Every information system operates in a larger context that includes the policy, legal, and economic environment; program rules; business processes; management techniques; and human and organizational limitations. Our review of the goals, methods, and problems encountered across the eleven projects revealed several environmental factors that made all systems more difficult and costly than they might have been. Figure 2 shows how these factors combine to produce these undesirable consequences.

Figure 2. Systemic Constraints on Effective State-local Systems

This is a period of cultural change in which much responsibility for public services is being “devolved” from the federal government to the states; states are trying to avoid placing “unfunded mandates” on local governments; and local officials are trying to serve citizens at lower cost but with greater attention to customer service and convenience. The interdependent nature of most new program initiatives means complexity beyond anything we have experienced in any one organization, no matter how large. These shifts in public policy must rely on effective links between state and local levels of government. Yet, the state-local context for information systems is complicated and often poorly understood. State agency staff tend to think of local governments as more or less similar operations. Local officials tend to view state agencies as organizations with independent authority to make decisions and act. Neither view is accurate. Not long ago, local government participation in state initiatives was often mandated by state law. Today that participation is more likely to be voluntary. Once, state agency regional offices were stepping stones on the career ladder for both state and local officials. Today, state agency presence in localities is greatly reduced as is the likelihood that a person will have job experience at both the state and local levels of government.

In terms of mission, it is simplistic, but useful, to think of local government agencies as falling into three categories: general purpose public service agencies (e.g. County, Town, Village, and City Clerks) offering well-defined routine transactions initiated by citizens; specialized program agencies (e.g. County Health Departments, City Assessors, Highway Departments, Local Social Services Districts) carrying out a dynamic set of related services that often involve ongoing relationships with customers; and administrative support offices (e.g. County Data Processing Departments, City Purchasing Offices) conducting a variety of centralized support and oversight functions.

In addition, local agencies respond to an array of elected officials, some of whom are department heads (such as the Clerks) and others who are responsible for overall executive and legislative functions (such as Mayors, County Executives, County Legislators, and Town Council Members). New York’s strong traditions of local autonomy and “home rule” mean that these officials take seriously their authority to act independently of the State or to exercise the options that state programs provide.

In general, state agencies specialize in single policy areas such as education, public health or transportation. Their programs are strongly influenced, if not wholly defined, by federal laws and regulations. They turn federal requirements into statewide policies, programs and procedures that have to work in all corners of the state— urban, rural; affluent and poor; industrial and agricultural. They usually manage statewide implementation through local governments as their agents. Each state agency tends to deal with one or very few kinds of local counterparts throughout the state (e.g., the State Health Department deals mostly with County Health Departments, the Office of Real Property Services deals mostly with City and Town Assessors and County Real Property Directors). State agencies rarely deal with local jurisdictions in their totality.

State agency staff tend to be highly specialized in their professions. Although all agencies have a cadre of general administrators and support staff, they are mostly made up of people with specialized skills and training, who are responsible for the statewide policy implications of single programs. By contrast, local officials often handle a variety of programs and issues. They are well-versed in the “street level” implications of programs.

It is easy to think of local government as a uniform public entity operating in our communities. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many different kinds of general purpose local jurisdictions. New York has 57 counties stretched from Lake Erie on the Canadian border, to the isolated tip of Long Island; 62 cities ranging from little Sherrill with a population of 2,864 to mammoth New York City, and 932 towns that are home to as few as 47 and as many as 725,605 New Yorkers. There are also thousands of special districts that manage schools, fire protection, sewers and water systems, transportation services, and other specialized activities. Within each kind of local jurisdiction there is an infinite variety of specific conditions:

• physical size and geography
• population size, density and demographic characteristics
• degree of and trends in urbanization
• types of businesses and educational institutions
• economic conditions
• volume of service transactions
• mix of state and local services offered
• kind, number, and specialization of staff
• kind, amount, and sophistication of information technology
• degree of formalization in organizational structure and functions
• the way these characteristics combine and interact to produce specific local conditions

Every level of government tries to carry out a large number of missions that often have little to do with one another: build roads, educate children, protect the environment, fight crime, create jobs. Each mission is usually associated with at least one agency that is organized, staffed, and funded to carry it out, usually in well-defined programs authorized in law. As a result, program boundaries become a major defining factor in government operations. Programs are authorized by statute, funded by specific appropriations, and assigned to a lead agency. Rules, regulations, procedures, and information requirements are defined. Often, computer systems are developed to help manage the flow of information that keeps the program in operation. There are very few incentives for staff to look outside their program boundaries to share responsibility or information or to integrate their operations with related programs. Even in the same agency, programs usually serve to divide rather than connect groups of people with similar responsibilities. Systems that support service programs reflect this “stove pipe” way of organizing work.

The decade of the 1980s introduced powerful new computing and communications technologies to government operations. Today at the end of the 1990s, the old, rigidly structured, inflexible technologies and systems of earlier decades are beginning to be joined or replaced by more flexible systems that rely on networks, new methods of electronic communication, industry and international standards, and very powerful hardware and software tools. Technologies such as electronic imaging, electronic work flow, e-mail, electronic data interchange, and the World Wide Web make it possible to share and transport information in ways that could not be imagined in the 1970s. These tools now make integrated programs technically feasible, although by no means easy to design, implement, and operate. However, the electronic revolution has not reached into every corner of our society or every government office that serves local communities. Wide discrepancies in technical capacity from one place to another severely limit the degree to which these new tools can be applied to program management and information sharing goals.

In addition, these technologies demand significant human and organizational change. Consider these examples: A computer on the desktop is meaningless unless a worker is trained to use it effectively. Networks change the flow, location, and accessibility of information and therefore change working relationships. Imaging and work flow tools allow work to be conducted simultaneously on different parts of a problem, rather than through a series of sequential handoffs.

The American political system is inherently resistant to change. The very structure of our government allows change only when there is agreement among a number of individuals and institutions. By codifying governmental activities in law and regulation, we ensure stability in operations, but also make change difficult to achieve. The budgetary process, civil service requirements, and procurement and ethics laws all act as brakes on the ability of any one actor to make and implement decisions. Moreover, federal, state, and local electoral, budgetary, and legislative cycles may not coincide, making intergovernmental initiatives even more difficult to define and implement.

In addition, sheer complexity makes change difficult. The state-local environment is extraordinarily complex on a number of dimensions: organizational size, number of organizations, number and skills of staff, size of budget, financial practices, legal authority, programmatic focus, and geographic dispersion. Existing systems are an additional limiting factor. Only so much change is possible in an environment that depends on information systems already in place  especially ones that were designed and implemented using older technologies.

Finally, in some cases, new state-local initiatives threaten a comfortable status quo. They promise big changes that not every participant is eager to see. Fear and resistance to change exist even in the best planned and managed projects. A new way of doing business threatens existing personal, organizational, programmatic, and political conditions by rearranging authority, influence, power, resources, and information.