Throughout the project, participants were asked to identify the challenges to producing value for the state through the current enterprise IT governance structure and to describe the value that the current structure creates. Participants described a wide range of challenges to value creation related to clarity of governance roles and responsibilities, collaboration, and coordination, among others. We first present the challenges noted by the project participants and then the value they saw in the current IT governance structure. These observations helped inform the recommendations.

Lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities. Participants identified a range of concerns related to, and in some cases created by, a lack of role clarity. These concerns ranged from the lack of a formal statement of authority to a lack of confidence that advice and recommendations sought by CIO/OFT are actually considered in the decision making process. Participants also expressed frustration about the lack of clarity about who is responsible for determining the appropriate venue for resolving issues: the enterprise level, domain level, or agency level. This general lack of clarity makes it difficult to resolve issues of enterprise boundaries and responsibility for sorting issues and strategy questions to the appropriate venue.

CIO Council coordination challenges. Participants voiced concerns about the coordination of the CIO Council itself, noting the lack of clear communication channels between members and CIO/OFT. As a result, the Council has limited ability to set goals for its own activities and effectively advocate on behalf of the CIOs. The relationship between the Council and CIO/OFT, idealized as a partnership, is less so in practice due to what the participants describe as one-way communication from CIO/OFT to Council members. Current characteristics of the CIO Council contribute to these communication problems, such as the group size of 88 CIOs, which makes the Council meetings unsuitable as effective forums for deliberation and decision making. One participant noted that the meetings do not provide a forum for collaborative decision making, but are rather a “mailing list.”

Action Team Structure. Participants observed that the CIO Council Action Teams (ATs) were initially formed to be discussion forums for a specific topic. They were intended to provide a venue for the kind of engagement with issues not possible during full CIO Council meetings. However, the ATs have become less of a discussion body for making recommendations to CIO/OFT regarding IT policy and operations and more of a “staff model” for CIO/OFT. The original intent of the CIO Council was to provide in-depth comment and advice on strategic direction and policy proposals. It was also intended to develop collaborations and coordination of investment decisions, not as a research arm of the CIO/OFT. A review of the current charters of the ATs lays out agendas that are generally task oriented, rather than discussion oriented. The task responsibilities for the ATs have caused a strain on members who are attempting to design and develop programs without access to staff to carry out the related tasks. A further consequence of this structure is that AT members have limited time to devote to engaging in discussions on enterprise strategic direction and policy development due to their focus on task completion.

Lack of an opportunity for real and consistent local government participation. Local governments, participants noted, are not always involved early enough in policy and investment discussions that affect them directly. They feel that their voice is not always heard and therefore they have to address unintended consequences that result from decisions being made from a purely state-level perspective.

Missed opportunity for information sharing as a trigger for coordinated action. Participants expressed concerns about missed opportunities for coordinated action across agency-level initiatives due to a lack of information regarding those proposed initiatives. In particular they expressed frustration about the lack of access to the Annual Technology Planning (ATP) data sent to the CIO/OFT from the agencies. Ideally, ATP data should support the enterprise planning priorities of both CIO/OFT and the agencies.

Lack of clear and consistent engagement in policy setting and IT investment decision making. Participants throughout the project noted frustration in terms of the level of openness and engagement related to state-level policy setting and IT investment decision making.

Lack of opportunity to openly and consistently address issues concerning the meaning and use of the term enterprise. There is a lack of clarity and agreement about the differences between various meanings of this term. Enterprise has been used inconsistently as a noun referring to the state government as a whole, an individual department, or a collection of related agencies. Enterprise is also used as an adjective to characterize various policies or investments relevant to or affecting the state as a whole. It is often used as an adjective without clear understanding of what characteristics make a policy or investment an enterprise decision. Throughout the project, stakeholders expressed frustration about this lack of clarity. They noted little consistent use of any process or guidance from any policy documents about the conditions under which something might be considered an enterprise effort and what the consequence of such a designation might be.

Networking. The one value that resonated throughout discussions with the project participants was the value of social networking opportunities that the CIO Council provided agency CIOs. New York Participants noted that the current CIO Council provides a forum for networking and information sharing opportunities. Several CIOs told stories about how the meeting had allowed them to meet colleagues, explore common interests, and explore opportunities for collaboration. Participants noted that the meetings provide an environment for ad-hoc groups to form around areas of common interest, such as the Economic Securities and Human Services Advisory Board. Although the CIO Council is not the catalyst for initiatives such as this, it does provide a venue for agency CIOs to build the social capital necessary for sharing of such ideas. CIO Council meetings are also a forum for general announcements and briefings from CIO/OFT. Participants described two particular benefits of Council meetings: networking opportunities and resulting coordinated efforts.

Creating an organized voice. Participants recognized the value of using the CIO Council to collectively respond to challenges in the environment. The organized effort to address workforce issues and the negotiation of aggregate personal computer (PC) purchases are two examples. A professional organization that can act as an acknowledged voice for CIOs was recognized as unique in the state government.

Enhancing training opportunities. Participants noted the particular value of the CIO Council as a vehicle for creating economies of scale through training opportunities for multiple stakeholders. The CIO Council Workforce Action Team was able to recommend specific training to the CIO/OFT Training Academy, which then enhanced the value of that training.