tying a sensible knot

Tying a Sensible Knot

A Practical Guide toState-Local Information Systems

Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at Albany / SUNY

1997 Center for Technology in GovernmentThe Center grants permission to reprint this document provided that it is printed in its entirety

Center for Technology in Government

This document is available on the CTG Web siteas a downloadable document.

It is located at

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/pdfrpwp/iis1.pdf

Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at Albany, SUNY1535 Western AvenueAlbany, NY 12203Phone: (518) 442-3892Fax: (518) 442-3886E-mail: [email protected]://www.ctg.albany.edu

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/toolbox.html#2b

http://www.ctg.albany.edu



A Practical Guide to State-Local Information Systems

Intergovernmental Information Systems Project IIS-1

June 1997

Sharon S. DawesTheresa A. PardoDarryl E. Green

Claire R. McInerneyDavid R. Connelly

Ann DiCaterino

On Behalf of the

New York State Governor�s Task Force on Information Resource ManagementLocal Government Subcommittee

The Center grants permission to reprint this document provided this cover page is included.© 1997 Center for Technology in Government


Acknowledgments

This book is a result of a special collaboration among many members of thegovernment community in New York State sponsored by the Governor�sTask Force on Information Resource Management. It reflects the bestthinking of scores of public managers about principles and practices forconducting state-local information systems projects in an environment ofdevolution and boundary-spanning policy and program initiatives.

The core of this book was drawn from the experiences of eleven state-localinformation systems projects underway in New York State during the firsthalf of 1997. These projects were represented in the study by 150 individualsfrom 67 state, county, and municipal agencies as well as a number of non-profit organizations and professional associations. The Center for Technol-ogy in Government (CTG) gathered information from these project teamsthrough group brainstorming sessions, a formal survey, and a series of focusgroup interviews. This book is a compilation of many insights, experiences,and recommendations regarding effective intergovernmental informationsystems projects. The specific projects are:

� Aging Network Client Based Service Management Project (CBS)� Electronic Filing of Local Government Annual Financial Reports� Electronic Death Certificates� Electronic Transfer of Dog Licenses� Hunting and Fishing Licenses� Immunization Reporting and Tracking System� Probation Automation Project� Real Property System Version 4 Project� SALESNET� Local Social Services District Imaging Project� Electronic Voter Registration

This book also benefited greatly from review by a wide variety of readers.Two sub-units of the Governor�s Task Force on Information ResourceManagement, the Standing Subcommittee on Local Government and theSpecial Work Group on Intergovernmental Information Systems, providedguidance on the overall study and on the structure and focus of this docu-ment. In addition, the members of the Special Work Group participated in theidentification of a set of ideal characteristics for intergovernmental informa-tion systems which provided the guiding framework for effort. We aregrateful to all, and particularly recognize the leadership of the


Special Work Group co-chairs, Thomas Griffen, Executive Director of theNYS Office of Real Property Services and Stanley France, Director ofData Processing, Schoharie County.

Our search for best practices also led us outside New York State toexperts in many other parts of the country. Many organizations sharedtheir experiences in intergovernmental systems endeavors. We wish tothank:

Preston N. Barton, Interagency Coordinator/Planner, State of KansasKendra Briechle, International City/County Management

AssociationDell Kinlaw and Pete Bailey, State Office of Information

Resources, South CarolinaJim Krautkremer, Intergovernmental Information Systems Advisory

Council, State of MinnesotaPaul Nelson, Department of Administration, State of WisconsinRobert Olson, Coordinator, Sharing Environmental Education

Knowledge, State of MinnesotaDr. Costis Toregas, Public Technology Inc.Margaret Theibert, Office of Information Technology, Ohio

Department of Administrative Services

Special thanks goes to Robert Greeves of the Council for Excellence inGovernment for sharing his work and reviewing ours.


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 9

Chapter 1. Understanding the State-Local Environment .............................. 13

The fundamentals of state-local relations ........................................................ 14

What exactly is a state-local information system? ............................................ 18

In search of the ideal state-local information system ........................................ 19

Barriers to achieving ideal intergovernmental systems .................................... 22

How this book can help ................................................................................... 25

Chapter 2. Principles for Working in the State-Local Environment ............. 26

Understand the full range of local and state conditions .................................... 26

Have a clear purpose and realistic, measurable expectations ......................... 29

Commit to serious partnerships ...................................................................... 30

Choose the right people for the jobs that need to be done ............................... 31

Expect to assemble a mixture of resources ..................................................... 32

Communicate as if your survival depends on it ................................................ 34

Design a system that integrates with your business ......................................... 36

Demonstrate and refine ideas before you implement ...................................... 37

Let common sense guide you to workable solutions ........................................ 38

A summary of reasonable expectations .......................................................... 39

Chapter 3. Best Practices ................................................................................ 40

Define purpose and scope ............................................................................. 42Probation Automation: Focus on core functions .............................................. 42Immunization Information: Compelling purpose is a strong incentive ................ 43

Choose a well-skilled and respected project leader ........................................ 44Automated Dog Licensing: Leadership communication makes a difference ..... 44Annual Financial Reports: Leaders bring out the best in each participant ......... 45


Recruit the right project team ......................................................................... 46Social Services Imaging Project: Clarify the nature of participation ................. 46Electronic Death Certificate: Prepare the way with a business case ................. 47

Sell the project to decision makers................................................................. 48Aging Services System: Establish a common vision ...................................... 48Annual Financial Reports: Focus on fundamentals ......................................... 49

Communicate often and clearly with stakeholders .......................................... 50Automated Dog Licensing: Networks connect people as well as computers .... 50Probation Automation: Frequent, timely, interaction among peers ................... 51Annual Financial Reports: Clear, convincing, continuous communication ........ 51

Finance creatively .......................................................................................... 52Probation Automation: A little bit means a lot .................................................. 52Aging Services System: A financial fabric of many threads ........................... 53Electronic Voter Registration: Financing from the ground up ........................... 53

Adopt tools and techniques that can manage complexity ................................ 54Real Property System: User groups for various platform options .................... 54Probation Automation: A picture is worth a thousand words............................. 55

Look for existing models ................................................................................ 56Immunization Information: Piece together a model from partial solutions ......... 57Aging Services System: Good models are sometimes close to home ............ 57

Understand and improve processes before you apply technology ................... 58Probation Automation: On-site �walk-throughs� ............................................... 58SALESNET: Every player at the table ............................................................ 59

Match the technology to the job ...................................................................... 60Hunting and Fishing Licenses: Making hard choices ...................................... 60Social Services Imaging Project: Tools of the trade ........................................ 61

Use industry standard technology ................................................................... 62Social Services Imaging Project: Images of success ..................................... 62Electronic Voter Registration: The right standard at the right price ................... 63


Adopt and abide by data standards ............................................................... 64Automated Dog Licensing: Keep it simple ...................................................... 64Electronic Voter Registration: Local needs become national norms ................ 65

Integrate with related processes and practices ............................................... 66Aging Services System: Identify and build on the common ground ................. 66Automated Dog Licensing: Build on the existing base ..................................... 67Immunization Information: Tailor-made systems with a common purpose ........ 67

Use prototypes to ensure understanding and agreement about design ........... 68Aging Services System: Prototype your way to a final design ......................... 69Social Services Imaging Project: Generate bigger and better ideas ................. 69

Choose a capable pilot site ........................................................................... 70SALESNET: This is a make-or-break relationship .......................................... 70Social Services Imaging Project: What to look for in a pilot site....................... 71

Make the best use of vendors ........................................................................ 72Immunization Information: Experts put the technology pieces together............ 72Automated Dog Licensing: Selling to the vendors ........................................... 73Real Property System: Buy some and build some ......................................... 73

Train thoroughly .............................................................................................. 74Automated Dog Licensing: Get help from your friends .................................... 74Aging Services System: Develop skills as you develop the system................ 75

Support users ................................................................................................ 76Annual Financial Reports: Willing help from familiar faces .............................. 76Social Services Imaging: More than a help desk ............................................ 77

Review and evaluate performance .................................................................. 78Immunization Information: Measuring up to a set of ideals .............................. 78Annual Financial Reports: Looking back for future success ............................ 79

Appendices ....................................................................................................... 80Appendix A. Project Summaries ............................................................................ 81Appendix B. Project Comparisons ......................................................................... 92Appendix C. Project Participants ........................................................................... 96Appendix D. Selected Bibliography ........................................................................ 99Appendix E. World Wide Web Sites of Interest ..................................................... 103Appendix F. NYS Policies Related to State Local Information Systems ................ 105


State-local information systems operate in an environment of almoststunning complexity. They must recognize and account for enormousdiversity of community settings, organizational cultures, structures, andstaff. To be successful, they must deal with mismatched fiscal years; arange of hierarchical, team, and matrix management styles; and program-driven versus process-driven versus customer-driven work environments.They need to be meshed into the fabric of ongoing business processes andworking relationships and relate to other information systems at both thestate and local levels. They are clearly not �business as usual.�

We define a state-local information system as one that links state and localagencies together in a coherent service delivery or administrative environ-ment. Such a system facilitates information sharing for the achievement ofmutual program or administrative goals. These systems address bothindividual and common needs and result from ongoing discourse amongstate and local participants.

This book was written to help state and local governments work moreeffectively in this challenging environment. It presents both principles andpractices, based on documented experience, that can lead to successfulstate-local information systems. The material is drawn from a cooperativeproject sponsored by the New York State Governor�s Task Force onInformation Resource Management to identify and promote the practicesthat lead to effective state-local systems. The project involved more than150 state and local officials engaged in eleven such projects. The partici-pants helped document current issues, defined the characteristics of idealsystems, and, through surveys and interviews, shared their good and badexperiences.

Project participants identified dozens of characteristics that they wouldexpect to find in the �ideal� state-local information system project. Thesecharacteristics fell into four categories: objectives, project managementmethods, design features, and user support features.

� The objectives of a state-local system project set the stage for allsubsequent activity and evaluation. They drive all the investments ofall stakeholders. Clear compelling objectives make these investmentspay off.

Executive Summary

The ideal state-local information system


Barriers to achieving ideal intergovernmental systems

Working in the state-local environment

� State-local systems projects involve a variety of players in differentorganizations, at different levels of government, in different locations,and sometimes in both the public and private or non-profit sectors. Anideal project management process takes all this into account.

� Systems that connect state and local government usually affect workalready underway in both places. Ideally, such systems integrate withprocesses, information flows, technologies, and staff capabilitiesalready in place.

� State-local systems are implemented in a wide variety of organiza-tional settings and used by staff with a range of skills and experience.The system will only be as successful as its users can make it. Usersupport services are a key to that success.

The project participants also noted that state-local system projects faceimportant barriers to success. Among them are:

� A general lack of education and information about both technologyand programs

� Lack of a shared, reliable computing and network infrastructure� Goals that are too ambitious for the resources available to achieve

them� Human and organizational resistance to change� Unrealistic time frames� Organizational, programmatic, technological, and legal

complexity� Changing priorities� Overlapping or conflicting missions among the participating organiza-

tions

Nine fundamental principles to guide state-local information systeminitiatives emerged from this study of eleven existing efforts. Theseprinciples support shared vision and commitment � vision of what is to beachieved and commitment to a collaborative way of achieving it.

1. Understand the full range of local and state conditions. In orderfor state and local levels of government to work toward the same orcomplementary goals, they need to understand and appreciate oneanother�s abilities, strengths, and limitations.


2. Have a clear purpose and realistic, measurable expectations.Common understanding of a shared and clearly articulated purpose iscrucial in state-local initiatives. Realistic, measurable expectationsabout achieving that purpose are equally important.

3. Commit to serious partnerships. Active, trustful partnerships focuson common goals and support healthy interdependence.

4. Choose the right people for the jobs that need to be done.State-local system projects demand a full range of management,programmatic, administrative, technical, and customer service skills.

5. Expect to assemble a mixture of resources. Most state-localsystems are supported by a variety of funding and in-kind resourcescontributed by different organizations, with different rules of account-ability.

6. Communicate as if your survival depends on it. Open interchangeof concerns and ideas means an ongoing flow of complete, appropriate,timely, and accurate information tailored to the needs of each audience.

7. Design a system that integrates with your business. A new orrevised system should take account of, link with, and enhance existingoperations.

8. Demonstrate and refine ideas before you implement. Prototypesand demonstrations make ideas tangible to users and open to improve-ment throughout the design process.

9. Let common sense guide you to workable solutions. Trust theexperience and good sense of participants to define needs and uncoverpractical ways to meet them.

The eleven projects demonstrated many effective ways to put the forego-ing principles into practice. Through surveys, interviews, and projectdocuments we identified nineteen best practices that should go into thedesign, development, and operation of any state-local information system.The individual projects provided many illustrations of how good managersadapted these practices to the needs of their specific projects.

� Define purpose and scope� Choose a well-skilled and respected project leader

Best practices


� Recruit the right project team� Sell the project to decision makers� Communicate often and clearly with stakeholders� Finance creatively� Adopt tools and techniques that can manage complexity� Look for existing models� Understand and improve processes before you apply technology� Match the technology to the job� Use industry standard technology� Adopt and abide by data standards� Integrate with related processes and practices� Use prototypes to ensure understanding and agreement about design� Choose a capable pilot site� Make the best use of vendors� Train thoroughly� Support users� Review and evaluate performance


Critical success factors for public sector information systems are nosecret: top management support, clear purpose, committed stakeholders,and realistic cost and benefit measures are just a few that contribute to asuccessful system. These factors are well known, but not easily achieved,even in systems that lie inside the boundaries of a single organization.

Today�s public management environment is becoming ever more complex.The interdependent nature of most new programs means complexitybeyond anything we have experienced in any one organization, no matterhow large. This is a time of cultural change in which much responsibilityfor public services is being �devolved� from the federal government to thestates; states are trying to avoid placing �unfunded mandates� on localgovernments; and local officials are trying to serve citizens at lower costbut with greater attention to customer service and convenience. Add tothis the complexity of working across multiple organizations at more thanone level of government. And add new computing and networking tech-nologies that promise, but don�t guarantee, integrated customer-focusedservices. And remember that no single participant can afford to cover allthe costs of this new way of doing business. Under these conditions,information systems that support public services are far more difficult todesign, build, and operate.

This book was written to help state and local governments work moreeffectively in this challenging environment. It presents both principles andpractices, based on documented experience, that can lead to successfulstate-local information systems. The material we present is drawn from acooperative project sponsored by the New York State Governor�s TaskForce on Information Resource Management to identify and promote thepractices that lead to effective state-local systems. The project involvedmore than 150 state and local officials engaged in eleven such projects.The participants helped us document current issues, defined the character-istics of ideal systems, and, through surveys and interviews, shared with ustheir good and bad experiences. The result is the advice and exampleswhich follow.

Chapter 1. Understanding theState-Local Environment


The state-local context for information systems is complicated and oftenpoorly understood. State agency staff tend to think of local governmentsas more or less similar operations. They are not. Local officials tend toview state agencies as organizations with independent authority to makedecisions and act. They are not. Not long ago, local government partici-pation in state initiatives was often mandated by state law. Today thatparticipation is more likely to be voluntary. Once, state regional officescovered the landscape and were stepping stones on the career ladder forboth state and local officials. Today, state agency presence in localities isgreatly reduced as is the likelihood that a person will have both state andlocal work experience.

It is easy to think of local government as a single kind of public entityoperating 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 Canadianborder, to the isolated tip of Long Island; 62 cities ranging from littleSherrill with a population of 2,864 to mammoth New York City, and 932towns that are home to as few as 47 and as many as 725,605 NewYorkers. There are also thousands of special districts that manageschools, fire protection, sewers and water systems, transportation services,and other specialized activities. Within each kind of local jurisdiction thereis 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

The fundamentals of state-local relations

Enormous variation in local conditions


In terms of mission, it is simplistic, but useful, to think of local governmentagencies as falling into three categories:

� general purpose public service agencies (e.g., County, Town,Village, and City Clerks) offering well-defined routine transactionsinitiated by citizens (e.g., County Clerks recording real property trans-actions, Town Clerks issuing fishing licenses).

� 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 involveongoing relationships with customers (e.g., conducting public healthclinics, maintaining road systems, preparing the city assessment rolls,determining eligibility for Food Stamps).

� administrative support offices (e.g., County Data ProcessingDepartments, City Purchasing Offices) conducting a variety of central-ized support and oversight functions (e.g., developing and operatingvarious information systems or conducting centralized procurement).

In addition, local agencies respond to an array of elected officials, some ofwhom are department heads (such as the Clerks) and others who areresponsible for overall executive and legislative functions (such as Mayors,County Executives, County Legislators, and Town Council Members). NewYork�s strong traditions of local autonomy and �home rule� mean that theseofficials take seriously their authority to act independently of the State or toexercise the options that state programs provide.

State agencies have some common characteristics, but also many varia-tions. They all belong in some way to the Executive Branch of stategovernment. With a few exceptions, such as the separately elected StateComptroller, their chief executives are usually appointed by the Governor,and most staff are appointed and compensated under the laws of the CivilService system. Their missions and programs are defined in state law, butmany are decisively shaped by federal requirements. Their budgets comefrom the annual appropriations process in which the entire state budget isdivided into many portions according to the policy agreements madebetween the Governor and the Legislature. Some have special authority togenerate revenue through fees or other methods.

State agencies operate as specialists in the middle of the federal system


A number of state agencies carry out programs that place them squarelyin the middle of the federal system. Their programs are strongly influ-enced, if not wholly defined, by federal laws and regulations. They turnfederal requirements into statewide policies, programs and procedures thathave to work in all corners of the state � urban and rural; affluent andpoor; industrial and agricultural. They usually manage statewide imple-mentation through local governments as their agents. Each state agencytends to deal with one or very few kinds of local counterparts throughoutthe state (the State Health Department deals mostly with County HealthDepartments, the Office of Real Property Services deals mostly with Cityand Town Assessors and County Real Property Directors). Few stateagencies 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 supportstaff, they are mostly made up of people with specialized skills andtraining. They are somewhat removed from the �street level� implicationsof programs, but highly focused on the statewide policy implications oftheir decisions. In addition, state agency staff work in an environment ofgreat political and philosophical diversity and need to understand and dealwith a wide variety of competing preferences for how state programs arecarried out.

Three trends are reshaping the nature of intergovernmental relations:public demand for services that make sense and operate at reasonablecost, the shift of authority away from the federal government to the statesand localities, and movement away from mandated programs to optionalones.

� Public demands for sensible, cost-effective services. Increas-ingly, citizens and businesses demand that government programs makesense, work predictably and efficiently, and show a consistent, intelli-gent face to the public. They expect one-stop, same-day, customizedservices instead of the fragmented, duplicative, and lengthy processesthat have often characterized government operations. Often, separateprograms serve the same people, but without regard for the fact thatthey require the same information, or impose conflicting requirements,or result in costly duplication of effort. Programs that meet publicdemands for quality and effectiveness often require coordination,collaboration, and integration among multiple units of state and localgovernment as well as private industry and non-profit service provid-ers.

Changes in the nature of intergovernmental authority and activities


� Devolution of authority. Our recent political history has seen adramatic shift of focus away from Washington toward state capitals insuch critical public programs as Medicaid and Welfare Reform. Theseare the largest program devolutions in a line of actions stemming fromModel Cities and Revenue Sharing in the 1960s and 70s to the blockgrants of the 1980s. The shift of authority for programs and servicestoward states in many cases means a shift of responsibility to localities.As states redesign their welfare programs, for example, they often givelocal governments a number of local program options. This is anattempt to customize programs to local conditions at either the state orlocal level or both. One effect is more local control. Another is evengreater complexity due to local variations in statewide programs.

� Mandates vs. voluntary local participation. As states take up theresponsibility of newly �devolved� programs, they are mindful oftraditional and growing local opposition to unfunded mandates. It isnow common for local participation in state initiatives to be voluntary inwhole or in part. This philosophy has positive effects on the localitiesand encourages the state to be more creative and responsive to localconditions in order to attract local participation. However, voluntaryparticipation also leads to expensive parallel programs when somelocalities are willing to adopt a new way of working while others staywith the old way.

The decade of the 1980s introduced powerful new computing and commu-nications technologies to government operations. Today at the end of the1990s, the old, rigidly structured, inflexible technologies and systems ofearlier decades are beginning to be joined or replaced by more flexiblesystems that rely on networks, new methods of electronic communication,industry and international standards, and very powerful hardware andsoftware tools. Technologies such as electronic imaging, electronic work-flow, e-mail, electronic data interchange, and the World Wide Web make itpossible to share and transport information in ways that could not beimagined in the 1970s. These tools now make integrated programs techni-cally feasible, although by no means easy to design, implement, and oper-ate. However, the electronic revolution has not reached into every cornerof our society or every government office that serves local communities.The wide discrepancies in technical capacity from one place to anotherseverely limits the degree to which these new tools can be applied toprogram management and information sharing goals.

Changes in the technology tools of public management


What exactly is a state-local information system?

We define a state-local information system as one that links state and localagencies together in a coherent service delivery or administrative environ-ment. They facilitate information sharing for the achievement of mutualprogram or administrative goals. These systems address both individualand common needs and result from ongoing discourse among state andlocal participants.

Coordination among the staff and objectives of different government unitspresents special challenges because it is not �business as usual.� Thiscoordination effort must recognize and account for the diversity of organi-zational cultures, structures, and budgetary processes found in the range ofgovernment units affected. A successful coordination effort must dealwith mismatched fiscal years; a range of hierarchical, team, and matrixmanagement styles; and program-driven versus process-driven vs. cus-tomer-driven work environments. And these are just a few of the factorsthat contribute to the enormous complexity of state-local systems projects.

To overcome the fragmentation that often exists because of this complex-ity, state-local information systems must meet the critical needs of all theparticipants, and provide services within an integrated framework thatincludes shared goals, shared technical and physical infrastructure, andshared financial and human resources. One expert says, �the boundary-spanning aspect of intergovernmental information systems implies a highdegree of coordination and mutual respect among managers, planningteams, and implementation efforts� (Kumar, MIS Quarterly, 1996). Wecouldn�t agree more.


Coordinated state-local information systems offer the hope of integratedservices to citizens and streamlined operations within government. Manygovernment and professional organizations are searching for ways to makethese essential systems more successful. The Council for Excellence inGovernment is identifying exemplary intergovernmental programs thatinvolve city, county, and tribal governments as well as state agencies.Public Technology Inc. (PTI), a non-profit group sponsored by the NationalLeague of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the Interna-tional City/County Management Association is researching local prioritiesfor intergovernmental IT projects and policies. NASIRE, the NationalAssociation of State Information Resource Executives, maintains anintergovernmental relations committee and recommends policies andtechnologies that help state governments streamline their operations.Recently, the Industry Advisory Council, a private sector group formed bythe Federation of Government Information Processing Councils to advisefederal agencies in their information systems efforts, formed a committeeto discuss intergovernmental projects. Other groups searching for bestpractices in intergovernmental systems include the National GovernorsAssociation, the National Telecommunications and Information Administra-tion, and the National Newspaper Association (Varon, FCW GovernmentTechnology Group, 1997).

In New York State, the Governor�s Task Force on Information ResourceManagement Standing Committee on Local Government formed a SpecialWork Group on Intergovernmental Information Systems in 1996 to worktoward this goal. The Work Group developed a set of characteristics thatexemplify an �ideal� state-local information system project. The Centerfor Technology in Government used these characteristics in a study ofexisting projects in the state to identify those practices that were leading tosuccess in a variety of areas. Some of the most important ideal character-istics are presented in four broad categories below:

In search of the ideal state-local information system


The objectives of a state-local information system project set the stage forall subsequent activity and evaluation. They drive all the investments of allstakeholders, and therefore should have these characteristics:

� System goals are based on well defined program or business needs.� All participants in the project agree about how the system will serve the

needs of citizens.� The system objectives are reasonable given the resources available to

support it.� The system objectives have the support of elected officials and top

management.� The objectives include performance measures and a post-implementa-

tion evaluation.

State-local systems projects involve a variety of players in differentorganizations, at different levels of government, in different locations, andsometimes in both the public and private or non-profit sectors. An idealproject management process takes all this into account and has thesefeatures:

� All participants are treated as equals and have a substantial stake inthe project�s success.

� All participants understand the project management process and theroles and responsibilities of all the players.

� Available financial resources are invested where they are mostneeded.

� Information about project status is shared frequently.� The participants engage in joint problem identification and problem

solving.� Collectively, the project team has the skills needed to carry out a

successful system project.

Characteristics of ideally formulated project objectives

Characteristics of an ideal project management process


Systems that connect state and local government are usually systems thataffect work already underway in both places. They involve processes,information flows, technologies, and staff capabilities already in place. Anideal design therefore has these characteristics:

� The system is designed to integrate with the related systems andbusiness processes of the affected organizations.

� Standard definitions of key data are used by all participants.� The system is designed to support information sharing across organiza-

tions and programs.� Built-in safeguards assure system security and the confidentiality of

sensitive or personal information.� The design adheres to commonly accepted industry standards and does

not rely on proprietary technologies.� There is no need for parallel or supplemental systems or procedures to

support the service or business functions that the system is designed tomeet.

� Built-in features reduce human effort and minimize duplication.� The design takes into account the current technical capabilities of the

participating organizations.

State-local systems are implemented in a wide variety of organizationalsettings and used by staff with a range of skills and experience. Thesystem will only be as successful as its users can make it. These usersupport features are therefore part of the ideal system:

� Complete user documentation (e.g., manuals, troubleshooting guide) isavailable.

� Continuing, up-to-date, and accessible user training is offered.� Ongoing, adequate technical support services are available for system

maintenance and enhancement.� An ongoing, adequate �help desk� supports users.� There are built-in data management and analysis capabilities for users

including access to local, regional, and statewide databases for planningand evaluation purposes.

� Some provision is made for local modification based on local needs,including low-tech and no-tech options where local conditions do notsupport high-tech solutions.

Ideal design features

Ideal user support features


These ideals are difficult to achieve because there are significant barriersto overcome. The Special Work Group identified many problems thatstate-local projects encounter. Among the top ranking barriers are:

� A general lack of education and information about both technol-ogy and programs. Technology has rapidly permeated our societyand most of our institutions, but government organizations often lagbehind others. Government staff are often ill-informed and poorlytrained in how to use information technology effectively. This isparticularly true of the newest technical tools and platforms. Publicemployees, both users and technicians, seldom have ready access toskills training or professional development that continuously upgradestheir knowledge and skills. Conversely, technical staff typically havefew opportunities or incentives to learn the goals and operationalrealities of service programs and therefore tend to focus too sharplyon the technical tools and too little on the programmatic reasons fornew systems.

� Lack of a shared, reliable computing and network infrastruc-ture. Existing state-local systems suffer from the lack of a ubiquitous,consistent computing and communications infrastructure. This makesit difficult or impossible to operate technology supported programs in aconsistent way from place to place and organization to organization. Italso slows and complicates communication among state and local staffinvolved in joint programs. New York State is currently embarking ona statewide networking strategy called the NYT that will help solvethis problem for future systems.

� Goals that are too ambitious for the resources available toachieve them. Project goals are often laudably comprehensive, butthe staff, equipment, and dollars allotted to achieve them are oftenunderestimated. Projects that could succeed on a smaller or incre-mental scale, fail to achieve success when their goals and resourcesare played out on different scales.

� Human and organizational resistance to change. In some cases,new state-local initiatives threaten a comfortable status quo. Theypromise big changes that not every participant is eager to see. Fearand resistance to change exist even in the best planned and managedprojects. A new way of doing business threatens existing personal,organizational, programmatic, and political conditions by rearrangingauthority, influence, power, resources, and information. This natural

Barriers to achieving ideal intergovernmental systems


resistance is exacerbated when new programs arrive with too littleadvance information, weak leadership support, inadequate user partici-pation, too little funding, and less than comprehensive training andorientation.

� Unrealistic time frames. Many information systems projects takeconsiderably longer than originally planned. State-local projects, withtheir added layers of legal and organizational complexity are especiallyvulnerable to this problem. Since so many different organizations areaffected by them, time delays lead to serious difficulties in planning forand adjusting to changes in operations.

� Organizational, programmatic, technological, and legalcomplexity. The state-local environment is extraordinarily complex ona number of dimensions: organizational size,number of organizations, number and skills of staff, size of budget,financial practices, legal authority, programmatic focus, and geographicdispersion. Existing systems are an important complicating factor.Only so much change is possible in an environment that depends oninformation systems already in place � especially ones that weredesigned and implemented using older technologies. There is little thatcan be done to simplify this environment, making it essential thatproject participants have a good understanding of how it will affecttheir activities.

� Changing priorities. Any project that lasts more than a few monthsis subject to changing priorities for time, money, and attention. Thisproblem is multiplied in state-local projects since each participatingorganization is likely to be working in circumstances and with responsi-bilities and priorities that are unique to its own situation.

� Overlapping or conflicting missions among the participatingorganizations. Government organizations at both the state and locallevel have public service and public accountability goals that canoverlap or conflict, even when they are engaged in a joint project. Forexample, a state agency manager may have the role of project leaderwhich implies facilitation, collaboration, and support for other partici-pants. At the same time, that person�s agency may have oversightresponsibility and financial and other regulatory means of compellinglocal compliance with state requirements. In other projects, non-profitservice providers may be project participants sitting at the same tablewith state or local officials who license and inspect their programs.These roles are all legitimate but can conflict and become a source ofdifficulty in sorting out the working relationships within the projectteam.


The barriers are undeniable. But the potential benefits of successful systems are compelling reasons to goforward with well-designed state-local initiatives. Table 1 shows how the participants in the elevenprojects we studied characterize the benefits of the systems they are developing.

Table 1. Expected Benefits of Eleven State-Local Information Systems Projects

Aging Network ClientBased ServiceManagement SystemProject

* Single application and screening process for multiple benefits* Electronically link older persons and caregivers with programs and services that preserve independence* Reduce administrative and service delivery costs* Satisfy multiple reporting and management needs

Electronic Filing of LocalGovernment AnnualFinancial Reports

* Reduce local staff time and effort to prepare AFR* Less time required for review of data by OSC, more accurate information sooner* More consistent data for interpretation and trend analysis

Electronic DeathCertificate Project

* Reduce delayed and inaccurate death certificates and burial permits* Remote submission of information by authorized parties* Remote authorization of certificate through electronic signatures* Reduce data entry costs and errors* Immediate access to information* Reduce overhead for funeral directors

Electronic Transfer ofDog License Data

* 14% savings in processing, data entry, and corrections costs for a slight increase in management costs* Provide faster, more accurate, complete dog identification data to participating municipalities* Eliminate duplication and data entry errors

Hunting and FishingLicenses

* Faster, one-stop, 24 hour, license shopping for the customers* Eliminate accountables such as license validation stamps and decrease paper recordkeeping* Increase assurances that valid licenses are being sold* Increase the accessibility of data and facilitate marketing capability to increase revenue to the Conservation Fund and recruit and retain licensees

Immunization InformationSystems Project

* Increased rates of fully immunized children in NYS* Improve medical record charting and information processing to help health care providers ensure children receive age-appropriate vaccines* Eliminate wasteful re-administration of expensive vaccines* Reduce need for testing for previously administered vaccines

Probation AutomationProject

* Reduce the paperwork load for Probation Officers and return that time to direct services* Easier and faster access to criminal histories and pre-sentence investigation reports* Eliminate duplicate data storage* Access to administrative templates for common functions

Real Property System(RPS) Version 4

* Faster and more efficient system processing* Code maintenance ability enhanced* Support user requested enhancements* Integration with local functions and commercial systems

SALESNET * Eliminate the need for data entry at both state and local levels* Reduce corrections resulting from illegible and incomplete forms* Verified sales information available to agency staff and local assessment officials in 6 vs. 123 days

Local DSS DistrictImaging Project

* Reduce caseworker access to files from days or hours to seconds* Potential to redesign case records and workflow based on the functionality of electronic record storage

Electronic VoterRegistration

* Decrease time needed to register address changes, party enrollment, and voting eligibility* Decrease data entry errors due to repetitive manual entry* Decrease the flow of paper between local Boards of Election, and the State Departments of Motor Vehicles and Health


This guide was written to support public sector managers at both the stateand local levels who are participating in intergovernmental informationsystems projects. These officials are responsible for defining, delivering,and managing information systems that connect different levels of govern-ment in a single service delivery channel or an integrated administrativeprocess. We have tried to design the guide to be useful to management,program, and technical staff in all phases of project activities.

This first chapter and Appendix A set the context for what follows.Appendix A contains brief project summaries and comparisons of theeleven projects we studied. We encourage you to review them nowbefore proceeding to the discussions in Chapters two and three whichpresent principles and practices based on these project experiences.These are presented in rough logical order, but they are meant to be usediteratively. There is no single �recipe� for success in these complexprojects. Instead, there are some overarching considerations (we callthem principles) that define the context for these projects; and there are avariety of techniques (we call them best practices) that can be used indifferent situations.

Chapter 2 presents nine fundamental principles that managers of state-local projects should understand and follow. Chapter 3 presents 19 prac-tices that have good track records for success. For each practice, wepresent two or three vignettes from the New York State projects westudied that illustrate how good managers are adapting these ideas to real-life situations. The appendices contain brief summaries and comparisonsof the eleven projects, an annotated bibliography of related referencematerial, and a list of World Wide Web sites that contain more informationon intergovernmental topics.

How this book can help


This chapter presents a set of nine fundamental principles to guide state-local information system initiatives. These principles support shared visionand commitment � vision of what is to be achieved and commitment to acollaborative way of achieving it. Sometimes the pressure to design andestablish a system quickly leads us to forget or downplay some of theseprinciples. However, our best practices research clearly shows that eachone is important to success.

Principles to Guide State-Local Information Systems

Understand the full range of local and state conditionsHave a clear purpose and realistic, measurable expectationsCommit to serious partnershipsChoose the right people for the jobs that need to be doneExpect to assemble a mixture of resourcesCommunicate as if your survival depends on itDesign a system that integrates with your businessDemonstrate and refine ideas before you implementLet common sense guide you to workable solutions

Local and state governments deal with overlapping goals and concerns. Asuccessful state-local project requires an understanding of the conditionsunder which both state agencies and local governments operate. Since thesystem will connect two or more levels of government and is likely be inoperation all over the state, its designers need a deep appreciation for thefull range of issues that both kinds of participants face.

It may be fair to say that there are as many unique local conditions in theState of New York as there are local governments. Nevertheless, thereare several areas where almost all local governments share commonconcerns. These include:

Chapter 2. Principles for Working inthe State-Local Environment

Understand the full range of local and state conditions

In order for state and locallevels of government to worktoward the same or comple-mentary goals, they need tounderstand and appreciateone another�s abilities,strengths, and limitations.


� A generalist�s point of view. Only in the larger local jurisdictionswill groups of individuals be found concentrating on or specializing in asingle function. More often one person or only a few people musthandle many issues As such, they have a keen appreciation forintegration, coordination, and functionality in information systems andother business activities. They are less impressed with a particulartechnology than with what it can do to support sensible operations.

� Proximity to customers and constituents. There is an immediacyin the connection between local government employees and theircustomers that seldom exists at the state level. Local officials livewith those they serve. The same person buying a fishing license orapplying for a building permit is also the person they see at school andsocial functions. In addition, local officials are often elected officialsthemselves or work directly with elected office holders.

� Operations that respond to local conditions. Geographic location,population demographics, and the conditions and characteristics of thelocal economy all lead to big differences in the demand for variousservices. Local governments are also affected by their proximity tostate borders, urban centers, and recreation destinations. The tech-niques that are suitable in one place may be very unsuited to another.

State goals & concerns

Common goals & concerns

Local goals & concerns


State level concerns are often different from local ones, but they areequally legitimate.

� Size and scope of programs. New York State is one of the largestgovernments in the United States. Many state agencies overseeprograms and budgets several times larger than many entire stategovernments. Since New York is geographically and demographicallyvery diverse, there are often variations and options within singleprograms that make them more complex and difficult to manage andevaluate.

� A specialist�s point of view. State agencies are very specialized inthe work they do and the kinds of staff they employ. While everyagency has general administrators and support functions, all arecharacterized by a particular programmatic focus and professionalperspective � you won�t find a public health point of view dominatingthe work of the Tax Department. Nor will you find much of thegeneralist perspective so common in local governments.

� Operations that respond to statewide and national conditions.Some state agencies are constantly under the scrutiny of the federalgovernment as well as a wide variety of well-organized interest groups.A number of state agencies receive a considerable portion of theirfunding from the federal budget and this often entails a wide array offederal requirements. Further, while their main focus is on the particu-lar mission assigned to them by state law, state agencies are also partof a much larger �organization� called state government. They mustdeal within a larger political climate including the Governor and theLegislature which together represent constituencies and philosophiesthat are far more diverse than those faced by most local officials.

Both state and local agencies share much in common as well: a focus oncitizen services and public expectations, concerns about workforce size andskills, a need to manage internal operations efficiently and effectively, andthe problems of tight budgets, public accountability, competition for taxdollars, and decreasing staff. This area of common concern is large and isa solid basis for collaborative action.


overall policy goals

project purpose

realistic performance expectations

Establishing a clear and common understanding of the purpose for aproject is difficult under the most ideal conditions. In state-local informa-tion systems projects, it can be an even greater challenge. Establishingcommon purpose, defining scope, and managing expectations in a state-local project are considerations of the first order. Since there are so manyplayers who see the world from different points of view, confusion aboutthese critical factors can spell serious trouble down the road.

State-local projects are initiated for several reasons: in response to newlaws, in response to customer demands, and in response to a changingenvironment, including new players and new tools. They operate in abroad programmatic or administrative context, but need to be focused onsome particular goal. For example, there is great concern in our societyabout the effectiveness of public education. A project could address anyof a hundred purposes within this broad concern: to connect elementaryschool libraries to the Internet, to help schools prepare students for jobs intoday�s economy, to make higher education affordable for all who qualify,and so on. No single project can address all (or even many) purposes; weneed to agree on a specific focus for each particular effort.

Once a purpose is selected, we move to questions of reasonable expecta-tions given the current situation and the money, time, people, and commit-ment available to change it. How shall we define and prioritize theseexpectations? How will we define and measure achievement?

These expectations are sometimes called the �project scope.� The scopeis defined by balancing desired goals against available resources and arealistic timeline. The project team must also create an implementation

plan and a project budget which will match goodintentions against an actual commitment ofpeople and funds and establish a mechanism forongoing project management. This process alsoentails defining outcome measures, settingtargets for performance, and building in ways togather the information needed to conduct perfor-mance assessments.

Have a clear purpose and realistic, measurable expectations

Common understanding of ashared and clearly articulatedpurpose is crucial in state-local initiatives. Realistic,measurable expectations aboutachieving that purpose areequally important.


The dictionary defines partnership as �two or more people engaged in thesame enterprise, sharing its profits and risks, and acting as trusted agents forone another.� When we say partnership, we mean this active, interdepen-dent, trustful relationship.

Governments, like most organizations, have transformed their sense oforganizational boundaries and interorganizational relationships. A new levelof interdependence among government jurisdictions and agencies is beingfostered by public policies that assume a high level of information sharingand interaction. In this environment, old ways of relating to one another areincreasingly ineffective.

In the paper-based world, local governments received one-size-fits-alldirectives, prescriptions, and instructions from state agencies and respondedby sending the required reports, forms, and money back into a monolithcalled �The State.� State agency consideration of local conditions, pro-cesses, and technical capability was not an issue. Each local agencyworked out its own methods. Everyone was an independent actor. Today,with extensive information sharing requirements built in to most programs,we rely more and more on computerized systems that need to connect to alllocal jurisdictions. Local operating realities now often clash with state-levelsystem requirements. In order to administer these more complex programsand take advantage of these new tools, both levels of government must vieweach other as partners in an overall effort to deliver services to the citizen orto improve the administrative functioning of government.

The particular need for partnership models instate-local projects stems from their uniquenature. For example, in most of the projects wereviewed, the local participation resulted fromlocal motivation to participate in an improvementeffort. The local involvement was not mandatedand funding was, in general, not provided by thestate. Collaborative efforts built on partnership

models of behavior are required to manage this new kind of engagement.The art of identifying appropriate partners, and building and maintainingactive, trustful relationships must be practiced in all information systemsprojects, but particularly in state-local projects. The partnership model isoften the best way to engage non-government participants as well: non-profit service agencies, professional associations, and private sector organi-zations may all be engaged in the partnership.

Commit to serious partnerships

Active, trustful partnershipsfocus on common goalsand support healthyinterdependence.

Willing engagement in the same enterpriseShared benefits & risks

+ Trustful relationships= Partnership


A project is only as good as the staff assembled to carry it out. In state-local initiatives it is important that both levels of government be well-represented and assigned appropriate responsibilities. It is equally impor-tant that the project team have complementary skills and experience in avariety of areas including management, program, administration, technol-ogy, and customer service.

A good rule to follow in considering project team members is to identify allproject stakeholders and then establish a team that represents the range ofinterests on this list. A well-respected leader is a critical ingredient aswell. Choose one who can build bridges within this diverse constituency.

Individually, team members should:

� Be committed to achieving project goals� Understand and be capable of carrying out their roles� Be able to make the necessary time commitment on a day-to-day basis� Be available for the long term� Possess good communication skills� Be willing to represent both their own points of view and others in the

larger community� Contribute individual expertise to problem-solving while remaining open

to a variety of approaches

As a group, the team should:

� Represent all stakeholders� Possess the needed mix of specialized knowledge (on technical, man-

agement and policy topics)� Possess the needed mix of practical skills (organizational, political,

marketing, writing, technical, etc.)� Be able to work together toward a common goal� Form a strong cohesive unit capable of working cooperatively to

identify and solve problems.

Choose the right people for the jobs that need to be done

State-local system projectsdemand a full range of man-agement, programmatic,administrative, technical, andcustomer service skills.


Some state-local information system projects are funded by a dedicatedsingle budget appropriation, but more often you will need to finance asystems initiative with a more complex mixture of resources. Anyone whohas been a recent college student (or parent) is familiar with the �financialaid package.� For most people this means assembling the financial re-sources to pay for a college education out of some combination of savings,current earnings, grants, loans, and work-study assignments. In the contextof state-local information system projects, the �package� may comprise:direct appropriations from either state or local legislatures or both, federalgrants or formula matching funds, foundation grants, in-kind efforts, re-deployed existing resources, and private sector partnerships.

The problem for you, as for the college student, is each resource comeswith its own rules and requirements. Some can only be used for certainexpenses, some can be used for any expense, some require a re-applicationevery year, and others are guaranteed for longer periods of time. Thissituation demands a high degree of managerial expertise and creativity.Your project goals and milestones need to be linked to the resources thatwill be available in varying amounts, at various points in time, with differentkinds of strings attached.

While a more traditional project budget might look like this on a spread-sheet . . .

. . .your project may look more like this:

Expect to assemble a mixture of resources

Most state-local systems aresupported by a variety offunding and in-kind resourcescontributed by differentorganizations, with differentrules of accountability.

Three-year Project BudgetTotal State Appropriation: $2.125 million

Local Personnel

State Personnel Equipment Software Training Travel Consulting

Total by Year

Year 1 50 50 35 75 100 5 40 355Year 2 200 50 0 50 500 25 100 925Year 3 200 50 0 50 500 25 20 845

Total by Purpose 450 150 35 175 1100 55 160 2125


The picture may be even more complicated since the �local� line mayactually be made up of many separate local entities, each with its ownfunding rules and cycles. Some sources of funding (like the XYZ grant)may expire before the project is complete. Others need to be soughtbefore your needs are fully known. As a result, you need people on yourproject team with the skills to manage this mixed package of resources.They will need to allocate them to various purposes, spend and account forexpenses according to the sponsors� various rules, and accumulateintegrated cost information to support any reasonably complete programevaluation.

Three-year Project BudgetTotal Available: $2.125 million

Year & Source

Local Personnel

State Personnel Equipment Software Training Travel Consulting

Total by Year & funding source

Year 1 50 50 35 75 100 5 40 355State 50 25 50 50 20 195XYZ grant 30 10 25 50 5 120Local 20 20 40

Year 2 200 50 0 50 500 25 100 925State 50 50 250 80 430XYZ grant 60 200 25 285Local 50 20 70ABC grant 90 50

Year 3 200 50 0 50 500 25 20 845State 200 25 20 245Local 100 100 200ABC grant 100 50 50 200 400

Total by Purpose 450 150 35 175 1100 55 160 2125


Effective communication is a critical element of success in any project.Without good communication you foster a project management environ-ment that breeds confusion, poor coordination, and frustration. Communi-cation is both the enabler that allows the exchange of information and ideasamong project team members, and the conduit through which informationflows.

When we talked with various participants in each of the projects and askedthem to identify some of the lessons they had learned from their projects,most answered that good communication was a critical element of success.Moreover, when we asked them to identify some of the problems they hadencountered, many of the answers were linked to communication issues.Clearly, communication is one of the most important aspects of any col-laboration, and the success or failure of your project may ultimately dependon how well you communicate.

It was apparent from our discussions with the project participants that goodcommunication involves more than just sending and receiving messages. Italso involves establishing and maintaining good relationships. Some of theprojects we examined demonstrated that positive and supportive relation-ships among individuals was a key to success. When we asked them toelaborate, participants told us that when they treated one another withrespect, equality, and courtesy, communication was not a barrier and it waseasier to tackle and solve problems. Often the opportunities for informaldiscussion while on the road or preparing for a major event led people toget to know and trust one another as individuals, not just as professionalslinked by a common work assignment.

Another important aspect of communication is how best to send andreceive information among the wider group of stakeholders so that theystay engaged, informed, and enthusiastic about the project. Unfortunately,there is no single formula for accomplishing this, since the goals of everyproject and the project stakeholders are never the same. You need tounderstand the nuances of your particular project and set up communica-tion techniques that are tailored to your project�s particular circumstances.Spend some time thinking about who your stakeholders are, what theirinformation requirements are, and what techniques can be used to bestcommunicate with them.

Communicate as if your survival depends on it

Open interchange ofconcerns and ideas meansan ongoing flow of complete,appropriate, timely, andaccurate informationtailored to the needs of eachaudience.


For example, if you are establishing a cross-functional project team thatconsists of customer service and technical staff from local government,and program and technical staff from a state agency, you need to considerthe common information requirements for the entire team (such as projecttimeline information) and the specific information needs of the variousstakeholders (such as documentation for the technical staff about updatesin software releases). The communication techniques you use to keep thecross-functional team apprised of general project activity will be differentfrom the techniques you use to inform the technical staff of changes to thesystem software. In the first, you might use periodic team meetings orstatus reports to keep everyone involved and informed. In the second, youmight use formal release notes, memos, e-mail, and telephone calls todiscuss the details of software changes as soon as they occur.


No government information system stands completely on its own. Eachsystem is implemented in a work environment that includes people, pro-cesses, organizational relationships, and other systems. State-local systeminitiatives typically augment or enhance rather than replace existing sys-tems. As a consequence, design teams should aim for systems thatrecognize (at least) and integrate (at best) with the staff, activities, andexisting information systems of both the state and local participants. To dothis, the team needs to be aware of the existing components of work,optimistic about the potential for integration, and realistic about the willing-ness, resources and technical infrastructure that are necessary to changeexisting processes.

Understanding the user environment and customer expectations andfactoring them into the design or re-design of a business process helpsensures that some diversity in these environments can be accommodated.Engaging in a collaborative effort to define standard business requirementsand a standard set of data elements are two ways to help assure uniformityof purpose and content while allowing for some customization in implemen-tation. Armed with these commonly developed requirements, local agen-cies can often work with both state and local resources to implement asensible system. Local MIS Departments, where they exist, can bevaluable partners in working through the issues of integration at the locallevel. Sometimes local MIS staff are bypassed in the connection betweenstate and local program agencies and this usually means an important pointof view and source of expertise has been left out of the equation and localtechnical staff are then unprepared to support the system locally.

Systems need to be integrated at the state level as well. In our study, wesaw many examples of multiple systems created by different units of asingle state agency that were developed at different points in time fordifferent programmatic reasons, with no attempt made to connect toexisting systems in the same agency. The same problem exists in the needto connect systems across different state agencies.

Government programs and systems also affect people and organizationsoutside of government. Some programs link government agencies and non-profit service providers or commercial businesses whose own processesneed to be harmonized in some way with the government system. If thefunctional ability of these external players is important to the success of thestate-local system or program, they need to be at the table along with theirpublic sector counterparts.

Design a system that integrates with your business

A new or revised system shouldtake account of, link with, andenhance existing operations.


The admonition �look before you leap� is grounded in practicality andapplies to many situations in the realm of system development and projectmanagement. Most of the projects we studied have integrated thisconcept into their practices. When developing a large, integrated systemthat involves stakeholders with a wide variety of perspectives, it is a goodidea to find out how others have approached the same issues. Often otherstates, localities, or private businesses have experiences to offer asmodels. Before you choose a single approach and decide to implement it,look closely at similar experiences and devise a set of reasonable alterna-tives for your system. Look carefully at each possible approach to identifyall of its strengths, weaknesses, and implications. Build a paper model orsystem prototype to show these ideas in more concrete form to users,customers, and other stakeholders. Invite feedback and act on it. In doingthis you may uncover problems that you did not see at first, or you willrefine your approach, or you may adopt a new approach that is better thanthe original.

One of the best ways to accomplish this is to use a process improvementmethod to either understand and improve upon existing processes orcreate new processes to satisfy business needs. There are many methodsto choose from such as business process improvement, business processinnovation, information engineering, and prototyping. Each of thesetechniques, when used correctly, engages designers and users in a focuseddialog that yields a great deal of information that helps everyone makebetter choices. They produce maps, diagrams, small prototypes, and otherillustrations that engage groups in a common understanding of the problem,process, or system. In the projects we studied, we saw how effectivelythese demonstrations could:

� replace many individual mental pictures of the new system with onetangible representation that all can understand in the same way,

� remove some of the fear and resistance to change that comes fromsimply not knowing what to expect,

� give designers and users a common vocabulary for asking and answer-ing questions and recommending changes and additions,

� encourage people to think not just about the system itself, but about howit will fit into existing operations.

Demonstrate and refine ideas before you implement

Prototypes and demonstra-tions make ideas tangible tousers and open toimprovement throughoutthe design process.


The nature of intergovernmental projects provides many opportunities formanaging relationships, work, and problems in novel ways. These opportu-nities can be mined for creative approaches to moving project activitiestoward successful completion.

Optimal solutions, however, do not always entail the use of the mostelaborate technologies or the latest management techniques. You don�tnecessarily need a �brand name� tool or pre-packaged commercial meth-odology. Generally the most valuable resources any project possesses arethe individuals involved. Often the best solution is found in the commonsense and practical experience of the participants. They bring to the tablea wealth of knowledge about programs, practices, people, and politics.

Many of the projects we studied involved veteran professionals with astrong sense of what could work in a given situation. They had a deepappreciation for the limits of time, money, staff, and authority, but also hada willingness to try realistic new ideas. Since there are so many localagencies involved in each project, participants often learned from oneanother and shared their insights with state staff as well. Many projectteams understood the critical importance of project planning, processanalysis, data definitions and the like because they had encountered theseas practical problems in their regular jobs. They knew these were impor-tant considerations and usually figured out how to deal with them withoutthe aid of expensive consultants or special project management methodolo-gies or software tools. In projects strapped for resources, this was oftenthe only way to get the job done. Happily, it is often a very effective way.

Let common sense guide you to workable solutions

Trust the experience and goodsense of participants to defineneeds and uncover practicalways to meet them.


The principles outlined above should lead you to well-informed, reasonableexpectations about two things: what you should expect from others andwhat you should be prepared to do yourself to make a state-local projectsucceed. We�ve summarized these expectations in the following table:

A summary of reasonable expectations

If you are a system designer you should expect ... If you are a system user you should expect....

* to design a system that meets program goals and the operational needs of users

* the system will be designed to meet your most important programmatic and operational needs

* to make a case to your leaders that sufficient resources need to be invested in the project

* to make a case to your leaders that sufficient resources need to be invested in the project

* to spend a significant amount of time in the field observing and assessing program operations

* the project design will take into account how you actually do business

* to design a system that integrates as much as possible with existing systems and business practices

* to change some of your processes and business practices in order to abide by reasonable standards and take advantage of the new system

* to solicit and act on comments and recommendations made by users

* your experience and knowledge, especially related to direct service delivery will be given full consideration

* to commit a substantial amount of time, staff and other resources to activities that define, design, test, and implement the new system

* to commit a substantial amount of time, staff and other resources to activities that define, design, test, and implement the new system

* to communicate regularly with users and offer ample opportunity for them to influence the design-in- progress

* to devote time to the review and improvement of interim products, prototypes, and other partial results

* to compromise on your desires for a standard statewide solution

* to compromise on your desires for a customized solution

* to take into account the need to link this system with other systems

* to advise designers about the necessary linkages to other related state & local and non- governmental systems

* to prepare, deliver, and maintain effective training material and other support services

* to devote sufficient time and resources to staff training, to have ready access to ongoing support services

* to encounter problems and work cooperatively with users to resolve them

* to encounter problems and work cooperatively with designers to resolve them


This section presents some exemplary practices used in eleven state-localgovernment information systems projects in NYS. In each section wediscuss one kind of practice that contributes to successful state-localinformation systems, outlining some specific things that project participantscan do to help reach their goals. Each best practice narrative is followedby examples of various approaches used in these projects to achieve thedesired result. The examples are not prescriptions. They are intended todemonstrate how good managers adapted these concepts to the specificneeds of their projects.

Each state-local system project requires a somewhat different mix of thesepractices to guide it to a successful conclusion. These practices arepresented in a logical order of first consideration. However, we stress thatthese are practices, not steps. A traditional way of thinking about a projectis that a number of steps need to be completed in order to reach theproject�s goals. If that kind of thinking could be captured in a picture, itmight look like this chart:

Chapter 3. Best Practices

Project Sta rt Project F in ish

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

S tep 5

Step 6


While this kind of thinking is useful and important for managing activities,we urge you to think of these best practices, not as steps, but as ongoingareas of attention that exist throughout the project. The level of intensitythat any one practice commands at any point in time will vary. Forexample, the amount of attention you give to defining the project purposeand scope will be very high early in the project and then take a back seatto other considerations � but it will not disappear. The first definitions ofpurpose and scope will be revised and refined as you and your partnerslearn more about the problem you are solving and the resources at yourdisposal. Even after the purpose and scope seem fine-tuned, there arelikely to be new participants or new audiences who need to understandand accept it. This kind of thinking would look more like the chart below.

Practice A

Practice B

Practice C

Project Start Project Finish

Practice D

Practice E

Practice F

Level of Intensity

Keep these differences in mind as you move through this chapter.


Projects are initiated in a variety of ways. Some result frompolicy changes, new legal mandates, or changes in elected officeholders. Others emerge from grassroots discussions about theneed to change, advance, or simplify a process, take advantageof a new technology, or factor in a new information requirement.Regardless of the motivating factor, a well-defined projectpurpose and scope are instrumental to success. Defining purposeand scope means resisting the lure of the �end all� project andrelying instead on realistic incrementalism. We would all like tocreate the system that addresses all of the information andservice delivery needs of state and local agencies. However, tobe realistic and successful these needs must be identified, dis-cussed, categorized, and prioritized. The huge range of program-matic issues must be culled for a project purpose and scope thatare consistent with those priorities. Further, these needs must beanalyzed against the resources that are likely to be available.Ideally, the selected purpose and scope not only attack currentproblems, but lay a foundation or build capacity to deal withfuture ones.

State and local participants must work together to identify theinformation and service delivery needs of a particular programarea. Participants from the eleven state-local projects in thisstudy used professional meetings, association conferences, andregular meetings with state agency regional representatives tocarry out the needed discussions. State and local participantsboth saw these meetings as opportunities to discuss programneeds and to establish working groups able and willing to partici-pate in a project to address shared goals.

Resources are a key factor in decisions about project scope. Theprojects we reviewed were typically volunteer efforts at the locallevel and subject to restricted funding at the state level. Evenwhen both state and local participants are convinced of theoverall value of a specific project purpose, they are often unableto bring enough resources to the table to support a broad scope ofwork. Therefore, collectively prioritizing needs and collabora-tively working toward a scope that is appropriate for the availableresources serves all participants well. Communication skills,creative funding, and effectively managing existing resources allfigure prominently in this stage of the project activities.

Define purpose and scope

Probation Automation:Focus on core functions

The criminal justice community recog-nizes that the county-level Probationfunction is a critical piece of the publicsafety puzzle, but one that has typicallybeen left behind in the technologicaladvances that have become standard inthe rest of the community. While largercounties with MIS departments havemanaged to support their Probationoffices fairly well, small and medium-sized operations (50 of the 57 in thestate) can offer little to help Probationofficers do their jobs. In order toidentify the best focus for this project, adesign team consisting of both state andlocal officials examined the currentfunctions performed by all 57 CountyProbation Departments and New YorkCity. The team interviewed Division ofProbation and Corrections Alternativessenior staff to identify the functions ofthe Probation Departments. Based onthese interviews the functions werecategorized into three levels:

Level I encompassed mission criticalprobation core functions (such ascriminal court investigations andsupervision; family court intake,investigation and supervision; andbasic administrative functions likerestitution collections).

Level II covers alternatives to incarcera-tion such as community service andhouse detention.

Level III functions involve externaltreatment providers such as mentalhealth and drug and alcohol

treatment services.

An analysis of Probation functionsacross the entire state revealed that alllocal departments perform Level Iactivities, but Level II and III activities aremore specialized and not evenlydistributed. This categorization wasreviewed and affirmed by thoseinterviewed and continues to bereviewed in the project activities. Sincethe project�s purpose is to provide onestandard support system, the scope ofeffort was limited to support Level Ifunctions. All participants agree thatthis focus will generate the greatestreturn on investment in the system.


Projects often begin with open-minded brainstormingsessions aimed at garnering as many solutions as possible.It is important in this early phase of idea generation to berelatively unburdened by real-world restraints in order tomaximize the number of ideas and potential solutionsproduced. Once ideas are generated, the team mustchoose from among the possible solutions and evaluateeach using such factors as alignment with project purpose,cost, benefit, skill level required, time requirements, andability to integrate with other systems.

The following steps very briefly outline a procedure whichcan help your team establish and stick with realistic expec-tations:

� Prioritize project goals� Identify resources - funds, time,people, technologies� Consider time constraints - legal requirements, timing for

maximum impact, budget cycles, elections� Generate a wide range of potential solutions� Choose those solutions which can best support project

goals while staying within resource and time limits� Identify measurable performance factors within those

solutions� Map out an implementation plan; assign responsibilities

and chart project milestones on a timeline� Create a budget� Monitor and manage the project over time� Discuss progress with the team regularly and adjust the

project plan as needed

Immunization Information:Compelling purpose is a strong incentive

The NYS Immunization Information System(NYSIIS) project operates under state law and agrant from the US Centers for Disease Control(CDC). It comprises four demonstration projectsaround the state involving the voluntaryparticipation of counties, physicians, and otherhealth care providers. The demonstrations aretesting the feasibility of a statewide registry fortracking and monitoring the immunization ofchildren. The demonstration sites have widediscretion in how they set up their systems andforge partnerships with both public and privateparticipants. The State Health Department hireda system integrator to work with each site todesign a system that suits the needs andcapabilities of that community. The ultimate goalis to increase the rate of fully immunized childrenin New York State through an electronicrecordkeeping process that enables health careproviders to track and recall children to ensurethat they are age-appropriately immunized, andallows public health officials to assess theimmunization status and issues in theircommunities.

The project is a difficult one for several reasons:it deals with highly confidential information, itneeds to be integrated into the existing systemsand practices of thousands of physicians andother practitioners, and none of the players isrequired to participate. The demonstration sitesneed to sell the project to health care providersand heath agencies in an environment wherebusy practitioners with existing (mostlyproprietary) business systems have few dollarsto spend on new systems and little interest insystems that deal with a single issue likeimmunization. The project leaders at both thestate and local levels have worked hard to bringall parties to the table and address these issuesin each site, but one factor stands out as areason why participants become and stayengaged in this project: The purpose, (healthierchildren) and the project focus, (ensuring fullimmunization against communicable diseases)are clear, compelling, and widely endorsed.Since no other state has tackled this problem in away that will serve New York�s needs, theparticipants look on themselves as pioneers andhave a real stake in its success.


In virtually every project interview, we heard about the need for solid,consistent, positive leadership. Leadership was viewed as setting thestage for a project and ensuring timely and meaningful completion.Yet, the personal nature of leadership and our individual desire to beeffective leaders often leads us to deal with it in abstract terms. Theprojects we studied, however, showed how specific leadership traitshelp produce successful outcomes. A successful project leader:

� Is able to span the psychological and political distancebetween state and local governments. The project leadershould possess an understanding of both state and local needs andcapabilities � and be able to balance them. This balance is crucialto the success of state-local projects since buy-in and cooperationare two of the fundamental aspects of a successful project.

� Has a good understanding of local operations. Since thesesystems actually run at the local level, a project leader needs toappreciate the reality of local operating conditions. Some success-ful leaders had experience as both state and local officials, othersspent time in their careers working in field or regional offices ofstate agencies, and still others who did not have these kinds ofwork experience made it their business to understand local needsand operations from the local point of view.

� Enjoys the confidence and support of top-level executives.Getting and keeping top leadership support is the best way to keepa project on the front burner. It is essential to maintaining re-sources and to competing well against other government goals.Support from state level leaders gives local participants confidencein the project. Support from local level leaders helps ensure fullparticipation and joint problem solving. Successful project leadersdelivered on realistic expectations and kept their top executiveswell-informed and enthusiastic by communicating in terms thatexecutive leaders value: return on investment, partnerships,options, early warnings and so on.

Choose a well-skilled and respected project leader

Automated Dog Licensing:Leadership

communicationmakes a difference

A project leader can make thedifference in the enthusiasticadoption of a new informationsystem, especially one that�sentirely voluntary on the part oflocal participants. In NewYork�s development of asystem for the ElectronicTransfer of Dog Licenses, theproject leader was by allaccounts an excellentcommunicator andsalesperson.

She established a monthlydivision newsletter called �DogTales� to keep the Town Clerksinformed, and, according toone project participant, thenewsletter �helped to generatesupport, interest, and participa-tion in the project.� Everyonepotentially affected by the newsystem received a copy, sothere were no communicationgaps while development wasunderway. One local officialsaid that sometimes in dealingwith the state, local govern-ments find out about proce-dural changes after the fact.This project was different, hesaid, because the leader askedfor local advice all along theway, and worked hard to makesure that the project wouldallow local governments to usefamiliar technology. Anotherparticipant said that the leaderwas honest and open,assuring everyone that therewas no �hidden agenda� � onlyan attempt to save moneywhile ensuring access toquality data.


� Is an excellent communicator. Project Leaders must beable to articulate project goals, explain how they will beachieved, and show how the goals will benefit all the stake-holders. They need to speak the languages of differentaudiences and provide the right information in the right formatto meet those different needs. The leader needs to knowwhen to use formal presentations, newsletter articles, factsheets, briefing papers, and other methods of communication.Perhaps more important, the project leader needs to be agood listener and adept at encouraging others to communicatetheir needs and ideas.

� Is a resourceful manager of people, time, and money.The project leader is responsible for the effective use ofproject resources. Often he or she is also the person whoidentifies and encourages others to commit staff, money, ortime to a project. Since it is unlikely that a project will befully funded from one source, project leaders need to beentrepreneurial, inventive, and resourceful.

� Is flexible and willing to seize opportunities. Successfulproject leaders have a clear vision of where they want to go,but are quite willing to try a variety of ways to get there. Insome cases, they started with one kind of approach, but latermodified, or even abandoned it, in order to solve problems ortake advantage of a different perspective. They also had theability to know when the time was right to act, even whenthey had imperfect information or scarce resources. Theyrecognized when key factors in the environment were ripe forchange and capitalized on them in order to move theirprojects forward.

Annual Financial Reports:Leaders bring out the best in each

participant

In a project to automate the filing of localannual financial reports, project leaders atthe Office of the State Comptroller (OSC)worked hard to bring out the strengths ofeach participant. Time and again the localparticipants commented that the work theywere asked to do was perfectly suited totheir abilities. This meant that localparticipants were answering questionsconcerning functionality and werecommenting on design characteristicsrather than being concerned with thetechnical system design and softwareconsiderations. This demonstrated aleadership attribute that is essential to thesuccessful implementation of an intergov-ernmental project � understanding the rolesand capabilities of each participant,appreciating the limits of their time andenergy, and then involving them in the areaswhere they are most needed. The workaccomplished outside of the state-localmeetings was focused on coordinatingstate agency efforts to apply technology toimplement all that had been discussed withthe local participants. Hence, when OSCand the local representatives reconvened,the technical considerations of previousproposals had been worked out, newproducts were on the table for discussion,and the meeting could again focus on thereactions and concerns of the localparticipants.

OSC project leaders also ensured a veryprofessional work-oriented atmosphere.Meetings were held in off-site facilities thatwere appropriate for the kind of work beingconducted. Trained facilitators were usedin all meetings. Food and refreshmentswere provided at each meeting. Localofficials felt these were tangible ways ofshowing that OSC cared enough to take thetime to do the project �right� and to treatthem as equals. Local participantscommented that this level of preparationdemonstrated not only concern on the partof OSC but also proved the project hadconsiderable top management support,something which gave them even moreconfidence that the project would proceedto a successful conclusion.


The success of any intergovernmental informationsystems project generally depends on three factorsworking together: technology, management, and policy.If any of these areas are ignored in staffing a projectteam, the project is likely to have either short or longterm problems or both. Without individuals capable ofhandling project management functions (timelines,workplans, budgets, recruiting) you run the risk of poorcoordination, and wasted time and effort. If a projectlacks adequately skilled technology personnel, it is likelythat deadlines will be missed and applications may fail orcontain crucial flaws that render the system inferior tothe old way of doing business. Teams that do notinclude well-informed program and policy staff, espe-cially those engaged in direct service functions, arelikely to miss the boat on substantive service goals.

Moreover, the project team needs both state and localmembership and the roles assigned to each personshould take advantage of that individual�s organizationallocation and professional background and skills. Asurvey we conducted as part of our study showedclearly that all participants had greater confidence insuccess when local officials played active roles as leador co-designers. Local officials have the experience tounderstand the daily operational needs of any newproject. They understand the street-level realities. Assuch, the early, active, and ongoing involvement of localgovernment partners adds considerable value andensures more complete success. It is also important toestablish at the outset any limitations, such as travel timeand costs, on local agency ability toparticipate.

Recruit the right project team

Social Services Imaging Project:Clarify the nature of

participation

Establishing a project team with the right mixof program skills and technical understandingof the potential uses of imaging technologywas a critical step in the Local SocialServices District Imaging Project. Toencourage local involvement, the StateDepartment of Social Services (DSS) sent aletter to each County Social ServicesCommissioner inviting the Local SocialServices Office to participate in the project. Inorder to assist the Commissioner in thisdecision, the letter included detailed informa-tion about the desired nature of localinvolvement. Selected counties were invitedto participate in one of two groups: thosecounties which had been working with theState DSS on imaging related tasks wereinvited to participate in the pilot activities,while those who had begun to evaluate therole of imaging in their business processes orinformation access methods were invited tosit on an advisory board.

The invitation letter included the followingproject details:1. A statement of the main task for the

project2. A statement of the qualifications of the

individual to be designated3. A statement of the time and travel

commitments4. A draft contract entitled �LDSS/SDSS

Imaging Project Collaboration Contract.�This document spelled out the projectbackground, purpose, milestones, andexpectations for all participants on theteam.

This approach resulted in the formation of aproject team which was fully aware of theroles and commitment they had taken on, aswell as a team with the necessary program-matic and technology skills to carry out thework. It also generated the necessary topmanagement understanding and support forthe project.


As a group the project team will need to setobjectives, garner the support of many organiza-tions, plan, design, test, implement, promote, andevaluate the system. Team members should beselected both for the skills they can contributetoward project completion and for the commit-ment they bring on behalf of their organizations.It is most likely that different team members willneed to be involved at different levels of intensity.One approach is to assemble both a core workinggroup and an advisory group. These can then besupplemented when necessary by outside consult-ants or contractors.

Using stakeholder analyses and similar tools at theinception of a project can greatly enhance yourability to identify and consider all the parties thatmay need to be represented on the project teamand ensure they have a direct or representativevoice in its development.

Electronic Death Certificate:Prepare the way with a business case

The Electronic Death Certificate Project faced aformidable initial challenge � convincing and securingthe participation of all the parties involved in thefinalization of a death record. This group of criticalplayers includes physicians, medical examiners, funeralhome directors, and local government vital statisticsregistrars. Beyond this core group, many state andfederal agencies, the courts, and insurance companieshave a keen interest in the timely and legal verification ofdeaths. Technology-based improvements in the currentpaper-bound process needed the support and participa-tion of all parties involved.

Despite the variety of stakeholders and the complexityof their interactions, the project initiators at the StateHealth Department and the New York City Registrar ofVital Statistics were successful in getting all parities tosit down at the table and begin mapping out theirrequirements. They accomplished this by first making acompelling business case that the project would benefiteach participant. The case was documented in whitepapers that were widely distributed prior to any formalmeetings. For example, the business case for NYCRegistrars showed how a networked system wouldreduce time, cost, and errors. Each borough in NYCused to have a satellite office for vital records wherebusiness related to the people living in the boroughcould be conducted. Due to budget cuts these officeswere closed several years ago. Now when funeraldirectors need an official signature on a burial permitthey must travel to the central Registrar in Manhattan toobtain it. Even under ideal conditions, this trip can takeseveral hours. When you consider there are more than70,000 deaths a year in New York City and that mostpeople live outside Manhattan, this makes for aconsiderable workload for all the funeral directors in thearea. The white paper showed how network technol-ogy, including digital signatures, could allow them toobtain the needed authorizations without leaving theirbusinesses.

These papers, with their focus on benefits to stakehold-ers, generated a great deal of interest in the project andwillingness to attend the initial planning meeting. At thatsession, participants were already well-informed andable to focus on key issues such as protectingconfidentiality and adopting electronic signatures thatwould enable them to achieve these benefits.

�A successful projectteam needs policy,management, and

technology expertswith both state andlocal perspectives.�


Reasons for developing information systems vary from oneproject to the next. Some projects are designed to takeadvantage of new technology, others to improve delivery ofservices to customers, and still others to improve businessprocesses or reduce costs. Although the reasons differ, theneed to �sell� the project to decision makers is universal.This is a particularly important consideration for localgovernments, which often have to work with very smallbudgets and much competition for limited resources.Moreover, in an intergovernmental project, the �selling�process needs to be a coordinated effort that involvesindividuals from both the state and local levels. Very oftenthe project objectives and expected benefits are notuniformly understood by all of the project stakeholders. Agood way to establish common understanding, market theproject to decision makers, and generate consistent supportis to articulate a shared vision at the beginning of theproject. This vision (written down and used consistently inimportant project documents and events) communicates toall stakeholders important information about why theproject is being undertaken, what the expected goals are,and how the realization of these goals will benefit thevarious stakeholders.

There is always some cost involved in automation or newinformation systems, and some of those costs must beborne at the local level. Local investments need to be tiedto local benefits. It is easy to show how a new road orsewer system will benefit a community. It is much moredifficult to show how a new information system will do thesame. Since local authorities need to make trade-offsamong competing demands for resources, they, like allother investors, put their money (or time, or staff, or goodwill) where there is the greatest potential for real returns.

Sell the project to decision makers

Aging Services System:Establish a common vision

When planning the Aging NetworkClient Based Service ManagementSystem Project (CBS), the NYS Officeof the Aging (SOFA) together with the59 Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs)recognized that for the project to besuccessful it had to be �sold� to keydecision makers at both state and locallevels of government. SOFA workedwith the 59 AAAs to create a clearvision for the project: �The goal of theCBS project is to restructure the Agingservices network of New York Stateinto an integrated, automated environ-ment that supports the independenceof older persons living in the State.�

The project team members shared aclear and common understanding of theneed for the project and its goals.These members in turn were able tocommunicate this information to thedecision makers in their organizationsto allow them to understand thebenefits and goals of the project andthus gain their support. The projectteam identified key state and localstakeholders whose support wascritical to the success of the project,including program management andtechnical staff and county leveladministrators, and developed anapproach to communicating with theseindividuals about the project vision.They explained to the administratorshow the CBS system would improvecoordination of service delivery toclients by building on available familysupports and ensuring that the servicedelivery system provided only essentialservices and programs therebyultimately increasing the efficiency andeffectiveness of local Aging offices.


When the choice is between a new road and an informa-tion system, it is often tempting for the city council orvillage authorities to vote for the road and bypass the newsystem. No matter how improved or elegant the newsystem may be, it must compete with projects whosebenefits are more tangible and whose success is easier tomeasure. Local officials told us that if they are consultedin the earliest stages of a system design, they can giveadvice that will make the system more attractive to localdecision makers and help make the case for local invest-ment. Securing top management participation in a projectup-front can be difficult and usually adds time to the start-up phase of projects, but it goes a long way to ensuresuccessful projectcompletion.

Annual Financial Reports:Focus on fundamentals

The Annual Financial Reports project teamenjoyed a simplified task of selling theirproject to top management since the projectwas designed to simplify a core function atthe Office of the State Comptroller (OSC)and a fundamental legal requirement of localparticipants. Not all projects have thisluxury, but the closer a project comes tosupporting the �core� functions of bothparties in the intergovernmental arena, themore support it is likely to get from topexecutives.

However, in this project, the team did notstop at the focus on �core� needs. Theyalso encouraged top-level state managersto attend the meetings with local partici-pants so they were informed first hand andstayed aware of the project goals andprogress. How did they get top manage-ment to attend? By starting early andemphasizing the �core� nature of theproject. The project leaders took advantageof the fact that OSC was in the midst ofseveral quality improvement exercises andthus, everyone was more aware of theneed �to get involved.� This made projectprogress much easier since it was not aconstant battle to get top managementattention. The participation by OSC decisionmakers also sent clear messages to localparticipants that this project was importantand would be supported and completed bythe state agency � something localgovernments have come to doubt frommany past projects.

�Local investmentneeds to be tied to

local benefits.�


Regardless of size and type of application, a projectteam operating in today�s intergovernmental envi-ronment is faced with a multitude of stakeholderrelations issues. Project stakeholders have not onlya desire but a genuine need to know what is takingplace within a project. Good communicationpractices ensure that all stakeholders (both thoseactively involved and those who will eventually beaffected) are continuously and adequately informed.In addition to communicating with stakeholdersduring the initial stages of project development, it isimportant to continue to communicate throughoutthe entire process to make sure that everyone isaware of and given opportunity to comment on andparticipate in the project activity. Just as importantare good working relationships that encouragestakeholders to participate actively in giving andreceiving information. Many techniques may beused to establish and maintain good communica-tions: status meetings, distribution of printed andelectronic project materials, formal presentations,and so on. The techniques selected should bebased on the particulars of the project and thefollowing factors:

� Who are the project stakeholders?� What type of information do they require at what

level of detail?� What type and level of information is needed

from them?� How frequently do they want or need informa-

tion?� How frequently is information needed from

them?� What is the most useful way for them to receive

information?� What type of feedback mechanisms are neces-

sary to encourage them to respond and react?� What tools need to be used to continuously

monitor the effectiveness of communication?

Communicate often and clearly with stakeholders

Automated Dog Licensing:Networks connect people as well as

computers

There were plenty of benefits in the ElectronicTransfer of Dog Licenses Project that made workeasier and faster, and improved the quality of thedata. One unexpected benefit, according to the teamleader was the extent of �networking with municipallicensing agents and the software vendors.� Thisnetworking was not accidental, however, but theresult of consistent and careful communication thatconnected all the stakeholders in the project andprovided opportunities for them to become investedfrom the very earliest stages of system development.The municipal clerks told us that they were membersof the team whose opinions clearly mattered.

The team leader knew that the state sent noticesoccasionally to the municipal license issuers, so sheused the mailing as a vehicle for a newsletter thatkept all municipal agents informed about changes inthe licensing process. She set certain standards forthe newsletters. Consistent with the theme of theproject, the newsletters aimed at simplicity.They had to:

� contain real information of interest to the

municipal officials

� be short � only one page front and back

� be clear and concise, not detailed � other

vehicles were used for intricate instructions

� have new information, not old recycled

information

Once the system was implemented, a brochure wasdeveloped to explain the system and how it works,as well as the benefits for local licensing agents. Thebrochure was designed to answer one questionposed by a municipal clerk: What do I need to knowabout this new way of reporting dog licenseinformation?

Throughout the project the state team also stayed intouch with the Clerks and vendors of municipalsoftware packages by phone. The first calls tovendors about adapting to this new system met witha lukewarm response, but the team, particularly theteam leader, was persistent. Development teammembers attended the statewide municipal clerksmeeting where they organized a special session forvendors which eventually led several to adapt theirproducts to support the new system.


By answering these questions, the selection ofcommunication techniques becomes a much easiertask that generates more reliable and useful results.For project team members, communications tend tobe quite frequent and detailed involving e-mail andphone messages, status reports, flow diagrams, andface-to-face and electronic meetings. For thebroader community of stakeholders, they are morelikely to involve briefing sheets, newsletter articles,and presentations at conferences. The importantthing to remember is to keep information flowingcontinuously to keep everyone focused on theproject goals and aware of the progress being made.

Probation Automation:Frequent, timely interaction among peers

The Probation Automation Team consists of seven CountyProbation Directors or their designees as well as both programand technical staff of the NYS Division of Criminal JusticeServices (DCJS) and the NYS Division of Probation andCorrectional Alternatives (DPCA). This diverse team has beenactively involved in every phase of the project. Communicationamong the members follows a familiar pattern applied across anumber of tasks. Whether gathering information or makingdecisions, the group begins with personal visits. These haveincluded structured �walk-throughs� of local departmentoperations, planning meetings, vendor demonstrations, and soon. After each series of face-to-face sessions, a writtendocument is produced by the state project members, represent-ing their understanding of the business process, project scope,timeline, or other items under review or development. Usually,within a short period of time, the document is given to the localmembers to obtain their feedback and clarification. Revisionsare then made and the documents become part of the writtenrecord of project results. These written records, having beendeveloped and approved by all members of the team, form thefoundation for a mutually agreed upon set of project principles,goals, and achievements. There is no confusion about whatthey represent or how each one fits into the larger scheme ofthe project plan.

Annual Financial Reports:Clear, convincing, and continuous

communication

The NYS Office of the State Comptroller (OSC)knew that it faced a difficult task when it beganplanning its automated electronic annual reportfiling system. Because of the large number oflocal governments that would be participating inthe project and the range of technical knowl-edge, available resources and existing systemsthat the local governments operated, there weremany factors for OSC to consider. OSC furtherrecognized that it would be necessary to notonly enlist the support of all project stakehold-ers, but also to establish good communicationpractices for sending and receiving vitalinformation about the project. OSC addressedthis problem in two ways: first by letting thestakeholders know that the project was acollaborative effort, and that their input andparticipation truly mattered, and second byimplementing efficient and effective practicesfor communicating with them. Since this was avoluntary option and not mandated, it wasnecessary to market the project well to ensurethat all local governments who desired to fileelectronically were aware of the project. Someof OSC�s techniques included:

Establishment of a formal project vision andstatement of scope to inform stakeholdersabout the project purpose and gathersupport

Formation of a local government AdvisoryCommittee to act as an oversight body toreview project status and discuss goalsand strategies

Consistent and regular use of note takers,facilitators, meeting agendas, �parking lots�,and action lists to make effective use ofmeeting time and ensure that all meetingswere run in a professional atmosphere.

Prompt action on outstanding issues and reportsContinuous marketing using surveys, newsletter

articles, speeches at conferences, trainingsessions, and direct mailings.

OSC�s efforts resulted in a communicationenvironment that encouraged participation andyielded prompt results. Stakeholders knew theirinput was important because they could readilysee how it affected the project development andthey were fully informed of what was happen-ing with the project at all times.


The traditional ways to finance government informationsystems initiatives, prevalent in the 1970s and 80s, consistedof two main types: (1) direct appropriations from statelegislatures that were used to cover both state and localcosts or (2) federal funding that usually matched state fundsby a formula. Some critical systems projects financed partlyby the federal government benefited from �enhanced�federal funding � sometimes as much as 90 percent � aslong as states abided by certain schedules and other rules.While these methods are still in use today, it is much morelikely that a state-local information system effort will befinanced by a �package� of resources that comprises somecombination of cash appropriations, some grant funds (eitherfederal or foundation), some �in-kind� resources (public andprivate), and a lot of redeployed human effort.

Since these resources go well beyond the usual budgetcategories that finance and budget office staff are familiarwith, the project manager or the senior members of theproject management team are often responsible for puttingthis package together. Creative financing entails not only theusual budget management skills, but the ability to convinceothers to contribute resources, the ability to identify grantopportunities and write successful grant applications, and theability to recognize and balance the constraints and rules thatmultiple funding sources can impose on a project plan. Sincethe full project budget may not come from a dedicated newfund, it is more important than ever that the source andamount of available resources be well understood andcarefully managed. Creative financing also means carefullythought out investment of the resources available. Thinkabout ways to cover actual expenses that also �leverage�other resources.

Finance creatively

Probation Automation:A little bit means a lot

Seven county Probation Directors aremembers of the design team for theProbation Automation project. Each isstrongly committed to the goals of theproject and willing to absorb the work ittakes to be fully involved in every phaseof the project. However, these localofficials have great difficulty findingmoney in local budgets to pay theexpenses of traveling to Albany or otherlocal sites to attend planning sessions,or conduct process reviews. Thedesign phase of this project is supportedby a limited amount of federal funds.One of the ways these funds are used,is to pay the travel expenses that allowthe County Directors to participate in allthese activities. It makes sense to useproject funds to cover these travelexpenses (which are often small)because these expenditures leveragemuch more valuable and expensiveresources represented by the time andexpertise of the County Directorsthemselves.

In addition, a number of state staff inboth the Division of Criminal JusticeServices and the Division of Probationand Correctional Alternatives areparticipating in this project. Most of themare also assigned to other activities anddivide their time and attention betweenthose responsibilities and the Probationproject. DCJS decided, however, thatthe project director should be devoted tothe project 100% and not be diverted byother competing demands. As a result,he is able to focus full time on the needsof this project, organizing the work insuch a way that the part-time involve-ment of all the others generatesmaximum value for the project as awhole.


Electronic Voter Registration:Financing from the ground up

Electronic Voter Registration in New York State hasbeen a grass roots project with local officials takingthe lead to implement a new process to expand voterregistration, provide more accurate and timely data,give faster service, and expand the time periodduring which Election Boards register voters. This isnot a mandated program. Neither is it an optionalstate-sponsored program that the state tried to sell tolocalities. It is a voluntary effort among the partici-pants, led by local government sponsors.

The Monroe County Board of Elections was thesponsor of a grant proposal for staffing andconsultant services that was funded through theNew York State Local Government RecordsManagement Improvement Fund administered by theState Archives and Records Administration (SARA).Total state funding for the project was $180,000. Thestaff position was located at the New York StateForum for Information Resources Management, anagency-supported organization associated with theState University devoted to effective use ofinformation technology in state and local government.The Forum also contributed additional professionaland administrative time to the project and managed aconsultant contract. All local staff worked on avolunteer arrangement, as did state staff from theDepartments of Health and Motor Vehicles. Together,the paid staff and volunteers managed an effortunder the aegis of the American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) to define the electronic data inter-change transaction set for voter registration that isnow the standard for the nation and is currentlybeing adopted throughout New York State.

Aging Services System:A financial fabric of many threads

The Aging Services community deals primarily indiscretionary relationships. There is no mandate thataging services be provided. They operate throughresources that are annually appropriated to supportaging network activities. To use their words, �we liveby faith.� This is possibly one reason why thecommunity has developed a keen appreciation for thevalue and necessity of building effective partnershipsand identifying and securing multiple sources offunding.

Garnering financial support and building partnershipswith a broad range of public and private sectorparticipants has allowed the State Office for the Aging(SOFA) to move forward in its efforts to integrate andenhance service delivery to elderly New Yorkers.Several streams of funding support this highlyinterdependent effort. A grant from the U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce is supporting the implementation ofInternet connectivity for New York�s 59 Area Agencieson Aging (AAA). Together with matching funds andprivate sector contributions, this grant provides forremote connectivity to local client databases. Apartnership with New York City and a number ofprivate vendors in the development of a pilot systemhas allowed SOFA and the AAAs to move forwarddespite limited staff and funding.

In an effort to attract partners from the private sectorto participate in the project SOFA advertised theproject on its World Wide Web page. As a result, bothNYNEX and Cabletron provided services and materials.SOFA sees building partnerships with public andprivate sector organizations as an ongoing effort.Maintaining current partnerships and building newones helps this project team stretch the value of the�hard� dollar investments being made by the state,local, and non-profit agencies.

�Projects are usually financedthrough an informal package of

resources including appropriations,grants, and in-kind contributions.�


The manager of a state-local system project needs tools to managepeople, time, relationships, partnerships, ideas, conflicts, resources,information, and processes. He or she needs a range of techniques tomanage multiple streams of formal and informal communication andactivity. Most of the successful techniques we observed were basedon a keen understanding of the project�s goals and common senseadaptation of both traditional and newly popular management tech-niques. The state-local project manager must have a considerablenumber of management techniques in his or her tool kit. Among these,the most important is the ability to select the right tool for the job athand.

A number of tools are useful for establishing common understanding,and getting support and buy-in for proposed project activities. Startinga project with a set of formal assumptions about what is expected ofeach participant, the pace at which the project will progress, thelimitations of existing resources or systems, helps avoid misunderstand-ings and dispels unrealistic expectations. Visual tools such as concep-tual and project workflow diagrams and timelines become living guidesto the project that evolve over time. Starting each meeting with areview of the workflow diagrams and timeline helps participants seeprogress and focus their energies on the work ahead.

Tools that are more oriented to task management are necessary at thefunctional level of project activities. Preparing for a group facilitationexercise, preparing a site for a pilot installation, or preparing for apublic showing of progress or results all require detail-oriented taskmanagement techniques.

The following are a few of the more popular techniques in use in theprojects we studied:

� Team meetings. Team meetings provide a forum for the projectteam to meet as a group to plan, and discuss issues, problems, oractivities that affect the project as a whole. Thanks to teleconfer-encing and videoconferencing, meetings can be held face-to-faceand electronically.

� Facilitated group meetings. For some activities it is very usefulto have a professional facilitator take over the responsibilities of

Adopt tools and techniques that can manage complexity

Real Property System:User groups for various

platform options

The New York State Office ofReal Property Services (ORPS)needed a good way to effec-tively manage and communicatewith a large and diverse usercommunity when it beganplanning for its Real PropertySystem (RPS) Version 4 project.The local government usercommunity for the system wasdispersed all across New YorkState and comprised individualswith different levels of technicalknowledge and availableresources. In addition, no twolocal governments seemed to beusing the same hardware andsoftware configuration. TheRPS team understood that tomeet the needs of all stakehold-ers, it would be necessary towork with several differentgroups that represented thevarious interests in this diverseuser community. The solutionwas to create user groups foreach of the major technicalplatforms then in use.

The RPS team held formalmeetings with representativesfrom each of the user groups todiscuss the project and how itwould affect agencies usingtheir platform type. Therepresentatives participated on apurely voluntary basis, accord-ing to their interest and availabil-ity. After each meeting, therepresentatives relayed themeeting minutes to all membersof the user group using e-mail ormemos. This process ensuredthat everyone in the user groupswas kept informed of alldiscussions held and decisionsreached during the meetings.This method of managementproved to be very successful.The staff at ORPS credit thesuccess of this effort as part ofthe Agency�s new focus on thecustomer, and said that thispractice will be continued infuture system developmentefforts.


managing group dynamics so every member of the project team canmake a substantive contribution to the discussion or decision at hand.This is particularly helpful when many voices need to be heard in theprocess of reaching consensus on an important decision or action.

� Committees and specialized work groups. Not every agency orindividual is necessary in every step of the process. Instead, selectrepresentative members of user groups, agency types, or otherstakeholders and organize them into working groups. A committeeor work group is typically formed to perform a specialized task oractivity, and then report its results to the larger project team. Thisallows work to go on in parallel on several fronts. It also helps focusthe limited time of individuals on the areas where they have the mostexpertise.

� Status reports. Status reports provide information about currentproject activity and can be distributed in electronic or paper form.Most project participants we interviewed wanted regular statusreports, even when there were no major changes or milestones toreport. It was more important to have a steady flow of usefulinformation than to have a sporadic one limited to big news.

� E-mail. E-mail is a very versatile communications mechanism. Itcan be used for one-to-one as well as group communications. E-mail distribution and discussion lists can be used to inform teammembers about important project activities or events, or to facilitatediscussion of problems and accomplishments.

� Visual project management tools. Graphical project planning,scheduling, and reporting tools (e.g., GANT, CPM, PERT) provideuseful techniques for visually communicating project information.These pictures are often the best way to show how differentstreams of activity interact with or depend on one another. There aresoftware packages that create these pictures, but the most compli-cated is not necessarily the best, and sometimes a simple handdrawn sketch says all that is needed.

� Quality management techniques. Many of the tools and methodsof the quality movement are very effective in state-local systemsefforts. They are especially useful in setting goals and solvingproblems. Don�t worry about finding a complete set of brand-namequality management tools. The generic versions work just as well.

� Checklists. The humble checklist gets a great deal of use inplanning specific activities, products and events. It puts all thepieces of work in one place along with due dates and work assign-ments for all to see, discuss, and understand.

Probation Automation:A picture is worth a

thousand words

The goal of the ProbationAutomation Project is todevelop a computerizedsystem to support theinformational needs andbusiness practices ofapproximately fifty small tomid-size County ProbationDepartments. In order tosucceed, the project teamneeded to first identify andthen stay focused on thosefunctional areas whichwere common to all ofthese different depart-ments. The various tasksbeing performed at the localoffices were identified andthen categorized as LevelsI, II, and III with Level Irepresenting common corefunctions. The teamrepresented their findings ina diagram using concentriccircles - the center circlespecified Level I ProbationCore Functions, the middlecircle specified Level IIfunctions needed forAlternative to IncarcerationPrograms, and the outer-most circle specified LevelIII functions performed byexternal treatment provid-ers. The diagram was usedby the project team toconfirm their mutuallydeveloped understanding ofthe functional areas to beaddressed by the newsystem. It was also used toconvey their focus andreasoning to the widercommunity of stakeholders.The diagram became thefocal point for manysubsequent discussions,allowing the team toemphasize both the preciseareas the project wasmeant to address and thelarger context within whichthese core functions lie.


Look for existing models

Any project can benefit from a systematic review of similar efforts inother places. Since private and public sector organizations in this countryand others often conduct similar programs, there are nearly always modelsfrom which to learn. Academic researchers and non-profit organizationsmay also have solved a problem, or at least developed part of the solution.There is a lot to learn from success stories and even more to be learnedfrom cases where things didn�t always go as planned. Although mostorganizations and individuals are more likely to report their successfulmodels rather than their failures.

Best practices research is an organized attempt to learn from the experi-ence of others. It aims at identifying the best possible set of solutions for agiven problem. The advantage of best practices research is that it mini-mizes the possibility of repeating known mistakes and helps planning teamsidentify all components of a problem.

Models can be found on the World Wide Web, in library online catalogsand CD-ROM databases, from commercial information vendors and atconference sessions and vendor displays. Interviewing experts can yieldgood results as can posting questions on Internet-based discussion groups.Site visits and technology demonstrations can provide firsthand experiencewith a system already in use.

�Best practices research isan organized attempt to

learn from the successes andfailures of others.�


Aging Services System:Good models are sometimes close to

home

The Aging Client Based Management System(CBS) project team undertook a comprehensivesearch for models to guide the development of aninformation system to integrate and enhanceservice delivery to older New Yorkers. To avoid�reinventing the wheel,� the project team estab-lished both technical- and content-focusedinterdivisional teams and undertook an exhaustivesearch for applicable models in other state andlocal units on aging. Professional associations,personal contacts, and formal channels wereused to support this search. The effort success-fully identified a model, secured a primary partneron the project � and ended closer to home thananyone expected. A project was alreadyunderway in New York City to develop a systemto support integrated needs assessment andservice authorization for the elderly and it servedmany of the needs of this new statewide effort.

The new partnership between SOFA and the NewYork City Department for the Aging is resulting inthe development of a pilot system which will betested in eleven Area Agencies on Aging (AAA)as well as in NYC. SOFA, working together withthe AAAs and the NYC Department for the Aging,identified a set of common core businessprocesses that could be the focus of the pilotsystem. SOFA and NYC are working with asubcontractor on the development of the system.Representatives from the eleven AAAs as well asstaff from the NYC Department of the Aging havebeen participating in needs analysis efforts andare being trained on the use of the pilot so thatthey may effectively evaluate its use and the levelof customization that may be required to supporttheir local conditions.

Immunization Information:Piece together a model from partial solutions

The NYS Immunization Information System project isdesigned to construct and manage a number of verylarge regional databases that catalog immunizationrecords from thousands of providers, including public,private, and non-profit health care professionals andagencies. To collect this invaluable public health datameans involving no less than every provider ofimmunizations in the state. No existing modelsemerged from a review by the State Health Departmentof existing state or federal government efforts.However, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)had developed a working paper around the issueincluding a key factor: the specific data elements thatwould be needed for an effective immunizationregistry. A contract systems integrator was able toidentify technology components that might serve theneeds of this unique project as well as offer ITmethodologies to help ensure that the project siteswere considering all the various management,technology, and policy implications associated withsuch an ambitious project. While the systemsintegrators were not directly responsible for systemdesign they were able to aid the teams in identifyingand evaluating existing technologies which helpedensure technology awareness and system integrationneeds. The project team began to construct its plansbased on these two partial foundations: from the CDCpaper they were able to compare their thinking withother public health experts, and from the experiencesand expertise that the systems integrator offered, theycould see some of the likely technical options andoperational considerations.

Although there were no working immunizationregistries from which to model their project, the teamlearned that there was great value in these pockets ofexpert judgment. They pulled these partial modelstogether and were able to recognize key data andtechnology factors that gave them a significant headstart on this important and ambitious new initiative.


Understand and improve processes before you applytechnology

Probation Automation:On-site �walk-throughs�

The Probation Automation Teamconducted extensive �walk-throughs� of the seven localprobation departments representedon the design team. They used astandard protocol to document thebusiness practices of eachdepartment to determine whethertheir practices were similar enoughto warrant a standardized processthat could be supported by onenew system. The Directors fromall seven local agencies plus statestaff (both technical and program)from the Division of Criminal JusticeServices and the Division ofProbation and CorrectionalAlternatives took part in each sitevisit. Each local departmentreceived a written summary of thedocumentation for review,comments, and revision. The nextstep was a �cross-walk� amongthe seven write-ups to identifyboth similarities and differencesamong these local operations. Theresult was a flow chart andprocess element narratives thatwill be used to design the newsystem. These documents not onlyestablished the feasibility ofstandard business processes,they also turned out to be quiteuseful in other settings, such asorientation for new staff and inputto other business processimprovement activities likedocument imaging.

A system that successfully supports both the servicedelivery role of local governments and the informa-tion requirements of the state usually results from aclear understanding of the dependencies and require-ments that govern the business processes that linkthem together.

In many cases when an organization takes on aproject to improve a complex business process, thoseinvolved in the process are brought together for thefirst time. Most work processes have evolved overlong periods of time and reflect the idiosyncrasies orpreferences of individuals or of program and policychanges. Often, no one knows the whole story orthe basis behind particular tasks or sub-tasks.

Project teams often find that a significant amount ofthe improvement they expect from a new system,actually comes from understanding and improvingthese processes. Subsequently, automation can oftenadd further improvement. Several approaches wereused by the eleven project teams to ensure that theparticipants understood and improved the completebusiness process involved in their systems efforts.

Bringing state-local project participants together in aneffort to map or outline the business process underconsideration for improvement is critical to thesuccess of an intergovernmental project. Theinformation flows and process dependencies within


and among organizations are complicated andseldom under the complete control of any oneorganization. Participants in these efforts certainlybegin to understand the related processes in placein the other agencies, but in many cases they alsocome to better understand their own processes.Once participants are fully aware of the businessprocess under consideration, the basis or rationalebehind particular steps, and the effect of thosesteps on the overall process, they are then able tobegin reviewing the process for improvementopportunities. If a particular step in the processresults from a statutory requirement, then the stepcannot be removed and the freedom to modify thatstep is limited. However, if a particular task isbased on agency practice which has evolved overtime and the rationale is no longer relevant, thenthe task may be considered for removal or refine-ment. Redundant and inefficient steps can beidentified and removed. After this process im-provement effort, a system design can go forwardwith greater likelihood of sucess.

SALESNET:Every player at the table

In preparation for developing an automatedsystem to record and report property sales, theNYS Office of Real Property Services (ORPS)organized a highly representative statewideSteering Committee which acted as both anadvisory group and a communication conduit. Inorganizing the committee, the ORPS team invitedrepresentatives of the Bar Association, themunicipal assessors, county clerks, titlecompanies, county directors of real propertyservices, and county IT directors. Through thecontacts on the Steering Committee, stakehold-ers in the counties who deal with propertysales and transfers were surveyed about theirreadiness for adopting an automated system.The survey results helped the developerschoose the pilot site and it helped provide arealistic user perspective.

The team also operated in parallel with anoverall core process improvement projectunderway at the Office of Real PropertyServices. The core process improvement effortproduces maps that explain what users aredoing in transactions that affect real property.One group of representative clerks, assessors,and lawyers were brought together in OrangeCounty to determine every step of the salesprocess, including what happens in the preludeto a sale. A data flow diagram that resultedshowed the process from beginning to end.This helped the development team focus onusers needs in designing a friendly, functionalsystem � and one that would make sense in thecontext of the overall core processes thatsupport real property transactions all aroundthe state.

�Often, much of theimprovement we expect

from a new system actuallycomes from understanding

and improving businessprocesses.�


Match the technology to the job

Hunting and Fishing Licenses:Making hard choices

When looking at the information requirements ofits automated hunting and fishing licensingsystem, the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC) recognizedthat the technology options that could be usedto build the system were somewhat limited, dueto the rather unique way that the Departmentsells and processes licenses as�accountables.� One of the solutions proposedto DEC involved the use of specialized point-of-sale hardware that was impressive, but alsoproprietary, expensive, and difficult to integratewith local systems. The appeal of investing inthis solution was tempting � DEC would be ableto use dedicated, state-of-the-art technology toautomate the licensing process and build asystem with high integrity. The downside of thesolution however outweighed this appeal.Local issuing agents did not want another pieceof hardware or a stand-alone system forlicenses. They believed they would be muchbetter served by a solution that integrated withtechnology already in use in their offices. DECdecided that those considerations were moreimportant and began to investigate other tools toget the job done. DEC�s ability to weigh long-term goals against the immediate appeal of thespecialized hardware will eventually result in asystem that will better support the needs of thelocal governments by satisfying their require-ments for simplicity and integration with existingbusiness activities.

Understanding that the solution to one problem is notalways the solution to another even highly-relatedproblem, helps a project team avoid mismatchingtechnology solutions to problems. Further, understand-ing that not all problems have or require a technologysolution helps ensure that an appropriate matchbetween technology and the task at hand is made.Over-doing as well as underutilizing technology areboth risks to state-local system initiatives.

Project teams often look to the technology lessonsfrom their last project and try to apply them in thecurrent project. Or they become interested in a newtechnology that seems to be barreling through themarketplace with powerful new features. Theysometimes fail to give full consideration to the workprocesses and overall business context in which thesystem must operate. Consideration must also begiven to user capabilities and the organizational andstaffing limitations of the agencies that will be imple-menting, using, and maintaining the system to deliverservices. Technical awareness activities that intro-duce a variety of technical tools to the project teamare often helpful. These can consist of literaturereviews, searches on the World Wide Web, vendor


presentations, or attendance at technology exhibitions andconferences. Prototyping is an excellent, relatively low-cost way to test the �fit� between a technology and theenvironment it which it must work.

In most cases, incremental system building using appropri-ate standards, prototyping, piloting, and evaluation tech-niques, is a good idea. This approach allows for additionsto system functionality as well as for the integration of newtechnologies over time.

Social Services Imaging Project:Tools of the trade

The tools that are used by tradesmen toperform carpentry, plumbing, electricalwork, and masonry are all differentbecause the tasks they perform aredifferent. In the world of system develop-ment, the same principle holds true, if youwant to do the job right you need to use theright tools.

The New York State Department of SocialServices (DSS) understood and subscribedto this philosophy when it was consideringdesign options for its local district imagingsystem. On the surface, the systemappeared to be a simple imaging applicationthat would be used to collect and archiveforms and information relevant to socialservices cases. However, the team knewthat the system would need to do muchmore than that. It would also need to be adecision support tool that would be used bylocal DSS caseworkers to make clientdecisions based on historical information.As a result, the team knew it would need toconsider technologies that would accommo-date the integration of images, workflow,and case information stored as �objects.�

By understanding how case workers workand selecting the right tools, the teamachieved successful results. The imagingtechnologies they selected met the initialrequirements of the system design bysupporting the collection and sharing ofcase-relevant information among local DSSstaff. Information that previously had to besent to different offices through the mail,could now be shared electronically overcomputer networks to support rapid andeffective case decision making.

�Before choosingtechnology, consider

work processes,user capabilities,

organizational factors,and existing systems.�


Use industry standard technology

Social Services Imaging Project:Images of success

When considering technical options for the development of itsLocal DSS Imaging project, the New York State Department ofSocial Services was faced with a dilemma: try to build asystem that would run on as few platforms as possible toreduce support and maintenance problems or try to accommo-date the diverse hardware and software base of its largeuser community. The team understood the inherent difficultiesof trying to develop and maintain different versions of asystem that would run on multiple platforms at the local level �the numerous idiosyncrasies of different software, operatingsystems, and hardware would make it extremely difficult todesign and support the system. However, the team alsounderstood that local agencies need to integrate new systemsinto their existing computing environments and would have atough time convincing their management to accept a systemthat was not compatible with existing hardware and software.The problem was how to build a system that would takeadvantage of the best technology while at the same time avoidthe possibility that it would become an orphan in the localgovernment�s larger systems environment.

As a solution to the problem, the team decided to develop asystem that would be compliant with as many mainstreamhardware and software standards as possible. This wouldensure that the system components would integrate with oneanother, and greatly increase the potential longevity of thesystem by providing an upgrade path that would allow for theintegration of evolving technologies that used the sameindustry standards. Local users were happy with this solutionbecause they knew that they would not be receiving a systembuilt with outdated or proprietary components. For those notyet following the mainstream, this was also an incentive tobegin to move toward standard technologies that wouldenable them to adopt new tools and enhancements morereadily in the future.

In our world of rapidly evolving technologies,there are many different options. Beforemaking selections, it is a good idea to investi-gate current technical standards and todevelop an awareness of what productssupport the standards. If you purchasetechnology that does not support current ordeveloping standards, chances are good it willnot be able to integrate with other products.

Industry standards exist for almost everytype of hardware, software, and communica-tions technology, including such things as dataorganization and access (e.g. databasestructure, query languages), data interchange(e.g. Electronic Data Interchange, encryp-tion), networking services (e.g. data commu-nications, network management, e-mail), anddocument imaging (e.g. scanning, imaging,workflow). In some cases, these standardsare developed through the efforts of a formalnational or international committee. In othercases, because of market share, a certainvendor�s approach becomes the de factostandard.


Standards enable interoperability and electronic messag-ing among system components. They also offer vendorindependence and scalability � when you use a com-mon standard, you will be able to choose among differ-ent products that adhere to the standard and will be ableto scale up to larger systems when the need arises. Youcan become familiar with the appropriate standards forany given application through discussions with experi-enced colleagues, talking to vendors, reading tradejournals and other literature, and by searching theInternet. New York State has established preferredstandards for many technologies through the efforts ofworking groups sponsored by the Governor�s TaskForce on Information Resource Management.

Electronic Voter Registration:The right standard at the right price

The Electronic Voter Registration projectteam was faced with a challenging task: theseamless communication of informationamong disparate computer systemsemployed by the State Board of Election, thelocal Boards of Election, and the StateDepartments of Health and Motor Vehicles.While employing Electronic Data Interchangeto handle the application-related interfaceissues, the project team originally expectedto use Value Added Networks (VANS) toactually transport the transaction recordsfrom one computer to another. Under thistraditional method, companies lease lines intoa central site supported by a for-profit VAN.The VAN transfers records from a clientwhich is sending EDI transactions to theintended recipient. Both the client andrecipient must be members of the VAN andthe service charges are considerable.During the project, the team wonderedwhether the standard TCP/IP protocol of theInternet might be employed as a replacementfor VANs. The team was able to demon-strate that such a system could be devel-oped using electronic mail and the MIMEprotocol along with standard encryptionmethods. The result was a workablesolution which used emerging world-widetechnical standards to accomplish their goalsat reduced costs.

�Technical standards offerinteroperability,

scalability, and vendorindependence.�


Adopt and abide by data standards

Data standards help different participants speak the samelanguage. They usually include at least two features: anagreed upon definition of the meaning of a term and anagreed upon format for how the term will be represented inthe system. For example, the term �application date� mightbe defined to mean the date on which an applicant forservices submitted a signed application form. The agreedupon format for �application date� might be defined as aneight-digit number consisting of 2 digits for day, 2 digits formonth, and four digits for year, in that order. Data standardscan be more complex and include information related tobusiness rules for how the data is used and even data modelsthat show the relationships among data elements.

Standard data definitions and formats organized in a commondata dictionary are an essential prerequisite for effectiveinformation sharing among government organizations andbetween the government and private firms. While thedevelopment of these standards is often a time-consumingand difficult process, it is an effort well worth making sincecommon data definitions form the core of any integratedsystem. A standard data definition offers these necessarycomponents for successful intergovernmental implementa-tions:

� Provide a common language for information shar-ing. Since a primary goal of any intergovernmentalapplication is to facilitate the exchange of informationamong interdependent organizations, it is important thatall groups �speak the same language.�

� Help ensure that the data sets will be describedaccurately. Data dictionaries can serve as a guidelinefor describing data completely and accurately. Well-understood definitions are an important tool for anorganization�s internal documentation as well as for dataexchange.

Automated Dog Licensing:Keep it simple

Standard data definitions were a guidingprinciple of the Electronic Transfer ofDog Licenses Project from its inception.The NYS Agriculture and Markets staffknew that in order to make the licenseselectronic, the process would have towork with many vendors� systems. Thedevelopment team looked at the informa-tion and asked �What do we reallyneed?� Despite the fact that severalinterest groups wanted additionalinformation collected at the point ofissuing a license, the Ag & Markets teamstood firm against data redundancy and�nice to know� information. They had oneaspiration � to keep it simple.

After consulting with users and vendors,the development team defined the basicdata needs with which all vendorsystems would have to comply. Theyeliminated all fields that were not usedregularly. Vendors realized that in orderto compete with other softwarecompanies, they needed to meet statedata requirements. Any automatedlicensing system that complied presentedbenefits to municipalities.

Today, each approved vendor systemconverts the information collected to afile that can either be e-mailed via theInternet or sent to Ag & Markets on afloppy disk. Each municipality has anauthorization code that provides validityfor the data communication whenrecords are sent electronically. Thebasic information that now must becollected boils down to just a fewimportant, standard elements describingthe license, the owner and the dogs.

Each municipality that has adopted thesystem transmits information in the sameorder, using the same codes, and usingfields that have common data definitions.Keeping it simple has eliminated paper-work, mailing, and postage costs, andhas ensured more accurate data thathelps protect communities against thespread of rabies.


� Facilitate automation. Once the data is standardized, moresophisticated software can be developed for creating, collecting,processing, and searching the data.

� Allow for both central and distributed storage of data. Insome cases, it may be desirable to store and integrate the informa-tion collected at multiple origins into a single database. Sometimes,original information collection is accomplished with a variety oflocal software packages. Integration of information which origi-nates from different sources can only be accomplished when dataelements are commonly defined. Conversely, data defined in thestandard way can be stored at distributed locations with confidencethat the meaning and integrity of the information is consistent fromplace to place.

� Support information exchange. To enable the exchange ofinformation among disparate computer systems, the data beingtransferred must conform to strict messaging formats. Often, thisexchange is facilitated through Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).EDI uses a set of national and international standards to definemessage formats and the data elements within these messages.EDI standards have been developed and approved by the AmericanNational Standards Institute (ANSI) and the United Nations/Electronic Document Interchange for Administration, Commerceand Transportation (UN/EDIFACT).

Electronic VoterRegistration:

Local needs becomenational norms

Not every state-local projectrequires the creation of anew national data standard,but New York State�sElectronic Voter Registrationproject did produce stan-dards for the transmission ofvoter registration informationthat will be used all acrossthe country. This projectwas started by local officialsin the Monroe County Boardof Elections who applied forand received a grant fromthe State Archives to hire atechnical expert housed atthe NYS Forum for Informa-tion Resource Management.The expert, using New YorkState needs as a guide,chaired a national ANSIworking group to select EDIprotocols, encryptionprotocols, software,platform, and Internetcapabilities that will allow forthe standardized electronictransfer of voter registrationrecords.


Integrate with related processes and practices

Aging Services System: Identify and build on the

common ground

The State Office for the Aging(SOFA) works with 59 AreaAgencies on Aging (AAA)located throughout the state.The federal government hasimplemented new reportingrequirements for theseagencies. SOFA recognizedthat the range of availabletechnical infrastructures withinthe AAAs located throughoutthe state precluded their abilityto implement an informationsystem to support these newrequirements. SOFA needed toidentify a way to ensure thateach agency was capable ofresponding to the new reportingrequirements. Recognizing thevariability of the local environ-ments, yet the generally similarapproach used in the processof analyzing eligibility andauthorizing services, SOFAengaged in a process ofidentifying a set of standarddata elements to support boththe federal reporting require-ments and the local needsassessment processes. SOFAengaged in a collaborativeprocess with over 200representatives from the AAAs,to identify the necessaryelements and to develop anapproach for the implementationof these elements into theassessment process. Thefollow-on project beingconducted by the project teamis to pilot an information systemthat will support integrated casemanagement in the AAAs sothat as these agencies maytransition to the informationsystem as they developcapability to support thenecessary technicalinfrastructure.

The State of New York has 57 counties, 62 cities, 932 towns, 554 villages,707 school districts and 646 independent special purpose units workingwith each other, with citizens and businesses, and with about 100 stateagencies and authorities. A project being conducted in this environmentmust deal with huge variations in financial, technical, and managerialresources, and seek to minimize the uncertainty of this environment on theproject. A system that supports information exchange, transaction pro-cessing, or decision support between just two organizations is a challenge.A system which is integrated into the work processes of 50 or 100 or 1000organizations is orders of magnitude more difficult.

Understanding the range of conditions under which both state and localorganizations operate is key to ensuring that the system is designed tointegrate with their business environments. The particular businessprocess being addressed must be analyzed and understood by all partici-pants. In most cases, state-local information systems projects are focusedon standard business processes such as issuing a license, determiningeligibility for a benefit, or recording a property transaction or vital record.However, these standard business processes are conducted throughout thestate in very non-standard environments. Projects therefore need to focuson both the business process and the ability of individual organizations toadopt an information system to support that process. Tools such as datadictionaries, and process and workflow analysis help identify ways thatdifferent organizations can and should participate. Organizations unable toimplement a sophisticated automated system in the short term can begin totransition their work environment by focusing simply on the new orimproved business process. An organization that needs to retain itsreliance on paper processing can still improve its performance and consis-tency by adopting the set of standard data definitions that are built into thecomputerized system. In this way, each organization can begin to inte-grate the useful elements of the new system into its own environment,within its own operational and resource constraints.

There are excellent resources available to help develop profiles of thevarious local entities. There are numerous state associations affiliatedwith counties, cities, towns, villages and virtually any other designationapplicable to local governments. Often these associations have conductedextensive surveys of their members and at the very least have a working


knowledge of the conditions their members face. The Office of the StateComptroller, Division of Municipal Affairs also has extensive informationavailable on the state of local government in NYS.

In developing a working profile of the local participants, a project teamshould be able to better define the scope and possible solutions muchearlier in the project cycle. For instance, if the majority of potential localusers lack a fairly new, modem-equipped computer, then an Internet/Intranet solution may simply have to wait, or a more incremental approachadopted. On the other hand if the majority of potential system users havealready established Internet access, then it may make sense to pursue asystem that takes advantage of this established resource. Our interviewsrevealed that many agencies are moving toward providing an Internet typeoption for their service but will continue to maintain paper and computerdisk systems as well to meet the needs of all local governments. This mayseem less than ideal but it is a realistic way to deal with so much localdiversity.

Immunization Information:Tailor made systems with a common purpose

The NYS Immunization Information System project consists of four regional demonstra-tions to define, collect, monitor, and report information about immunizations for childrenage two and under. Each demonstration adheres to a set of common program andfunctional goals, but each is free to design a system that suits the needs and capabili-ties of the users and agencies in its region.

� The Upper Hudson demonstration will use a Frame Relay System with a regional

server connected to health care providers throughout the region.

� The Central New York demonstration chose to build its system on the foundation of

the existing Central New York Regional Perinatal Data System.

� In the Finger Lakes demonstration, newborn data will come from the NYS Birth

Certificate database and data on older children will be gathered from billing claimsand outreach workers.

� In western New York, the Chautauqua demonstration will expand the existingimmunization tracking system now in use by western New York county healthdepartment clinics.

Each demonstration site has its own design team advisory committee and is workingwith a system integrator hired by the NYS Health Department to assist them in matchingthe system to both statewide goals and local conditions.

Automated DogLicensing:

Build on the existingbase

The nightmare of proliferat-ing hardware and dozensof incompatible softwarepackages is whatmunicipalities fear whenstate agencies dictate theadoption of new systems.With each new informationsystem, local officials fearthe cost of new hardwareand the time necessary fortraining before the newsystem is fully functional.The NYS Department ofAgriculture and Marketscalmed the fears of TownClerks when it developedan automated dog licensingsystem that was designedwith compatibility in mind.The system can be usedwith existing hardwareand commercial softwarepackages that Town Clerksalready have installed forother uses. The develop-ers ensured this compat-ibility by working closelywith the users and thevendors who would besupplying software. Thenew system was costeffective and requiredminimal training because ofthe smooth way it adaptedto local conditions. NowTown Clerks have fewerweekly paper reports tosubmit, data errors areminimized, Dog ControlOfficers have more currentinformation, and withoutadopting entirely newtechnology tools.


Use prototypes to ensure understanding and agreementabout design

Prototyping your system as you develop it offers an excellent way for theproject team and customers to see the design-in-progress and help refineand improve the system as it evolves.

The development environment for state-local information system projectsis typically complex, due to the large number of project stakeholders, theneed to consider numerous system requirements of each, and the demandfrom all stakeholders for rapid development and deployment. Creatingsystems in this kind of environment demands a system developmentmethod (SDM) that lends itself to rapid design and development. Often,the SDM best suited to this environment is prototyping.

Prototyping differs from the classic system development methods in that itallows for the building of the system to begin much earlier in the develop-ment process, and allows customers to see and influence the system as itis being built. The philosophy behind prototyping is that system develop-ment is more effective when customers are partners in the design pro-cess. The prototype makes tangible all the ideas that both designers andcustomers usually try to communicate to one another in words. Theprototype makes it possible for both to see and understand the needs,functionality, and limitations of the design and to alter it as needed. Mostof the projects we reviewed used prototyping to develop their systemsand reported satisfaction with the results.


Aging Services System:Prototype your way to a final

design

When considering what type of systemdevelopment method to use for its AgingNetwork Client Based Service Manage-ment System, the NYS Office for theAging (SOFA) identified two criteria thatthe method would need to accommo-date: (1) it would need to support arapid development cycle, and (2) itwould need to facilitate convenientmodification of the system as it wasbeing developed. These criteria werenot selected by whim. Because of thelarge number of project stakeholders,which consisted of local administratorsin all of the State�s 57 counties plusNew York City, and some complexsystem requirements that included theintegration of several different kinds oftechnologies, the project team realizedthat it would need to use a developmentmethod that would allow for a workingversion of the system to be developedvery early so it could be shown to thevarious project stakeholders andmodified according to their needs.Based on these factors, the teamselected prototyping as the systemdevelopment method that would beused.

The prototyping method producedpositive results. The early systemdemonstrations showed the countylevel administrators the potential of thesystem and how it could support locallyadministered, cost effective, flexibleservices, while simultaneouslysupporting clients� most importantneeds. These early demonstrations ofthe system created an enthusiasticresponse among local governments andgenerated positive interest in the systemamong the user community.

Social Services Imaging Project:Generate bigger and better ideas

The NYS Department of Social Services (DSS) found that prototypingmethod provided more than just a way to rapidly and effectivelydevelop a computer system. When working on its local DSS imagingproject, the team used prototyping to build a system that was morecomprehensive than the original design.

The developers used the prototyping method to demonstrate thesystem as it was being built. As each iteration of the system wasdeveloped and presented to the full team, suggestions were made formodifications and enhancements. As the system grew and began tomake more sense to the team members, suggestions were made toaccommodate an increasingly larger number of processes and systemfeatures. In short, the increased exposure to and use of imagingtechnology acted as a stimulant for expanding the scope of the entireproject. For example, the initial goal of the system was to construct animaging system that would capture information vital to a DSS clientcase. The use of prototyping also encouraged the evaluation andexpansion of related business processes. As the prototype version ofthe system progressed through various iterations, the focus of theproject team moved to other scenarios such as �electronic casefoldering� (i.e., how to electronically share all case information amonggeographically dispersed DSS employees) that offered expandedbenefits to both clients and caseworkers.

�With prototyping, customers become

partners in the designprocess.�


Choose a capable pilot site

SALESNET:This is a make-or-break relationship

The technology staff at the NYS Office ofReal Property Services knew that pilottesting their SALESNET system would becritical to its successful implementation.Through surveys and discussions withcounty officials and information technologydirectors throughout the state, theSALESNET team chose a county thatseemed ready and willing to test theInternet-based sales reporting system.

Before long though, it became clear thatnot all the primary stakeholders in thecounty had a strong commitment to theproject, and some of the secondarystakeholders were reluctant. Localofficials expressed concern over controlissues and political concerns about havinga central database on the state level. TheSALESNET developers were wise enoughto determine that this county was not idealas a test site, and they started over toexplore testing in another county. Theyknew that full cooperation in the originalsite was unlikely. Despite the addedtrouble, energy, and staff investment, anew county was chosen as the pilot site.Through the SALESNET project welearned that a pilot site must be chosencarefully, using the following criteria:

� primary stakeholders must be commit-ted to, not just interested in, testing

� peripheral stakeholders must have aninterest in the test

� there must be an abiding interest in theproject that will last the duration of thepilot period

� the political climate must be openenough to permit some realignment ofinformation and responsibility

Many system implementations are initiated with pilot tests thatbring the system into the field to evaluate and refine design,performance, and integration with other systems and activities.The pilot site (there may be more than one) is a critical organiza-tion � one that is willing to undergo on-the-spot evaluation andidentify and work on the inevitable problems that pilots arecreated to uncover and resolve. The pilot site provides thesystem developers with a way to evaluate the initial release ofthe system in a controlled environment and, if necessary, makeany changes before releasing the system to all users. Many ofthe projects we reviewed involve one or more local pilot sites totest and refine their systems. In some cases, the pilot site wasan integral part of the development team, building local needsand practical limitations into the initial design and then serving asthe initial implementation site.

Sometimes pilots are promoted as a way to get special attentionand early implementation for a new system. While this is true, itis only half the story. In return for these benefits, the pilotorganization has to commit staff, space, and other resources to aprocess whose goal is to find and fix problems. Although it hasclear benefits, piloting can be frustrating, time-consuming, anddisruptive.

A number of considerations go into the selection of a pilot site.Here are few of the more important ones:

� Representativeness. Will the site(s) you are consideringgive realistic results for guiding broader implementation? Ifthere is a great deal of local variation, you may need severalpilot sites that represent broad categories of local conditions.


� Organizational capacity to carry out the pilot.Does the pilot site have the staff, space, equipmentand other resources needed to carry out the pilotwithout adversely affecting its ongoing operations?Do the pilot site staff have realistic expectations abouttheir roles and the amount and kind of assistance theycan expect from developers or consultants?

� Leadership commitment to the project and to thespecial demands of pilot status. Do senior manag-ers in the pilot site believe in the goals of the project?Are they ready and willing to deal with unexpectedproblems? Will they give their staff the support theyneed to carry out both pilot activities and regularoperations? Will they act as liaisons to local officials inother departments who may be affected by the pilot oreventual operation?

� Geographic accessibility. Is the pilot located in arelatively convenient place so travel costs and timecan be minimized for the project staff who need to beon-site and for the pilot staff who need to travel fortraining or other project activities? Try to avoid a pilotsite whose location discourages on-site technicalassistance, monitoring, and evaluation. For example,does it always require an overnight stay or severalhours of driving, or more than one mode of transporta-tion to get there?

Social Services Imaging Project: What to look for in a pilot site

The Department of Social Services SSIS staff(Social Services Information Systems)believed strongly in the importance ofselecting a good pilot site for their Local DSSImaging Project. Selecting a good site wouldadd value to their project by providing usefulfeedback about the fledgling system and byletting other sites see and hear about thebenefits of the project. The problem was,which site should be selected?

The team did its homework to ensure that thepilot site would contribute to the success ofthe project. After considering the criteria forthe selection of a site, and the various prosand cons associated with each site, the LDSSteam made its decision. The selection of theirpilot site was based on three importantfactors:

� What site had the best technologyenvironment to act as a pilot?

� What site had strong leadership and goodrelations with employees?

� And finally, what site would provide themost positive impact for the project once

the piloting work was complete?

The implementation of the system at the pilotsite yielded solid information for the projectteam about the system and about theimplementation process itself. The illuminationof both technical shortcomings associatedwith the system and process issues related toimplementation provided the team with vitalinformation that could not have been discov-ered otherwise. Due to the success achievedat this pilot site and other early participatingsites, additional counties have expressed adesire to participate in the project.


Make the best use of vendors

Immunization Information:Experts put the technology

pieces together

The immunization registry project isorganized into four regional demon-strations areas, covering largenumbers of individuals and needs. Inconsidering the resources necessaryto effectively design and develop asystem, participants agreed thatneither the state nor the localities hadenough technical staff to do thesystem development work in additionto other project activities and existingassignments. As a result, anapproach was selected that freed theproject team from the burden oftechnical development and allowedthem to focus on identifying andmeeting disparate local needs within aset of statewide goals.

The project team chose to focus onthe local and state program needs andon acquiring a general understandingof available technologies to addressthese needs. They became familiarwith a number of potential technologysolutions and began to understandwhat kind of system would best meettheir needs. They then turned to theprivate sector for technical experts toimplement the technology pieces. Aprivate firm was brought in as thesystems integrator and was chargedwith subcontracting the necessarytechnical development to appropriatelyskilled vendors. The knowledgegained in the process of self-education about needs and possibletechnical approaches gave the projectteam greater confidence whenworking with the integrator and helpedthem educate the vendor as well asthemselves.

We�ve all heard the phrase, �Don�t reinvent the wheel.� If thetechnology you need has already been developed and is availablefor you to use, then you shouldn�t waste time and resourcesrecreating it. Another increasingly common phrase is, �Outsourceit.� Depending on the nature of your project and the availabilityof resources, it can make good sense to pay an expert to build thesystem for you, so you can concentrate on the work that needsyour specialized expertise.

Managing organizational interdependencies and new partnerships,setting data standards, and facilitating group decision making arejust a few of the challenges to state-local government projectteams. These processes require the programmatic and contextualknowledge that government officials possess. Technical expertiseto support the implementation of a new network, a new databaseengine, or a more intuitive graphical user interface is not theexclusive knowledge of government officials. A number of theprojects in the eleven reviewed in this effort had no technicalexpertise on the project team. Either the resources were notavailable in the participating agencies at all or they were notavailable to these projects. In some cases, technical expertisewas available on the teams but in limited quantity.

To overcome the resource limitations and to maintain focus on theprogrammatic challenges, a number of the teams operated assystems integrators rather than as system developers. Projectteams identified portions of the plan that could be outsourced totechnical specialists and then managed those relationships. Thishybrid approach allowed for substantial time savings. In manycases the project participants recognized the value of varioustechnical approaches to implementation of the system, however,the necessary technical expertise was not available on the team.Rather than investing in developing those skills first, and then


designing and developing the system, the team focusedon business process issues and basic design and handedoff the detailed design and hands-on development workto vendors. In a number of cases, vendors were able,due to their comprehensive knowledge of the technologyand the use of an iterative prototyping approach, tocontribute to the design efforts as well. It is importantto remember, however, that agency staff will need todevelop the skills to maintain the system unless anongoing maintenance relationship with vendors is part ofthe overall plan.

Real Property System:Buy some and build some

Version 4 of the software to support Real Property Services in NYSis being developed with relational database technologies. The teamreviewed the technology and application marketplace, as well as thesystems and software located in the local agencies before decidingon the appropriate platform and approach to use in developing thenew release of this software.

The challenge faced by the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS)in implementing this development approach was the fact that few, ifany, of their MIS staff had experience in these technologies. Thequestion facing the project team was this: Do we develop in thetechnologies we know or do we work with the technologies thatbetter meet the needs of the users? Clearly, the right choice was tomatch the technology to user needs, but how could they do thatwith no in house technical expertise? To address this challengeORPS technical staff worked with vendors to build components ofthe system while in parallel building capability in the agency tohandle these technologies themselves. As ORPS staff becamemore knowledgeable about the relational technologies, they wereincreasingly able to participate in the design and developmentactivities. The ongoing maintenance and enhancement of thesystem is expected to be the responsibility of the newly trainedORPS MIS staff.

Automated Dog Licensing:Selling to the vendors

When planning for the NYS Department ofAgriculture and Markets Dog Licensingsystem, the project team was acutelyaware of the time and staff constraints thatall participants faced. To meet the projectschedule, they decided to look to the vendorcommunity for technical solutions while theyconcentrated on the data and operationalissues. Knowing that many municipalitiesuse commercial packages designed tosupport the usual functions of Town, City,and Village Clerks, the team created high-level system specifications and issued anRFP looking for companies interested inadding dog licensing to their packages. Thisapproach would allow several vendors tobuild and market versions of the system aslong as each provided a mechanism for thedata to be sent from their system to the Ag& Markets centralized database. Severalvendors responded to the RFP and thecompetitive aspect of multiple vendors vyingfor a limited market ensured that all wouldhave to build quality products.

The NYS Department of Agriculture andMarkets talked extensively with vendors toensure that the requirements for automateddog licensing could work with local systemsalready in place. This helped many localities,especially small ones, save money and timewhile allowing them to make usefulconnections to a new statewide system.Some local officials told us that being able touse existing systems to meet the require-ments of automated licensing made all thedifference in their enthusiasm and willingcompliance with the new program. Thisapproach also generated unexpected sidebenefits when vendors offered sugges-tions for making both the centralized systemand the field system design more efficient.


Train thoroughly

Mastering a new computer system can be a tricky business foreven the most proficient users. Of course, the ideal system designis so elegant and simple to use that little training is necessary. Thissimplicity is seldom possible, however. Complex, interconnectingsystems may not permit the ease of use that a single purposesystem does. For example, a system that connects health careproviders with local governments and insurers demands differenttraining strategies than one that involves only the account clerks ina single finance office. Both need excellent training, but theintegrity of the system and its information is far more vulnerable toerror in the first than in the second. In both cases, the users arenot technical experts, but are professionals in other fields who mustuse the system to accomplish some part of their responsibilities.Training needs to demonstrate not only how the system works, buthow it fits in this larger picture. �User-friendly� training is crucial,but �friendly� is often in the eye of the beholder; that is, what isfriendly to the development team may not seem so easy to the user.The user�s needs and reactions should be the litmus test for theease or difficulty of the system, and training should be developedaround their needs.

When any user adopts a new information system, there is alwayssome anxiety. The process of adopting a new system can be mademuch less painful by offering well-designed, user-oriented trainingsessions and reference materials. A thorough training program canhelp users be more confident in the system and allow them to

Automated Dog Licensing:Get help from your friends

The NYS Department of Agricultureand Markets, initiated peer tutoringfor the Electronic Transfer of DogLicenses. Town Clerks who haveadopted the automated dog licenseprocess volunteer to train theircolleagues from other towns inissuing licenses electronically.They are even willing to travel toother municipalities to do on-siteone-on-one training. The experi-enced users also use the MunicipalClerks Association to spread theword about the automated processof issuing dog licenses. In ourdiscussions with the localrepresentatives for this project,they cited this volunteer trainingprogram as a real plus thatencourages new users to adopt asystem that is strictly voluntary.Good training is to the point, meetspersonal users needs, and comesfrom credible sources such asexperienced users. Excellenttraining is customized to meetusers immediate and long-termneeds. The individualized traininggiven by Town Clerks involved inthe Automated Dog Licensinginformation system meets all ofthese criteria.

�Training needs to demonstratenot only how the system works,

but how it fits into thelarger picture.�


approach the work more enthusiastically. It is often a goodidea to offer training at various points in the system develop-ment process. Train those who will evaluate prototypesearly in the process, give general orientation sessions to allparticipants in advance of implementation, and train thor-oughly at the point of roll-out in each organization.

Training can take many forms from formal classes to writtenhelp materials, and it�s important to recognize that differentstaff members have different preferences and varyingstrengths in acquiring new knowledge. It�s helpful to presentthe same content several different ways to appeal to thedifferent learning styles represented among employees. Oneperson may be an excellent listener and can learn mosteasily through a lecture or by hearing a trainer talk abouthow to navigate through a new system. The person in thenext seat could be a visual learner and would much preferseeing the functions of a new system mapped out in geomet-ric shapes with colors differentiating various options avail-able. Others learn by doing and benefit most from hands-onexercises. Whatever the format, thoughtful user trainingconveys information and relieves anxiety � both critical tosuccessful implementation.

Aging Services System:Develop skills as you develop the

system

Through the Aging Network ClientBased Services Project, the StateOffice for the Aging (SOFA) is buildinga large and complex system to manageservices to support the independenceof elderly people. The project hasstarted training sessions for thesystem even though the beta testingphase is not yet complete. Through thecooperation of the City of New YorkDepartment of Aging, a primary partneron the project, twenty-two peoplefrom twelve New York counties cametogether to learn about the system inpreparation for the second round ofbeta testing. This group will explorethe system capabilities and givefeedback to the developers.

In preparation for the adoption of thenew information system, SOFAsponsored a statewide interactiveteleconference with 59 Area Agencieson Aging; 600 people participated.This training session was offered toalert practitioners to the informationcontent that will be available on thesystem. The comprehensive informa-tion collection will allow case workersto develop complete care plans foraging individuals. This content trainingis just as important as the technology�how to� training. The case workersneed to know what information andtools the system will contain in order touse it effectively to support integratedcase management.

When the new information system isimplemented SOFA will conductregional training sessions andadditional teleconferencing training inorder to introduce the system to usersaround the state.


Support users

Ideally all new systems work just as theywere designed. Realistically, you can usuallycount on the implementation of a newsystem to result in unanticipated problems.Computer users become comfortable in theirfamiliar software surroundings, and takingon a new system is the intellectual equiva-lent of physically moving to a new home ornew office. Users need help adapting to anew system and making it feel as easy andcomfortable to use as their old way of doingbusiness.

The time period surrounding implementationis a critical one for user support. Offeringimmediate, appropriate support at this pointin time will relieve anxiety and will encour-age willing and effective users. But don�tstop there. There are always new usersand most systems continue to add or changefeatures throughout their life cycle. Usersupport needs to be continually updated andcontinuously available.

Annual Financial Reports:Willing help from familiar faces

The Electronic Annual Financial Reporting project isdesigned to meet the needs of a very exacting community� accountants and auditors � and many of the projectrequirements had to meet national standards. As onelocal participant put it, �When was the last time the IRSallowed you creativity in your filings?� The reports thatwere being automated reflect directly on the municipalitiesand have considerable legal bearing on local governmentsand the state as well. Thus, it was crucial that thesystem work well and maintain accuracy from the start.Meeting the needs of the local officials as the primarycustomers, was essential for this project to succeed.

OSC maintained a consistent project team throughout theprocess. This commitment to keeping �familiar faces� inthe room was cited by local participants as a key to thesuccess of the project. The local participants observedthat by seeing these same faces at each meeting andhaving contact with these same individuals throughout theproject they felt confident that expert, consistent helpwould be available.

OSC has a technical support group for this project. Theyanswer the usual questions about specific systemproblems. However, local officials say the real benefitthat this technical support group has provided is theirwillingness to answer related technology questions thatlocal users may have. While OSC is not in the business ofall-purpose technical consulting, this willingness to takeextra time to listen to and help resolve other technicalconcerns has built a solid trusting relationship and helpedlocal organizations become more technically adept overall.


The projects we studied made good use of a number of usersupport formats and strategies including:

� awareness meetings to introduce the system goals andfeatures

� system �maps� presented graphically and in color� easy to follow one-page �cheat sheets� for common

activities� full-scale documentation manuals� online help features� a staffed help desk� individual tutoring or peer tutoring� small group training, review, and support sessions� designated learning time for initial training� videotaped step-by-step instruction� frequently-asked questions and answers brochures� a �help� newsletter

Social Services Imaging Project:More than a help desk

Evaluating a pilot system is a significantundertaking for any agency and theDSS Local District Imaging project wasno exception. The local Social Servicesoffices which participated in the pilotphase of the project depended onsupport from the project team for manypurposes. Of particular value was thesupport that the pilot counties receivedin preparing to participate in the pilotefforts. Thanks to group discussionsabout techniques to use to overcomelocal technology and managementproblems, the pilot site staff were wellprepared for the integration of the newtechnology as well as for changes inworkflow to support the improvedbusiness process. The local partici-pants found that they turned regularly tothe project team for support for manythings including their efforts to secureand maintain local support, to establisheffective working relationships withlocal MIS staff, and to overcomeresistance to changes to the workflowof the agency.

�User support doesn�tstop with

implementation -there are always new

users and new featuresto adopt.�


Review and evaluate performance

Performance-based accountability is areal issue for managers and agencydirectors, and systematic evaluationand review activities can help adminis-trators and IT staff determine if theirsystems are achieving their intendedgoals. Every system should begin withclear purpose and goals. After it hasbeen up and running for a period oftime (say six months to a year), itmakes sense to revisit them in a formalway to see if the system is performingas intended.

The system evaluation assesses howwell the information system is workingto support the purpose and goals of theproject. Moreover, a solid evaluationof your work establishes credibility thatgoes a long way in establishing thesupport you need for the next project.A comprehensive evaluation plan isattractive to funders, policy makers,and taxpayers alike. A project withoutan evaluation plan is like a stageperformance without any audiencereaction. Program managers need toknow if the system is making a differ-ence. Designers need to know howwell the system is working in order tomodify and adjust it. Often a newinformation system is also the impetusfor improvements in business pro-cesses and an evaluation helps mea-sure these as well.

Immunization Information:Measuring up to a set of ideals

The NYS Immunization Information System (NYSIIS) project hasa number of measurable goals that lend themselves to formalevaluation. One set focuses on the functional requirements ofan ideal immunization information system. Each of the fourregional demonstrations now underway has great latitude tochoose methods and features for its systems, but all are tryingto measure up to these functional ideals:

� Each child�s immunization record must contain a uniqueidentifier that could be reconstructed by the parent frominformation they have readily at hand.

� The system will use the National Immunization datastandards to assure compatibility and usability of dataacross different regions

� A registry must be able to identify all immunizations due forevery child in the registry and generate reports ofimmunizations due

� The system will capture only necessary data elements and

automatically generate reports and reminders based onthat data set

� Local systems and users, with appropriate safeguards,

will be able to update and query regional systems

� Immunization coverage level reports will be available for

children at various ages from birth to 24 months of age.

The second set of measurable goals is focused on the publichealth outcomes associated with immunization:

� By 1997, have at least 120,000 immunization records of

children under age 5 (i.e., 15% of such children outsideNew York City) captured in the NYSIIS

� By 2000, have at least 400,000 immunization records of

children under age 5 (i.e., 50% of such children outsideNew York City) captured in the NYSIIS

To monitor progress over time, these questions are being askedabout each regional effort starting in 1997:

How many immunizers are electronically exchanging immuniza-tion records with a regional IIS server?How many individuals have their immunization records in aregional IIS server?Of the immunization records captured, what percent areaccurate and complete?

These and other evaluation activities are reported and dis-cussed by all the participants in annual working group meetingswhere each site shares its progress and problems with otherpublic health officials from around the state.


An evaluation can sometimes be as simple asa self-administered customer survey, phoneinterview, or focus group with users. It canalso be a more formal and elaborate programreview, cost-benefit study, or other analysisconducted by evaluation experts. The methodneeds to be matched to the goals the projectwas designed to achieve. Each method has itsadvantages and disadvantages with resourcesand time crunches being major considerations.Whatever format is used should address thefollowing kinds of questions:

� Service outcomes: how well does thesystem meet pre-defined customer needs?

� Programmatic outcomes: how well doesthis system contribute to integratedservice delivery or other service systemgoals?

� Operational outcomes: how well does thesystem meet time-savings, streamlining,and other operational improvement goals?

� Financial outcomes: how well does thesystem meet cost-savings or revenuegoals?

� Return on investment results: Consideringwhat it cost to create and operate, howcost-effective is this investment?

The answers to these questions lead todecisions about changes, improvements,refinements, and lessons for futureinitiatives.

Annual Financial Reports:Looking back for future success

The NYS Office of the State Comptroller(OSC) wanted to design its automatedannual reporting system to be useful tolocalities for as long as possible. OSCrecognized that the longevity of thesystem would depend not only on howwell it was initially designed, but on howwell it could continue to meet local needs.This meant that communication channelswith the customers would need to bemaintained, and that periodic reviews ofthe system would have to take place sothat changing environmental factors andfunctional requirements could be accom-modated. OSC let its local customers knowthat it is committed to the longevity of thesystem by identifying and correctingproblems as soon as they become visible.Customers were encouraged to keep incontact with OSC staff, and to report anyproblems right away. In turn, OSC keepsin constant communication with systemusers by informing them of systemchanges and by demonstrating by theirresponses to requests that they arelistening. The result? A system that is notonly accepted but appreciated by itsusers, with the potential for being aroundfor a long time.


A. Project Summaries

B. Project Comparisons

C. Project Participants

D. Bibliography

E. World Wide Web Sites of Interest

F. Relevant Policies of the Governor�sTask Force on Information ResourceManagement

Appendices


Appendix A. Project Summaries

Aging Network Client Based Service Management System Project (CBS)

Contact Steve WalterNew York State Office for the AgingPhone: 518-473-4275E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The primary purpose of the system is to improvecoordination of service delivery to clients, building onavailable family supports and ensuring that the formalservice delivery system provides essential services andprograms. The primary users of the system will be casemanagers and the aging services workers in public andnon-profit service agencies.

Expected Impact The program will increase the efficiency andeffectiveness of local offices for the aging and non-profitsand enable older persons and their families to obtain theinformation they need to make informed decisions.

Participating Agencies The State Office for the Aging (SOFA): the New YorkCity Department for the Aging: Area Agencies on Aging:NYS Departments of Taxation and Finance, Health, andSocial Services: the U.S. Social Security Administration:Cabletron: NYNEX: and Niagara Mohawk PowerCorporation.

Project Management Process Several advisory committees have been established alongwith an ongoing dialogue with case managers and othersat the community level. Beta testing was conducted invarious service delivery environments and pilot activitiescontinue at the local level. An aggressive policy ofrecruiting private, public, and non-profit partners hasbeen conducted with considerable success.

System Functionality The Aging Services Network (ASNet) will provideconnectivity between locations in two ways: by providingInternet access to SOFA and AAA staff, and by providingfeatures in “PDS” which allow the transfer of client databetween AAA offices and field workers via either cellularmodems or conventional modems and phone lines intothe main system. Internet access will also be provided.

Resources $1.249 million grant from the U.S. Department ofCommerce, plus contributed effort by all parties.

Status as of 5/97 Beta testing and pilot site use of the “PDS” softwareTimeframe 2 years for the grant monies. Minimum data set in use at

all AAAS by April 1, 1999.


Electronic Filing of Local Government Annual Financial Reports

Contact Jeff SwainOffice of State ComptrollerPhone: 518-474-4005E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The purpose of the project was to design an electronic systemincluding report software that would assist local governments inpreparing and filing annual financial reports required by state law.The primary users of this system are local government financialofficers and accounting firms.

Expected Impact Streamline and improve the timeliness and accuracy of annuallocal government financial reports which informs the legislatureabout local financial conditions which is used in the distribution ofstate aid. OSC uses the report to identify municipalities in fiscalstress and allows them to intervene at an earlier date.

Participating Agencies Office of the State Comptroller and various local governmentsProject ManagementProcess

OSC established multi-division and multi-bureau level teams tohandle this project. Other state systems were surveyed for existingsoftware solutions and software vendors were contacted and testversions of their software were provided. OSC consulted the StateArchives on electronic information retrieval and dispositionoptions. The process was mapped and flowcharted, and staff weretrained in re-engineering exercises. A local government advisorycommittee helped define the project. Local users were surveyedfor their needs and preferences and asked for continuous feedbackA Rapid Application Development (RAD) methodology was usedto design, develop, and test the system and pilot sites helped testand critique the software. Throughout, OSC marketed the systemto local governments through publications, training systems,presentations, and direct mailings.

System Functionality Local governments are provided with software for modem, filing,and database applications. Their previous year filing is providedthrough the State Comptroller’s Assistance Network (SCAN). Thelocal government retrieves this by a download or through e-mailand then sets up their system. Local staff then either complete thereport using the filing software, or arrange their data in a standardformat and use a data merge feature to upload the information.Local users need a 386 system or better with 8 megs. of RAM, a9600 modem, and Windows 3.1. Local governments certify theelectronic reports to OCS via pin numbers generated by OSC.

Resources $530,000 from OSC funding, 6 OSC staff were assigned at 80%for two years to develop the system.

Status as of 5/97 In production. Evaluation and refinement efforts underway.Timeframe 1 year development, 1 year production; exceeded 2 year objective

in first year with 293 electronic files out of a possible 1,500.


Electronic Death Certificate

Contact Pam AkisonNew York State Department of HealthPhone: 518-474-5245E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The purpose of the project is to allow for the electronic filing of adeath certificate which must be completed within 72 hours of death andis presently issued on paper. The primary users of the system will befuneral directors who are the agents charged with the completion ofdeath certificates. Other users will include the local registrars who filethe information with the state, physicians, coroners, medical examiners,hospitals, nursing homes, and county public health agencies.

Expected Impact The system is expected to reduce overhead costs for funeral directorswho will now have less travel time and filing time associated with theirduties. Data accuracy should also be enhanced through the newprocess. This, in turn, will enable state resources to be used in otherways.

Participating Agencies New York State Department of Health, various local governments, andprivate and non-profit organizations.

Project Management Process Considerable best practices research was conducted concerning digitalsignatures as this will be a key to the success or failure of the project.Microsoft Project was used to plan the work schedule. The workgroup developed flow charts and pseudocode for business ruledocumentation. A two-day task force meeting was conducted withlocal registrars and other partners to demonstrate prototype screens andobtain feedback and enhancement opportunities for the project.

System Functionality The system is a Web application built using HTML and CGI scripts.All users are registered with the system but can perform various roles.The system allows for creating new cases (each case has a uniquenumber), transferring cases, updating cases, and referring cases. Thesystem will ultimately allow funeral directors to order certified recordsfrom local registrars.

Resources Federal contracts (2) provide $50,000, and the state has committed$100,000.

Status as of 5/97 The system is preparing for a beta test in 1997.Timeframe 1 year


Electronic Transfer of Dog License Data

Contact Jo Amy GuildNYS Department of Agriculture and MarketsPhone: 518-457-3502E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The purpose of the project is to streamline the issuing and reportingprocess associated with dog licenses in NYS. The users are themunicipal licensing agents (city, town, and village clerks) andmunicipal shelters.

Expected Impact The system is designed to lower mailing and handling costs betweenthe state and municipalities. Dog control officers are also able toaccess more accurate and timely data since the system greatly reducesthe time needed to update the state system. The Department ofAgriculture and Markets also benefits from a reduced workload withthe new system.

Participating Agencies The Department of Agriculture and Markets and municipalgovernments.

Project Management Process Since no other state maintains a dog licensing system similar to NYS,no best practice existed. Surveys were used to better understand thetechnological capabilities of the potential municipal users. Focusgroup discussions were held with local users to better understand whatwas needed and how best to meet their needs. Agriculture andMarkets then prepared the system specifications and persuaded theprivate software providers to integrate the new system into theirexisting local government software packages.

System Functionality The system functions on stand alone PC’s within each municipalityand can deliver data to the state via disk transfers and modemconnections. The system is integrated into seven municipal softwarepackages available from private vendors and is capable of producingthe individual license and creating the various reports requested byAgriculture and Markets.

Resources State and local employee time in designing functionality for thesystem.

Status as of 5/97 Project is complete. The Department of Agriculture and Marketscontinues to promote the use of the software and encouragesmunicipalities to begin using the system.

Timeframe An effort was begun in 1995 to restructure the dog licensing programin NYS. In early 1996 new software specifications were written anddistributed to vendors. In May 1996 those programs were tested andcontinue to be implemented.


Hunting and Fishing License Project

Contact Peg SauerNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationPhone: 518-457-3400E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users Provide “one-stop shopping” for the sportsperson by making alltypes of licenses available, at all agents, at all times. The systemwill be used by town clerks, private businesses who sell licenses(650 statewide), and DEC campsites. There are about 1,750 usersstatewide including municipal clerks and selected commercialissuing outlets.

Expected Impact Increase the assurance that the sportsperson is purchasing a validlicense by selling hunting or fishing privileges only in thecombinations which are described in law. Provide the issuing agentwith the ability to query the system with regard to the status of anindividual seeking a license. Provide more complete data to thestate regarding hunting and fishing trends statewide.

Participating Agencies The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), townclerks and private sales agents (Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc.).

Project Management Process A considerable amount of time was spent conducting best practicesreviews of five other state systems. A task force was convened in1991 to consider the computerization of the licensing process. In1996, DEC also used its annual training seminars to discusscomputerization options with local users. Various sportingadvocacy groups have been shown the proposal and have giventheir support to the project. DEC has also contacted and heldmeetings with the various private software vendors that currentlysupply municipal software packages and looked into their role inthe new system design.

System Functionality A NYT based system with a centralized repository that directs thelicense sale system and stores customer and transactioninformation. A centralized program will handle all accountingneeds. A customer will receive a valid license printed on site asthey wait. The need for stamps will be eliminated and DEC officerswill be able to verify licenses in real time.

Resources Cost absorbed in regular state and local operationsStatus as of 5/97 Planning and designTimeframe An RFP may be ready in early 1999 for a mid 2000 implementation


Immunization Reporting and Tracking System

Contact Gary RinaldiNew York State Department of HealthPhone: 518-473-4437E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The purpose of the project is to test the feasibility of building animmunization information system that will register and trackchildhood immunization statewide. The primary users are healthcare providers which offer immunization services and publichealth agencies which use the data for monitoring and planningpurposes.

Expected Impact A fully functioning system would allow health care providers toensure that children are properly immunized and that a largerproportion of the population gets immunized. The system wouldalso allow for reducing re-immunization cases through greatercoordination among the various health care providers in the state,and help school districts better manage their immunizationrequirements. The system would also make the tracking ofvaccine recalls much simpler.

ParticipatingAgencies

New York State Department of Health, county health agenciesand various non-profit organizations, with IBM as systemintegrator.

Project ManagementProcess

Literature searches were used to investigate and identify similarprojects. The Centers for Disease Control and the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation were also contacted for possible models. Aneeds analysis was conducted with each of the four regionaldemonstration projects, followed by re-engineering studies. Astatewide work group was also established which represents across section of people who will use or be impacted by thesystem. Various subgroups have been broken off from this workgroup to focus on specific policy and technical aspects of theproject.

System Functionality Each demonstration project has been allowed to develop its owntechnical architecture and specifications depending on its needs.A security standard has been established for the HealthInformation Network that all participants must meet. Byallowing each site to develop its own system, the project isexploring many options for achieving a common set ofprogrammatic goals.

Resources Grant from U.S. Centers for Disease Control: $3,870,699Status as of 5/97 In the pilot stageTimeframe 2 years


Probation Automation Project

Contact Edward DeFrancoNew York State Division of Criminal Justice ServicesPhone: 518-457-3776E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The system will provide timely probation-related information toCounty Probation Officers to assist them in the performance ofcore probation functions. The users will be small and mid-sizedprobation departments numbering about 45 statewide.

Expected Impact The system will improve information management and decisionmaking at all levels of a probation department and therebyimprove quality of service both to the individual client (theprobationer) and the general public through increased publicsafety.

Participating Agencies The Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives(DPCA), Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), andCounty Probation Departments

Project Management Process A best practices review was conducted using professionalorganizations as well as the Internet. A BPI process was used tomap out the existing process and from that the functions werebroken into three levels and to date level 1 (core functions) hasbeen addressed. In order to complete level 1, on-site walk-throughs were conducted by team members. This was followedby a series of seven site reports and these were then integratedinto a standard process. This information will be used toprepare an RFP.

System Functionality The system planned will be a PC/Windows based LAN. TheRFP will determine whether standard software packages orcustom built programs will be used. The system is intended tobe linked with various criminal justice agencies to allow forinformation exchanges.

Resources To date the costs have been absorbed into regularly funded Stateand Local positions.

Status as of 5/97 Process analysis and design completed. Technology selectionprocess under way.

Timeframe Began August 1996, RFP planned for July 1997


Real Property System Version 4

Contact Bonnie ScottNYS Office of Real Property ServicesPhone: 518-473-8742E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The purpose of the system is to improve access to the RPS databy other applications, both commercial and user-developedpackages, through the use of a relational database. Theprimary users of the system will be municipal Assessors andstaff in the county Real Property Tax Services offices.

Expected Impact The project is expected to improve and enhance processingcapabilities for maintaining assessment data needed forassessment rolls, tax rolls, and bills at both state and locallevels. The data should also be more accessible to secondaryusers such as zoning boards, 911 systems, and planningagencies.

Participating Agencies The NYS Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) andmunicipal and county assessors

Project Management Process ORPS conducted internal staff interviews to determinesoftware needs for the project. They then used a customer-oriented technique to produce a process map of the system andhave used CS10000 to map and track the project. An externaladvisory group comprised of municipal and county officialswas established to help define the system and advise the statedevelopers. It meets every two months.

System Functionality The system is designed to run on microcomputers and onmainframes to accommodate the needs of all the users. Thesystem will be based on GUI screens for the micros. Nodatabase engine has been selected yet. The new system willlikely require a 486 machine or greater to run and, as such, willnecessitate upgrades by some local users.

Resources Absorbed into normal costs of doing business at ORPS. Alicensing fee charged to each municipal user will offset some ofthese internal costs.

Status as of 5/97 ORPS is currently in the development phase of the project.Testing should begin in June 1997 with an initial release dateof January 1998.

Timeframe 1996-1998


SALESNET

Contact Paul SzwedoNYS Office of Real Property ServicesPhone: 518-473-7222E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The main purpose of the project is to allow for the electronicpreparation of the official records of real property transfers,known as the RP-5217 form. The system is designed to reduceerrors and eliminate duplication of effort at the state and locallevels in the filing, processing, and distribution of the data.The primary users will be private attorneys or their staff andtitle companies. Secondary users will include county andmunicipal assessment officials as well as ORPS staff.

Expected Impact Duplication of data entry at the state and local levels will beeliminated. Information about real property transfers will bemore accurate, complete, and legible therefore overcoming thethree most cited problems by local officials. Mediantimeframes will be reduced from 123 days to 60 days fortransactions added to state files.

Participating Agencies Participants in the project include the NYS Office of RealProperty Services (ORPS), Onondaga County (pilot site), andan advisory group comprising both public and private users.

Project ManagementProcess

A steering committee that included representatives of allstakeholders was formed at the project’s inception. Othercritical membership included the Governor’s Task Force onIRM, NYS Archives and Record Administration (SARA) andthe Telecommunications Initiative Project (TIP). Thecommittee members serve as communication links withstakeholders and were instrumental in surveying theirmembership regarding existing practices. The agency wasundergoing a Core Process Improvement (CPI) exerciseconcurrent with this project and both efforts benefited fromeach other. Work with local officials in the pilot helped refinesystem features. ORPS purchased and continues to useCS10000 software to outline and maintain tasks for clientserver projects.

System Functionality End users will access the application through the Internet.Sales data will be stored in Albany on a Sybase SQL Server XIrelational database. Requests for data will be processedthrough a Netscape Enterprise server. Thus, a PC runningNetscape Navigator will be needed to use this application.

Resources Costs absorbed by internal ORPS processes and personnelStatus as of 5/97 The project is currently working on functional specifications

and prototype development.Timeframe June 1996 - Early 1998


Local Social Services District Imaging Project

Contact George WarnerDepartment of Social ServicesPhone: 518-486-9459E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users The purpose of the system is to test imaging as a tool toimprove Local District Social Services (LDSS) caseworkers’ ability to coordinate activities related toindividual cases by improving access to case folders andcase related documents. The primary users of the systemwill be LDSS case workers.

Expected Impact The system will allow case workers to access files inseconds rather than hours or days. This should allow forgreater coordination of case worker activities. A drivingfactor for some of the project participants was the newrecordkeeping requirements of Elisa’s Law whichrequires long-term access to child abuse records. Theproject will also offer better support to remote officelocations and replace outdated technology.

Participating Agencies Department of Social Services and Local Districts ofDelaware, Oswego, Rockland, and Ulster Counties.

Project Management Process Industry case studies were thoroughly reviewed. Astandard project planning methodology was followed.Pilot sites were selected and a specific business need andprocess was then identified in each site. Applications tomeet these needs were developed and tested.

System Functionality The system runs on a client/server platform in each LDSSand includes three primary components: scanner, imagesoftware, and an image server. Users gain access throughexisting PC’s on a LAN.

Resources Between $30,000-35,000 per LDSS excluding personneltime.

Status as of 5/97 In the pilot stageTimeframe 1 year


Electronic Voter Registration

Contact Terry MaxwellNew York State Forum for Information ResourceManagementPhone: 518-443-5001E-mail: [email protected]

Purpose and users Assist state and local agencies to manage the increasedinformation flows generated by the “Motor Voter”legislation.

Expected Impact Faster service, less errors, and fewer resources required fordata entry, records management, and records storage.

Participating Agencies Local Boards of Elections, State Board of Elections, StateDepartment of Motor Vehicles, State Department ofHealth, and the New York State Forum for InformationResource Management.

Project Management Process Extensive use of best practices review was conducted withregards to Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) standards. ABusiness Process Review (BPR) analysis was conducted,the existing process was mapped, and a reengineeredprocess was suggested. Three planning sessions were heldwhich all participants attended. Following these meetings,consistent contact was maintained with all participantswhile the system was developed.

System Functionality The system will be Internet based. Components include:1) The X12 280 transaction set, which is the standardtransaction set to which databases map; 2) EDI software;3) Encryption software; 4) Mail software; 5) A mail serverand Microsoft Exchange compatible system software; 6)An Internet service provider to transport the transaction setusing TCP/IP protocol.

Resources $180,000 grant from the NYS Archives and RecordsAdministration and continuing volunteer efforts

Status as of 5/97 In the software installation and mapping phaseTimeframe The project was funded for the period 11/94-6/96. It now

continues on a voluntary basis.


Appendix B. Project ComparisonsP

roje

ct P

arti

cip

ant R

ole

s

PR

OJE

CT

Goa

l Se

ttin

gP

roce

ss

An

alys

isS

yste

m D

esig

nS

yste

m

Dev

elo

pmen

tT

est

ing

Rev

iew

&

Adv

ice

Pro

ject

M

ana

gem

ent

Ag

ing

Ser

vice

s S

yste

mS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Lo

cal

Priv

ate

Sta

te,

Loca

lS

tate

, Lo

cal

Sta

te

An

nua

l Fin

an

cial

Rep

ort

sS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Lo

cal

Sta

teS

tate

, Lo

cal

Loca

lS

tate

De

ath

Cer

tific

ate

sS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

Sta

teLo

cal,

Priv

ate

Non

prof

it,

Priv

ate

Sta

te

Do

g L

ice

nsin

gS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Priv

ate

Sta

te,

Loca

lLo

cal

Loca

l, P

rofe

ssio

nal

Ass

ocia

tion

Sta

te

Hu

ntin

g &

Fis

hin

g L

icen

ses

Sta

te,

Loca

l, P

rofe

ssio

nal

Ass

ocia

tion

sS

tate

Sta

te,

Loca

l, P

rofe

ssio

nal

Ass

ocia

tions

Sta

te

Imm

uni

zati

on I

nfo

rma

tion

Sta

te,

Priv

ate,

Lo

cal

Loca

lS

tate

, Lo

cal,

Priv

ate,

N

onpr

ofit

Loca

l, P

rivat

e,

Non

prof

itLo

cal,

Priv

ate,

N

onpr

ofit

Loca

l, P

rivat

e,

Non

prof

it,

Fede

ral

Sta

te

Pro

bat

ion

Aut

om

atio

nS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Loc

alS

tate

, Lo

cal

Sta

teLo

cal

Loca

lS

tate

RP

S V

ersi

on

4S

tate

, Lo

cal,

Pro

fess

iona

l A

ssoc

iati

ons

Sta

te,

Loca

lP

rivat

e, S

tate

Sta

te,

Loca

lS

tate

SA

LES

NE

TS

tate

, Lo

cal,

Priv

ate

Sta

te, L

ocal

Sta

te,

Loca

lS

tate

, Lo

cal

Loca

l, P

rivat

eLo

cal,

Priv

ate,

P

rofe

ssio

nal

Ass

ocia

tion

Sta

te

So

cia

l Se

vice

s Im

agi

ng

Sta

te. L

ocal

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

teS

tate

. Lo

cal

Sta

te.

Loca

lS

tate

Vo

ter

Re

gist

ratio

nS

tate

, Loc

alLo

cal

Sta

te,

Loca

lS

tate

, Lo

cal

Sta

te,

Loca

lLo

cal,

Fede

ral

Non

-Pro

fit

Tyin

g a

Sensib

le K

not

Pa

ge

93

Primary Purpose of Information System for Various Stakeholders

Projects State County Municipalities Federal Private Non-Profit Citizens

Aging Services System

Reporting, Program Planning, Program

Evaluation

Decision Support Reporting Decision Support

Annual Financial ReportsReporting,

Decision Support, Planning

Reporting Reporting Inquiry Inquiry

Dog LicensingAdministrative,

Decision Support, Inquiry

Administrative, Transactional,

ReportingNotification

Electronic Death CertificatesAdministrative,

Decision Support

Transactional, Administrative,

Inquiry, Reporting Requirements


Reporting Requirements





Hunting & Fishing LicensesReporting, Program

Evaluation

Transactional, Reportinf

Transactional, Reporting

Transactional Transactional

Immunization Information

Reporting, Planning, Program

Evaluation

Reporting, Planning, Program

Evaluation

Reporting, Program

Evaluation, Planning

Inquiry, Reporting,

Notofication

Inquiry, Reporting, Notification

Inquiry

Probation Automation ReportingAdministrative,

Decision Support

RPS Version 4

Transacitonal, Program Planning, Evaluation

SALESNET

Administrative, Reporting, Planning,

Decision Support

Reporting Reporting Transactional Transactional

Social Services Imaging

Decision Support, Administrative,

Planning, Program

Evaluation

Decision Support, Program Planning, Evaluation

Voter Registration Administrative

Administration, Information Integration, Reporting

Administrative Planning, Inquiry


Projects

Offer N

ew/E

xpan

ded

Service

Imp

rove E

fficiency

Imp

rove S

ervice to C

itizens

New

Fed

eral Req

uirem

ents

New

State R

equ

iremen

ts

Cu

rrent Tech

no

log

y Un

sup

po

rtable

New

Tech

nolo

gy O

ffers Ben

efits

Integ

ration

/Co

mp

ly With

Stan

dards

Aging Services System X X X X X X X

Annual Financial Reports X X X X

Death Certificates X X X X

Dog Licensing X X X X X

Hunting & Fishing Licenses X X X

Immunization Information X X X X

Probation Automation X

RPS Version 4 X X

SALESNET X X X X X

Social Services Imaging X X

Voter Registration X X X X X

Reason For Initiating Project

Motivating Factors


Activities Complete or In Progress as of May 1997

Projects

Go

al Settin

g

Pro

cess An

alysis

System

Desig

n

Stan

dards D

evelopm

ent

or A

waren

ess

Tech

no

log

y Selectio

n

Pro

totyp

e

Pilo

t

Pro

du

ction

Evalu

ation

Aging Services System X X X X X X X

Annual Financial Reports X X X X X X X X X

Death Certificates X X X X X

Dog Licensing X X X X X X X X X

Hunting & Fishing Licenses X X

Immunization Information X X X X X X

Probation Automation X X X X

RPS Version 4 X X X X X X

SALESNET X X X X X X

Social Services Imaging X X X X X X

Voter Registration X X X X X

Status as of May 1997


Governor�s Task Force on IRM,Special Work Group on Intergovernmental Information SystemsCo-Chairs Stanley France, Director,

Schoharie County Central Data ProcessingThomas Griffen, Executive Director,

Office of Real Property Services

Pamela Akison, Department of HealthJoseph Cain, Department of HealthEdward DeFranco, Division of Criminal Justice ServicesJoAmy Guild, Department of Agriculture and MarketsRichard Harris, Office of Real Property ServicesTerry Maxwell, NYS Forum for Information Resource ManagementAnne Marie Rainville, Governor�s Task Force on IRMMary Redmond, New York State LibraryGary Rinaldi, Department of HealthPeg Sauer, Department of Environmental ConservationBonita Scott, Office of Real Property ServicesJeffrey Swain, Office of the State ComptrollerPaul Szwedo, Office of Real Property ServicesSteve Walter, State Office for the AgingGeorge Warner, Department of Social ServicesBill Wray, Department of Social Services

State AgenciesDepartment of Agriculture and MarketsDepartment of Civil ServiceDepartment of Environmental ConservationDepartment of HealthDepartment of Motor VehiclesDepartment of Social ServicesDepartment of StateDivision of Criminal Justice ServicesDivision of Probation and Correctional AlternativesEmpire State DevelopmentGovernor�s Task Force on IRMNYS LibraryOffice of Probation, Community CorrectionOffice of Real Property ServicesOffice of the State ComptrollerState Archives and Records AdministrationState Board of ElectionsState Office for the Aging

Appendix C. Project Participants


Local Government

AssociationsAssociation of Town ClerksLocal Government Information Technology Directors AssociationNYS Association of TownsNYS Government Finance Officers Association

Counties

Albany OswegoChautauqua OrangeChemung OtsegoColumbia RocklandCortland SaratogaDutchess SchoharieDelaware SuffolkMonroe UlsterNassau WestchesterOnondaga

Cities

New York City RomeOswego RyeRochester Yonkers

Towns

Bergen MaltaBinghamton MarcellusByron MendonCanton New LebanonChampion North HempsteadClifton Park North CollinsCobleskill PerthCortlandville PittsfordEast Fishkill Putnam ValleyEdinburg SchodackEllery SomersetHamburg UnadillaHuntington UnionLancaster WilliamsonLebanon

Villages

Garden City Port Chester


Other ParticipantsNational Center for Health StatisticsUpper Hudson Primary ConsortiumNYS Forum for Information Resource Management

CTG StaffDavid Connelly, Graduate Assistant, Public AdministrationSharon Dawes, DirectorAnn DiCaterino, Project Support ManagerDavid Filbert, Graduate Assistant, Political ScienceDarryl Green, Project Support ManagerJung-Sub Lee, Intern, National Computerization Agency,

Republic of South KoreaClaire McInerney, Information CoordinatorTheresa Pardo, Project Coordinator


Bruner, C., Kunesh, L.G. & Knuth, R.A. (1992). �What Does ResearchSay about Interagency Collaboration?� <http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/8agcycol.html> Oak Brook: NCRL.

Interagency collaboration is the solution to the fragmented state and localinitiatives that currently provide services to families and children. Compre-hensive and integrated services are a better way to meet the human needsof families, but comprehensive and integrated services usually do not existin most states. The nature and magnitude of the problem are presentedand a vision for interagency collaboration is outlined. The authors providea list of guidelines for effective collaborative planning, and they spell outstrategies for engaging families and communities. The article includes anexcellent list of resources.

Cigler, B.A. (1994 January/February). �The County-State Connection: ANational Study of Associations of Counties.� Public AdministrationReview 54(1): 3-11.

The author looks at current issues of greatest concern to counties as theirservice delivery roles expand. The lobbying efforts of state associations ofcounties were examined, and executive directors of statewide countyorganizations across the United States were interviewed in the study. Thefindings focus on four main areas: structural change, intergovernmentalarrangements, substantive policy issues, and internal operations.

Dawes, S. S. et al. (1996). Making Smart IT Choices: A Handbook.Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government.

Making Smart IT Choices summarizes the methods and models that CTGuses to help organizations apply technology to mission-critical problems. Intrue handbook style, it provides background information, worksheets,exercises, and practical ways to approach an information technologyproject. The case descriptions include nine evaluation products thatculminate in final problem analysis and a choice of an optimal IT solutionto an information problem or need. The book includes tools that can assistany planning team with step-by-step guidance.

Appendix D. Selected Bibliography


Florio, J. J. & Reich, R. B. (1996). Working Together for Public Ser-vice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

This work is a report of the U.S. Secretary of Labor�s Task Force onExcellence in State and Local Government through Labor-ManagementCooperation. The results of site visits across the country are detailed toshow how management and labor groups cooperated to produce betterservice for citizens. Typical findings are outlined and case studies arepresented. A list of contact people for exemplary projects is included.

Jennings, E.T. (1994). �Building Bridges in the Intergovernmental Arena:Coordinating Employment and Training Programs in the American States.�Public Administration Review 54(1): 52-60.

This article examines coordination issues in the context of employment andtraining programs at the state and local level and associated federallegislation, grants, and administrative activities. The particular focus is theeffort of states to produce coordinated employment and training programs.Statutory provisions of those programs indicate that national policy makershave been attentive to the need for coordination but not much more willingto consolidate program authority than they were in the past. Instead, theyhave instituted procedural and structural coordination requirements,granted governors authority to foster coordination, and provided fundingincentives to support coordination activities (adapted from author�sabstract).

Kumar, K. & van Dissel, H.G. (1996 September). �Sustainable Collabora-tion: Managing Conflict and Cooperation in Interorganizational Systems.�MIS Quarterly: 279-287.

The article identifies the possible risks of conflict in interorganizationalsystems, and it points out some strategies for minimizing such conflicts. Atypology is identified that classifies interorganizational systems into threetypes: pooled information resources, value/supply chains, and networks.Economic, technical and socio-political arguments for potential conflict inthese systems are also identified.

Lambright, W.H. (1997 January/February). �The Rise and Fall of Inter-agency Cooperation: The U.S. Global Change Research Program.�Public Administration Review 57 (1): 36-44.

The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources was an inter-agency Federal committee that coordinated the multibillion dollar GlobalChange Research Program. Created by Ronald Reagan, honored byGeorge Bush, and used as an exemplary model by Bill Clinton, the com-mittee is considered an ideal model for integrated institutional innovation.


The Global Change Research Program was charged with studying envi-ronmental issues such as global warming, deforestation, and ozone deple-tion. The program has involved as many as 18 different federal depart-ments and agencies since the science involved in studying these environ-mental issues overlap the missions of many organizations. In order to besuccessful the Committee on Environmental and Natural Resourcesdetermined that the critical success factors included awareness and visionof the problems, a �triggering� event such as the 1987 Montreal Protocol,the birth of an institution, and successful implementation. The key toimplementation involved neutralizing dissent, securing external dissent, anddefining the limits of power.

Marzke, C., Both, D. & Focht, J. (1994). Information Systems to Sup-port Comprehensive Service Delivery: Emerging Approaches, Issues,and Opportunities. Des Moines, IA: National Center for Service Integra-tion.

The Ford Foundation and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Healthand Human Services funded a project that investigated the current statusof information technology in the context of comprehensive servicesinitiatives. The project focused on information systems developed tosupport efforts to reform the service delivery system rather than thoserelating to the automation of existing single service programs. Examples ofusing information systems effectively to plan and deliver integratedservices are explained, and documentation and tools from various projectsare included.

McCaffrey, D.P., Faerman, S.R. & Hart, D.W. (1995). �The Appeal andDifficulties of Participative Systems.� Organization Science 6 (6): 603-627.

Relying on the literature of cooperation and collaboration, the authorsanalyze experiences with participative systems in management andregulatory policy. Their thesis is that although there are many compellingreasons for private and public organizations to embrace participativesystems, there are significant barriers to doing so embedded in deeplyvalued social, economic, and political principles. Barriers to adopting andsustaining participative systems are described; among them are disposi-tions against cooperating with prior adversaries, the costs of collaborationin complex social and political systems, the difficulties of engaging deepconflicts, and leadership incentives favoring control. These conditions, theauthors maintain, undermine fragile participative systems.


Newcombe, T. (1996 May). �Tying the Knot: Intergovernmental ITProjects Unfold.� Government Technology <http://www.govtech.net/1996/gt/may/html>

There is an ingrained culture of separatism among government agencies atdifferent levels. The article explores cases where federal, state, and localgovernments are working together to develop new ways to use technologyon an intergovernmental basis.

New York State Association of County Health Officials. (1997 March).NYSACHO Automation Committee Policy Paper.

The New York State Association of County Health Officials formed anAutomation Committee in order to discuss their objectives and experiencesand to air their concerns about information systems that link the New YorkState Department of Health and local health agencies. The discussions aresummarized in this policy paper. The paper outlines key problems thecommittee identified and it calls for a plan of action to address them.


Intergovernmental issues are covered in considerable detail on the WWW.The sites we suggest here range from generic intergovernmental relationsmaterial to the very information technology (IT) specific.

Access America: Government Information Technology Services (GITS)http://www.gits.fed.gov/htm/appndxb.htmAn Appendix associated with the National Performance Review regardinggoals of the Access America project.

Government Technology, May 1996http://www.govtech.net/1996/gt/may/cover1/cover1.shtmAn article exploring intergovernmental information technology initiativesand some of the things to keep in mind when engaging in such a process.

Government Technology, September 1995http://www.govtech.net/1995/gt/sep/cooperat.shtmAn article describing some of the initiatives of the NPR and its goals ofgetting government to work together.

Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF)http://www.iitf.nist.gov/index.htmlA site with several links to various documents associated with federal,state, and local information technology areas.

Intergovernmental Information Systems Advisory Council (IISAC)http://www.admin.state.mn.us/iisacAn advisory group dedicated to covering IT issues in an intergovernmentalarena.

International City/County Management Association (ICMA)http://www.icma.org/The ICMA homepage which links to several valuable sites and documentsassociated with local government concerns.

National Association of State Information Resource Executives (NA-SIRE)http://www.nasire.orgNASIRE maintains an excellent intergovernmental relations committeethat recommends policies and technologies state governments might wantto consider.

Appendix E. World Wide Web Sites of Interest


National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), IntergovernmentalHealth Policy Projecthttp://www.ncsl.org/ihpp/A project designed to explore the future role of intergovernmental collabo-ration in health care issues and the role IT can play in that future.

National Performance Review Reportshttp://www.npr.gov/library/reports/it05.htmlA report from the National Performance Review (NPR) dealing withelectronic tax filing in an intergovernmental atmosphere.

New York State Governor�s Task Force on Information ResourceManagement http://www.irm.state.ny.us/Policies related to management of information resources in NYS areavailable on the Task Force Web site. State and local information systemplanning teams can refer to the policies online while developing anddesigning new systems as well as during the implementation phase whensystems are being piloted, tested, and rolled out.

NT Townhttp://www.sas.ab.ca/nttown/inter.htmlA document describing seven themes of networked government and someof the things that must be considered when establishing such links.

Office of Information Technology, Office of Governmentwide Policy, USGeneral Service Administrationhttp://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/This site offers many information technology links and the sponsor isbeginning to develop several intergovernmental initiatives.

Public Technology, Inc.http://pti.nw.dc.us/index.htmlPublic Technology, Inc. (PTI), is the non-profit technology R&D organiza-tion of the National League of Cities (NLC), the National Association ofCounties (NACo), and the International City/County Management Asso-ciation (ICMA).

The Office of Intergovernmental Solutions (OIS)http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mg/intergov/OIS is an office of the General Services Administration (GSA). The sitecontains several links to information technology sites. There are alsonewsletters, a guide to state IT offices, and several international IT links.


The following New York State policies, developed and promulgated by theNYS Governor�s Task Force on Information Resource Management, arerelevant to information systems for state and local collaboration. The fulltext of these policies is available on the Task Force Web site at http://www.irm.state.ny.us/policy/pol_tbl.htm

Appendix F. NYS Policies Related to State and LocalGovernment Information Systems

Number Policy Date Issued

96-7 Electronic Data Interchange April 12, 1996

96-8 Use of the Internet May 3, 1996

96-10 Legal Acceptance of Electronically July 23, 1996Stored Documents

96-11 Network Services Agenda August 7, 1996

96-11A Agency Preparation for the �NYT� November 15, 1996

96-14 New York State Use of Electronic Mail June 11, 1996

96-16 Technology Standards July 19, 1996

96-16A Technology Standards - Electronic January 3, 1997Document Management Systems

96-17 New York State Strategy for Information August 7, 1996Resource Management

96-18 Geographic Information Systems September 20, 1996

96-19 Data Sharing Among Agencies December 5, 1996

97-1 Information Security Policy January 9, 1997

97-2 Local Government/State Government February 4, 1997Technology Initiatives

97-3 Statewide Data Dictionary February 13, 1997

Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at Albany / SUNY

1535 Western AvenueAlbany, NY 12203

Phone: 518-442-3892Fax: [email protected]