Managing Information in the Public Sector

Jay D White

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780765617484
• eBook ISBN: 9781317465492
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Economic Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This first-of-its-kind survey covers both the basics of information technology and the managerial and political issues surrounding the use of these technologies. Unlike other works on information systems, this book is written specifically for the public sector and addresses unique public sector issues and concerns. The technical basics are explained in clear English with as little technical jargon as possible so that readers can move on to informed analysis of the public policy issues surrounding government's use of MIS. This practical tool includes end of chapter summaries with bridges to upcoming chapters, numerous boxed exhibits, thorough end-of-chapter notes and a bibliography for further reading.

1

---

Why Study MIS in the Public Sector?

The field of management information systems has grown independent from its origins in computer science, management, accounting, and business administration. Stand-alone academic departments, schools, and colleges of information systems (IS) or management information systems (MIS) have emerged to provide generic teaching and research for the field. With MIS being its own autonomous field of academic study and professional practice, why should programs in public administration or public policy offer their own courses in management information systems when the MIS field offers generic knowledge and skill? Why not simply turn to these MIS programs? Well, there are many reasons to mention.

First and foremost, information is a vital organizational resource. It is just as important as people and money. While this may seem obvious today, it has not always been so. For example, during the 1980s and early 1990s, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NAS-PAA), which accredits master’s programs in public administration and public policy, held a rather narrow view of information management. Its standards for common curriculum components mentioned that all programs should pay some attention to computers and computing technology.¹ This was often interpreted to mean that a master’s program should expose students to the use of software application programs for statistical analysis such as SAS or SPSS, or that some programs might rely on other departments within a university to offer courses in software programming languages such as FORTRAN or COBOL or survey courses in management information systems.

While knowledge of what computers are and what they can do as well as knowledge of the use of software programs are a part of understanding information technology, it is a very old and very narrow view of information management. Today, NASPAA has embraced the modern view that information is an organizational resource important in its own right. This view is reflected in the organization’s current statement about common curriculum components, which says that students should learn about “information management, technology applications, and policy” alongside the management of financial and human resources.²

The second reason public administration and policy programs should offer courses in MIS is that managing information in the public sector is significantly different in many respects from managing information in the private sector, technically, politically, bureaucratically, and financially. One might argue that technology is technology no matter where it is applied. That might be true in some cases, but some of the operations of government differ significantly from the business activities of the private sector. For example, a standard off-the-shelf accounts receivable system developed for private-sector firms might not be suited for a public agency’s collection of user fees. In those situations, experience has shown that it is sometimes difficult to adapt software developed for private-sector applications to public-sector practices.

Then the political and bureaucratic environments in which technology decisions are made can differ significantly. For example, the acquisition and implementation of many technology solutions in the public sector are influenced by political decision making not found in the private sector. Politics and procurement laws have a tendency to slow down acquisition decisions and decisions to improve existing systems. When budgets are tight, politics often leads to the acquisition of less than desirable technology solutions. While private firms can be just as bureaucratic as public agencies, bureaucratic rules and regulations significantly affect technology decisions in the public sector. Nowhere is this more evident than in contracting for technology and technology services. The procurement procedures of many government entities are often excruciatingly slow and cumbersome, so much so, that many times when a system is finally acquired, it is already out of date.

Yet another difference between the sectors has to do with the cost of technology and the people needed to manage and support it. Many times public agencies simply cannot afford “bleeding edge” or even “cutting edge” technology. Revenues and budgets simply cannot pay for it. So, many public agencies have to deal with less than state-of-the-art technologies. As far as personnel are concerned, the vast majority of public agencies simply cannot afford the high cost of managerial and technical support personnel for information systems because the salaries for these positions are usually much higher in the private sector. This limitation creates unique problems in managing the public management information technology workforce, especially such things as reliance on outside consultants, vendors, and even outsourcing the technology functions of agencies.

Beyond these two overarching reasons to study the management of information and technology in the public sector, a host of other reasons can be grouped under four general headings: information systems misfortunes, big bucks, big failures, and the “ITernal Triangle” of information management.

Public-Sector Information Systems Misfortunes

Unfortunately, information and its related technologies are not well managed in the public sector. Problems with information systems persist across all three levels of government (federal, state, and local) as well as in the private sector. The following examples of IS misfortunes in the public sector highlight the need for more effective management oversight.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority began installing electronic toll lanes in 1993.³ In 1995, with 40 percent of the system operating and $17.5 million spent, the Authority tossed the existing system for one they thought would be better. But the new system failed. Half of the 30,000 electronic devices placed under the windshields of cars that automatically deduct money from drivers’ accounts simply failed to work.

In the late 1990s, the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, wanted to acquire an integrated payroll, human resources, and benefits package.⁴ After spending a considerable amount of time and $1.6 million to do a requirements analysis for the new system, they scrapped the idea because the planned system would cost too much to install and run.

In 1988 Congress ordered the states to build similar child support enforcement systems so they could share information because “deadbeat parents” often move from state to state.⁵ A handful of vendors began building fifty-two different systems. Why? Because each state handles its child support enforcement paper processes differently, and getting the states to conform to a single reporting system has been near impossible.

In 1987 the California Department of Motor Vehicles began spending $60 million on an automated “one-stop shopping” vehicle registration and licensing system that never left the start-up stage.⁶ It was abandoned when its projected cost exceeded six and a half times its original estimated cost and its anticipated delivery date was pushed back to 1998.

In 1994, the automated baggage-handling system for Denver’s new international airport held up the opening of the airport for nine months because of bugs in the software, adding millions of dollars to the already expensive project and requiring the expenditure of millions more dollars to repair the system once it was up and running.⁷ Management knew about the bugs but apparently could not do anything about them. Some of the airlines serving the airport resorted to traditional non-automated baggage-handling systems.

In 1995, the State of Florida attempted to develop an automated welfare- eligibility-benefits determination system. The system would cost the state more than $200 million over five years,⁸ which was more than double the original budgeted amount for the system. Criminal charges for mismanagement were filed against the welfare agency’s MIS director but were later dropped.

Hawaii’s budget for its Information and Communication Services Division is 40 percent lower than it was in 1992, and the Division has no authority over any of the state’s other agencies.⁹ Technology acquisitions over $25,000 have to be put out for bid. By the time the bids go out, the desired technology is already obsolete. Obsolescence due to lengthy bidding and procurement processes is not a problem unique to Hawaii. It plagues most public agencies.

Illinois does not have a centralized department dedicated to information management.¹⁰ Each agency does its own thing in an uncoordinated fashion, often needlessly duplicating IT investments and applications across state departments. This is not a problem unique to Illinois. It affects many federal agencies, states, and local governments as well.

Nebraska’s human resource system tells virtually nothing about its employees except their leave status.¹¹ The State has no strategic information systems plan, but it does have a Chief Information Officer. Unfortunately, the CIO has no authority over other agencies. The State does have mainframe computers, which they have operated for thirty-plus years, but they are antiquated and function poorly.

In a much-publicized IS failure, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had spent twelve years and more than $2.5 billion on a new Advanced Automation System designed to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system.¹² Eventually the scope of the system was scaled back drastically, and the FAA terminated its contract with IBM because of excessive cost overruns.¹³

More recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation scrapped a $170-million Virtual Case File automated management system because of over 400 problems with the software that would prevent the system from working.¹⁴ Management knew about those problems but continued developing the system for two years and invested an additional $17 million to test the system knowing that they were probably going to pull the plug on it some time in the future.

While some of the problems associated with these examples were technical in the sense that they included software difficulties, the major concern in all of these examples is simply poor management of technology, people, and money, as well as inadequate organizational policies and procedures to manage information and technology.

In general, every state is trying to operate using antiquated hardware and software systems that run slowly and frequently break down. Every state has paperwork information systems that are costly to run and could be automated. Also, the use of information technology in the states and localities is fragmented and disjointed. It is not uncommon to find two or more agencies each paying hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for the same system. There are also incidences where one state agency has a fully functional system to handle some application that could be used by other state agencies but is not.

The Government Performance Project, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, grades each state annually on a variety of management performance issues, including how each state manages money, people, infrastructure, and information.¹⁵ In 2005, the overall grade for all states for the management of information was a “B–” with twenty-six of the states receiving grades of “C” or below—not a very commendable record for information management for over half of the states.

Things are not that much better at the federal level of government. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has, over the years, offered many warnings about how poorly information technology is being managed in the various executive agencies. For example, in 1994 the GAO observed the following:

Without action by federal executives, the gap between public expectations and agency performance will continue to expand. Program risks will continue and unique opportunities for improvement will remain unexploited. Many low-value, high-risk information systems projects will continue to be developed unimpeded and undermanaged as leaders blindly respond to crises by purchasing more technology. Most federal managers will continue to operate without the financial and management information they need to truly improve mission performance. Moreover, many federal employees will struggle unsuccessfully, under increasing workloads, to do their jobs better as they are hampered with information systems that simply add on another automated layer of bureaucracy. Given these risks, sustained Congressional attention is vital to reinforce the link between accountability for returns on information-related investments and the satisfaction of real public needs.¹⁶

Since that 1994 observation the GAO, recently renamed the Government Accountability Office, has published several reports indicating that information technology is poorly managed across a wide variety of agencies. Many agency information systems are antiquated and need to be extensively modernized. Strategic planning for managing information technology investments is minimal but is getting some attention. Policies and procedures to effectivel...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Exhibits and Figures
• Preface
• 1. Why Study MIS in the Public Sector?
• 2. Information Technology for Decision Making
• 3. Hardware and Software Issues
• 4. Managing the Agency’s Data Resources
• 5. The Telecommunications Revolution
• 6. The Internet Revolution
• 7. Systems Development and Implementation
• 8. Transforming Government with Technology
• 9. End User Computing Issues
• 10. Acquiring Technology Solutions
• 11. Information Security
• 12. Managing Information Strategically
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Web Sources
• Index
• About the Author