---

“Most governments are far behind business in using the tools of the digital age. Businesses going digital are stuck with many paper forms because governments are not yet online.”

-Bill Gates

---

HIGH-PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, ARE FLEXIBLE, RESPONSIVE AND RELENTLESSLY CUSTOMER-ORIENTED. THEY THRIVE IN A WORLD THAT IS FASTPACED, GLOBAL AND TECHNOLOGY-BASED.

• Service delivery systems are outdated and inconvenient. The predominant symbols for service delivery by state government are long lines at multiple windows and over-the-counter, paper-based transactions.

• Internal systems are antiquated and fragmented. There are no enterprise-wide systems for budgeting, accounting, human resources or procurement, and the fragmented systems that we have are outdated. Effective statewide management is impossible in this context.

• Statewide planning and implementation for technology is ineffective. There is no strategic plan for statewide information technology, and no statewide implementation of technology projects.

---

High-performing organizations, whether public or private, are flexible, responsive and relentlessly customer-oriented. They thrive in a world that is fast-paced, global and technology-based. Successful 21st century organizations match that fast tempo, broad scope and technological sophistication, and do so at a significantly reduced cost, using technology to improve productivity and create new services and service delivery systems.

Ironically, while California is the cradle of technology and hosts some of the world’s leading technology innovators such as Intel, Cisco Systems, Hewlett Packard, Adobe and others, its government is stuck in 20th century technology and business practices.

While successful 21st century organizations depend on enterprise-wide information systems to streamline operations and reduce costs, California’s information technology systems are “stove-piped.” That is, our systems are controlled by individual agencies which independently struggle to maintain their own information and control their own systems. Collaboration across agencies is rare.

Here is an example of a frustrated citizen just trying to get his vehicle tags renewed in spite of state computer systems that don’t work with each other:

“Last year, I didn’t get my tags from the DMV because they said they did not receive my smog certificate. Looking up my car on the DMV website, I could see the smog report there. However, I called the DMV, and they said it was not in their computer. It was in the Bureau of Automotive Repair’s computer, and I needed to get a copy from the shop that did the test and send it to them. The problem with this was that the shop had gone out of business.”

“I tried to get this straightened out with the DMV by phone. They let me print out what was on their website and mail it to them. Even though I could see the report from my computer on the DMV website, the DMV personnel did not have access on their computers to their own website.”

TODAY, HOWEVER, OUR TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE REVEALS YEARS OF INCREMENTAL BUDGETING, POORLY COORDINATED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND A LACK OF STATEWIDE LEADERSHIP. THE CONSEQUENCE IS THE PIECEMEAL ACCUMULATION OF APPLICATIONS AND INCOMPATIBLE SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT INTERACT AND DISSIPATE OUR FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL CAPACITY. WE DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY APPLICATIONS THE STATE ACTUALLY OWNS.

California government must do better. It has to modernize. We can no longer tolerate a government that is slow, insular and locked in the bureaucracy of mid-20th century processes. Californians demand a government that is oriented towards action and responsiveness and that is affordable, accessible and accountable. To make this transformation, we need to make far-reaching and fundamental reforms in our use of technology.

The leadership of California’s technology transformation should be flexible and responsive, and it must have a statewide focus. Technology is a powerful engine for change, but only if properly harnessed and channeled.

Today, however, our technology governance reveals years of incremental budgeting, poorly coordinated program management and a lack of statewide leadership. The consequence is the piecemeal accumulation of applications and incompatible systems that do not interact and dissipate our financial and technical capacity. We don’t even know how many applications the state actually owns.

We must change. We must start thinking strategically, deciding what technologies should be used and how to apply them to reinvigorate the state. We need a statewide strategic plan for information technology. To create that plan and the conditions for its successful implementation, the state must reestablish an office of the state Chief Information Officer (CIO) which is empowered by the Legislature to provide statewide technology leadership and to set for the Executive Branch information technology policies, standards and plans.

Action:The Governor should permanently appoint and empower a state Chief Information Officer to provide planning and direction for the state’s technology investments. The Chief Information Officer should have authority for statewide technology leadership, policy, standards, strategic planning, coordination and information security.

Gaining control and oversight of the state’s technology spending must be a matter of high priority for California. We need the “traction” provided by adequate funding for the most important initiatives. Our limited financial and technical resources must be prioritized for the greatest return on investment.

WE SHOULD AGGREGATE THE STATE’S BUYING POWER AND MAKE SURE IT IS USED WISELY FOR THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY FOR OUR TIMES.

We should aggregate the state’s buying power and make sure it is used wisely for the right technology for our times. Unfortunately, our incremental budgeting process obscures technology spending within many program budgets, making it almost impossible to find out how much we are spending, what technologies we are purchasing, whether they will work together, or whether the state is getting the best value.

The imposition of the annual state budget development schedule on project approvals leads to rushed decisions and incomplete planning, whipsawing any effort to construct a long-term strategy. Something as strategically important as our technology investments must not be subjected to the fluctuations and narrow approval windows created by the annual state budget cycle.

Action:The Governor should establish a State Technology Investment Fund.

A 21st century government must not make technology investment decisions in a piecemeal or shortsighted manner. But today, most of these decisions are made department-by-department and project-by-project. That is no way to do business.

Breaking free requires a statewide focus and united executive sponsorship so that priorities are aligned and balanced with overall statewide priorities. This broad, unified focus and sponsorship is best attained by establishing a Technology Commission chaired by the state CIO and including representatives from each cabinet secretary. The Technology Commission would have power to approve funding from the State Technology Investment Fund for information technology programs and projects.

Action:The Governor should establish a Technology Policy Council chaired by the state CIO and with membership from the Governor’s Cabinet to establish state technology priorities and approve the funding for programs and projects.

California has been slow to implement technology to improve government services. We have failed to embrace the shift to customer service, providing citizens and businesses what they want, how they want it, when they want it and where they want it.

We must focus on coordinated, statewide solutions and not just agency-specific activities. And, the solutions must be centered on customer needs, not government needs. They should be uniformly responsive regardless of whether our customers choose to obtain our services through walk-in, phone, e-mail, FAX or U.S. Mail. Such multi-channel solutions can provide services that are easy-to-use, accurate, on time and cost-effective.

For example, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is demonstrating leadership by improving service in areas such as reducing long lines at field offices. The department’s use of technology has improved processes, reduced operational costs and promoted better service. In Fiscal Year 2004–2005, the DMV plans to re-invent and expand its online services.

A good plan by one department is not enough. Instead, a statewide plan and a center of focus for the plan are needed. That focus is the state portal—MyCalifornia (http://www.ca.gov)—through which citizens and businesses should be able to easily travel to find the services or information they want or need. The state began to develop its existing portal three years ago, but that development stalled. We have now fallen behind in the use of Internet technologies to serve the public, and we need to recapture that lost ground. We should use the DMV’s decision to expand its online services to kick-start other statewide initiatives such as online licensing, permitting, registration and reporting.

Action:The state’s Chief Information Officer should direct the implementation of statewide technology solutions including a redesign of the state portal—MyCalifornia (http://www.ca.gov)—to provide a statewide platform for all government services.

WE SHOULD DELIVER BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT SERVICES THROUGH HIGH QUALITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS THAT INTEGRATE STATE PROCESSES AND SHARE INFORMATION.

Our dependency on technology within state government is significant and inextricably linked to the delivery of all government services. Yet our internal technology operations are in crisis. They are dispersed across hundreds of agencies with no strategic direction or alignment with overarching statewide goals. New initiatives have been muted by the budget crisis, restricted by lack of coordination across the government and held back by archaic, bureaucratic processes. There has been no overall coordination of our use of technology. The results are that our internal operations are poorly organized, duplicative and inefficient.

We should deliver better and more efficient services through high quality information technology applications that integrate state processes and share information. Collaborative use of technologies, however, is extremely rare within California government. For example, we rely on hundreds of separately managed e-mail systems for internal communications, and a multitude of disparate systems for managing our accounting, human resources, and procurement and asset management. This disjointed environment undermines the operational integrity of state government and delivery of services to the people.

WE RELY ON HUNDREDS OF SEPARATELY MANAGED E-MAIL SYSTEMS FOR INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS, AND A MULTITUDE OF DISPARATE SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING OUR ACCOUNTING, HUMAN RESOURCES, AND PROCUREMENT AND ASSET MANAGEMENT.

To bring order to this chaos, the state should first establish an integrated intranet where we can lay the essential foundation for collaboration and efficient, secure data sharing among agencies. Identifying and implementing a set of common, uniform applications that automate business processes across all Executive Branch organizations is the next logical step. Priority should be given to centrally managed applications such as e-mail, security and antivirus tools and directory services. These “utilities” can be provided cost effectively on a large scale. Next, we should develop and centrally host “shared services” applications that will provide the backbone for business management statewide, such as budgeting and accounting, managing human resources, asset management and procurement management.

Action:The Chief Information Officer should establish an integrated state government intranet, and direct the development of common systems as “shared services.”

Back to Top