All of the thirteen states in our structural profiles have created a state-level CIO and IT office; however, the scope, roles, and responsibilities granted to the state-level CIO, the IT office, and the agency CIOs differ from state to state. The position of the state-level CIO within the state hierarchy varies, but this placement is independent of their scope. For example, the state CIO may be a member of the governor’s cabinet, may be in charge of his or her own cabinet-level agency, or may be in charge of a unit or division for IT as part of another executive agency (most commonly a department of administration). An exception to this is Kansas, which has multiple state-level CIOs in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

Of the thirteen states in our structural review, two states—Michigan and Maine—characterized themselves as having a centralized IT governance structure. In both instances, the state-level CIO was the head of the state-level IT office; however, the position of the state-level CIO and the state IT office within the larger state hierarchy was different. Michigan’s state-level CIO has a cabinet-level position and the state IT office is a stand-alone agency. The Michigan approach differs from Maine, where the state CIO reports to an agency head rather than to a cabinet-level official or governor. However, both states use some form of agency liaison to coordinate between the state-level IT office and the agencies. In comparison with states that have federated IT governance, both make minimal use of external boards, councils, or committees to involve other stakeholders.

Eleven of the thirteen states use a federated governance structure (see Table 2). Within the eleven states, differences in the relationships among the state-level CIO, the state-level IT offices, and individual agency CIOs emerged. California had a state-level CIO at the cabinet level, but the State CIO did not oversee the state-level IT services office, which was embedded in another agency.¹⁴ As stated previously, Kansas has multiple state-level CIO type positions that span the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Like California, the other nine states have one state-level CIO, but he or she has responsibility for both policy and service functions. All eleven states use a variety of external committees, boards, and councils to aid coordination and collaboration between stakeholders.