A coordination mechanism is defined as “any administrative tool for achieving integration among different units within an organization.”¹⁵ Within the states reviewed, there are a range of mechanisms that integrate and coordinate diverse stakeholder views. These coordination mechanisms all exhibit structural, functional, and social integration capability.¹⁶ Some states use only one or two types of mechanisms, while others use a variety of interrelated coordination mechanisms. The participants involved in these coordination mechanisms were drawn from four main sources: (1) control agencies such as administration, budget, or general services; (2) the private sector; (3) agency CIOs, and (4) the general public. The variation can be seen in (1) where they were positioned within the state hierarchy (level), (2) authority granted and by what means (i.e., legislative, executive order, etc.), (3) scope, roles, responsibilities, and (4) membership. Four coordination mechanisms were consistently found across the states:

• External committees, councils, and boards outside the control of the state-level IT office. The state-level CIO or agency CIOs may have roles in these bodies either as a chair or participant. These coordinating mechanisms are generally created for a host of different purposes with different levels, authority, scope, and responsibilities.


• Communities of Practice (CoP) in which people with like needs come together to solve problems relevant to the community. Some CoPs have formalized their own IT governance activities and some have been recognized as part of the larger state IT governance picture. However, the majority appear to be informally created and thus not necessarily identified in official documents.


• Enterprise oriented offices, divisions, or units within the state-level IT office have a sole responsibility to look across the state for opportunities where individual agencies or the state as a whole can benefit from an enterprise approach to IT.


• Agency liaison staff are used to elicit the needs from the state agencies and gather feedback from them. The state-level IT offices create agency service units with liaison relationships to each state agency or a cluster of agencies perceived as being part of the same domain.

States with federated IT governance structures tend to have more coordination mechanisms than states with centralized structures. That observation aside, the nature of these coordination mechanisms and their role overall IT governance of the state varies greatly. California’s Technology Services Board (CTSB) is an advisory board made up of agency level CIOs and is assigned the responsibility of providing feedback to the Department of Technology Services (DTS), which is responsible for the provision of enterprise IT services across the state. In contrast, Minnesota created a Technology Business Council that brings together CIOs, CEOs, and COOs from various private enterprises in order to advise the state-level CIO on new technology trends. A third variation is Virginia’s Information Technology Investment Board (ITIB), made up of eight citizens and two ex officio members, the Auditor of Public Accounts from the legislative branch and the Secretary of Technology. The Board’s responsibility is to review, prioritize, and recommend enterprise-wide investments to the governor.

Pennsylvania provides an example where multiple coordination mechanisms work together. The Pennsylvania Enterprise Governance Board is made up of the state-level CIO, secretaries of Administration, Budget, and General Services, and the Governor’s Chief of Staff. The Board has the power to approve IT plans and direct IT investments of individual agencies; it also formally recognizes the Communities of Practice (CoPs). In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted CoPs as an integral part of the Pennsylvania’s IT/business integration strategy. The activities of Pennsylvania’s CoPs are important to its larger picture of IT governance at the state-level. The CoPs bring together a cluster of agencies with similar missions and needs to promote integrated technology solutions. Although most states do have community of practice groups, usually centered around GIS or public safety, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the only one to formalize this concept and make it visible in its description of state-level IT governance strategy.

Specific statewide or enterprise offices can be found in both centralized and federated structures. However, in centralized structures the enterprise offices or agency liaisons are likely to have a larger role. For example, Michigan created a Bureau of Agency Services to ensure that agency perspective and needs are adequately represented within a centralized structure. The office is responsible for assigning liaison staff (officially called Agency Information Officers) who are responsible for individual agencies that are large in scope, such as the Department of Health or Transportation, or a cluster of agencies considered to be part of one domain.