Turnover At The Top

State-government business can be extremely lucrative for solution providers whose local presence and expertise are key to state IT initiatives. But, is it any surprise that state governments are plagued by partisan politics? State CIOs—typically the person directing technology spending and strategy—can be at the mercy of the controlling party in power. When a new governor is elected and the party line changes, the CIO is often switched out for someone the new state leader finds more fitting.

That, of course, can present some serious challenges, not only for state IT departments and ongoing projects that might get left in the dust, but for solution providers working with those states as well. For example, a solution provider might have been working on a project or proof of concept, when a new CIO suddenly comes into town; those projects come to a halt and usually aren't picked up again—at least not in the same form.

As Robert Deitz, CEO of Shingle Springs, Calif.-based Government Technology Solutions, a security-focused solution provider, says, "The new CIO comes in and wants to put their stamp on certain projects." In other words, they want credit for their own projects, not the projects that were already under way when they took over.

And the CIO change-ups are certainly prevalent these days. According to the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), in 2002, 18 state CIO spots turned over; in 2003, 20 additional CIO spots turned over, with another three CIO positions that remained vacant from 2002. In some cases, the CIO position can transition quickly. Such was the case in Rhode Island, when Thomas Collins was appointed CIO in June 2003, but resigned in January 2005, not even two years into the job, apparently when strategic planning goals differed from those of the state's director of administration. But, alas, by April, the state had a new CIO in place.

Connecticut was not so lucky when its CIO resigned last August due to what he called in an e-mail to staffers "a change of administration" following the departure of Gov. John Rowland, who resigned amid a federal corruption investigation and is now in prison. And in Utah, CIO Val Oveson resigned at the end of 2004, when that state's governorship changed hands, after serving just about a year as the state's CIO. Both Connecticut and Utah appointed CIOs right before press time—Connecticut a full eight months after the resignation.

So, what does all this change at the top mean for integrators working with state organizations? It can translate to some prickly situations, but, interestingly, can also create the opportunity for new and additional business. Deitz says that while CIO turnover creates inefficiencies and waste for the states when technology plans are reinvented every couple of years, these changes can also create revenue opportunities for solution providers.

For example, Deitz points to the fact that many states have decentralized technology functions, with each state agency or department doing their own IT work and not leveraging a central model. "We spend a lot of time at the department level, helping each individual department address their issues," Deitz says. As a result, the work is more manual, more inefficient and, of course, more expensive, he adds.

Say a single agency has a license for antivirus software for 1,000 users. Across the state, that license could be up to 20,000 for a group of departments—if they were working together. But given the decentralization, the price per seat for that single agency is considerably higher, as is the installation. "If someone put a pencil to paper, the loss of money and efficiency is quite high," Deitz says.

Is there a solution to the upheaval? Some suggest making the state CIO position less political. One possibility: doing something similar to what the state of California is doing with its secretary of state position. The state has a bill pending in the legislature to make the position nonpartisan. Deitz also suggests passing some type of legislation to give state CIOs tenure, such as the five-year terms that the Federal Reserve Board enjoys. "It would do a world of good, and CIOs could learn from their mistakes and work on their vision for where they want to be two or three years in the future," he says.