The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges

GOVINF-01218; No. of pages: 9; 4C: Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges Manuel De Tuya a, Meghan Cook b,⁎, Megan Sutherland b, Luis F. Luna-Reyes a a b

University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY, 12222, USA Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY, 187 Wolf Road, Suite 301, Albany, NY 12205, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 September 2015 Received in revised form 2 December 2016 Accepted 12 January 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) Local government IT leadership Strategic value of IT Digital government strategy Public value

a b s t r a c t Current managerial practices and social trends are incentivizing an increase in citizen participation and government operational transparency and accountability. As a consequence, small to medium size cities have new opportunities for delivering services to their citizens in a more effective and efficient manner. However, in many cases, the technology capabilities of these cities and their IT staffing are not adequate. Starting at the top, most small-to-medium size cities do not have a Chief Information Officer (CIO). Instead, they have appointed officials with a wide variety of titles ranging from IT Director, IS Manager to IT Specialist among others. These officials face the problem of building operational capabilities at the same time that they develop a strategic vision for their organizations. In this paper, we look at the perceptions of local-level officials responsible for the operation of IT across New York State, about their own role and challenges in this transition from an operational to a strategic focus. Our results suggest that giving IT leadership a broader role and higher responsibilities could result in value for both government and citizens. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The use of Information Technologies (IT) in government can be traced back to the 50′s and 60′s, when new computers with batchprocessing capabilities were used for handling large repetitive tasks such as payroll or billing (Andersen & Dawes, 1991). Most likely, these initial applications drove the creation of IT departments within operational areas of government such as Administration or Finance, with an emphasis on supporting large transactional systems and focusing on achieving administrative efficiencies and cost savings (Dawes, 2008). Technical, organizational and social trends have stimulated a broader, more strategic use of technologies, and also a broader conceptualization of potential value delivered by such technologies. First, personal computers, networked environments, the Internet, and more recently, the rise of open data and cloud services have a more prevalent role in the transformation and modernization of government through the strategic use of information technologies (Andersen, Belardo, & Dawes, 1994; Gil-Garcia, Arellano-Gault, & Luna-Reyes, 2012; Morgeson & Mithas, 2009). In addition, management practices have also evolved. New Public Management, program effectiveness and recent developments on Public Value Management or Joined-up Government are ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. De Tuya), [email protected] (M. Cook), [email protected] (M. Sutherland), [email protected] (L.F. Luna-Reyes).

looking for ways to widening the impact of digital government in democracy and citizen well-being (Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2014; Stoker, 2006). Furthermore, social trends such as globalization, the digital economy and data and information as an attribute of societal relationships, are putting pressure on governments for delivering new types of services that directly relate so such social trends (Estevez, Fillotranni, & Janowski, 2007). As a result, IT leadership in government is going through a transformation from an operational to a strategic focus, expanding their goals to include not only efficiencies and cost savings, but also supporting more effective programs and citizen participation (Clark, Brudney, & Jang, 2013; Dawes, 2008). Under this transformative and value producing context, the Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) plays a key role in managing the resources and developing the partnerships inside and outside government to align the use of technology to core business processes and operational goals (Estevez, Janowski, Marcovecchio, & Ojo, 2011). Unfortunately, transitioning toward a strategic approach has proven to be difficult. Research shows that information systems departments in government have a more tactical than strategic focus (Caudle, Gorr, & Newcomer, 1991; Dufner, Holley, & Reed, 2002; Holley, Dufner, & Reed, 2002). In fact, governments at the local level face additional challenges, such as scarcity of resources and less time to develop their strategy (Holley, Dufner, & Reed, 2004). In some cases, the IT area is very new and leadership faces both the challenge of building operational capabilities while developing a strategic approach. Furthermore, IT

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002 0740-624X/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

2

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

departments at the local level have very limited influence in their jurisdictional governmental strategies and they often do not have the appropriate organizational structure, trained staff or budget. When it comes to understanding the role of the GCIO in the development of digital government strategy, there is a need for more research that helps define this key role and better understanding of barriers, challenges and enablers in creating a more accountable government (Auffret, Estevez, Marcovecchio, & Janowski, 2010; Estevez et al., 2011). Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to contribute to this line of work by answering two questions as they relate to local governments: what are the main obstacles, barriers and enablers that IT organizations face in transitioning from an operational to a strategic mode of work? And what is the role of IT leaders in such transitioning process? To answer these questions, we look at the perceptions of IT leaders from New York State about their own role and challenges, reflecting on them using the literature of IT strategy and governance. This paper is organized into six sections including the foregoing introduction. Based on a comprehensive review of existing literature, Section 2 proposes that the emerging role of the Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) is that of a leader whose main role is to become an active participant in the planning and execution of the information systems strategy and the information technology governance processes. Section 3 describes the methodological approach for data collection and analysis. Section 4 is a summary of the main results of the roundtable of IT leadership. Section 5 constitutes a detailed discussion of specific challenges identified by IT leaders and how such challenges relate to the academic literature. Finally, Section 6 presents some concluding remarks, practical recommendations and suggestions for future research. 2. Literature review The concept of strategy has been used in the management literature for many years. Along the years, researchers have defined “strategy” in many different ways, as a plan (intended course of action), as a plot (maneuver to achieve a goal), a pattern (a stream of actions), a position (leader, follower, innovator, etc.) or a perspective (shared vision) (Chen, Mocker, Preston, & Teubner, 2010a). In the area of Information Systems and Information Technology, strategy is closely related to three concrete actions that may be taken by the Chief Information Officer (CIO): managing the operation of the different systems and technologies in use by the organization as well as issues in talent management and resource allocation (Ojo, Janowski, & Estevez, 2011); designing an enterprise platform to support the business strategic approach such as managing efficiencies or promoting innovation; and finally, building an organizational culture that recognizes technology as a source of value (Chen, Preston, & Weidong, 2010b). “Value” in this context is broadly defined and it includes a wide range of individual, organizational and social benefits related to the use of technology. Examples of these values include efficiency, effectiveness, equity, transparency or accountability. Equity, as an example, is created by making services more widely accessible, such as the 311-like services that ease access to information and local non-emergency services. As we described in the previous section, the GCIO is being pressed to move into a more strategic vision. However, such move is hindered by a set of operational – more tactical — challenges. In the next section we outline those challenges related with the emerging role of GCIOs and their new roles and responsibilities. 2.1. Information technology challenges at the local level The use of information technologies in the public sector has traditionally focused its efforts on supporting the operation of an agency or group of agencies. IT leaders are faced with high demand for services and an increasing number of users (both internal and external) while their budgets are not necessarily adjusted accordingly (Kamal, Bigdeli, Themistocleous, & Morabito, 2015). Also, IT departments in public

organizations, particularly at the local level, have a more tactical than strategic focus (Caudle et al., 1991; Dufner et al., 2002; Holley et al., 2002). In contrast, IT leaders in the private sector, especially in large corporations, understand the dynamics of facilitating business processes. Moreover, they collaborate with other executives in generating revenue to support the operation of IT and make it grow along with the business (Dawson, Ho, & Kauffman, 2015). There is evidence that giving the Government IT leader a broader role and higher responsibilities results in value for both the government and the citizens (Sandoval-Almazán & Gil-Garcia, 2011). However, such broader roles, higher responsibilities and the quest for transitioning to a more strategic focus, brings new challenges to GCIOs trying to support operations in environments with limited financial and human resources (O'Brien, 2016). They usually lack a proper IT governance structure that facilitates collaboration with other areas to achieve organizational objectives (Hussain, Turner, & Imran, 2016). Resource management, project execution, service management, cyber security, IT procurement and data integrity, among others, are trending operational challenges for public and private IT departments (Hussain et al., 2016; Moon, Choe, Chung, Jung, & Swar, 2016; O'Brien, 2016; Pierson & Thompson, 2016). These operational trends address different steps of the technology lifecycle, are closely interrelated and tend to be difficult to manage (Pierson & Thompson, 2016). For example, IT departments in the public sector face a series of challenges when trying to source adequate technical resources because of the inherent scarcity of qualified candidates and the difficult hiring process in the public sector (Moon et al., 2016). Even further, governments at the local level have more severe resource constrains and shorter periods of time to develop their strategy (Holley et al., 2004). Thus, the execution of transformative initiatives is impacted by the scarcity of technical and management skills that lead to ineffective application of project management principles (Jakob, Wolf, & Krcmar, 2015; Pierson & Thompson, 2016; Yu-Che & Tsui-Chuan, 2014). Private entities in the United States were forced into paying more attention to the methods they chose for addressing those previously described operational challenges when compliance regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act1 were enacted. In fact, Sarbanes-Oxley made IT departments in the private sector implement new or revamped governance models so their organizations were in compliance with the new regulations, which in turn, gave IT departments the opportunity to set clear roles and responsibilities when managing the technology lifecycle (Martin, 2013). Nevertheless, for local governments acting under an operational focus, procuring IT goods and services serves the purpose of “keeping the lights on” without governance guidelines, which leads to inefficient use of public funds and overspending (Pierson & Thompson, 2016). Their IT organizations are seen as “service delivery facilities” that should leverage e-government as the unifying force between policy, politics and technology (Meneklis & Douligeris, 2010). Dzhusupova, Janowski, Ojo, and Estevez (2011) argued that “Electronic Governance has been touted as a means of saving costs while improving quality, response times, and access to services.” Thus the purpose of governing IT is to outline the appropriate organizational actions, both internal and external, for the implementation and delivery of technology services (Juiz & Toomey, 2015) IT governance is key at the local level because the responsible use and deployment of IT strategies is seen as a prerequisite to ensuring that municipalities are able to fulfill the mandates of their citizens while avoiding wasteful investments, disruption of services and nonconformity with regulations (Juiz & Toomey, 2015). Moreover, IT governance sets the appropriate rules and boundaries and links specific organizational activities in order to enable new capabilities and ultimately produce value for the organization (Juiz & Toomey, 2015) while providing the GCIO with structures, processes and relational mechanisms that 1 “Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act” (in the Senate) and “Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act” (in the House).

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

translate in organization-wide support (Martin, 2013). Common structures associated with governance include committees, roles and responsibilities in IT planning, implementation and evaluation as well as a set of well-defined processes for planning, decision-making and monitoring of the IT area. Finally, IT governance defines the interactions between the IT area and other functional departments in project implementation and planning (Ping-Ju Wu, Straub, & Liang, 2015). Nevertheless, setting up a feasible governance operation is faced with a number of multi-faceted challenges related to external factors such as leadership, vision and capacity as well as political and economic conditions (Dzhusupova et al., 2011). 2.2. The role of the CIO The role of the Chief Information Officer has evolved over time since the 1950s when organizations both in the public and private sectors started to create the position of Data Processing Manager (Chun & Mooney, 2009; O'Brien, 2016). The ‘80s added to the original tasks of developing applications and maintaining the operation of the data centers, talent development and performance measurement in the form of levels of service. The '90s brought an emphasis in developing standards, architecture and strategic planning. In the last few years, the CIO finds his or herself in the middle of managing IT issues as well as business issues. Some of them play executive-level roles with a more strategic vision, such as reporting directly to the CEO, and some of them remain with a technology-centric role reporting to another executive such as the CFO or the COO (Chun & Mooney, 2009; Moon et al., 2016). About half of CIOs are still playing the more traditional role with a focus in technology, which prevents IT from delivering business value (Ding, Li, & George, 2014). In government, the GCIO plays a key role in managing the resources and developing partnerships inside and outside of government to align the use of technology to core business processes (Dawson et al., 2015; Estevez et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the figure of the GCIO is still missing in many local and municipal governments throughout the world, due to shortcomings in resources, vision and organizational capacity as well as appropriate infrastructure (Estevez & Janowski, 2014). Furthermore, IT departments at the local level have very limited influence in defining the strategic vision for governing the city. Although there are few efforts to better understand the role of the GCIO in the development of digital government strategy, there is still the need for more research to help define this key role and better understand main barriers, challenges and enablers in creating a more accountable government (Auffret et al., 2010; Estevez et al., 2011; Shark, 2016). However, as it is shown in the literature, the current status of IT and IS at the local level limits the possibilities for action for the GCIO, which may spend most of their time “putting out fires” such as solving day to day operational problems instead of acting as a strategic partner in innovation with other government officials (Chun & Mooney, 2009). IT leaders, GCIOs or their equivalent, i.e. IT Directors, IT Managers, IT specialists among others, need to become multi-disciplinary experts overseeing operational areas such as security, budgets, performance and staffing as well as fulfilling the high-level executive leadership role with mandates like vision, standards and governance especially at a time when citizens' demands become more ambitious and more complex (Auffret et al., 2010; Shark, 2016). Such a leadership role, however, is limited by the current role that IT leadership plays in the organizational structure. In exploring the role of the CIO and its impact on running smooth operations as well as creating strategic value, Chen et al. (2010b) found that IT leadership knowledge and experience had a positive impact on running a smooth operation (traditional CIO role), but had little impact on the creation of strategic value (new CIO role). Her rank in the organization, on the other hand, is the main factor for creating strategic value. This may be because creating strategic value does not depend only on IT leadership, but from the entire top management team's shared understanding of the value of IT. As previous research has

3

shown this can be created partially through IT awareness, but it is created mainly through formal and informal interactions between the CIO and the Top Management Team (Karahanna & Preston, 2013). Many of these opportunities emerge much better when IT leadership sits at the executive management table. The core competencies of the GCIO are not much different from those of their counterparts in the private sector (Dawson et al., 2015). These include business-oriented attributes such as business domain knowledge, management and leadership competences and behavioral skills and attributes; as well as technical knowledge, IT management and IT expertise (Hooper & Bunker, 2013; O'Brien, 2016; Shark, 2016). In Saudi Arabia for example, research was conducted to identify the education and training needs of Government Chief Information Officers (Gharawi, Estevez, & Janowski, 2014). Recommendations from this research conclude that key knowledge areas for GCIO include strategy development, public administration, public policy, cyber-security, innovation and trends, information systems and performance management; key skills, on the other hand, include communication and leadership skills. However, while the private-sector CIO's performance is measured in financial terms, the GCIO's main performance indicator should be the creation of public value (Estevez & Janowski, 2013). 3. Methods This paper is based on data collected through a roundtable of members of the New York State Local Government Information Technology Directors Association (NYSLGITDA). On October 16th and 17th, 2013 the Association reached out to the Center for Technology in Government (CTG) at the University at Albany to ask for help in documenting the membership's challenges in working in a local government. The purpose of this engagement was to document these challenges that members of NYSLGITDA had faced as well as the associated best practices they had implemented so that their collective and individual knowledge could be shared with other IT leaders. This type of roundtable has been successfully used to explore strategic issues from the point of view of IT leadership (Gefen, Ragowsky, Licker, & Stern, 2011; Picazo-Vela, Gutiérrez-Martínez, & Luna-Reyes, 2012). In order to collect this data in a structured yet brief time period, one of the authors led a facilitated session at the NYSLGITDA bi-annual conference to elicit and prioritize the necessary information. Participating in this session were 110 local government IT leaders from 56 of the 62 New York State counties, representing 90% of the New York State County IT leadership. All participants hold titles of leadership in the local IT departments, such as IT Director or CIO. A series of brainstorm, clustering, and prioritization facilitation method were used in the session. The following elicitation questions were developed in partnership with the NYSLGITDA leadership. • Question 1: What are the most common mistakes that local government elected leaders make when it comes to IT and information technology in public sector? • Question 2: What are the most common reasons that local government departments do not seek input and collaboration from their IT departments? What can be done to change this reality? • Question 3: What are the actions that local government leaders could take right now that would bring the most value to the government and the community? • Question 4: What is the best way for departments (within a government) to work with their IT department and team? For each elicitation question, the process followed similarly. Individuals wrote down their answers to the question in letter-size pieces of paper, one statement per paper, the facilitator then asked individuals to read the thought aloud and then collected each sheet of paper. All participants contribute equally to the process. In real time, the facilitator clustered similar thoughts on a wall; then the individuals voted on the

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

4

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

cluster they felt was most important to the corresponding question. Once all voting was complete, the facilitator tallied the votes to show the prioritized clusters. The clustered and prioritized thoughts were then transcribed and sent to the NYSLGITDA members for review. The facilitator then analyzed the results of the session and developed a set of recommendations. As a final exercise for the day, the facilitator created with participants two influence-power charts. Participants placed themselves in a two-dimensioned chart reflecting their perception of their current and desirable influence and power in the local government. The participation in this final exercise was voluntary, and only 44 participants choose to participate. The recommendations were presented to the NYSLGITDA membership at their next conference held in May 2014. After a short presentation, the facilitator moderated a discussion among the Association members to vet the recommendations and confirm that they represented the values and perspectives of the members. All members confirmed that the recommendations are matched to their challenges and had full confidence in the session outcome.

Fig. 2. Suggested influence-power balance of local IT Leaders (number of dots is less than number of participants in the roundtable because not all participants wanted to participate in the exercise).

4. Results The roundtable had representation from counties and municipalities across NY State. Consistent with findings in the literature, very few of them hold the title of GCIO (Estevez & Janowski, 2014). In fact, participants held a wide range of titles. IT Director, Information Systems Manager, Micro-Systems Coordinator, Deputy Director, Deputy Commissioner, IT Specialist, Commissioner of OCIS, Operations Coordinator, Deputy Director – Public Safety, Assistant Director of Application Services, Senior Programmer Analyst and Director of Infrastructure and Security were among the titles held by participants. Only few of them are recognized with the title of Chief Information Officer, and the most common title was IT/IS Director. This diversity of titles is likely to produce a widely scattered map of roles and responsibilities as well as levels of influence and power within their respective organizations. In order to better understand the diversity of roles and responsibilities of IT leadership in NY State, participants were asked to locate their current role in an Influence vs Power quadrant and then plot their role where they thought it should be. Figs. 1 and 2 show the results of this initial exercise. Fig. 1 shows the “As-is” plotting of the roles of all participants, and Fig. 2 shows the “Should-be” plotting. The distribution in Fig. 1 suggests that participants perceive they have a certain degree of influence but relatively limited power. There was not a direct correlation between the role and the perceived level of influence. In other words, having a manager or director role did not seem to imply a higher perception of influence nor power.

In Fig. 2, the majority of plotted points have shifted toward the upper-right corner of the quadrant indicating the appeal of IT leaders striving for more power as well as a higher level of influence within their organizations. When asked about ways to move power and influence from “as-is” to where it “should be” participants' responses fell under one of these three categories: • Buy-in and support from top- and middle managers • A shared vision of the role of IT and IT leaders as strategic partners • Implementation of IT governance rules to better define funding, staffing, investment decisions, roles and responsibilities In the subsequent sub-sections, we included a summary of main responses to the four elicitation questions used in the roundtable. 4.1. Question 1: What are the most common mistakes that local government elected leaders make when it comes to IT and information technology in public sector? Responses from 64 participants listed the following factors as the top mistakes made by local governments when implementing technology: • Underestimating the impact of technology decisions, which in turn is driven by a misunderstanding of the technology lifecycle • A deficient budgeting process • Lack of a strategic planning process • Lack of execution (operational) processes The rest of the responses fell under four different categories:

Fig. 1. Current influence-power balance of local IT Leaders (number of dots is less than number of participants in the roundtable because not all participants wanted to participate in the exercise).

• Lack of IT alignment. This category encompasses perceptions of working in silos and a general absence of recognition from government officials about the importance of bringing IT to the planning and strategy sessions. “Leaders do not include IT in the projects that are technology based and if they do it is too late in the process after purchases or commitments.” • Poor resource allocation and inadequate funding. Staffing planning, sourcing and management along with the corresponding financial funding (tied to the deficient budgeting process) are seen as factors that negatively impact the IT department's ability to deliver day-today services as well as long-range projects. “Because we are not a mandated service, we are just another cost to reduce during the budget”, noted one participant. • Quick fixes and short term goals for long term problems. The responses under this category can be tied to the lack of an IT strategic process since participants listed specific issues like “missing the big

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

picture.” However, financial constraints played a part supported by responses like “buying the cheapest option available.” • Lack of IT knowledge and understanding. “Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is something that should be done before investment decisions are made. It is not the cost of the onetime purchase, it is a set of related costs from that point forward that they [government officials] should all know and plan for.” Besides TCO, this category is an extension of one of the top three responses to Question 1. Technology has its own lifecycle and when not followed properly, the results include technology blind spots and shortcomings. A worse scenario comes to fruition when technology-related decisions are made without the appropriate vetting from IT. Respondents pointed to a trend where users overestimate their own knowledge and understanding of the technology lifecycle and move forward with technology purchases. 4.2. Question 2: What are the actions that local government leaders could take right now that would bring the most value to the government and the community? Forty-five respondents identified the top three actions as follows: • Establishment of a comprehensive business-IT strategy • Appropriate funding • Additional staff The rest of the responses were categorized as follows: • Invest in IT strategic planning. The responses under this category are supporters of the business-IT strategic alignment. Among others, participants suggested the incorporation of succession planning and the establishment of a demand management process for operational services and long range projects. • Investment in IT staff and technology. IT leaders recognize the fact that increasing IT staff is only part of the solution. Other suggestions under this category included specific technical and tactical training for IT as well as end-user training, thinking that a more educated user is actually a better business partner for IT. • Communication, collaboration and trust with IT. In response to the Lack of IT alignment category, responses pledge the case of involving IT early in the process of analyzing a specific process and making decisions related to the implementation of technology. Comments about “understanding the impact to IT,” “Work together,” “Asking IT for advice before making decision” among others illustrate this line of thought. • Improved processes and standard approaches to IT. The responses under this category make the case for the implementation of a mechanism for governing the relationship between the business (a government agency) and the IT organization. This governance process would span from setting budgets down to the actual execution of projects and the delivery of services. 4.3. Question 3: What is the best way departments (within a government agency) should work with their IT department and team? The top responses are listed below: • Early discussions of all ideas to see how IT can help achieve goals • Establish IT planning, governance, structure and processes for the entire city/county • Frequent/regular information and formal meetings/gatherings to share information The rest of the responses were categorized as follows: • Continuous open dialogue between IT and executive leadership. The business needs to realize that IT is a partner and not a cost center or worse, an adversary. Once the true role of IT, as a partner, has been

5

established, IT and the business should find the mechanisms to make each other aware of the status of projects and services throughout their corresponding lifecycles. From recurrent status meetings to enabling points of contact for specific topics or types of technology to making sure IT has a seat at the table when discussing strategic plans at the constituent (county, city or municipality) level. • Understand and efficiently manage IT initiative workload. This category calls for the establishment of a governance process for the planning, budgeting and execution of projects and work. From knowing how to request a project to managing the demand for services to allocating the appropriate resources, IT and the business need to work in conjunction to establish a project management methodology that takes into account the size of both organizations, their requests and capacity and more important, their level of organizational and operational maturity for managing all those factors. • Establish clear objectives/goals. This category should be a byproduct of the previous categories. If the business and IT are able to figure out what to work on and when, and more important how to keep each other aware of the status of the agreed upon work, then all involved operational players should know what to do and more important, how their work is linked to a higher purpose. Establishing a well-governed collaborative environment might be the best approach in a business-IT work relationship. However, participants thought that establishing an over-arching governance process (tied to the recommendations from Question 2) needs to be followed by the enablement of an open and constant communication cycle between the business areas and IT. 4.4. Question 4: What are the most common reasons that local government departments do not seek input and collaboration from their IT departments? What can be done to change this reality? Reponses to this question fall into the categories outlined below: • The consumerization of IT. This points back to the fact that county leaders think that everyday use and knowledge of IT can be transferred to an enterprise (or county) wide environment. However, reality says that making IT decisions based on limited knowledge of the real implications of IT might be treacherous. In the words of the participants: “What most don't understand is that technology for personal use is not even near related to business and infrastructure purposes. Because technology is everywhere people think they understand enough to make decisions and time and time again we have learned that they don't.” • IT departments have been outgrown by their constituents. This goes back to the fact that early IT departments in public agencies were conceived as service delivery units for a single agency. In modern times, and at the local level, one IT department serves the technology needs of an entire county and in most cases, they are simply not equipped with the necessary means (funding, resources) to fulfill their increased demand. • Should we or should we not ask IT. This category is the result of operational areas not knowing what and when to ask IT for and opinion. In the words of the participants: “IT departments are busy people. Supporting so many programs, services and infrastructure takes a full time staff. Departments who need input (and who sometimes are not even sure what to ask) are afraid to take IT's time away from other tasks. They say ‘you were busy so we decided not to bother you’ and that just snowballs after that. Then after a while, they are making decisions without IT.” • It is our money and we know how to spend it. Simply put, this category reflects a lack of governance principles on how money

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

6

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

should be spent and the process for planning, allocating and executing budget related to technology. In the words of the participants: “Many departments act on the premise that it's their money and they get to say what they spend it on. So asking for input potentially gives others a role in the decision making.” • Trust us, we know what we want and how to get it implemented. This category reflects not only a lack of understanding of the true implications of implementing technology, it also points to the lack of a governance process where ideas and proposal are fully and formally vetted with IT and the corresponding feedback from such triaging process is taken into consideration. In the words of the respondents: “If a department is headstrong about an idea, they do not want to be told no. If they don't ask, they won't be told no and then they can move ahead. If there is no IT governance structure in place, then departments can avoid getting any input at all and make IT spending decisions on their own.”

The responses gathered during these sessions point to a culture of distrust on the capabilities of the IT department to deliver solutions and act as a partner rather than an obstacle. In order to create a change in such culture within municipalities, GCIOs must educate county executives and department heads about how the IT department can help, and how technology affects and impacts decision-making. If they are in the know then they can help maneuver the process and decisions. In some cases, the IT department can demonstrate how well-thoughtout technology decisions can positively impact the progress and success of a project. 5. Discussion Several themes can be identified across the responses to the four questions briefly described in the previous section. Each of these themes represent key challenges for the emerging Government Chief Information Officers at the local level. Each of these challenges also suggest emerging strategic roles of the GCIO, as we describe in the following paragraphs. 5.1. Overestimation of information technology knowledge and expertise Session attendees reiterated that there is a lack of IT knowledge and understanding within their organization: “Decision-makers believe they understand technology based on their own personal use and therefore assume IT can do anything without checking to see if the infrastructure in place can support it or whether or not IT actually has the skill set or time to implement new IT solutions.” The consumerization of IT has led to an environment where people within local government, including leaders, department chiefs, and staff believe their everyday knowledge and understanding of IT is adequate enough to inform decision-making, development, and design of IT investments. This overestimation of knowledge and expertise could be linked to the mass acceptance and adoption of technologies for personal use in our society. In this regard, the prolific use of technology has created a false sense of confidence in understanding how technology interacts with the functions of government. Making decisions on the basis of personal experiences brings challenges to an organization, not only in terms of maintaining the IT operation, but also in terms of understanding expected benefits and costs of technology. As it was described by participants in the roundtable, “there are unrealistic expectations of

technology within our organization and decisions are made for an immediate problem without the consideration of the future.” Chen et al. (2010b) provides a potential mitigation to this issue arguing that an organization could benefit from a “shared understanding across the organization to guide subsequent IT investments and deployment decisions.” Such wide understanding should be the result of establishing a strategic process where the main goal is to clearly define the role of IT across the organization. Such process reinforces the importance of the role of CIO and his relationship with senior executives. Karahanna and Preston (2013) as well as Bartley (2015) present the CIO as the owner and champion of the technology strategy and the main link with top executives who own the business strategy. Together the CIO and executives should collectively determine a joint plan aligning business objectives with the appropriate investments in technology. The CIO plays a key role in educating and promoting awareness of IT roles inside the organization through many formal and informal interactions with top and mid managers (Estevez et al., 2011; Chun & Mooney, 2009). Moreover, establishing clear governance rules facilitates the interactions between IT and other business areas, improving decision making and resource allocation (Juiz & Toomey, 2015(Martin, 2013)).

5.2. No seat at the leadership table Local governments throughout the world are organized and governed by a range of different policy, management and institutional structures. The range of structures are too long to list, but in short, local governments can be led by constituent councils, by an elected official, by a group of separately elected officials among others. The model or structure of government becomes irrelevant when the IT leader is not at the leadership table. When the IT department is not represented at the highest level of government, then technology investment decisions are made without the appropriate technical input and guidance as Martin (2013) stated. Session participants pointed out that when the direction of their IT department is being decided upon, it is done so without input from IT leadership and is more so based on funding grants and opportunities. Lacking support from senior leadership constitutes a challenge for both IT operational and strategic capabilities. In addition, participants commented that “leaders do not include IT in projects that are technology based and when they do it is late in the process and purchases and/or commitments have already been made.” The situation is problematic because, as it was demonstrated by Reich and Benbasat (2000), there is a relationship between alignment, defined as a mutual understanding of short and long term objectives and successful IT implementations and effective communication between business and IT personnel. In addition, Ping-Ju Wu et al. (2015) argues that the CIO, through his abilities, attributes and leadership, is a key antecedent for productive alignment between IT and the business. Value creation through information technology is closely tied to the organizational position of the IT leader (Karahanna & Preston, 2013). IT investment decisions typically require a CIO to inform the decision making process. However, at the local government level, technology leaders do not seem to participate in the decision making process which is in contradiction with the recommendations from Karahanna and Preston (2013), and therefore presents significant challenges in carrying out the business of local government. Having the right person heading the IT function and supporting his/her role as a participant in the financial and strategic decisions could provide more knowledgeable decision-making and investment in IT. According to session participants it is common to find “an overall underestimation of complexity when it comes to IT oriented projects/planning.” In fact Estevez et al. (2011) positions the GCIO as responsible for the alignment of the business and technology as well as an expert in the field of IT. Larger government institutions have IT leaders at the decision-making table but they have also had a longer period of time to work through IT governance models. Local governments are at the beginning of this learning curve and many

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

have not recognized that IT leadership should be play side-by-side with other government executives. 5.3. No long term strategic plan or strategic planning process IT leaders clearly identified gaps within their organizations related to assessing IT impacts and managing the demand for services. These gaps were attributed to the fact that decision-makers often overestimate product lifecycles, making strategic planning for IT services a convoluted exercise. Any strategic planning done is often carried out without involving IT, making it more difficult to plan for major technology purchasing decisions. In their study Croteau and Bergeron (2001) look at four types of business strategies including: Prospector, Defender, Analyzer and Reactor. The first three business-strategy types are thought to enhance organizational performance while the reactor strategy is thought to impede organizational performance. From this, a negative link was identified between reactor strategic activities (taking risks, responding to areas in which environment puts pressure on it and aggressiveness in maintaining products/services domain) and organizational performance. While this kind of reactive approach is not preferred, it has become the norm for many local governments. The ad hoc approach to IT is most often tied to the lack of strategic planning and strategic planning process. Dufner, Holley, and Reed (2003) concluded that there is no significant differentiation between strategic and tactical planning at the county level to the point that the latter seems to be more prevalent and it is restricted to the local IT office. A strategic planning process sets up the structure, including the criteria by which decisions about IT investments are made. Through this process, investment choices are identified, analyzed, debated and ultimately chosen. Without a set of collectively developed, vetted criteria, and an understanding of how each technology investment fits into the larger infrastructure, the investment choices are piecemeal and there is no way to determine if those choices are moving the government toward its stated vision and goals. 5.4. Acquiring and balancing the right mix of skills and competencies Effective and efficient management of technology requires the appropriate combination of technical and managerial (soft) skills. As suggested in the literature, technical skills help in achieving operational efficiency, while soft skills become relevant in the overall creation of business value from IT (Chen et al., 2010b). In local governments, honing soft skills represents a significant challenge for IT leaders and this is in part due to the ever-changing role of IT Departments. Gottschalk and Taylor (2000) said that additional functions of IS departments include maintaining “a technology watch, looking for opportunities and threats from developing technology.” While these characteristics outline greater knowledge and skills outside of IT systems and applications, the fact is that IT departments and their staff are still seen to operate in a supportive rather than authoritative or knowledgeable role, creating a capability gap of the skills necessary to meet city missions and expectations of IT. In fact, Caudle et al. (1991) identified the similar symptoms in their study, i.e. strategic management issues and concerns as well as unmet personnel needs both technical and non-technical. To this end, participants of the workshops stated the need to invest in IT staff and technology by hiring additional technical personnel as well as looking for training opportunities to enhance IT's understanding of ongoing innovations and technologies. 5.5. Where the money comes from matters Every profession has its own folklore and local government IT is no different. At gatherings each year, local government IT leaders share insights and current practices as way of gaining knowledge to inform their own operations. These gatherings provide a venue for sharing stories

7

that depict the most challenging of situations. Through the past decade two stories have emerged as commonplace being told numerous times from a wide range of local governments, each one slightly different in context but all having primarily the same lesson; where funding originates will dictate both behavior and outcomes. The first story is where a local government department (i.e. public safety, social services, etc.) applies for and is awarded a grant. The department informs IT that, as part of the grant, they have selected and purchased a technology or set of technologies. Then the department asks IT how the technology will fit into their current system with the request that it does not change any processes or procedures. Soon after the department learns that the grant does not cover any long-term expenses (maintenance, licensing, etc.) so they ask IT for guidance on how to budget this for future years. The department also learns that the technology can only be used for only the functions associated with that one program area and asks IT how they will ensure this requirement of the funding, because the department needs to report this to the funding agency as soon as possible. The list of revelations and limitations goes on and on. The story is consistent with the notion that in government, objectives are set as a result of compromises among diverse stakeholders with little attention to the operational and, to an extent, financial aspects involved in fulfilling such objectives (Holley et al., 2002). The second story most often heard among local government IT leaders is one where a department, or in some cases a set of departments, have a philosophy that their money is their money and spending it is their business and no one else's. This line of thinking comes from a siloed mentality that many local government used to build their governance structures, enabling a unilateral decision making process. In this case, a department decides that it needs to invest in technology. They believe that since it is their money, they are not required to consult with anyone about the nature or potential impact of their investment. The department makes the technology investment and somewhere between the time when the purchase order is signed and when the technology arrives, IT is notified of the upcoming upgrade or change. At this point, a department calls on IT as an implementer and not a contributor. These facts support previous research findings that IT stakeholders have to deal with short appointment and budgetary cycles where results are expected within 2 year cycles (Holley et al., 2002). Both of these scenarios add to the problem of siloed systems, which in turn leads to an overall interoperable infrastructure issue for the government. “Improving interoperability depends not on the technologies alone, but on a mix of capabilities that can produce organizational as well as technological interoperability” (Pardo & Burke, 2008). In this sense, having multiple systems that are not connected, as well as having organizational and business processes that are divided means the government lacks the ability to grow technologically and organizationally across departments. On one side, enabling a collaborative culture could eliminate the siloed approach since collaboration in government is, by itself, an enabling factor of information sharing between and within government agencies (Estevez et al., 2007). Throughout the session, IT leaders stated that the best way of working with IT is to keep an open dialogue with IT staff. This includes regular meetings, making IT part of the planning and decision-making process, and inviting IT to the table as a contributor rather than a cost center. 6. Concluding remarks In this paper, we described current challenges of IT leadership in their efforts to build operational capabilities and promote a strategic view of information technologies at the local government level. Although our research only included IT leaders from localities across New York State, we believe their challenges and corresponding mitigations strategies are similar to those of many other local governments in similar contexts. To effectively respond to such challenges, IT departments need to re-define the way they interact with the rest of the

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

8

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

organization, moving from an operational to a more strategic role. Unfortunately, as our results suggest, the current situation of IT leadership at the local level is far from ideal, and still faces challenges related to managing daily operations while moving toward a long-term, more strategic approach. IT leadership, projected through the IT lead's performance, knowledge and influence is an overarching component that also contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of IT. Results from the roundtable advance our understanding of challenges faced by IT leaders at the local level in the process of transforming their role from operational to strategic. Main challenges include: 1. Collaborating with and educating decision-makers on the value of Information Technology and the need for a common technology model 2. Influencing decisions when they are not in the leadership table 3. Promoting the development of a strategic plan at the same time of creating an efficient operational model 4. Keeping themselves and their team up-to-date on technological developments so that they can achieve operational efficiency 5. Keeping themselves and their team up-to-date on soft skills that allow them to have an impact in business processes 6. Managing common rules, procedures and standards in an environment where funding sources and other practices promote siloed systems. IT leaders must educate county executives and department heads about how the IT department can help, and how technology can influence their decisions. In some cases, the IT department can demonstrate how well thought-out technology decisions can positively impact the progress and success of a city's portfolio of projects. It is imperative for the CIO to spearhead the strategic planning process that will set up the mechanisms by which decisions about IT investments are made. The CIO should be allowed to create overarching technology roadmaps from infrastructure (phones, personal computers, mobile devices, logical and physical networks, etc.) to applications (email, desktop applications, video conference, remote access) to services (customer-facing portals, internal help desk, etc.) where high-level milestones, cost, timelines and resource needs are visible to the entire organization. The IT Leader should be allowed to play a significant role in building and grooming an organization. As stated before, leadership and performance management are among the core competencies of the GCIO. Together, these two capabilities should be the foundation used by the GCIO to source in the skillsets necessary to fulfill the goals of the IT organization and the city. Coaching, mentoring and developing IT and other local staff in technology literacy and competency could be part of the GCIO's own performance indicators. Another way to take advantage of the GCIO's capabilities is in the creation of a solid IT decision making process. This includes a vetted list of criteria as well as policies and procedures surrounding how IT decisions are made and who makes them (IT governance) and how requests for IT services are vetted and prioritized (demand management). The recognition of the role of CIO and its transcendence should be an expected progression as local governments continue to leverage technology as a way to reach out to their constituents, gather their needs and fulfill their requests for services. IT Leaders in small to medium size cities are as passionate and willing to serve their community as any other local servant and these attributes were demonstrated during the exploratory workshops. The conflict between departments and IT is predictable and expected to occur while local governments establish their own formal technology governance and roles. It should be the responsibility of elected officials to recognize the expertise, value and contributions of the IT Leader and his team in the creation of value for the citizens. It is the job of the IT Leader to consistently rise up to the challenge of being seeing as an effective partner to all departments within the city government. Finally, we also want to acknowledge that our current approach to gather data has limitations, and the conclusions and results presented in the paper require further exploration using alternative methods.

Additionally, our current sample is also limited to IT leadership. Future research opportunities may be in the form of in-depth case studies or surveys, including not only IT leaders, but also public managers in the programmatic government areas. Additionally, other topics that may be included in this future work are a) the perceptions of local CIOs in regards of how political leaders define their roles; b) how the local CIOs exercise their leadership mandate in pursue of an exhaustive strategic planning process for their municipalities and c) how the local CIOs spearhead the creation of a tailor-made governance framework for their IT organizations. There is also the need of further research in identifying the core capabilities that need to be developed by IT departments at the local level. These core capabilities go beyond the role of the GCIO and should include issues related to processes, standards, system development, managing outsourcing and cloud services, among others.

References Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government information management. A primer and casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Andersen, D. F., Belardo, S., & Dawes, S. (1994). Strategic information management: Conceptual frameworks for the public sector. Public Productivity and Management Review, 17, 335–353. Auffret, J. -P., Estevez, E., Marcovecchio, I., & Janowski, T. (2010). Developing a GCIO system: Enabling good government through e-leadership. 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2010) (pp. 82–88). Bartley, R. (2015). Lessons CIOs can learn from their public-sector counterparts Retrieved from http://libproxy.albany.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=edsgbe&AN=edsgcl.414111715&site=eds-live&scope=site. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management: Symposium introduction. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456http://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291540-6210/issues Caudle, S. L., Gorr, W. L., & Newcomer, K. E. (1991). Key information systems management issues for the public sector. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 171–188. Chen, D. Q., Mocker, M., Preston, D. S., & Teubner, A. (2010a). Information systems strategy: Reconceptualization, measurement, and implications. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 233–259. Chen, D. Q., Preston, D. S., & Weidong, X. (2010b). Antecedents and effects of CIO supplyside and demand-side leadership: A staged maturity model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 231–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS07421222270110. Chun, M., & Mooney, J. (2009). CIO roles and responsibilities: Twenty-five years of evolution and change. Information Management, 46(6), 323–334. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.im.2009.05.005. Clark, B. Y., Brudney, J. L., & Jang, S. -G. (2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687–701http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10. 1111/%28ISSN%291540-6210/issues Croteau, A. -M., & Bergeron, F. (2001). An information technology trilogy: Business strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 10, 77–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(01)00044-0. Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of E-governance. Public Administration Review, 68, S86–S102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008. 00981.x. Dawson, G. S., Ho, M. -W., & Kauffman, R. J. (2015). How are C-suite executives different? A comparative empirical study of the survival of American chief information officers. Decision Support Systems, 74, 88–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.03.005. Ding, F., Li, D., & George, J. F. (2014). Investigating the effects of IS strategic leadership on organizational benefits from the perspective of CIO strategic roles. Information Management, 51(7), 865–879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.004. Dufner, D., Holley, L. M., & Reed, B. J. (2002). Can private sector strategic information systems planning techniques work for the public sector? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8(28). Dufner, D., Holley, L. M., & Reed, B. J. (2003). Strategic information systems planning and U.S. county government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 219–243. Dzhusupova, Z., Janowski, T., Ojo, A., & Estevez, E. (2011). Sustaining Electronic Governance Programs in Developing Countries. 11th European Conference on eGovernment (pp. 203–212). Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2013). Landscaping government chief information officer education. Proceedings of the 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2013) (pp. 1684–1693). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.379. Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2014). A comprehensive methodology for establishing and sustaining government chief information officer function. 8th International Conference of Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2014) (pp. 235–243). Estevez, E., Fillotranni, P., & Janowski, T. (2007). From E-government to seamless government. Conference on Collaborative Electronic Commerce Technology and Research, 1–11. Estevez, E., Janowski, T., Marcovecchio, I., & Ojo, A. (2011). Establishing government chief information officer systems - readiness assessment. 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, (dg.o 2011) (pp. 292–301). http://dx.doi.org/10. 1145/2037556.2037603. Gefen, D., Ragowsky, A., Licker, P., & Stern, M. (2011). The changing role of the CIO in the world of outsourcing: Lessons learned from a CIO roundtable. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28, 233–242.

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002

M. De Tuya et al. / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Gharawi, M., Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2014). Identifying government chief information officer education and training needs — The case of Saudi Arabia. 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2014) (pp. 280–289). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1145/2612733.2612764. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Arellano-Gault, D., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Even if we build it, they may not come: Reformas de e-Gobierno en México. In G. S. o. P. Administration, ITESM, & H. K. School (Eds.), ¿Transformación, lo mismo de siempre, o progreso lento y con tropiezos? Reformas recientes al Sector Público en México (pp. 137–171). Mexico DF: Miguel Angel Porrua. Gottschalk, P., & Taylor, N. J. (2000). Strategic management of IS/IT functions: The role of the CIO. 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 208–217). Holley, L. M., Dufner, D., & Reed, B. J. (2002). GOT SISP? Strategic information systems planning in U.S. state governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 398–412. Holley, L. M., Dufner, D., & Reed, B. J. (2004). Strategic information systems planning in U.S. county governments: Will the real SISP model please stand up? Public Performance & Management Review, 27, 102–126. Hooper, V., & Bunker, B. (2013). The role and requisite competencies of the public sector CIO: A two-sided perspective. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 16(3), 188–199. Hussain, B., Turner, T., & Imran, A. (2016). Issues in the transition to CIO role in the public sector of developing countries. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3021–3030). Jakob, M., Wolf, P., & Krcmar, H. (2015). Decision objects for IT cooperation decisions in the public sector. Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning, 133–140. Juiz, C., & Toomey, M. (2015). To govern IT, or not to govern IT? Communications of the ACM, 58(2), 58–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2656385. Kamal, M. M., Bigdeli, A. Z., Themistocleous, M., & Morabito, V. (2015). Investigating factors influencing local government decision makers while adopting integration technologies (IntTech). Information Management, 52, 135–150. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.im.2014.06.007. Karahanna, E., & Preston, D. S. (2013). The effect of social capital of the relationship between the CIO and top management team on firm performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 15–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS07421222300101. Martin, D. P. (2013). IT governance and the public sector: A survey of perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of Federal Public Sector IT employees. ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from http://libproxy.albany.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED552489&site=eds-live&scope=site, http://gateway. proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx: dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3553364 Available from EBSCOhost eric database. Meneklis, V., & Douligeris, C. (2010). Bridging theory and practice in e-government: A set of guidelines for architectural design. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 70–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.08.005. Moon, J., Choe, Y. C., Chung, M., Jung, G. H., & Swar, B. (2016). IT outsourcing success in the public sector. Information Development, 32(2), 142. Morgeson, F. V., III, & Mithas, S. (2009). Does E-government measure up to E-business? Comparing end user perceptions of U.S. federal government and E-business web sites. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 740–752 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291540-6210/issues O'Brien, J. (2016). Public sector CIOs feel the ‘squeeze’ when driving transformational change: Gartner. CIO, 13284045, 1. Ojo, A., Janowski, T., & Estevez, E. (2011). Whole-of-government approach to information technology strategy management: Building a sustainable collaborative technology environment in government. Information Polity, 16(3), 243–260. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3233/IP-2011-0237. Pardo, T., & Burke, B. (2008). In C. f. T. i. Government (Ed.), Improving government interoperability: A capability framework for government managers. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 504–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq. 2012.07.002. Pierson, K., & Thompson, F. (2016). How you buy affects what you get: Technology acquisition by state governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 494–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.003.

9

Ping-Ju Wu, S., Straub, D. W., & Liang, T. -P. (2015). How information technology governance mechanisms and strategic alignment influence organizational performance: Insights from a matched survey of business and it managers. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 497-A497. Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors that influence the social dimention of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81–113. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of the CIO in a local government IT strategy: the case of Merida. Yucatán, Mexico, Electronic Journal of E-government, 9(1), 1–14 http://www.ejeg.com/issue/download.html?idIssue=26. Shark, A. R. (2016). The information technology gap in public administration: What we can learn from the certified public manager and senior executive service programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2), 213–230. Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/0275074005282583. Yu-Che, C., & Tsui-Chuan, H. (2014). Big data for digital government: opportunities, challenges, and strategies. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 1(1), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijpada.2014010101. Manuel De Tuya is a 2nd year PhD student in the Department of Informatics at the University at Albany SUNY. He has over 20 years of industry experience in the Information Technology field. He holds a Bachelor's in Computer Science from the Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla (BUAP) and a Master of Science in Engineering Management from Christian Brothers University. His research interests are in the areas of smart cities, technology for government, information sharing, systemic thinking and system dynamics. Meghan Cook As a Program Director at the Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany SUNY, Meghan leads innovation initiatives that build capability in public sector organizations and agencies throughout the world. Through a unique and collaborative process, Meghan works side by side with international, federal, state and local government leaders to produce new knowledge and actionable results. With over 18 years of experience working on public sector innovation efforts, Meghan is considered an expert in digital government transformation. Meghan has published numerous research and practice articles detailing how organizational capabilities, information policies, management practices, and technology choices intersect to shape government operations and services. Meghan holds a Master of Public Administration and a Master of Science in Education both from the University at Albany. Megan Sutherland As a Program Associate at the Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany SUNY, Megan's focus is on project definition, project planning, work plan development, data collection and analysis, preparing and planning articles and reports, and designing and conducting group facilitation activities related to certain projects. Megan has worked with the Committee on Open Government as an intern in which she focused on city and town clerks as well as IT professionals working in government at the local level. The research was conducted within the State of New York and was designed to study and assess how the use of, or lack of, technology affected management and access to government documents. Megan holds a Bachelor's in History and a Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS). Luis F. Luna-Reyes is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy at the University at Albany SUNY, and Faculty Fellow at the Center for Technology in Government. He holds a Ph.D. in Information Science from the University at Albany, and he is also a member of the Mexican National Research System. His research focuses on electronic government and on modeling collaboration processes in the development of information technologies across functional and organizational boundaries. His research interests are related to areas such as inter-organizational collaboration, information sharing, success of government-wide Web sites, and information policy to promote economic exchange in the NAFTA region. He is the author or co-author of articles published in Government Information Quarterly, European Journal of Information Systems, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, Gestión y Política Pública, and System Dynamics Review, among others.

Please cite this article as: De Tuya, M., et al., The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges, Government Information Quarterly (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.002