From Keystone to E-Stone: Assessing Architectural Innovation in State ...

From Keystone to E-Stone: Assessing Architectural Innovation in State Government

Charles C. Hinnant Department of Public Administration & Policy School of Public and International Affairs The University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 (P) 706-583-0553 (F) 706-583-0610 (E) [email protected] Sara Reagor School of Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 (P) 814-865-2230 (F) 814-865-6426 (E) [email protected] Steve Sawyer School of Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 (P) 814-865-4450 (F) 814-865-6426 (E) [email protected]

Paper Prepared for the National Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., October 9-11, 2003.

1 From Keystone to E-Stone: Assessing Architectural Innovation in State Government Abstract This study examines how information and communication technologies (ICT) architecture within a state government may be altered to support the adoption of e-government initiatives. This research focuses on analyzing the state-level efforts of the Office of Information Technology (OIT) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This organization is responsible for an ongoing effort to develop a reflective planning approach and to mitigate some the risks related to ICT planning efforts associated with adopting e-government within other state agencies. We employ a range of qualitative research techniques, in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and extended archival analysis, to provide us the evidence to examine the adoption of e-government technologies within Pennsylvania. Evidence indicates that systematic planning and inter-agency coordination within Pennsylvania’s state government laid a foundation for the wide adoption of e-government strategies. Study findings highlight the need to consider the interaction between a government’s institutional and technical environment when adopting widespread technical-based reforms.

2 We are interested in the ways that institutional arrangements shape, and are shaped by, information and communications technologies (ICT). By institution we mean here the enduring social structures that people create and use to organize and conduct social interactions (Scott, 2001, Agre, 2003). In this paper we pursue what it means to use ICT as a means to enable institutional change. To do this we report on an analysis of recent state-level efforts of the Office of Information Technology (OIT) in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PA). The OIT is responsible for an ongoing effort to develop a reflective planning approach and to mitigate some the risks related to ICT planning efforts associated with adopting e-government within state government and related agencies. We focus on PA’s OIT for three reasons. First, the commonwealth of PA reflects the large, complex, institution that is a living laboratory for a study of institutional arrangements. Second, by many external measures, the PA Commonwealth’s efforts in adopting new ICT are a revelatory setting for studying ICT-enabled institutional change (Yin, 1984). Third, we believed, based on our initial research on ICT uses in contemporary public sector organizations that the particular approach taken by the PA/OIT leadership reflects the principles of architecture that we suspected would be a key element of success. By architecture we refer to principles of that relate specific elements together into a larger design. Architecture here is not a metaphorical position. It is an explicit acknowledgement that the arrangements among particular computing platforms, applications, databases and uses can be designed (Henderson and Clark, 1990; Agre, 1999; 2000). Thus a collection of disparate ICT may, together, reflect a purposeful (or accidental) design that, in turn, both matches to, and possibly can later alter, the institutional context in which it resides.

3 To help us make our points, this paper continues in six parts. In the next part we explain our interests in studying the relationships among ICT and public organizations. In section two we briefly outline both the study design, data collection, and data analysis. In section three (along with Appendix A) we develop the case study. In section four we highlight and discuss relevant findings. In section five we draw on the case study analysis to reflect on current conceptualizations of ICT architecture and the institutional nature of ICT. In section six we briefly discuss some of the implications of our work.

1. Why Study ICT and Organizations? Our interest in theory building is driven by both contemporary interest in, and 40 years of literature on, the roles of ICT in large organizations. The 40 years’ worth of findings indicates, and current thinking reinforces, that ICT are often seen as a means of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of organizational activities. For instance, the “reinventing” government movement within the federal government relied on the belief that an increased reliance on using ICT would improve performance and increase accountability (Osborne and Gaebler, 1993; Gore, 1998). This is not surprising since more timely, accurate, accessible and useable information is often seen as the means to improve a variety of organizational and institutional processes. Within the literature, the uses of ICT are often seen as a means to enhance decision-making, increase managerial control (or at least oversight), improve efficiency and effectiveness of operations, and create more productive work environments (Kraemer, Dutton, and Northop, 1981). While proposed benefits of ICT are often well articulated and well intentioned, they are not always realized. It may be that introducing ICT leads to unanticipated effects. For instance,

4 findings from research on the adoption of ICT indicates that power within the organization may not only reinforce current social arrangements and yield higher productivity but may also shift power towards high level management (Kraemer and King, 1986; Kraemer, King, Dunkle, and Lane, 1989). Moreover, adoption of ICT may shift power towards those in the organization who management the technology itself (Kraemer and King, 1986; Kraemer, King, Dunkle, and Lane, 1989; Bugler and Bretschneider, 1993). Through the 1990s, adoption of wide-area computer networks such as the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW)1, by the public, educational institutions and private sector organizations has helped spur a resurgent interest in using these ICT as means to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of public organizations. Using ICT in public organizations is far from a new phenomenon. Using them to communicate directly with, and provide services directly to, stakeholders is a relatively new occurrence2. While some studies have attempted to explore the ramifications of using ICT to transform traditional institutional structural arrangements, much more work is needed (Fountain, 2001). Some recent research has gone even further, arguing that many state and local governments are far from realizing the potential benefits of technological systems such as the WWW (West, 2001; Moon, 2002). This further encourages us to focus on PA’s OIT as an exemplar of what state and local governments can achieve using ICT. 2. Study Design, Data Collection and Analysis This study draws on three conceptual areas: innovation theory, concepts of computing architecture, and concepts of institutional theory (explained in more detail below). We use these

1

In this paper we use WWW and Internet as synonyms while acknowledging that these are different technologies that rely on the same transmission and distribution media. 2 The uses of ICT by public organizations to provide information and services to stakeholders is generally been dubbed electronic (or e-) government and digital (or d-) government.

5 to help us examine how the ICT architecture and institutional arrangements of state government are altered when adopting e-government. We go on to speculate on how such changes in overall system design influence the possibility of successful implementation of e-government strategies within public organizations. To do this we draw on a case study of PA’s OIT efforts from 19942003. As is typical with case studies, we gather data through in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and the use of both archival records and public documents (Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead, 1987; Cats-Baril and Thomson, 1995; Landsbergen and Wolken, 2001). This evidence is used to help us examine the adoption of ICT to support e-government initiatives within Pennsylvania during a time when federal, state, municipal and local governments were all racing to deploy and extend their digital presence. We also compare the Pennsylvania case to information of e-government efforts in other states to provide both a context and a comparison. After three years of preliminary research about which e-government efforts on which to focus, including more than two years of negotiations with PA stakeholders for access, we began interviews in early 2003. We left the field in September 2003 after having conducted more than 20 detailed interviews (conducted both face-to-face and over the telephone). During this time we collected several hundred relevant documents (from both state and personal archives), emails and publicly available reports, press releases, and news reports. Stakeholders both within the current and former administration’s OIT (and senior management team) and stakeholders outside of both administrations participated. We had unprecedented access to key players who were both (and we think rightly) proud of their efforts and very anxious for others to learn about the processes by which they brought Pennsylvania from being the ‘keystone’ state to becoming the ‘e-stone’ state (a term we, not they, used). In this paper we focus on the institutional frame in which ICT diffuse, highlighting structural change.

6 Our analysis reflects a two-pronged approach. We used historical analysis to develop a time line of events and activities and use a temporal frame. We taped and transcribed all interviews (and when this was not possible, we relied on our detailed field notes). From the field notes, interview transcriptions, and archival records we identified evidence of institutional structure of ICT using both interim analyses tied to iterations through the documents, notes and transcripts (e.g., Miles and Huberman, 1990). Through this iterative process we drew out the findings that we report on in this paper. The findings reported here provide evidence that systematic planning and inter-agency coordination within Pennsylvania’s state government laid a foundation for the wide adoption of e-government. Further analysis should help assess how the architectural changes within institutional ICT systems inhibit or help the successful implementation of e-government technologies within state governments.

3. Pennsylvania’s Transition to E-Government Our premise in doing this study is that the uses of ICT cannot be separated from its institutional context (e.g., Sawyer and Eschenfelder, 2002). Factors arising from the internal and external environments often play major roles in both the initial choice to innovate and subsequent activities that may determine the ultimate success or failure of the innovation process. Thus, our discussion of Pennsylvania’s architectural transformation relative to using ICT begins with an assessment of the political, institutional and technological context.

7

3.1 A Prologue to Architectural Transformation In the early 1990’s Pennsylvania government was composed of approximately 152,000 employees (FTE) to administer to an estimated population of 12 million citizens and state government revenues totaled approximately $36.7 billion (U.S. Census, 1992). Pennsylvania’s economy was still dependent on traditional manufacturing-based industries. As Table 1 shows, 19.9% of the workforce was employed in manufacturing, 6.09% by construction-related employment, and 21.4% where employed by whole or retail trade industries. By early 1996, Pennsylvania was ranked 47th in job growth rate. Not surprisingly, by the time the Ridge administration took office in 1995, there was perceived need to move the state economy and labor force toward new forms of economic development that were less likely to focus on traditional blue-collar manufacturing jobs. While the state economy was still undergoing a transition away from traditional industries, state government was also seemingly stuck within an outmoded technological paradigm. The Commonwealth did not possess a state presence on the WWW until early in the Ridge administration, Pennsylvania’s annual investment in electronic data processing and telecommunications was estimated to be $275 million (IMPACCT). Within state government, the ICT infrastructure of most Commonwealth agencies had fallen behind industry standards and agencies often held firmly to a belief that each agency should have control of both the information that it generated, and used, as well as the hardware and software used to manage it. Thus, there were thirteen data centers, each operating relatively independently, with little redundancy, or oversight. Moreover, systems were failing, downtime was rising, service-levels were dropping, as was the morale of the Commonwealth’s technical staff.

8 One report undertaken early in Ridge administration indicated that agencies lagged behind common standards for information systems management. For instance, Commonwealth agencies spent 29% more on applications development and relied more heavily on 3rd generation languages than similar organizations. Sixty-two percent of applications were written and maintained in COBOL as compared to 42% in similar organizations (Breaking through Barriers). In regards to information management, the Commonwealth’s government maintained 30 different data centers in order to maintain agency data resources with little ability, or desire, to share information. Furthermore, Pennsylvania lagged behind other states in the establishment of a government-wide presence on the WWW and did not establish such a presence on the WWW until October of 1995 (and only West Virginia and Mississippi trailed PA onto the web). In 1992 Governor Casey commissioned the “Improve Management Performance and Cost Control Task Force” (IMPACCT). Their report, published in 1993, recommended that the Commonwealth develop a long-range IT management strategy, improve the cost effectiveness of IT investments, better serve citizens through the use of IT, employ IT to make the Commonwealth more competitive, improve the use of IT by regulatory agencies by regulatory agencies, and improve the operations of agencies through the use of IT. The report laid out that a case that initial investments in the state’s IT and telecommunications infrastructure could ultimately yield a 5-10% savings in the state’s annual IT outlays. The report specifically recommended seven strategic actions in regards to state government IT investment: • Reexamine agency policies regarding the sharing of information • Alter personnel policies in order to provide competitive compensation for high level IT managers and technical staff • Move toward off-the-shelf application procurement instead of in-house development • Create an inventory for reuse of packages already developed by the Commonwealth

9 • Select a suite of software engineering tools for use by all agencies in developing new custom applications • Move toward the development of relational databases • Revise procurement standards to assure that they meet required standards, improve competition, and reduce vendor prices. At about the same time the IMPACCT report was released (1993) Governor Casey created the Office of Information Technology within Commonwealth’s Office of Administration (OA, the administrative arm of PA state government), effectively creating a ‘chief information officer’ (CIO) with standing as a deputy secretary. The first holder of the position was a wellknown, high-profile, visionary leader and he took as his job to make known that OIT existed, had a mission, and would be a champion for IT within the Commonwealth’s government.

3.2. From Keystone to E-stone In 1994 Tom Ridge was voted into office because he promised economic development and increased attention to supporting education (and increase citizen’s job prospects while reducing the state’s brain drain of younger and higher-educated workers who were leaving PA at rates higher than the rest of the US). A key element of this effort was the use of ICT for both economic development and education. However, as Table 2 shows, many of the Ridge administration’s strategic objectives and investments did not begin to be implemented until fiscal year 1997-1998. In Table 3 we lay out a timeline of activities and events that reflect the transformation efforts undertaken during the Ridge/Schweicker administration(s)3. In Appendix A we provide

3

In 2001 Governor Ridge took the position as Secretary of Homeland Security in the Federal government and Lt. Governor Mark Schweicker completed the second term that Ridge had begun.

10 short summaries of each of these activities and events. A more detailed discussion of the process is beyond the scope of this paper.

3.3. Assessing the Transformation These investments in e-government projects did assist in bringing about new managed innovation within Pennsylvania’s state government agencies. In regards to serving citizens, the focus was on developing a government-wide website, or portal to facilitate information dissemination to citizens and other stakeholders such as business. During this time the state, while a late adopter of ICT, became very focused on developing, procuring and using ICT to enable government. This focus was quickly noticed. For example, evaluations of the state’s web portal (PA PowerPort) consistently rated it at, or near, the top of the list when compared to other state web portals. For example, researchers at Brown University rated state web presences according to a survey of chief information officers and the evaluation of website content. Studies conducted in 2000 rated PA’s PowerPort portal as 4th best behind Texas, Minnesota, and New York, respectively (West, 2000). Follow-up studies conducted by the same research team in 2001 and 2003 rated PA’s PowerPort as 8th and 7th best, respectively. Another evaluation conducted by Government Technology Magazine rated the PowerPort as 2nd best state government portal in 2001 and 3rd best in 2002. In both years, PA’s portal was designated a “Best of the Web” site. External assessment of the Commonwealth’s overall IT infrastructure and management during the Ridge/Schweicker administration was also relatively positive. Studies such as the Government Performance Project (GPP) graded the Commonwealth’s management of IT as a “B” in 1999 and as a “B+” in 2001. While the use of letter grades makes comparisons difficult,

11 only six states (Michigan, Montana, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington) received higher grades in 1999 and only six states (Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) received higher grades in 2001. This collection of multiple external assessments suggests that the efforts PA made (and that OIT led) towards embracing e-government were both successful and noticeable. This progress and success is even more impressive given the level of disarray relative to ICT that characterized PA state government in the early 1990s. Moreover, this progress must also be set against the concurrent efforts going on in the other states. Thus, PA’s journey from near-thebottom to near-the-top is even more noteworthy.

4. Discussion of Findings We initiated this study to explore the relationships among the arrangements of ICT (architecture) and the enduring social structures (institutions). These are represented here by the movement to e-government as a means to represent ICT architecture. In the same way, the institutional nature of ICT is represented by complexities of Pennsylvania’s state government agencies. In the next section (section five) we turn our attention to the nature of architecture and the role of institutions. Here we highlight three findings drawn from our analysis of PA’s effort to embrace e-government.

4.1 Leadership in Action The 43 agencies and departments that, together, make of PA state government reflect the institutional complexity of modern public organization. The Ridge/Schweiker administration was successful in selecting leaders for (or motivating incumbents of) these agencies and

12 departments who would be decisive, team-players, and aligned with the economic development and educational excellence vision that Governor Ridge promoted. From early in 1994, Governor Ridge actively promoted the use of ICT to further these goals, and took every opportunity to speak on ICT’s value, the emerging role of OIT and the desire for PA state government to take advantage of new technologies. This visible advocacy for the uses of ICT was matched by organizational changes to ensure that OIT (through the Secretary of Administration, Tom Paese) had a place at the biweekly senior executives meeting that Ridge (and later Schweiker) held. Further, longstanding personal and informal connections among CIO’s Olson and Gerhards and PA budget leadership were reinforced through a series of meetings where the OIT leadership helped develop metrics to evaluate ICT proposals, providing both evidence and explanation and working closely with budgeting staff to assure that there were ways to measure ICT projects. This quiet leadership reinforced the public advocacy while also legitimizing the role of ICT as a means to pursue egovernment efforts. Within OIT all three CIO’s worked to attract staff members who had skills in economic development, public relations, quantitative analysis, technology and consensus-building. The staff was further encouraged to take on big-ideas, to learn from mistakes, and to pursue a range of projects tied to either economic development or educational excellences. Simply, the combination of clear and active issue advocacy from senior executives, the legitimization that access to both budget and senior cabinet counsel provided, the analytic approach to taking on ICT projects, and the willingness to take risks reflect leadership in action.

13 4.2 The Office of Information Technology’s Central Role Until 1994, there was no central office focused on the role and value of ICT in state government, and each of the agencies and departments had their own ICT leadership. By the time that Charlie Gerhards took over as CIO, the OIT had in five years taken a central role relative to e-government and ICT in PA state government. This office brought together longtime members of PA government (such as the head of telecommunications) a group of newcomers to both the public sector and PA government. This mix of insiders and outsiders, of youth and experience, combined with a desire by the CIO and other senior executive leaders to reward risk-taking, led to a series of seven major e-government initiatives in three years. The OIT arranged Commonwealth Connect – a common desktop software and email standard. They consolidated the data centers and telecommunications, developed a streamlined ICT procurement process (ITQ), established an integrated criminal justice system (JNET) and statewide radio system, embarked on several government-to-business web portals (PA Open for Business) and developed a state portal providing a range of services (PA Powerport). Pennsylvania was one of the very first states to embark on the multi-year effort to link together their governmental operations through the use of an enterprise system (Imagine PA). The decision to purchase and implement SAP reflects a long-term view of this ICT as a platform or enabler of future e-government opportunities. Many of these projects were funded in part by an innovative technology investment program (TIP) that allowed the CIO to fund e-government initiatives that embodied or enabled economic development or educational excellence. The money from TIP and the leadership by OIT staff made this (new) office a central node in e-government.

14 4.3 Keeping the Big Picture View The guiding principles of OIT were set out in a short (six page) document. These principles depicted ICT as a lever to enable economic development, reflected private-sector sophistication in developing ICT combined with public-sector ideals of service delivery and access. The OIT staff took an analytic orientation, focusing on getting evidence and using it to make their point. This attention to evidence, and the efforts to gather and report data, helped to establish OIT’s legitimacy at first. Later, this focus led to increased funding levels for TIP and the ability to take on more, and larger, collaborative (multi-agency) e-government initiatives. The ability of the CIO and other executive leaders to link this evidence to their interest in economic development helped to further both the administration’s strategic goals and the OIT’s desire to develop a world-class e-government portfolio. During this time, the CIO arranged for quarterly meetings with CIO’s of major corporations in PA. In these meetings the OIT staff talked through both strategic initiatives and current operational issues, drawing on both the talent and experience of the private-sector ICT leadership. The OIT staff and the CIO also worked informally (but systematically) to learn about, and review, the ICT plans of the various state agencies and departments, matching these against the guiding principles. This attention to both internal oversight and the use of expert external (to public sector organizations) advice is additional evidence of a broad-minded effort to wring the maximum value out of e-government investments.

5. Institutional Change and Architectural Innovation Public government is a complex institutional milieu, leading Donna Shalala (1998) to wonder if they can be managed. One of the reasons that ICT are taken up in public government

15 is to serve as a catalyst for change. Too often institutional complexity couples with institutional inertia and ICT-enabled change does not occur. We identify three institutional actions that helped, in part, lead to PA’s success with e-government from 1995 through 2001? First, the senior executive leadership activity advocating ICT as a means to achieve the administration’s goals forced e-government initiatives into the institutional discourse. Second, by creating and then making OIT a central element in ICT funding, and particular champion of e-government initiatives, the Ridge/Schweicker administration altered existing (formal and informal) institutional arrangements. Third, the PA executive leadership created vehicles (such as TIP and Imagine PA) that altered the ways in which ICT projects, and particularly e-government projects could be funded and administered. These three actions map to the core of what defines an institution: cognitive awareness, regulatory structure and a set of social norms (Scott, 2001; Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan, 1977, Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). The executive leadership effort and the changes to institutional discourse reflect the cognitive aspect of an institution. When the new administration began speaking of ICT as a means for economic development, that PA government needed to embrace the web and to deliver services to its constituencies more directly, they changed people’s perceptions and expectations. When OIT, as a new organizational unit, began to aggressively pursue e-government projects, providing both empirical support and drawing on the gubernatorial support to do so, they changed existing institutional arrangements. The OIT staff began conducting oversight on agency ICT budgets. The OIT staff re-shaped the Commonwealth’s computing and telecommunications infrastructure, pursuing consolidation, standardization and commoditization. These changes altered existing practices around ICT, changed the decision-making processes

16 regarding ICT and e-government projects, and re-shaped expectations of how state government served its citizens. These changes to the social norms regarding both ICT and e-government were magnified by structural changes to procurement, the mandated use of a common computing system (SAP: the enterprise application) and the TIP finding. Together, these three findings suggest that institutional change demands concurrent efforts to change the cognitive basis of understanding, the social norms regarding conduct, and the regulatory structures that guide action. These do not seem to be sequential acts, they do seem to reinforce one-another. Thus, we speculate that institutional change demands a concerted and coordinated effort to change the way people perceive their world combined with a reshaping of both the regulatory structure and social norms of action. Further, our evidence from this single case suggests that institutional norms are more easily changed by the creation of new units than by changing current units.

5.1 Architectural Innovation The roles that ICT play in institutional change can be seen as architectural innovation. An architecture represents a set of design decisions that bring together different elements into a coherent whole (Henderson and Clark, 1990; Agre; 2000, 2003). Moreover, architecture is multi-faceted: you might be interested in the overall design and, at the same time, focus on particular components of the design. In this way the ICT architecture of PA that emerged through the actions of OIT can be depicted as developing a common infrastructure (and in doing so discounting the need to design for particular unique needs). Another architectural view would be to focus on service. For example, OIT focused on servicing particular constituencies (such as

17 business services via PA Open for Business rather than, say, services for older adults via the PA PowerPort) that reflected the administration’s desire to spur economic development. The OIT’s role in both defining and evolving an ICT architecture reflects an adroit act of balancing particular agency needs, their power, current administration priorities, available technologies, the current ICT infrastructure, and an understanding of how any one project ties to the larger ICT architecture. The architectural principles pursued by PA’s OIT become relatively clear: demand a common computing infrastructure, consolidate resources and use commodities instead of custom-built applications, leverage service delivery applications (preferably via the WWW since it is the lowest cost network), and focus on economic development.

5.2 The Institutional Nature of Architectural Change The powerful simplicity of PA/OIT’s ICT architecture is rivaled by the nuanced ways in which it was enacted. The early projects combined extensive public relations to raise awareness, intensive communications efforts to both enlist relevant agencies and alert others, and a focus on getting media attention. These efforts focus on elevating the institutional awareness of OIT and e-government efforts. At the same time, the norms around funding ICT projects changed, and this change reflected new informal relationship between OIT and budget. Moreover, the other state agencies and departments were aware of OIT’s political voice (through Tom Paese, Secretary of Administration and a key member of the Ridge/Schweicker leadership team) and the importance of ICT as a means to achieve the goals of the administration. This model -- extensive public relations, scrutiny of ICT-oriented spending to assure it met the strategic vision for e-government, and both access to and active support from senior leadership – served as the basis for subsequent projects. When the Charlie Gerhards replaced

18 Larry Olsen as CIO, he took a lower-key approach, working through informal channels to fund, develop, and roll-out e-government efforts. He could do this because of his extensive personal contacts (an outcome of his years in public service), his reputation as a consensus-builder and problem-fixer, and his integrity. It seems that informal connections were the primary vehicle through which OIT’s projects emerged from the institutional complexity of PA state government. In doing this, the elements of the ICT architecture (common computing infrastructure, consolidated resources and orientation to the web, and a focus on economic development) shaped the discussion. Driven by a desire to make change, armed with evidence of potential impact, relying on both the imbued power of strong, supportive leadership and personal credibility, the careful use of TIP funding (and ICT budgeting oversight) and enabled by a network of personal informal networks, OIT navigated institutional change in a fast-paced and pragmatic dance.

6. Implications This study has examined Pennsylvania’s Office of Information Technology in order to build theory regarding ICT and architectural innovation in state government. While this study utilizes data from a single case several important implications may be forwarded. First, the cognitive base for understanding, norms regarding conduct, and regulatory structures of institutions must all be addressed in order to be successful in achieving architectural innovation. In regards to public organizations, sustained support from political leaders and other administration officials, altering existing administrative arrangements, and creating new venues for developing and implementing projects are each important ingredients to creating lasting administrative reforms.

Second, architectural innovation is a multifaceted concept that may be

19 broad, or specific, in focus. Achieving long-term innovation is dependent on an adherence to clearly stated institutional goals, plans, and practices. As the institutional environment becomes more complex, focusing on achieving core goals is even more vital to the ultimate success of the institutional transformation. Finally, it is important to realize that the institutional and technical environments are inherently linked (Scott, 1992). Therefore, the successful adoption and use of any new ICT is likely dependent not only on the immediate technical arrangements in which it resides but also on the broader institutional architecture of the government itself. As governments attempt to adopt new forms of ICT in order to achieve higher levels of efficiency or effectiveness, it is important to remember that technical innovation in the absence of sustained institutional innovation will likely fall short of initial goals.

20 References Agre, P. (1999)"The Architecture of Identity: Embedding Privacy in Market Institutions." Information, Communication and Society, Volume 2, Number 1, pp. 1-25. Agre, P. (2000)"Infrastructure and Institutional Change in the Networked University." Information, Communication and Society, Volume 3, Number 4, pp. 494-507. Agre, P. (2003) "Peer-to-peer and the promise of Internet equality." Communications of the ACM, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 39-42. Barrett, K. and R. Greene (2001) “Grading the States 2001: A Management Report Card”. Downloaded from http://governing.com/gpp/2001/gp1intro.htm on Sept. 1, 2003. Benbasat, I., D.K. Goldstein, and M. Mead (1987). “The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems” MIS Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 369-386. Bretschneider, S.I. (1990). “Manage Information Systems in Public and Private Organizations: An Empirical Test” Public Administration Review, vol. 50, no. 54, pp. 536-545. Bugler, D. and S.I. Bretschneider (1993) “Technology Push or Program Pull: Interest In New Information Technologies within Public Organizations” in B. Bozeman Ed, Public Management: The State of the Art, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Cats-Baril, W. and R. Thompson (1995). “Managing Information Technology Projects in the Public Sector” Public Administration Review, vol. 55, no. 6, November/December, pp. 559566. Gore, A. (1998) “Remarks to the Government and Results Conference” April 23, 1998. Retrieved August 22, 2000 from the World Wide Web: Http://ww.npr.gov/library/speeches/042398.html. Henderson, R.M. and K. B. Clark (1990). “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, pp. 3-30. Fountain, J. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Kraemer, K.L. and J.L. King (1986). “Computing and Public Organizations” Public Administration Review, vol. 46, pp. 488-496. Kraemer, K.L, J.L. King, D.Dunkle, and J.P. Lane (1989). Managing Information Systems: Change and Control in Organizational Computing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

21 Kraemer, K.L., W.H. Dutton, and A. Northrop (1981). The Management of Information Systems. New York: Columbia University Press. Landsbergen, D. and G. Wolken (2001) “Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology” Public Administration Review, March, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 206-220. Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan (1977). “Instituationalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, pp. 340-63. Moon, M.J. (2002) “The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?” Public Administration Review, July/August, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 424-433. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1993) Reinventing Government. Penguin Books: New York. Powell, W.W. and P.J. DiMaggio Eds.(1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Sawyer, S. and Eschenfelder, K. (2002) “Social Informatics: Perspectives, Examples, and Trends,” in Cronin, B. (Ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc./ASIST, 427-465. Scott, W. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Scott, W. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\ Shalala, Donna E. (1998) "Are Large Public Organizations Manageable?", Public Administration Review (July/August) pp. 284-289. U.S. Census (1992). Census of Governments. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. West, D.M. (2000) “Assessing E-Government: The Internet, Democracy, and Service Delivery by State and Federal Governments” Center for Public Policy, Brown University, Providence, RI. West, D.M. (2001) “State and Federal E-Government in the United States, 2001” Center for Public Policy, Brown University, Providence, RI. West, D.M. (2003) “State and Federal E-Government in the United States, 2003” Center for Public Policy, Brown University, Providence, RI. Yin, R.K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

22

Table 1: Pennsylvania Labor Force Characteristics: 1990 Persons >=16 years INDUSTRY % Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries 97,811 1.80 Mining 31,396 0.58 Construction 331,161 6.09 Manufacturing, nondurable goods 445,349 8.19 Manufacturing, durable goods 641,871 11.81 Transportation 241,749 4.45 Communications and other public utilities 134,992 2.48 Wholesale trade 234,880 4.32 Retail trade 931,987 17.15 Finance, insurance, and real estate 351,519 6.47 Business and repair services 236,825 4.36 Personal services 138,027 2.54 Entertainment and recreation services 56,928 1.05 Health services 539,555 9.93 Educational services 448,888 8.26 Other professional and related services 352,988 6.50 Public administration 218,606 4.02 (Total) 5,434,532 100.00 Note: Source U.S. Census Bureau

1994-95 20 Casey Admin.

1995-96 19.9

Table 2: IT Investment in PA 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 17.5 38.5 49.7 54.8

2000-01 136.5

2001-02 170.2

Ridge Admin. Ridge/Schweicker Admin. Implemetation of IT Projects Planning Phase Source: Pennsylvania Governor’s Office of Administration, 2001

23 Table 3: Pennsylvania Keystone to E-Stone Timeline 1993 •

Spring – IMPACCT report published

•

Summer – Office of Information Technology established and Walsh hired as first CIO.

1994 •

June 1994 – Tom Pease is hired as Secretary of Administration

•

Larry Olson is hired as IT director (CIO)

•

November -- Tom Ridge (R) elected Governor of PA

1995 •

Crime was made special topic of the First Special Session of the Ridge administration (beginnings of JNET)

•

August – Larry Olson appoints Charles Gerhards as director of the Commonwealth Technology Center (CTC)

•

October 19 – PA’s first homepage was introduced (48th state to do so)

1996 •

TIP fund created sometime in late 90’s to fund Y2K programs

•

Funding made available for the Criminal Justice Affinity Group – JNET

•

Tom Hutton joins the governor’s office of general council in the Ridge Administration, begins work on e-commerce initiatives and revising PA’s procurement laws.

•

Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) – first piloted with procurement of LAN

•

March – Leadership Committee for Integrated Justice formed to discuss JNET

•

November – JNET steering committee formed from the Criminal Justice Affinity Group to monitor the consulting firm’s work

•

Public Safety Radio Project Act passed (23 participating agencies)

1997

24 •

May - $11 million designated to begin building JNET

•

July – Data PowerHouse Project announced

•

August – Round table discussions began to select a vendor to standardize agencies under governor for office desktop software and e-mail – Commonwealth Connect

1998 •

Atlas database introduced and goes online – Technology Atlas

•

June – Contract with Microsoft finalized for Commonwealth Connect

•

October – JNET becomes operational

1999 •

Early – OIT begins exploring options for extending capabilities of PA homepage – “PA PowerPort”

•

Early – Began processes to select vendors for ERP and systems integrators for Imagine PA

•

January - Charles Gerhards appointed as CIO by Tom Ridge to replace Larry Olson

•

August – Finalized contract with Unisys Corporation as vendor for Data PowerHouse Project

•

September – Contracts for Public Safety Radio Project finalized (5 years)

•

October – PA Open for Business website is launched

2000 •

Early – Announcement of new telecom contract for Keystone Communications Project would be awarded to “PA Team,” a consortium of 16 companies led by Adelphia Business Solutions

•

Pilot project in Harrisburg begins testing for Public Safety Radio Project

•

May – Contract with Adelphia finalized for Keystone Communications Project

•

June - Beta version of PA PowerPort launched

25 •

June – Contract with SAP finalized for Imagine PA software vendor

•

Fall – Began transition to new telecom network (Keystone Communications Project)

•

August – Continuous enrollment begins in ITQ

•

October – Full transition to Data PowerHouse complete

•

October – Contract with Microsoft finalized for the PA PowerPort project

•

October – Official launch of the PA PowerPort website

2001 •

Early - Imagine PA project team created

•

February – Enhancements and personalization added to PA PowerPort

•

March – Contract with KPMG Consulting (with IBM as partner) finalized as system integrator for Imagine PA

•

May –38 agencies (over 30,000 PC users) moved to Commonwealth Connect e-mail network

•

May- Construction of enhanced PA Open for Business website begins

•

June – Remaining agencies to be migrated to Commonwealth Connect central e-mail system

•

June 30 – All agencies’ PCs (40,000 total) standardized on Commonwealth Connect desktop software

•

September – Debut of enhanced PA Open for Business website

•

October - Mark Schweiker becomes governor of PA, replacing Tom Ridge new Director of Homeland Security.

•

December – Most services for Keystone Communications Project to be online

2002 •

PA PowerPort placed 3rd in Best of the Web

•

Charlie Gerhards named Public Official of the Year

26 •

June 24 - Migration of the Public Safety Radio Project begins

•

July – Beginning of implementation of Imagine PA software (SAP -- leading ERP)

•

November – Ed Rendell (D) elected to be Governor of PA.

•

End of year – The majority of all agencies’ PCs (60,000 total) standardized on Commonwealth Connect desktop software and e-mail network

•

December – Full statewide transition for Keystone Communications Project expected

2003 •

January – Ed Rendell becomes Governor of PA

•

January – Most of migration to mySAP to be complete for Imagine PA project

•

March - Art Stephens appointed CIO, replacing Charles Gerhards

•

End of year – Most state agencies are to be using the Public Safety Radio Network

2004 •

January – SAP (ERP) software to be fully implemented for Imagine PA project

27 Appendix A: Summaries of PA E-Government Efforts Commonwealth Connect In 1997, the state of PA began roundtable discussion with leading software companies to explore the value of standardizing all agencies under the Governor on a single software package for handling office productivity and e-mail functions. Microsoft was chosen to reshape PA state government and make it a model for the public sector in the 21st century. The use of statewide standardized software has improved office productivity and reduced a wide range of cost factors. As a part of the Commonwealth Connect project, roundtable discussions were begun in August 1997 with several leading software companies to explore the possibility of standardizing all agencies under the Governor on a single software package for handling office productivity and email functions. After meeting over a period of eight months with representatives from Corel, Microsoft, Netscape, and Lotus, and evaluating these software companies on a number of factors, Microsoft was selected in June 1998 on the basis of its vision for creatively using its software products to make Pennsylvania's state government a model of the public sector in the 21st century. By standardizing with Microsoft for desktop functions and e-mail, it is easier for state employees to exchange files and e-mails, and the time needed for software training is greatly reduced. The savings over the three-year life of the Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft was $9.2 million, and state agencies have saved an additional $9 million annually by lowering the Commonwealth’s total cost of ownership for desktop software. Microsoft's proposal also included a commitment to become a full Commonwealth partner, investing $11.9 million for economic development and educational projects in PA communities. ERP (Imagine PA) For several years, the Governor’s Office and the Office of Information Technology (OIT) have recognized the need for updates or replacement of their business information systems. Rather than implement a patchwork solution, the OIT decided to deploy a new, fully integrated business planning information system, using Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. This project became known as Imagine PA. My SAP was selected from a competitive procurement process as the provider of the ERP software. This project, which is still in the implementation process, will help to better manage the accounting, budgeting, personnel, payroll, and purchasing functions for state agencies, as well as provide an improved infrastructure from which to deliver e-government services to Pennsylvanians. Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) When Governor Tom Ridge came to office, he recognized that the Request-for-Proposals (RFP) process was tedious, time-consuming and fraught with legal difficulties. He realized that the implementation of a streamlined procurement process could improve government productivity as

28 well as save time and money. This new initiative, Invitation to Qualify (ITQ), a number of vendors are pre-qualified to provide services and state agencies can select from this list of preapproved companies to meet their procurement needs. The ITQ process was first piloted on the procurement of LAN services in 1996, and has since been applied to the procurement of many services, including IT consulting, computer training, computer programming, and computer systems analysis to name a few. Prior to the ITQ process, the RFP cycle could take up to 6 months or more to complete. Under the ITQ process, procurements have been completed in as little as 3 days. ITQ vendor lists are open for continuous enrollment and allows for pre-qualification of an unlimited number of vendors JNET The Justice Network (JNET) was a project aimed at providing public safety agencies across PA with access to a common telecommunications network, or an integrated criminal justice system. JNET has provided agencies with access to interconnected data repositories from the PA State Police, the Department of Corrections, the Board of Probation and Parole, the Department of Transportation, and the Office of the PA Courts. Overall, JNET has strived to provide reduced costs associated with defendant/offender processing, reduced delays in managing criminal cases, and minimized risk of releasing offenders who could pose a public threat. PA Open for Business PA Open for Business is an electronic government (e-government) initiative launched by the Ridge administration in October 1999. PA Open for Business is a web site that provides entrepreneurs with state government forms they need to do business in PA. New business owners in the past had to contact multiple agencies to register their firms. Today, using PA Open for Business, they can simply go on the Internet and download the necessary information, making the process much easier and faster. State-Wide Radio Project When the Ridge administration came to office in PA, they immediately recognized the need to update an antiquated radio system that had limited communications between agencies and lead to excessive expenditures through duplicate equipment purchases. In 1996, the Governor launched the Public Safety Radio Project to modernize and unify state agencies’ two-way radio systems. This more reliable communications between agencies has allowed workers with PennDOT, the State Police, and others to do their jobs better. TIP Program The Technology Investment Program came about when the state was faced with the Y2K problem. Initially, a pool of money was set aside because state officials didn’t know what agencies would require what levels of funding. This money was a separate appropriation from the budget office, a line item in the budget that was part of the overall general fund.

29 Of the money that was put into the fund, Charlie Gerhards, former Director of the Commonwealth Technology center, then CIO for the state of PA, would decide based on assessment of need how the money would be distributed, therefore he had a lot of flexibility on how to spend the money. This required a significant level of trust with the budget office, which was developed over the first couple of years of the TIP through good accounting of all expenditures. After Y2K, the TIP was continued for other technology issues because the 18-month budget cycle doesn’t allow for quickly changing technological needs. This allowed the Office of Information Technology (OIT) to allocate funds to areas and agencies that it deemed having the greatest need for software, hardware, or development at the time. This was a great deal of help to the OIT in implementing crucial e-government initiatives for the state of PA.