The Crisis Facing Public Service Technology Leadership in Local Government

Jack Belcher, Phd. FRM Chief Technology Innovation Officer / Chief Information Officer, Arlington County, Virginia

In my some fifty years of technology experience at the Congressional, Federal, International and now County Governments, the lament has always been that technology leadership is not at the table when strategic decisions are being discussed.

That lament is more evident today than ever. The exponential growth of technology has garnered predictions that we will see ten years of growth in the next 18 months, surpassing Moore’s Law of the doubling of technology advancement every two years.

Where Moore was focusing on transistors, I am focusing on how we live, work, play and learn. The ecosystem we see approaching in light of the impact of the emerging disruptive forces of Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, the Internet of Things, Machine Learning and Cloud computing will upset any and all plans.

The complacency and lack of urgency that frame how governments operate will be significantly disrupted by the lack of attention to these forces.

So why is it that Public Sector technology leaders can’t see this happening? The fact is that they can and have seen this coming for some time now. The problem is that transforming an organization, especially a government that has been successful the same way for years and sees no urgency to think differently, is a monumental undertaking. There must be a coalition of thinking that agrees that there is an approaching crisis and two, is united in trying to address this crisis.

I see three inhibitors to achieving that awareness. While I will speak in generalities, not every government is in this state, but I would suggest the vast majority are.

The three inhibiting agents to achieve are:

1. Public Service Leadership ( Both Elected and Appointed)

2. Budget and Procurement

3.Talent Acquisition and Retention

Public Service Leadership

Elected officials are largely short termed and driven by what their constituents want: affordable housing, low gas prices, efficient street repairs, lower wholesale food prices, good education, and safe communities. You cannot argue with any of that. The challenge is those leaders to realize how technology can enhance the delivery of these services. Very few elected officials have the foresight to understand that or advocate for such.

Behind the Elected Officials stand the professional city and county administrators. Their sole goal in life is to satisfy the wants of the elected officials. If they don’t then they risk being removed. Underpinning all that is their jurisdiction’s bond rating. That is the primary drive. Lose your bond rating and you are in the unemployment line.  The result is an army of professional managers whose primary goal is to limit risk and serve their elected leaders to retain their employment. Launching a campaign to address challenges they don’t understand is ambiguous and unpredictable. Hence, don’t expect them to invite IT leadership at times of decision-making.

Budget and Procurement

The traditional budget generation has been the security blanket of public service leaders. Most budgets are annual, and some are bi-annual but they are basically the same. Budget objectives are developed at least six months before the budget presentation. Other than the colors of the printed document, nothing really changes. The assumptions for the future support the vision of the elected and temerity of the professional management. Suggesting that in light of the emerging technology disruptions that should be an allocation of time to discuss revisiting the budget assumptions or heaven forbid a mid-budget consideration after budget approval, is a nonstarter and career limiting.

Procurement which provides for the execution of the budget further inhibits change. Our over concern with structured requests for procurement, review of proposals, and unequivocal dedication to the fairness of the award has created a procurement world where good ideas are squashed, the process runs longer than the original need, and invites any bidder who wants to protest the award has created an untenable environment for IT leadership to function.

Talent Acquisition and Retention

This is a shout-out to my friends in Human Resources. They too have drunk the Kool-Aid and believe salary must be based not on technical qualifications solely but upon the number of staff directly managed. Add to this we continue to define and classify positions as we did thirty years ago.  We continue to invest in server huggers, data center staff and application security engineers as the cloud becomes predominant and the need for data analysts is far more important to the community.

Even positions we believed were essential pre-Covid in a post-Covid world need to be revisited where the workforce may not be on site. Provision of remote access services for employees has created an urgent need for enhanced cybersecurity at a time when those resources are scarce, and when available, are being gobbled up by outside interests who have the money to acquire. Yet we continue to believe we can recruit and retain these staff rather than consider outsourcing to competent third parties.

Lastly, the technology workforces we are recruiting are digitally some of the best.

They have superb digital intelligence. The challenge is that many lack the necessary emotional intelligence to sell the vision of the IT leadership through effective communications. Despite our recruitment efforts, there is a brain drain occurring when senior mentoring leadership is exiting the jurisdiction and a good segment of those who could mentor have already enrolled in the ‘quiet quitting’ program where they have assumed the role of tenured scholars, manipulating the Human Resources Regulations to continue to enjoy their employment.

In summary, Public Service IT Leadership is not at the table to suggest how technology investment today could realize significant value in the future. The absence of effective top-down leadership, outdated budget/procurement policies and a workforce built on yesterday’s world and not tomorrow’s needs suggests we are at a crisis point.

What to do? Short of outsourcing all local government IT what could be the path forward? What to do? Short of outsourcing all local government IT what could be the path forward?

First, it must start with the awareness that the state of public service support is going to get worse before it gets better. The President and Congress have invested over one trillion dollars in infrastructure to modernize bridges, install broadband, and insure American made innovation, but not a penny in the development of the basic truth that these investments must be complemented with a corollary investment in transforming how we leverage technology to achieve the necessary innovations to maximize these investments. (A message I am not sure has reached the President’s desk).

Second, there must be a corollary awareness from the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Cities and the National Association of State CIOs that they do advocate the ‘transformation’ of public service technology leadership.

Third, there needs to be a collaboratively developed plan to achieve this vision.

What’s the urgency? I will leave that discussion to my colleagues who read this.

Note: The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Arlington County or the United States."

Cloud Computing

Data Center

Machine Learning

review