Taken together, Figures 1 and 2 illustrate why New York State and local government officials sought to carefully explore and prototype the idea of a single point of contact for G2G work. The current situation is inefficient, complex, and expensive, but alternative approaches present some daunting challenges for which there is little practical experience. Thus, the idea of a prototype project was adopted as a useful way to understand the feasibility of moving from the current state to a more integrated future.

Working with a broadly representative project Advisory Committee, the project planners used their experiences and mutual desire for a better situation to envision an ideal fully functioning state-local gateway for government business in New York State. They conceptualized the gateway as a single secure place on the Internet which would channel all G2G work. They called the idea a "gateway" rather than a "portal" to avoid confusion with the common use of portals to offer services to the public.

The participants elaborated on their ideal by specifying a number of desirable characteristics.

Joint governance. The ideal gateway would be governed jointly by state and local organizations through a formal governing structure. This structure would include fair representation of state, county, and municipal stakeholders. It would also include open communication, and joint problem-solving and decision-making mechanisms.

Gateway design driven by genuine business needs. Each application would address information and management needs associated with a particular business function that is relevant to both state and local organizations. Each application would provide business value right from the start, even with less than full participation of all state and local agencies.

Affordability to all interested participants. The costs associated with adopting and using the gateway would not be prohibitive to any state agency, county, or municipality.

Financial solvency. The gateway would be designed to offset initial investments and ongoing costs through future cost reductions to all participants.

Protection from threats and misuse. The gateway would be protected from external threats and internal misuse by jointly established security features and policies. Access would be limited to authorized personnel assigned roles associated with specific functional requirements. Standard security measures would be in place to protect the infrastructure, transactions, and data.

High quality, accurate, and authentic data. Data sources and associated metadata used in the gateway would be assessed for "fitness for use" and authenticity. Data quality and usability would rely on designated data owners and clear processes for additions, corrections, and updates. Data cleansing and analysis tools and data management services would be available to users.

Modular, flexible, and versatile in design and content. Envisioned in its entirety, the gateway would be built in a gradual fashion, according to current needs and available resources, delivering both near- and long-term benefits. Its modular nature would not require immediate full participation of all state and local agencies for successful initial performance. The gateway would also follow an evolutionary development strategy where ongoing evaluation leads to continual improvement. Information and applications would use a standard set of conventions and continually be evaluated for usability and improvement under a variety of local conditions. New business-driven information resources and applications would be added regularly.

Accommodation of users with varying levels of skill. The gateway would be designed to accommodate users with low technical skills. It would be intuitive, transparent, and simple to use with a common vocabulary, and a single sign-on. Issues of accessibility would be addressed appropriately. The gateway would be accompanied by solid user support mechanisms and training programs.

Responsiveness to the needs of users. Applications would be designed from the user point of view. Online help would be readily available, as well as immediate real-time confirmation of processed transactions.

High reliability and availability to all state and local users. Appropriate connectivity would be available to all participants including adequate basic infrastructure from desktop equipment and software to network speed and bandwidth.

Capability to incorporate other existing efforts. To take advantage of existing investments, useful characteristics of existing projects and applications that address shared processes and business needs would be incorporated into the gateway.

The project planners also sought specific categories of benefits from an ideal gateway.

Efficiency. The ideal gateway would save time and money by reducing the manual workload and duplication of tasks, as well as achieving economies of scale. It would allow creative and efficient use of existing funds, systems, and infrastructure already in place at all levels of government. It would also promote quicker and more reliable and complete communication among all levels of government.

Improved coordination and consistency.Shared processes, common data definitions, and more logical programmatic connections would yield better coordination between the state and local levels, and more consistent program designs and internal operations thus leading to better quality services.

Data quality and access. Re-use of well-defined, consistent, complete, and accurate data would allow the same information to satisfy multiple demands and support greater data integration and utility for multiple users. Improved intergovernmental data management would reduce costs and promote wider responsibility for information stewardship across government.

The foregoing characteristics and potential benefits of an ideal gateway would not emerge without significant effort to overcome key barriers. The project planners described these barriers.

Cost. Concerns were expressed about the initial and ongoing costs of a gateway, as well as concerns about the distribution of costs across levels and units of government with different budget cycles, spending priorities, and revenue capacities.

Complexity. Multiple and conflicting state business rules and practices often prevent needed coordination among agencies and programs at both state and local levels. This problem is often tied to the fact that many programs are federally defined and funded so that rules and practices are not always within the state's authority to change. Furthermore, the diversity of local governments adds to the complexity. Local capabilities and practices are far from uniform from place to place because they are locally devised to accommodate community-level demographics, economies, infrastructures, and needs. Finally, any effort to create a common gateway must recognize the many legacy systems supporting established programs that cannot be replaced or significantly changed in the near future.

Politics. Political support for a state-local gateway will compete with many other governmental priorities and there will be difficulty maintaining political support across the election cycles of so many jurisdictions. Concerns about control and management of the overall effort stem from questions about who will have authority to do what. In addition, some agencies and local governments may resist opening their data to new uses or users.