Adopting innovations in information technology

Pergamon

PII: S0264-2751(98)00049-3

Cities, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 3–12, 1999  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0264-2751/99/$ - see front matter

Adopting innovations in information technology The California municipal experience Roger W Caves* and Marco G Walshok California Institute for Smart Communities, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-4505, USA

This paper examines how municipalities in California and other areas of the United States are going about incorporating advanced information technology into their civic operations. Whereas earlier cities prospered because of their location as transportation crossroads or as centers of industrial production, today cities are reassessing their role and capacities in relation to the emerging new knowledge-based economy and the needs of their citizens in this new social and economic environment. In this effort, cities are using a variety of new technologies to better prepare citizens to compete in the new economy to help in the delivery of public services, and to enhance the quality of life in their communities. The paper explores the development of the “smart communities” initiative in California and the California municipal experience in the adoption of municipal web sites.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Keywords: Information technology, municipal government, telecommunications policy, public policy, smart communities

Introduction

physical goods and commodities—as most were during the last hundred years.” Perhaps we are entering, as Don Tapscott (1995, p 2) suggests, “…the dawn of an Age of Networked Intelligence—an age that is giving birth to a new economy, a new politics, and a new society. Businesses will be transformed, governments will be renewed, and individuals will be able to reinvent themselves—all with the help of the new information technology.” The new economy or knowledge-based economy that accompanies these new “networked” realities poses interesting challenges to communities throughout the United States and the world. The production and transmission of information are vital ingredients to the success of these communities in facing the challenges and possibilities offered by this new economy and its potential social and civic benefits. However, in order to realize this, successful communities must be proactive and be ready to face some difficult questions. As Robert Bell, Executive Director of the World Teleport Association noted in his remarks at a 1997 Smart Communities Conference in Santa Monica, California, an “‘Intelligent City’ needs to create

We are fortunate to have the luxury of learning from the past. Do you remember what happened to some small towns that were bypassed by the creation and location of interstate highways? Do you remember what happened to boom towns when all of the minerals or other valuable physical resources were extracted? Do you remember when an area lost its sole employer to another area? The answer to these questions is that, absent planning and forward thinking, these areas quickly become obsolete. They became ghost towns. Because they were not prepared to embark on the future, they were doomed to remain captives of the past. The same is true today. Cities of today are considerably different from cities of the past. As Graham and Marvin (1996, p 137) indicate, “no longer can we understand cities as primarily as centres for the manufacturing and the exchange and production of *Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹ 001-619-594-6472; Fax: ⫹ 001619-594-8931; E-mail: [email protected]

3

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok

the advanced infrastructure of telecommunications and information technology needed to gain a competitive advantage in attracting these growth industries that create knowledge-worker jobs” (Bell, 1997). Embarking on the future, however, has become even more challenging in our current period. Whereas cities and counties in past decades could reasonably plan in relative isolation from one another, parochial planning places them in an increasingly precarious situation as they are forced, willingly or not, to engage and compete in a constantly changing and turbulent post-industrial world? This predisposition to “plan alone” in order to cultivate distinct community characteristics and amenities now inhibits access to vital extra-local, contextual information and extrajurisdictional networks that are essential in order to effectively participate in and resist being overwhelmed by the forces of economic, social, and even cultural change unleashed by the coming of the global economy? In this post-industrial context, access to and the ability to effectively disseminate information represents critical keys to the future viability of our communities. Inspiring communities to make the necessary adjustments so that they can remain viable in this post-industrial world is no easy task. In fact, the bias in many areas is to remain as they have and only make minor adjustments. Others will actually fight vigorously to resist the coming changes. This is a version of Schon’s (1971) “dynamic conservatism.” Unfortunately, as they attempt to live in and with the past there is a strong possibility that they will lose their capacity to participate effectively in the determination of their future, and thereby put at risk many of the traditional amenities and quality of life they desire to preserve. Unfortunately, there are no simple ways to accomplish the kind of transformation needed to make the adjustment to the post-industrial circumstances. However, it is our contention that a critical first step is for communities to acknowledge the growing importance of developing satisfactory telecommunications infrastructures and a broad-based community understanding of how and for what purposes they want to use this new form of infrastructure. This is because this new form of infrastructure will be critical to the ability of communities to master and adapt the informational pressure and dynamics that will very well determine on what grounds they participate in the new global realities of a post-industrial world. In a fundamental sense, communities need to begin to look at the creation, design, and elaboration of more conventional forms of physical infrastructure like water and roads in prior periods. Unfortunately, local policy makers tend to ignore telecommunications. As Graham and Marvin (1996, p 51) point out, it is so bad that “many city planners and managers do not even know what the telecommunications infrastructure is in their cities; very few have the power, influence, or conceptual tools to 4

reshape it to have desired impacts.” Moss (1987, p 535) adds the following comment: The telecommunications infrastructure—which includes the wires, ducts and channels that carry voice, data, and video signals—remains a mystery to most cities. In part, this is due to the fact that key components of the telecommunications infrastructure, such as underground cables and rooftop microwave transmitters, are not visible to the public. Unlike airports and garbage disposal plants, telecommunications facilities are not known for their negative side effects, and until recently, have not been the source of public disputes or controversy.

If we are to make telecommunications and information technologies more central to community life, we need to find a way to make them more vital parts of the local public policy agenda. At a minimum, we must start thinking about the information infrastructure of local communities and sub-state regions in the same ways they have viewed the more conventional elements of their infrastructure—both hard and soft. That is, they must begin to see the information technology and telecommunications capacities of communities and regions as key contributors to their vitality and essential to obtaining and sustaining the desirable qualities of life pursued within the community. Just as roads and sewers, and water lines undergird a community, just as schools, and libraries, and public parks and museums provide critical amenities, so to must telecommunications in the fullest sense of the word be regards to the undergirding and elaboration of community life. In this paper we will discuss how a number of communities and regions within California have started to embrace information technology and telecommunications as important ways to provide their residents with on-line access to government officials, departments, and services. The paper begins with a brief discussion of public policy and the need for information. The second section examines the importance of technology to California. The third section examines California’s venture into “Smart Communities” and the status of the California Smart Community Project. The fourth section provides initial information on how communities in California and elsewhere have fared in developing themselves into “Smart Communities.” A final section will offer some closing thoughts and suggest some areas of future research.

Public policy and the need for information Responding to changes in the economy is not the only challenge confronting government. Citizens have become frustrated over the lack of services provided by various levels of government. Citizens have become distrustful of public officials. Government has had to take a deep look at itself and knows that

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok

reforms must be made. Governments, as Thornton (1997, p 5) suggests: must recognize the value of an improved information infrastructure and see information technology as a primary engine for revolutionizing how they fulfill their basic mission—to deliver health care and education, stimulate economic growth, develop and maintain infrastructure, ensure justice, and maintain peace. Successfully addressing the challenges they face is critical; the long-term viability and vitality of their countries and communities are at stake.

In order for citizens to effectively participate in the public policy process, they must have information. Providing information represents a key ingredient in creating an informed citizenry. Moreover, the information must be both in an understandable format, and provided in a timely manner. Information is worthless if the citizen gets it after a decision has been made. Providing timely and understandable information could help decision-makers with the support they need for a given project or plan. The literature on service delivery and public policy dramatically illustrates the point that citizen demands for information and services have definitely increased over the years. (Jones, 1980; Sharp, 1986, 1990; Osborne and Gaebler, 1993) The key question then becomes how do we disseminate information to the public? Conventional practice has consistently made summary aggregate information available to clients and constituents. In addition, citizens could directly request that information be sent through the mails. In addition to these alternatives, has now been added the increasingly detested, pre-programmed telephone information messages that have become the darlings of nearly every overworked public and community service agency that is required to provide information to the public. However, the increase in demand for information has not been met with a reciprocal increase or refinement in supply of information. As a result, an information gap or gulf has emerged creating what Graham and Marvin (1996, p 37) call “information ghettos”. This gap-gulf only contributes to the further disenchantment with government by citizens, increases their frustration over the lack of an adequate response to their information and services, and ultimately makes them even more distrustful of their government. However, perhaps this problem can now represent a potential opportunity. Numerous commentators, public officials and researchers are increasingly taking note of the importance of information to our cities, states, and nation through a series of pronouncements and initiatives over the past four years. The Clinton Administration has attempted to forge a national movement to accelerate the application of new information technologies to the contemporary challenges of local economic and community development, including major areas of service delivery. In a October 28, 1993 letter, President Clinton proclaimed that “technology is the

engine of economic growth, creating new jobs, building new industries, and improving our standard of living.” He continued to expound on the virtues of technology in the same letter by indicating “technology is also a powerful force for making government more efficient and responsive, harmonizing our economic growth and environmental objectives and making more efficient use of our energy resources.” These early pronouncements were quickly followed by efforts to promote a National Information Infrastructure (NII) which was believed to create accessibility to vast amounts of information that would change how we live, work, and play. Since most of our citizens pursue their life, labor and recreation with specific physical, and for the most part built-up, environments, the implications for the role that the municipalities and local communities generally would play in realizing the benefits of the NII are significant. Vice President Gore’s 1993 Report of the National Performance Review that strongly advocated the development of electronic government at all levels of government carried this same message about the significance of local community institutions. The NII is simply a collection of technologies and equipment that makes it possible to move information electronically. Its goal is to make sure Americans have access to information that would enable them to fully participate in the global economy. This opportunity to access information could also help us realize important economic, health, social, educational, and governmental goals in the same fashion as other major public works in the history of the United States have. In fact, in his December 21, 1993 remarks at the National Press Club, Vice President Gore offered the following analogy about the NII: Think of the NII as a network of highways—much like the Interstate begun in the ’50s. These are highways carrying information rather than people or goods. And I’m not talking about just one eight-lane turnpike. I mean a collection of Interstates and feeder roads made up of different materials in the same way that roads can be concrete or macadam—or gravel. Some highways will be made up of fiber optics. Others will be built out of coaxial or wireless.

Once the infrastructure is built, it can offer individuals and communities a number of benefits. In his statement to the International Telecommunications Union on March 21, 1994, Vice President Gore offered his views of the multiple benefits that would accrue: These highways—or, more accurately, networks of distributed intelligence—Will allow us to share information, to connect, and to communicate as a global community. From these connections we will derive robust and sustainable economic progress, strong democracies, better solutions to global and local environmental challenges, improved health care, and—ultimately—a greater sense of shared stewardship of our small planet.

5

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok

It should be noted that electronic communication would not make human interaction obsolete. Individuals will always be needed to create, process, and respond to the request for information. However, some individuals remain skeptical of the overuse of electronic communications. The following passage illustrates some of these concerns: For example, critics question whether electronic communication will replace what little face-to-face contact there already is between people; they also see networks and communications technologies in general as a serious threat to society. They fear that these networks will only further isolate and distance us from our neighbors. There is also concern that increased use of technology will create a division of those who can participate in the discussion of community and governance and those who have no access to the system. They question whether these new systems will disenfranchise parts of the population even further and whether the word “community” only means traditional computer users who are usually upper-income, male, and young. (International Center for Communications, 1996, p 3).

Others have echoed similar sentiments (Graham and Simon, 1996; Lyon, 1988).

The importance of information technology in California Over the past decade, economic problems have plagued California and its towns, cities, and counties just as they have challenged other states and their substate jurisdictions. Many of these jurisdictions have had to weather the economic storms that confronted them with little or declining outside support. Some have had to reduce or completely cut services that in turn have angered their citizens. Many saw established industries leave only sometimes to be replaced by other, newer industries aimed at taking advantage of an area’s economic amenities or quality of life. Despite this often grim picture of economic decline and restructuring, California has experienced impressive job gains since the economic problems of the early 90s. Today, the State’s one trillion dollar economy currently ranks seventh among the world economic powers, its economic base has been transformed into one that is the envy of many states and countries. Job growth is being spurred by a variety of industries that appear to be the growth leaders at the beginning of the 21st century economy. In California, as elsewhere, the telecommunications sector is one of the fastest growing and most vital of these “leadership” industries. The telecommunications and information technologies industries are coming to occupy a key place in the State’s economy. Several years ago, Governor Pete Wilson voiced Administration’s belief in the importance of telecommunications and how it could be used to better position California to become a 6

world leader in the 21st century global information economy. In response to this initiative and to the need for economic restructuring created by the 1992–1994 recession, specifically the cutbacks in aerospace and defense spending, the California Legislature passed SB 1 in 1995. Moreover, this bill was aimed at “kickstarting” changes within state government itself to make greater use of advanced information technology, as well as promote information technology applications throughout the state for economic, social, and civic development purposes. This legislation created a separate Department of Information Technology (DOIT) within California’s state government that would bear primary responsibility for developing plans and policies to promote the effective application of information technology throughout state government. At the same time, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) took a leadership role in encouraging the application of new forms of telecommunications in California communities. These forms of telecommunications would be used as an alternative to the use of traditional mobility options, such as automobiles and forms of mass transit. This focus on community telecommunications in turn leads to support for the development of a framework creating of “Smart Communities” throughout California.

Providing support for developing smart communities in California According to the 1997 Smart Communities Guidebook, a “Smart Community” can be defined as: a geographical area ranging in size from a neighborhood to a multi-county region whose residents, organizations, and governing institutions are using information technology to transform their region in significant ways. Cooperation among government, industry, educators, and the citizenry, instead of individual groups acting in isolation, is preferred. The technological enhancements undertaken as part of this effort should result in fundamental, rather than incremental, change.

The framework for smart communities makes mobility considerations a central concern. It offers support to the exploration of ways to use new telecommunications and information technologies to enhance the economic development and quality of life in communities throughout California. Governor Wilson echoed this sentiment when he proclaimed in the 1997 Smart Communities Guidebook, “the nation’s emerging telecommunications network increasingly could be used as a substitute for transportation—conserving energy, reducing air pollution, and enhancing California’s quality of life” (International Center for Communications, 1997). The California Smart Communities Program has several purposes. Its primary purpose is to actively promote the concept of “Smart Communities”

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok

throughout California. This involves conducting seminars, forums, and conferences throughout California. Moreover, it means disseminating “Smart Communities” information via the Internet, the media, and other channels. Getting information out is, however, only one part of the puzzle. Another part of the puzzle is getting the community interested in embracing the advantages to becoming a “Smart Community” and developing a vision to achieve reality. A statewide team of consultants has been assembled under the auspices of the California Institute for Smart Communities, based at San Diego State University to assist communities in their transformation to becoming a “Smart Community.” Ultimate success occurs only if and when the community takes control of the effort. The California Institute for Smart Communities views the Smart Communities project as essentially a community development project, not as a technology transfer project. The technology is certainly there. Finding the most appropriate and effective applications of the technology represents the key. For example, one community may choose to embark on a program to provide citizens with more information and services via the Internet. Another community may want to promote itself economically via the Internet with the ultimate goal being to better position itself to compete in the global economy. Still, yet another community might want to connect its schools and libraries to the Internet in an effort to better prepare its students for the future workforce. Ultimately, areas could turn to telecommunications and information technologies to help promote job creation, economic development, and improved quality of life. Becoming a “smart community” is not an overnight occurrence. It does not offer a quick fix to an area’s problems. Any transformation must include private citizens, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, business, government, and the media. It should be viewed as a cooperative venture between all parties and not dominated by any individual or group. There are several essential steps common to all “smart communities.” First, key leaders and individuals must be identified to take the lead in promoting the idea. Some areas initially had a single person promote the idea and then others joined the effort. In another area, an interest group or non-profit agency sees the benefits of becoming “smart” and initiates action. The idea is that there must be continuity. Momentum will surely be lost if work is sporadic. Second, an area must identify the tools they will be using. The specific tools will vary by community according to their need. For example, does an area want to provide on-line services and allow citizens to contact city departments and officials by email? Is the area trying to develop telework centers to get people out of their vehicles and off the roads, thereby reducing automobile emissions or is the area trying promote itself on the web to position itself and gain a competitive economic advantage over other jurisdictions? Is the area trying to acquire better medical services for

its residents by the use of a telemedicine program? Is developing a strong e-commerce program the primary objective of a community? Regardless of the tool or tools that will be initially developed by the community, it is safe to say that new tools will evolve as new needs and desires are identified. Third, areas need to investigate and assess their technical infrastructure. This represents the system in which the tools previously mentioned will operate. Areas should determine if the community’s computers are connected into a network or whether they are freestanding machines. Subsequently, areas must assess their current infrastructure, evaluate their bandwidth, determine what it is currently doing and assess what it is ultimately capable of doing. Unfortunately, many communities have been somewhat negligent in assessing their technical infrastructure. Fourth, areas must also assess the institutional infrastructure in which they operate. This involves asking such questions as: How does the community allocate its budget resources for new telecommunications and information technology applications? What type of budget does the community have for technology? Unfortunately, these questions have a way of never being asked. Failure to address these questions represents a major hurdle or obstacle facing an area wanting to become a “smart community.”

How smart are communities in southern California? We can look at the diffusion of municipal websites as an instance of localities initiating action to transform themselves into smart communities. In addition, the number of local jurisdictions within a county or found in a set of adjoining counties that have a common economic base or an internal transportation network that have developed municipal websites may be taken as indicative of a larger regional effort to develop smart communities. For this reason, the California Institute for Smart Communities began in early 1997 to assemble data on the diffusion and character of municipal websites throughout California. The following discussion reflects a partial and preliminary analysis of these data generated by the staff of the California Institute for Smart Communities.1 At this juncture, we are not yet in position to make comprehensive and systemic statements about important patterns of variation in municipal websites development and use throughout the entire state of California. However, we can begin to highlight certain broad patterns that tell us something about scale and scope of municipal website use during 1997. Data were collected on all cities of California with 1 Information on websites for jurisdictions from counties in southern California (San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, etc.) were collected between February and August of 1997. Data on websites for jurisdictions from counties in northern California was developed between October, 1997 and April, 1998.

7

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok

populations over 45,000; 150 cities were identified. California Department of Finance figures for City/County population estimates as of January 1, 1997 were used to establish which jurisdictions met or exceeded this 45,000 figure. In addition, 11 other cities were added to the initial 150 because of certain special features that made them significant communities within their region for a grand total of 161 cities.2 Of these 161 cities, 132 or 81.3% came from just 14 of California’s 56 counties, excluding the city–county consolidation of San Francisco. Seven of these counties were located in the northern and central parts of the state. They produced 32 45,000 ⫹ jurisdictions or 19.9% of all such localities. Six counties from southern California produced 99 45,000 ⫹ jurisdictions or 61.5% of all such jurisdictions. The five counties that contained the highest percentage of 45,000 or greater jurisdictions were as follows: San Diego: 13 of 18 cities, or 72.2% Orange: 21 of 31 cities, or 66.7% Alameda: 9 of 14 cities, or 64.3% San Bernardino: 12 of 24 cities, or 50.0% Ventura: 5 of 10 cities, or 50.0% Not surprisingly, these figures reflect the much heavier degree of urbanization and contiguous suburbanization that exists in the southern counties of the state. The next task was to determine how many of these 161 cities had municipal web pages. Three popular and well used search engines were employed: Public Technology’s Index of city web pages, Yahoo’s “Get Local” Directory, and Excites “City Net”. Based on the searches performed with these web guides, 95 of the 161 cities were identified as having populations of 45,000 or greater. This represents 59% of the all cities in California that fall into the 45,000 ⫹ category. To explore gross regional patterns in the adoption of municipal web pages, we looked at all of the 161 jurisdictions in terms of their location within those counties connected to the major regional associations of government in the state. Specifically, this included the nine-county Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the six counties linked to the South2 Four (4) cities were added that fell into a population range between 42,000 as of January, 1997, but because of their rate of growth during the 90’s could reasonably be expect to reached the 45 K ⫹ level by January of 1998. An additional four (4) cities were selected because they were both the largest municipal unit in their respective counties, had a population equal to of in excess of 30,000, and were located in an area contiguous with a county containing a number of communities that satisfied the 45,000 population threshold with which they have important economic linkages. Finally, three (3) cities were select because their dominant economic orientation resulted in the generation of generally full time temporary population in excess of 45,000 even though there official population feel below this threshold. These were the Sierra Nevada resort communities of South Lake Tahoe and Truckee, and the desert vacation city of Palm Springs.

8

ern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the single county of San Diego whose member cities are part of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). From the information presented below in Table 1, three simple descriptive points can be drawn. Firstly, 153 or the 161 cities examined in our analysis can be found in the counties that fall within the boundaries of these three Associations. This is nearly 84% (actually 83.85%) of all the cities included in our study. Secondly, while the San Diego region has a slightly greater percentage of cities with web pages than the larger Bay Area region, the difference is negligible, and the regions are essentially equal in the diffusion of municipal websites. Thirdly, the largest region in terms of both population and physical size, namely the area cover by SCAG, shows more than a 10% differences in the number of cities that have their own municipal websites. We get a more in-depth look at these regional variations by examining the cities within specific counties located in the areas covered by these Associations of Government. Table 2 summarizes those counties that have the highest percentage of cities above 45,000 with their own web pages. It shows that the two leading counties are located in the Bay Area and have significantly more municipal web pages than the four major counties of southern California that fall within the SCAG region. The San Diego region has an intermediary position between the two Bay Area counties and its neighboring southern California counties. If we look more specifically at the three top counties from Table 2, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Diego, we can note that they are all from areas of the state that reflect what is coming to be called the “new economy” in the current economic profiles. Most notably, they are areas that reflect the ascendance and growing centrality of a high-technology business sector in their regional economies, and increasing infrastructure developments that reflect the application of high-tech communications capabilities. Another way in which we examined the diffusion of municipal websites was on the basis of city size. Table 3 summarizes our initial categorization of these differences. What stands out about these data is that larger jurisdictions show greater levels of adoption of web pages than smaller jurisdictions. Despite the argument that the web/internet offers smaller units of government a way to provide their constituents with access to government in new, more efficient and relatively inexpensive ways, it appears that it is the larger, more urbanized, or at least suburbanized jurisdictions that have made the greatest use of these new communication possibilities for the development of their communities. Our data do not allow us to explore the reasons for these differences, although the greater likelihood in larger jurisdiction of (a) coming up with important material resources that could be used to support new municipal telecommunication initiatives and (b) of “policy entrepreneurs” who can promote

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok Table 1 Distribution of cities with population equal to/or greater than 45,000 within major California regions as defined by the territorial boundaries of the major associations of government in the state Government association

ABAG (Bay Area) SANDAG (San Diego) SCAG (Southern California

Number of cities 45,000 ⴙ

Number with web pages

34 13 88

23 9 50

Percentage of cities with web pages 68 69 57

Table 2 California counties with the highest percentage of cities above 45,000 maintaining their own municipal website County

Santa Clara Alameda San Diego Riverside Los Angeles San Bernardino Orange

Number of cities 45,000 ⴙ

Number of cities with web pages

7 9 13 8 40 13 21

6 7 9 5 23 7 11

Percentage of cities with web pages 86 78 69 62.5 58 54 52

Table 3 Distribution of municipal websites by city size in California Population 0–60,000 60,000–90,000 90,000–120,000 > 120,000

Number of cities 56 41 28 36

such initiatives, would be some of the first candidates worth examining. At the very least, these data suggest that there is a need to explore further the factors that influence the decisions of different sizes and types of jurisdictions to adopt web pages as a way to promote their communities and communicate with their citizens. Also, we have begun to examine in this initial and preliminary stage of our analysis the “extensiveness” of the information found on California’s municipal web pages, as well as some of the main substantive preoccupations of this information. To look at the question of extensiveness, first we constructed a fourlevel classification scheme to rank the degree of detail we would find about various at municipal websites. Level 0—A dummy category used to indicate the absence of information about particular subject matter area. Level 1—Information found about a particular subject matter area is of the simplest nature and lacks any descriptive details; provides minimal, bare-bones information about departments and personnel such as addresses, phone contact numbers. Level 2—Provides level 1 information plus brief descriptions of activities, features, and

Number of web sites 28 24 19 24

Percentage with web pages 50 59 68 67

functions of particular subject matter area, for example, public safety or recreation. Material often presented in an abbreviated and summary fashion and is likely to involve invitation for further inquiry if interested. Level 3—Provides the most complete and extensive amount of information about subject matter areas. Contains level 1 and 2 material, but adds detailed descriptions of activities, features, and functions associated with particular subject matter areas.

Next, we conducted a pilot study of all 15 cities in the San Diego region that had web pages without regard for our 45,000 threshold. Eight substantive areas were included in this original research effort: civic announcements, community background information, business links, city officials, community resources, cultural information, government activities, and information about the activities and services of government departments. On the basis of this pilot study, we were able to identify particular factors and areas that (a) identified a sizeable number of actual website applications, and (b) differentiated what different communities were emphasizing on their website. On the basis of this feedback we reconfigured the 9

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok

subject matter areas used to examine the web pages for jurisdictions in the rest of our study including a reassessment of our initial San Diego county data. The revised subject matters areas included the following four categories and incorporated 25 specific subcategories: (1) community promotional information which included most of the previous material found in the community resources areas (seven specific subcategories); (2) general government information which combines information about major city officials both elected and appointed and certain functional government agencies (nine specific sub-categories); (3) information about specialized government agencies, such as public safety and development (five specific sub-categories); (4) business development materials, including links to important business service providers (four specific sub-categories). At this juncture, we have not comprehensively analyzed the substantive foci and level of detail found on all 95 California municipal web pages on which we have gathered information. However, our information on those communities located within the area associated with the three major associations of government begins to suggest some important patterns. Table 4 summarizes the level of detail, or extensiveness of the information, found in municipal websites located in these different areas of California, independent of substantive focus. It summarizes only the total number of Levels 1, 2, and 3 information in all 25 sub-categories we used to organize the data we have gathered within our four main municipal subject matter areas. What Table 4 begins to highlight is some important regional differences in the extensiveness of information provided by municipal websites found in different parts of the state. While Bay Area and San Diego Area municipalities are very close in terms of the number of communities that have adopted web pages, there are significant differences between communities in those regions with regard to the amount of detail to be found at their sites. ABAG communities have web pages that contain 49% level 2 and 3 data, whereas San Diego communities only have 35% of their web pages at this level of detail. Even more striking is Los Angeles, which trails both the Bay Area and San Diego in significant ways in terms of the diffusion of municipal websites, but has about

40% of its web pages providing level 2 and 3 information, a figure significantly greater than San Diego. In the near future we plan to create a measure of substantive focus and detail by combining the four general subject matter areas and their important subareas with the three levels of information from our “extensiveness” classification scheme. This measure should allow us both to better summarize the variation in substantive information to be found on the municipal web pages in California; especially the degree of detail devoted to different substantive areas. This in turn will provide an opportunity to explore these patterns of variation in both substantive focus and the level of detail in combination with factors that may be contributing/causing these differences, such as the regional economic profile, and city size. As a sample of the potential of this kind of analysis may hold, and totally for purposes of illustration, Table 5 below summarizes data on the provision of information about important community institutions other than municipal government through California municipal websites. The websites examined here come from four of the seven counties with the highest percentage of these websites statewide as cited in Table 3. Two of these counties are from northern California and two from southern California. A quick perusal of this table shows important differences in the emphasis given to these “other” vital community organizations. Whereas Alameda county communities of the Bay Area appear strongly committed to schools, libraries, and recreation, they provide little information on non-profit service providers in their region. San Diego municipal web pages on the other hand, appear to have as much of a commitment to recreation as Alameda, not quite as strong a commitment to schools, even less to libraries, but much more of a commitment—about four times as much—to nonprofits. Finally, communities in the county of Santa Clara that are part of our database, appear to have the strongest commitment to non-profits, but less to school than communities from either San Diego or Alameda. Obviously, the reasons for these differences are not yet clear, and at this point our data do not provide a way to begin to tease out these reasons. But, at the very least, these kinds of comparisons begin to refine the questions we need to ask about ways in which

Table 4 Level of detail at websites of cities within three major regions of California as defined by the territorial boundaries of the major associations of government in the state Government association

Number of cities

ABAG (Bay Area) 34 SANDAG 13 (San Diego) SCAG 88 (Southern California)

10

Number of cities with web pages

Percentage of cities with web pages

Level 1 data (%)

Level 2 data (%)

Level 3 data (%)

Total % at all data levels

23 9

68 69

24 26

16% 11

31% 24

71 61

50

57

21

15

25

61

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok Table 5 Municipal web pages containing promotional information on non-governmental community organizations Non-profits

Schools

Libraries

Recreation

County

Number of cities with web pages

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Alameda Orange San Diego Santa Clara

7 11 9 6

1 3 5 4

14 27 56 67

7 5 8 4

100 45 89 67

7 4 6 5

100 36 67 83

7 6 9 5

100 54 100 83

communities and local governments in California and elsewhere are making use of the potential of the new world of high-tech communications for economic, social, and civic purposes.

Concluding comments The decade of the 1990s has witnessed the growing importance of information and communications technologies to the global economy. It is causing us to rethink many of our old assumptions. William K. Kennard (1998), Chairman, of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has asserted as much: The digital information age is profoundly changing the way we communicate and the way we live our lives. It is transforming many aspects of daily life— from how we do business to how we teach our children and administer health care. It is an engine of job creation and the lifeline of the global economy. The ability of individuals, communities and nations to participate in the global community will therefore be shaped by telecommunications policy.

Economies are changing and areas must adapt to these changes to effectively compete in the global economy. The experience of many communities in California appears to be successful in the initial adapting to these changes. There is as old saying that “location, location, and location” determine the value of real estate. There appears to be another not so old saying regarding information technology that is taking on the same poignancy, namely that the key ingredient to success is “bandwidth, bandwidth, and bandwidth.” To some extent, this is probably true. However, the authors are not believers in an often-quoted phrase from the movie “Field of Dreams”—“build it and they will come.” Developing a “Smart Community” and assuming people will use it may, in itself, be a dream to many people. But, for communities to really make these technologies work in a way that aids and abets their development as active and sustainable economic and social entities requires much more than building bandwidth. We must get back to our A, B, C—access, bandwidth, and content. All citizens must have access to the tools we develop. We cannot continue to have a society of information haves and have-nots. This

dichotomy must be lessened and eventually closed if everyone is going to be able to participate in the new economy. Bandwidth will, of course, be important in developing some tools like telemedicine. However, we must not overlook the importance of developing “content”. Citizens will use the various tools at their disposal if they contain information useful to them. At a minimum, serious and sustained attention must be paid to the issue of how to find applications of these technologies that “custom-fit” communities. We need to be as mindful of this issue and any of the actual improvements of community life that are so reflexively touted in the present-day infatuation and dalliance with “Community networks” and the “Information Highway.” We need to do such things as to study in a much more deliberate fashion than heretofore the public needs that these technologies can, as well as those that cannot, address best. We also need to examine in much more depth the issues surrounding computer literacy and access to the new information technologies in order to develop a much more detailed sense of the barriers we confront to truly realizing the benefits so many of which are associated with these technologies. Finally, we need to accept that there will be varying degrees of being “smart.” Information technology does appear to offer interesting opportunities for local governments. It can be used, as Cahill and Overman (1995) point out: (1) to change the way local governments operate (government functions); (2) to change the way local governments approach the issues of economic development; and (3) to change the relationship between local government and its citizens. Moreover, advances in communications technologies offer a possible means of reducing the existing information gap between citizen and their government, as well as with other important institutions that make up a viable community. As a recent National Science Foundation report points out, the number of “host” computers has grown from 617,000 in October 1991, to 2,056,000 in October 1993, and to 9,472,000 in January 1996, while the number of internet users can be estimated at roughly ten times the number of host computers. In short, a wealth of information can be available at our fingertips through on-line service or other means. Yet, to realize the full potential of this evolving medium for building healthy and sustainable com11

Adopting innovations in information technology: R W Caves and M G Walshok

munities requires that we take the discussion of “smart” systems far beyond the technology itself. In many ways, we are in a situation where the technology, if it is to succeed as intended, must be in search of more and more “human” applications (Ausubel and Herman, 1988; Graham, 1992; Richter, 1991). Many jurisdictions have started on the road to using new information technologies as a means of disseminating information and services to citizens as a first step. In a way, the desired result is a more informed citizenry that can better participate in a whole host of community and civic activities. However, much more work needs to be done. Foremost, there remains the question of access to this information technology. How do we ensure that everyone has equal and easy access to this technology? We do not want a city divided between those possessing information and those not possessing information. This type of polarization will exacerbate current problems. We must keep working on ways to make sure access to information technology is available to everyone. In closing, the development of “Smart Communities” offers exciting challenges and opportunities to areas around the world. It is up to each area to best decide how to best position itself in a new global economy. Cities need to remember that they are in competition with other cities. It is not enough to think that a city like San Diego, California, is only in competition with Seattle, Chicago, and Atlanta for companies that drive the new economy. San Diego is also in competition with other cities like London, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, and Copenhagen. Complacency must be avoided at all costs. Areas must be “smart” and recognize that: S is for studying and strategizing about how telecommunications and information technologies can be employed in your area; M is for monitoring trends and changes in telecommunications and information technologies, the economy, and citizen demands; A is for arriving at a consensus on how telecommunications and information technology can help your area; R is for reaching out to the people beyond your

12

borders and developing regional collaboration; and T is for the time to act is now—delaying action means letting your neighbor gain a competitive advantage on you in the new economy.

References Ausubel, J H and Herman, R (1988) Cities and Their Vital Systems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Bell, R (1997) Industrial Cities in Turnaround. Remarks presented at the Smart Communities Conference, Santa Monica, California, September 22–23, 1997. Cahill, A G and Overman, E S (1995) Telecommunications in local government: preparing for an uncertain future. The Municipal Year Book 1995. International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C. Graham, S (1992) Electronic infrastructures and the city: some emerging municipal policy roles in the UK. Urban Studies 29, 755–781. Graham, S and Simon, M (1996) Telecommunications and the City. Routledge, London. Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (1996) Telecommunications and the City. Routledge, London. International Center for Communications (1996) Strategic Plan for Enhancing Mobility On the Information Highway. International Center for Communications, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. International Center for Communications (1997) Smart Communities Guidebook. International Center for Communications, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. Jones, B (1980) Service Delivery in the City. Longman, New York. Kennard, W E (1998) Building a Global Information Community for the 21st Century. Remarks presented at the second World Telecommunications Development Conference, Valletta, Malta, 23 March. Lyon, D. (1988) The Political Economy of the Information Society. Polity Press, London. Moss, M L (1987) Telecommunications, world cities, and urban policy. Urban Studies 24, 534–546. Osborne, D and Gaebler, T (1993) Reinventing Government. Plume, New York. Richter, M J (1991) The real advantages of putting government on line. Governing 60, (May). Schon, D.A. (1971) Beyond the Stable State. Norton, New York. Sharp, E (1986) Citizen Demand-making in the Urban Context. University of Alabama Press, Alabama. Sharp, E (1990) Urban Politics and Administration. Longman, New York. Tapscott, D (1995) The Digital Economy. McGraw-Hill, New York. Thornton, K R (1997) Rethinking Government. IBM Corporation, Washington, D.C.