- Email: [email protected]
The chief information officer (CIO): assessing its impact
ARTICLES The Chief Information Officer (CIO): Assessing Its Impact
Charles R. McClure* John Carlo Bertot
The Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA) of 1996 (P.L. 104 – 106) established the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO) in the executive branch agencies. Executive Order 13011 (1966), “Federal Information Technology,” created the CIO Council and offers yet additional detail on the responsibilities and duties of the CIO. After three years since these efforts, there is an important need to assess the CIO program at both a government-wide and agency level to: (1) make “mid-stream” corrections that might be needed to continue the government’s efforts to improve information technology management and policy; (2) identify specific costs and benefits of the program, and; (3) review the existing policy basis for the CIO program and assess the need to revise that language. Such an evaluation effort should be undertaken as soon as possible.
The Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA) of 1996 (P.L. 104 –106), also know as the Clinger-Cohen Act, established the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO) in the executive branch agencies.1 The language in the Act offered some guidelines as to the CIO’s duties and responsibilities, as well as to agency information technology management (see Appendix A). Now, some three and one-half years later one might ask:
*Direct all correspondence to: Charles R. McClure, Information Use Management and Policy Institute, School of Information Studies, Louis Shores Building, Rm. 226, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-2100 ⬍[email protected]⬎. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 1, pages 7–12. Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X
8
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY ● ● ● ●
Vol. 17/No. 1/2000
Has the CIO effort resulted in improved information technology (IT) management in the federal government? Are the CIOs successfully accomplishing their duties and responsibilities as outlined in the ITMRA? Have CIOs obtained the visibility and credibility needed in their agencies to affect both policy development and day-to-day management of IT? Are CIOs leading agency IT management as part of a larger federal government IT resource management effort?
While it is possible to consider other questions regarding the impact of agency CIOs, those offered above provide a beginning point to discuss if the implementation of the CIO program has been worthwhile and successful, and had a positive impact on the management of federal IT. Others in this special issue (see Westerback article) will detail the background and development of the CIO program in the federal government. Generally, however, one might suggest that the implementation the CIO program had a relatively slow start, as: ● ●
● ● ●
There was some confusion about how a CIO would relate to Information Resources Management (IRM) efforts in the agency; There was some confusion as to the relationship between the CIO and other federal IT management initiatives such as the General Accounting Office’s Best Practices initiative, and Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review initiative; Specific responsibilities of the CIO within the agency were oftentimes unclear; There was uneven placement of the CIO position in the agency hierarchy and uneven budget across CIO offices; and Agencies selected several initial CIOs from their financial/accounting offices, and many had been the agency’s chief financial officer.
Yet, despite some initial confusion and some hesitancy on the part of some agencies, the CIO has developed into an interesting effort to improve federal management of IT— one that is now well-established in the federal government hierarchy. At this point, the CIO program could profit from a formal review and assessment to understand better the successes, weaknesses, and areas where improvements could take place. Any assessment of the CIO program needs to recognize that there is the “CIO Program Effort,” that is, the degree to which the notion of a CIO and the use of the CIO concept have been successful in improving government-wide management of IT. At a second level, there is the agency-based CIO program. Here, one would consider the degree to which individual agencies have improved overall IT management as a result of establishing the office of the CIO. Government-wide level assessment questions might include: ● ● ●
To what degree has overall management of federal IT been affected by the CIO program? How do the responsibilities and activities of CIOs vary across individual agencies? Has the CIO effort reduced overall IT expenditures, increased the performance of IT programs, or improved the quality and impact of federal IT management?
The Chief Information Officer ● ● ● ●
9
Do changes need to be made in the policy system that describes CIO activities, responsibilities, and duties? Are changes in the policy system necessary to facilitate CIO abilities to influence agency IT management? How has the formation of the CIO Council affected the overall success of the CIO program? What CIO Council initiatives have occurred and to what degree are specific initiatives such as the CIO University (http://ciouniversity.cio.gov/) appropriate? Are they successful? And, what constitutes a “successful” effort?
Indeed, the establishment of the CIO Council (http://www.cio.gov/), in and of itself, suggests some momentum and initiative, government-wide, to promote the role of the CIO in the federal government. Executive Order 13011, “Federal Information Technology,” created the CIO Council and offers yet additional detail on the responsibilities and duties of the CIO (see Appendix B).2 Testimony from Gene L. Dodaro, in 1998, identified a range of issues and possible evaluation criteria that could be used to gauge the success of the CIO program, the CIO Council, as well as individual CIO efforts in the various agencies.3 The General Accounting Office (GAO) is currently in the process of completing a survey regarding the CIO initiative that may be released in Spring 2000. This survey may also shed some light on the success of the CIO initiative. At the individual agency level, the assessment questions might include: ● ● ● ●
●
●
Which CIO offices appear to have had the greatest impact on which agencies and why? What factors contribute or limit the success of the CIO at the agency level? How have agencies integrated, coordinated, or otherwise dealt with linking the roles and responsibilities of IRM and CIOs? What levels of funding have been provided to support the CIO role in each of the various agencies? Has the CIO effort reduced individual agency IT expenditures, increased the performance of agency IT programs, or improved the quality and impact of agency IT management? Are there specific examples where CIOs have directly affected agency policy and management procedures related to IT in their agency? Are there common themes for where impacts can be identified? How have CIO offices incorporated performance-based objectives for itself and Agency-based IT management as per the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103– 62)?
In fact, there appears to be CIOs in some agencies that have significantly increased power and resources, and provide broad leadership as compared to CIOs in other agencies that seem to be still on the fringes of affecting IT management and policy. Why have such discrepancies occurred? The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires agencies to establish clear and measurable objectives, to implement a process to report on the degree to which those objectives are accomplished, and report regularly to Congress on their progress in
10
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY
Vol. 17/No. 1/2000
establishing and meeting performance-based objectives. The CIO Council released a Strategic Plan for FY 2000 that provides a number of goals and objectives.4 Although the Strategic Plan lacks some detail, it can also serve as a basis for future assessments of the CIO program. Developing and passing policy to establish the CIO program such as that provided in the ITMRA and Executive Order 13011 does not, in and of itself, insure that the policy is implemented, that the implementation is effective, nor that the desired outcomes from the policy occur. Indeed, recent research by Beachboard in the area of federal IT management suggests that a range of factors such as organizational culture, resource support, and personal skills and attitudes of IT managers are more important to successful IT management than creating or extending IT policy systems.5 Some may wish to applaud the intent—as well as the effort to date— of the government in developing the concept of the CIO, establishing the CIO Council, and promoting the role and position of the CIO in the various executive agencies. And, in fact, there appears to be some significant effort that has gone into the CIO initiative. But the jury is still out on the impact, effectiveness, usefulness, and degree to which federal IT management has been affected by the CIO program. There is an important need to assess the CIO program at both a government-wide and agency level to: ● ● ●
make “midstream” corrections that might be needed to continue the government’s efforts to improve IT management and policy; identify specific costs and benefits of the program; and review the existing policy basis for the CIO program and assess the need to revise that language. Such an evaluation effort should be undertaken as soon as possible— much could be learned!
APPENDIX A: Language from the Information Technology Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104 –106) Related to the Chief Information Officer SEC. 5125. AGENCY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. (a) DESIGNATION OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICERS—Section 3506 of title 44, United States Code, is amended—[material removed] (b) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES—The Chief Information Officer of an executive agency shall be responsible for— (1) providing advice and other assistance to the head of the executive agency and other senior management personnel of the executive agency to ensure that information technology is acquired and information resources are managed for the executive agency in a manner that implements the policies and procedures of this division, consistent with chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, and the priorities established by the head of the executive agency; (2) developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a sound and integrated information technology architecture for the executive agency; and (3) promoting the effective and efficient design and operation of all major information resources management processes for the executive agency, including improvements to work processes of the executive agency.
The Chief Information Officer
11
(c) DUTIES AND QUALIFICATIONS—The Chief Information Officer of an agency that is listed in section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall— (1) have information resources management duties as that official’s primary duty; (2) monitor the performance of information technology programs of the agency, evaluate the performance of those programs on the basis of the applicable performance measurements, and advise the head of the agency regarding whether to continue, modify, or terminate a program or project; and (3) annually, as part of the strategic planning and performance evaluation process required (subject to section 1117 of title 31, United States Code) under section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and sections 1105(a)(29), 1115, 1116, 1117, and 9703 of title 31, United States Code— (A) assess the requirements established for agency personnel regarding knowledge and skill in information resources management and the adequacy of such requirements for facilitating the achievement of the performance goals established for information resources management; (B) assess the extent to which the positions and personnel at the executive level of the agency and the positions and personnel at management level of the agency below the executive level meet those requirements; (C) in order to rectify any deficiency in meeting those requirements, develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and professional development; and (D) report to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving information resources management capability.
SEC. 5126. ACCOUNTABILITY The head of each executive agency, in consultation with the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of that executive agency (or, in the case of an executive agency without a Chief Financial Officer, any comparable official), shall establish policies and procedures that— (1) ensure that the accounting, financial, and asset management systems and other information systems of the executive agency are designed, developed, maintained, and used effectively to provide financial or program performance data for financial statements of the executive agency; (2) ensure that financial and related program performance data are provided on a reliable, consistent, and timely basis to executive agency financial management systems; and (3) ensure that financial statements support— (A) assessments and revisions of mission-related processes and administrative processes of the executive agency; and (B) performance measurement of the performance in the case of investments made by the agency in information systems.
APPENDIX B: Selected Language from EO 13011, Federal Information Technology (July 1996) Related to CIOs Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States Government that executive agencies shall:
12
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY
Vol. 17/No. 1/2000
(a) significantly improve the management of their information systems, including the acquisition of information technology, by implementing the relevant provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104 –13), the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Division E of P.L. 104 –106) (“Information Technology Act”), and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103– 62); (b) refocus information technology management to support directly their strategic missions, implement an investment review process that drives budget formulation and execution for information systems, and rethink and restructure the way they perform their functions before investing in information technology to support that work; (c) establish clear accountability for information resources management activities by creating agency Chief Information Officers (CIOs) with the visibility and management responsibilities necessary to advise the agency head on the design, development, and implementation of those information systems. These responsibilities include: (1) participating in the investment review process for information systems; (2) monitoring and evaluating the performance of those information systems on the basis of applicable performance measures; and (3) as necessary, advising the agency head to modify or terminate those systems; (d) cooperate in the use of information technology to improve the productivity of Federal programs and to promote a coordinated, interoperable, secure, and shared government-wide infrastructure that is provided and supported by a diversity of private sector suppliers and a well-trained corps of information technology professionals; and (e) establish an interagency support structure that builds on existing successful interagency efforts and shall provide expertise and advice to agencies; expand the skill and career development opportunities of information technology professionals; improve the management and use of information technology within and among agencies by developing information technology procedures and standards and by identifying and sharing experiences, ideas, and promising practices; and provide innovative, multidisciplinary, projectspecific support to agencies to enhance interoperability, minimize unnecessary duplication of effort, and capitalize on agency successes.
NOTES AND REFERENCES Information Technology Management Reform Act (1996). P.L. 104 –106. Available: ⬍http://www.cio.gov/ docs/s1124_en.htm⬎. 2. Federal Information Technology (July, 1996), EO 13011. Available: ⬍http://www.cio.gov/docs/ exo13011.html⬎. 3. Gene L. Dodaro, Chief Information Officers. Ensuring Strong Leadership and an Effective Council (GAO/T-AIMD-98 –22). Testimony. (Washington, D.C.: Government Accounting Office, 1997). 4. Chief Information Officers Council, (1999) Chief Information Officers Council Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2000. Available: ⬍http://www.cio.gov/files/CIOCouncilPlan-StrategicPortion-final1.pdf⬎. 5. John Beachboard, Assessing the Consequences of Federal Information Technology Management Policies on Federal Agency Practice. Doctoral Dissertation (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies, 1999). 1.
Charles R. McClure* John Carlo Bertot
The Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA) of 1996 (P.L. 104 – 106) established the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO) in the executive branch agencies. Executive Order 13011 (1966), “Federal Information Technology,” created the CIO Council and offers yet additional detail on the responsibilities and duties of the CIO. After three years since these efforts, there is an important need to assess the CIO program at both a government-wide and agency level to: (1) make “mid-stream” corrections that might be needed to continue the government’s efforts to improve information technology management and policy; (2) identify specific costs and benefits of the program, and; (3) review the existing policy basis for the CIO program and assess the need to revise that language. Such an evaluation effort should be undertaken as soon as possible.
The Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA) of 1996 (P.L. 104 –106), also know as the Clinger-Cohen Act, established the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO) in the executive branch agencies.1 The language in the Act offered some guidelines as to the CIO’s duties and responsibilities, as well as to agency information technology management (see Appendix A). Now, some three and one-half years later one might ask:
*Direct all correspondence to: Charles R. McClure, Information Use Management and Policy Institute, School of Information Studies, Louis Shores Building, Rm. 226, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-2100 ⬍[email protected]⬎. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 1, pages 7–12. Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X
8
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY ● ● ● ●
Vol. 17/No. 1/2000
Has the CIO effort resulted in improved information technology (IT) management in the federal government? Are the CIOs successfully accomplishing their duties and responsibilities as outlined in the ITMRA? Have CIOs obtained the visibility and credibility needed in their agencies to affect both policy development and day-to-day management of IT? Are CIOs leading agency IT management as part of a larger federal government IT resource management effort?
While it is possible to consider other questions regarding the impact of agency CIOs, those offered above provide a beginning point to discuss if the implementation of the CIO program has been worthwhile and successful, and had a positive impact on the management of federal IT. Others in this special issue (see Westerback article) will detail the background and development of the CIO program in the federal government. Generally, however, one might suggest that the implementation the CIO program had a relatively slow start, as: ● ●
● ● ●
There was some confusion about how a CIO would relate to Information Resources Management (IRM) efforts in the agency; There was some confusion as to the relationship between the CIO and other federal IT management initiatives such as the General Accounting Office’s Best Practices initiative, and Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review initiative; Specific responsibilities of the CIO within the agency were oftentimes unclear; There was uneven placement of the CIO position in the agency hierarchy and uneven budget across CIO offices; and Agencies selected several initial CIOs from their financial/accounting offices, and many had been the agency’s chief financial officer.
Yet, despite some initial confusion and some hesitancy on the part of some agencies, the CIO has developed into an interesting effort to improve federal management of IT— one that is now well-established in the federal government hierarchy. At this point, the CIO program could profit from a formal review and assessment to understand better the successes, weaknesses, and areas where improvements could take place. Any assessment of the CIO program needs to recognize that there is the “CIO Program Effort,” that is, the degree to which the notion of a CIO and the use of the CIO concept have been successful in improving government-wide management of IT. At a second level, there is the agency-based CIO program. Here, one would consider the degree to which individual agencies have improved overall IT management as a result of establishing the office of the CIO. Government-wide level assessment questions might include: ● ● ●
To what degree has overall management of federal IT been affected by the CIO program? How do the responsibilities and activities of CIOs vary across individual agencies? Has the CIO effort reduced overall IT expenditures, increased the performance of IT programs, or improved the quality and impact of federal IT management?
The Chief Information Officer ● ● ● ●
9
Do changes need to be made in the policy system that describes CIO activities, responsibilities, and duties? Are changes in the policy system necessary to facilitate CIO abilities to influence agency IT management? How has the formation of the CIO Council affected the overall success of the CIO program? What CIO Council initiatives have occurred and to what degree are specific initiatives such as the CIO University (http://ciouniversity.cio.gov/) appropriate? Are they successful? And, what constitutes a “successful” effort?
Indeed, the establishment of the CIO Council (http://www.cio.gov/), in and of itself, suggests some momentum and initiative, government-wide, to promote the role of the CIO in the federal government. Executive Order 13011, “Federal Information Technology,” created the CIO Council and offers yet additional detail on the responsibilities and duties of the CIO (see Appendix B).2 Testimony from Gene L. Dodaro, in 1998, identified a range of issues and possible evaluation criteria that could be used to gauge the success of the CIO program, the CIO Council, as well as individual CIO efforts in the various agencies.3 The General Accounting Office (GAO) is currently in the process of completing a survey regarding the CIO initiative that may be released in Spring 2000. This survey may also shed some light on the success of the CIO initiative. At the individual agency level, the assessment questions might include: ● ● ● ●
●
●
Which CIO offices appear to have had the greatest impact on which agencies and why? What factors contribute or limit the success of the CIO at the agency level? How have agencies integrated, coordinated, or otherwise dealt with linking the roles and responsibilities of IRM and CIOs? What levels of funding have been provided to support the CIO role in each of the various agencies? Has the CIO effort reduced individual agency IT expenditures, increased the performance of agency IT programs, or improved the quality and impact of agency IT management? Are there specific examples where CIOs have directly affected agency policy and management procedures related to IT in their agency? Are there common themes for where impacts can be identified? How have CIO offices incorporated performance-based objectives for itself and Agency-based IT management as per the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103– 62)?
In fact, there appears to be CIOs in some agencies that have significantly increased power and resources, and provide broad leadership as compared to CIOs in other agencies that seem to be still on the fringes of affecting IT management and policy. Why have such discrepancies occurred? The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires agencies to establish clear and measurable objectives, to implement a process to report on the degree to which those objectives are accomplished, and report regularly to Congress on their progress in
10
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY
Vol. 17/No. 1/2000
establishing and meeting performance-based objectives. The CIO Council released a Strategic Plan for FY 2000 that provides a number of goals and objectives.4 Although the Strategic Plan lacks some detail, it can also serve as a basis for future assessments of the CIO program. Developing and passing policy to establish the CIO program such as that provided in the ITMRA and Executive Order 13011 does not, in and of itself, insure that the policy is implemented, that the implementation is effective, nor that the desired outcomes from the policy occur. Indeed, recent research by Beachboard in the area of federal IT management suggests that a range of factors such as organizational culture, resource support, and personal skills and attitudes of IT managers are more important to successful IT management than creating or extending IT policy systems.5 Some may wish to applaud the intent—as well as the effort to date— of the government in developing the concept of the CIO, establishing the CIO Council, and promoting the role and position of the CIO in the various executive agencies. And, in fact, there appears to be some significant effort that has gone into the CIO initiative. But the jury is still out on the impact, effectiveness, usefulness, and degree to which federal IT management has been affected by the CIO program. There is an important need to assess the CIO program at both a government-wide and agency level to: ● ● ●
make “midstream” corrections that might be needed to continue the government’s efforts to improve IT management and policy; identify specific costs and benefits of the program; and review the existing policy basis for the CIO program and assess the need to revise that language. Such an evaluation effort should be undertaken as soon as possible— much could be learned!
APPENDIX A: Language from the Information Technology Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104 –106) Related to the Chief Information Officer SEC. 5125. AGENCY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. (a) DESIGNATION OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICERS—Section 3506 of title 44, United States Code, is amended—[material removed] (b) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES—The Chief Information Officer of an executive agency shall be responsible for— (1) providing advice and other assistance to the head of the executive agency and other senior management personnel of the executive agency to ensure that information technology is acquired and information resources are managed for the executive agency in a manner that implements the policies and procedures of this division, consistent with chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, and the priorities established by the head of the executive agency; (2) developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a sound and integrated information technology architecture for the executive agency; and (3) promoting the effective and efficient design and operation of all major information resources management processes for the executive agency, including improvements to work processes of the executive agency.
The Chief Information Officer
11
(c) DUTIES AND QUALIFICATIONS—The Chief Information Officer of an agency that is listed in section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall— (1) have information resources management duties as that official’s primary duty; (2) monitor the performance of information technology programs of the agency, evaluate the performance of those programs on the basis of the applicable performance measurements, and advise the head of the agency regarding whether to continue, modify, or terminate a program or project; and (3) annually, as part of the strategic planning and performance evaluation process required (subject to section 1117 of title 31, United States Code) under section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and sections 1105(a)(29), 1115, 1116, 1117, and 9703 of title 31, United States Code— (A) assess the requirements established for agency personnel regarding knowledge and skill in information resources management and the adequacy of such requirements for facilitating the achievement of the performance goals established for information resources management; (B) assess the extent to which the positions and personnel at the executive level of the agency and the positions and personnel at management level of the agency below the executive level meet those requirements; (C) in order to rectify any deficiency in meeting those requirements, develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and professional development; and (D) report to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving information resources management capability.
SEC. 5126. ACCOUNTABILITY The head of each executive agency, in consultation with the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of that executive agency (or, in the case of an executive agency without a Chief Financial Officer, any comparable official), shall establish policies and procedures that— (1) ensure that the accounting, financial, and asset management systems and other information systems of the executive agency are designed, developed, maintained, and used effectively to provide financial or program performance data for financial statements of the executive agency; (2) ensure that financial and related program performance data are provided on a reliable, consistent, and timely basis to executive agency financial management systems; and (3) ensure that financial statements support— (A) assessments and revisions of mission-related processes and administrative processes of the executive agency; and (B) performance measurement of the performance in the case of investments made by the agency in information systems.
APPENDIX B: Selected Language from EO 13011, Federal Information Technology (July 1996) Related to CIOs Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States Government that executive agencies shall:
12
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY
Vol. 17/No. 1/2000
(a) significantly improve the management of their information systems, including the acquisition of information technology, by implementing the relevant provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104 –13), the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Division E of P.L. 104 –106) (“Information Technology Act”), and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103– 62); (b) refocus information technology management to support directly their strategic missions, implement an investment review process that drives budget formulation and execution for information systems, and rethink and restructure the way they perform their functions before investing in information technology to support that work; (c) establish clear accountability for information resources management activities by creating agency Chief Information Officers (CIOs) with the visibility and management responsibilities necessary to advise the agency head on the design, development, and implementation of those information systems. These responsibilities include: (1) participating in the investment review process for information systems; (2) monitoring and evaluating the performance of those information systems on the basis of applicable performance measures; and (3) as necessary, advising the agency head to modify or terminate those systems; (d) cooperate in the use of information technology to improve the productivity of Federal programs and to promote a coordinated, interoperable, secure, and shared government-wide infrastructure that is provided and supported by a diversity of private sector suppliers and a well-trained corps of information technology professionals; and (e) establish an interagency support structure that builds on existing successful interagency efforts and shall provide expertise and advice to agencies; expand the skill and career development opportunities of information technology professionals; improve the management and use of information technology within and among agencies by developing information technology procedures and standards and by identifying and sharing experiences, ideas, and promising practices; and provide innovative, multidisciplinary, projectspecific support to agencies to enhance interoperability, minimize unnecessary duplication of effort, and capitalize on agency successes.
NOTES AND REFERENCES Information Technology Management Reform Act (1996). P.L. 104 –106. Available: ⬍http://www.cio.gov/ docs/s1124_en.htm⬎. 2. Federal Information Technology (July, 1996), EO 13011. Available: ⬍http://www.cio.gov/docs/ exo13011.html⬎. 3. Gene L. Dodaro, Chief Information Officers. Ensuring Strong Leadership and an Effective Council (GAO/T-AIMD-98 –22). Testimony. (Washington, D.C.: Government Accounting Office, 1997). 4. Chief Information Officers Council, (1999) Chief Information Officers Council Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2000. Available: ⬍http://www.cio.gov/files/CIOCouncilPlan-StrategicPortion-final1.pdf⬎. 5. John Beachboard, Assessing the Consequences of Federal Information Technology Management Policies on Federal Agency Practice. Doctoral Dissertation (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies, 1999). 1.