideas Network: ACase Study” [ [email protected] ]

Janet Cichelli, “Designing Government Systems for Day-One Job Performance” [ [email protected] ]

Ernie Dornfeld, “City of Seattle Legislative and HistoricalInformation on the Internet: A Case Study for CitizenAccess” [ [email protected] ]

Brian Ellis, “Securing State and Local Government WebSites Using Digital Certification Authority and RepositoryServices” [ [email protected] ]

Michael B. Fraser and John Boyer, “Electronic Permits forGovernment in the 21st Century”[ [email protected] ]

J. Gangolly, S.S. Ravi, D.J. Rosenkrantz, and G. Tayi,“Temporal Reconstruction of Authoritative Text in Legal,Accounting, and Regulatory Domains”[ [email protected] ]

Alice Hart, “Government and Technology: A Case Historyof the Pitfalls of Working with Enterprise Community BasedOrganizations” [ [email protected] ]

Mark Hedges, “Anonymity in Internet Voting”[ [email protected] ]

Richard Heeks, “Successful Approaches to Information AgeReform” [ [email protected] ]

Richard Heeks, “Reinventing Government in theInformation Age: Explaining Success and Failure”[ [email protected] ]

Helene Heller, “Delivering Services Online: How toManage Culture Change in Government Use of the Web”[ [email protected] ]

Ajit Kambil and Mark Ginsburg, “Public Access WebInformation Systems: Lessons from the Internet EDGARproject” [ [email protected] ]

David Landsbergen and George Wolken, “EliminatingLegal and Policy Barriers to Interoperable GovernmentSystems: Phase I: Policy Barriers”[ [email protected] ]

Rick Moore, “Information Needs Assessment Project” [[email protected] ]

John O’Looney, “Identifying Opportunities for EffectiveCross-Agency Electronic Services Delivery: Spanning theGap Between Consumers’ Needs and the Real Prospectsfor System Integration and Success”[ [email protected] ]

Priscilla Regan, “Privacy and Intelligent TransportationSystems: Results of a National Public Opinion Study andInsights from Investigations of Pilot Projects”[ [email protected] ]

Gary Stoneburner, “Common Barriers to IT Security”[ [email protected] ]

Eswaran Subrahmanian and James Garrett, “TwoExperiences in Digital Government”[ [email protected] ]

Appendix C. Background papers

Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at Albany / SUNY

1535 Western AvenueAlbany, NY 12203

Phone: 518-442-3892Fax: [email protected]

some assembly required: building a digital government for the 21

Documents