A Convergence of Opinion

ou've heard the gripes around the water cooler, in the line at the agency cafeteria or in one of the conference rooms:

• "We were supposed to get our new computers last month, but now they're saying we may not get them until next fiscal year."
• "We were putting the finishing touches on the software in December, when the Assistant Secretary decided to change all the specs. I wish those guys knew what they wanted."
• "The IRM shop ran some test data through the new system. What came out the other end bore no resemblance to real numbers."

  After years of hearing information technology specialists complain about program management and program people disparage IT management, we decided to investigate further. Government Executive's opinion survey was designed in part to uncover specific areas of disagreement between IT managers and non-IT managers. We wanted to bring to the surface the problem areas and recurring causes of friction.

  When we looked at the survey responses, though, we got a big surprise. Given every opportunity to complain about each other under a cloak of anonymity, senior federal managers didn't. And a series of questions about the role and value of IT turned up remarkably congruent opinions.

  For example, we asked respondents to rate their own agencies' use of IT, on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (very good). The non-IT managers' responses yielded an average rating of 3.6. The average for IT managers was 3.9. There was a little more disparity on the next question, which asked about the agency's success in obtaining and using up-to-date IT products. But on the whole, there was little meaningful difference between the responses of IT and non-IT managers.

  One reason for this seems to be more IT sophistication on the part of program managers and others who don't specialize in IT. Now that computers are so pervasive in business and government, smart managers need to understand IT concepts and strategic IT issues-no matter what kind of operation they manage.

  Non-specialists rely on their IT shops for in-depth analyses of the alternatives and issues, but they don't leave all IT decisions in the hands of the IT staff. Whether in corporations or in government, the chief executive officer of one technology company says his customers are looking for the right solutions to meet their business needs. "They'll send their technical people down to kick the tires," says Cabletron Systems Inc. CEO Don Reed, but products no longer are selected "in the wiring closet."

  Another reason may be clearer lines of authority. In the past, ownership of information systems within an agency was not always carefully demarcated. Better accounting and budgeting practices make clearer who is making the investment in a new system-and expecting a return on that investment. In most cases, program offices own the system. That's not a trouble-free way to manage, because it runs counter to the trend toward integrating agency systems across program boundaries. But it does reduce the incidence of finger-pointing.

  The survey did reveal some tension between the IT side and the non-techies. "Automators don't want any input until after they deliver-then it's too late!" a Defense Department GM-15 wrote. But such comments were rare.

  We also probed for discord between the agency's top-level decision-makers and those lower in the hierarchy. Here, a little more variance in views was apparent. Lacking a large sample of agency heads, we asked all our respondents how they thought the top decision-makers in their agencies view IT. Then we asked the respondents about their own views.

  Eighty-five percent of those surveyed said IT is "an indispensable tool for getting the agency's work done and for remaining competitive." But only 51 percent of the respondents said this was the view of the top decision-makers in their agencies.

  Another 26 percent of those surveyed characterized their agency chiefs' view of IT as "a necessity for doing business today, for better or for worse." The second most popular choice to describe respondents' own view of IT was "a useful way to analyze information, communicate with others and publish documents." This statement, while still favoring IT, characterizes it as more of an office tool-on the level of a photocopier or typewriter-than a strategic weapon for agencies.

  The least favorable views (IT is "a luxury to be used only when there's no alternative" or "a money pit with poor return on investment") were attributed to 3 percent of respondents' agency chiefs. But only 1 percent of all the respondents admitted to such views.

  Many of the managers' comments on the importance of technology resembled this one from a DoD GM-15: "With continuous downsizing, we could not perform the mission without the increased efficiency" achieved through IT. The chief information officer for a highly automated General Services Administration unit wrote: "I've done my job. IT makes the world go round."

  Costs vs. Benefits

  Other respondents expressed doubts about the ultimate value of IT. "We are not yet at the point," said one, "where what a manager puts into IT is equal to the benefits gained." One Pentagon finance manager said his agency chief has embraced IT as a strategic tool, but "it has taken a long time to achieve this view."

  We looked particularly closely at questionnaires where there was a mismatch between the views of the person responding and his or her agency chief. One respondent noted that IT is "mainly seen as a way to reduce personnel." Another said "how they [top decision-makers] feel and how it is executed do not necessarily match." A GS-13 IT manager made this comment: "Our senior execs have no understanding of strategic use of IT, yet they think they do. So they never ask the IRM [information resources manager]."

  A half-dozen respondents remarked that the politically correct view is to embrace IT as a strategic weapon, but deep in their hearts, many top-level managers view it with disdain. "They know it's critical and the only way we survive the workload, but they do not like it!" an IT professional with the Agriculture Department wrote. One Department of Housing and Urban Development manager said his agency's executives give "lip service" to IT, but "information technology is primarily used to track and monitor to ensure that prescribed behaviors are followed." Another respondent said his agency's leaders "talk" the strategic value of IT but "walk" the view that it's a money pit.

  A handful of responses criticized agency leaders for failing to tackle the real IT issues and problems. "Occasionally," one such respondent wrote, "senior management seems more interested in the glitz of technology than the substance."

  One or two said their agency's leaders are more enthusiastic about IT than middle managers. "Top decision-makers have greater access to top systems," one observed. "They believe it [that IT is indispensable], but no one can figure out how to make it happen," an SES member wrote.

  No Patterns

  In another section of our questionnaire, we asked respondents which aspects of their IT projects usually go well and which usually are troublesome. We were hoping some patterns would turn up to indicate where problems typically arise in the course of systems implementations or upgrades.

  However, it was difficult to detect any trends in the responses or make any generalizations about them. For instance, it was clear from the responses that planning at the beginning of the systems project often goes well. Eighty-four respondents told us so, giving planning more votes for "goes well" than any other item. But planning also got the second-highest total of "major problem" votes. These results were consistent across both IT and non-IT managers' responses.

  When it came to pointing out major problem areas for projects, budgeting was the most commonly selected item on the list. Training in the use of new or upgraded systems also got a large number of votes from non-IT managers, although the IT managers didn't single it out as an especially troublesome area. Coordination among multiple offices usually gets a mention when federal managers discuss systems problems, but in our survey results it didn't stand out from the pack. On the positive side, the installation phase got the most votes for "usually goes well."

  Several of those who responded said no aspects of their systems projects usually went well and every aspect was a problem. "You're kidding. Goes well? Ha!" wrote one feisty fed. We were not surprised to find that these managers gave IT management in their agencies low marks.

  It was surprising, however, to find that IT managers, as well as the other managers we surveyed, expressed a lower opinion of IT managers' overall capabilities than of other managers' capabilities. Among the non-IT managers, there was a bigger ratings gap between their agencies' management corps and its IT management. But the differences were nearly negligible. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (very good), the 228 respondents gave their agencies' management an average rating of 3.43 and their IT management a 3.15-both ratings above the mid-point of the scale.

  "We are fortunate here in that our IT group is keenly aware of the need to maintain a continuous program of upgrading systems and equipment," wrote the manager of an Army office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "Our tech folks try, but they are way under-budgeted and under-staffed," an Interior official commented. "Our senior managers know IT is vital to the agency," another manager with IT responsibilities wrote, "but overall management of IT is very poor." Still another called for "a more practical approach to IT."

  Remarkably few respondents took the opportunity presented by an anonymous survey to voice deep resentments of the technology and those who deliver it. A sense of realism seems to have taken hold, along with a distinct narrowing of the gap between the technology managers and their counterparts in other disciplines.