During the September 1995 Annual Conference of the Computer Management Group of Australia, Michael Grilli, vice president of strategic accounts at EMC Corp., presented a corporate perspective on why organizations worldwide are reengineering for greater effectiveness. Grilli punctuated his presentation with a quote from Jack Welch, CEO of GE Corp.: "When the rate of change outside the organization is greater than the rate of change inside the organization, the organization is in trouble."

This all-too-true situation is plaguing government organizations from the federal level down. Societal expectations have changed as rapidly as technology choices. Twenty-four-hour access to many private-sector services, immediate bank loan approvals via telephone, and online employment searches and job applications have triggered an even greater impatience among constituents for significantly reduced government red tape.



Some of the issues agencies face were explored exceptionally well during the workshop on "New Models of Governance" offered at the Western Region Government Technology Conference in May. According to one panelist, Lavar Webb, deputy of policy for Gov. Leavitt of Utah, "application of technology has exploded in importance." He postulated that "there is no excuse now for not dramatically improving government." But, according to Webb, we must have the right governance in place to take maximum advantage of technology, and the sociology of our government agencies is impeding needed changes.

The workshop offered hope and encouragement to those of us who work with governments to effect change and watch firsthand as the wheels turn
slowly amidst today's exploding demand for contracted and effective government services.

Webb and other panel members -- John Kost, former CIO of Michigan, and Jake Moelk, CIO for the city of Indianapolis -- described the search for local solutions to methods of governance which can open doors to the future.

Each presenter stressed that tomorrow's effective organizations will have differing characteristics. These agencies will have said "no" to the "sacred cows" of fiefdom, non-accountability and internal competition for dwindling resources. Their operations will be dependent upon:

Strong political and administrative visionaries -- influential agents for change.
A governance structure that defines the legislative process as responsible for enacting clear policy -- responsive to constituency needs -- to guide federal/state/county/city staff who are fully accountable for managing government operations.
Unprecedented levels of collaboration horizontally and vertically.
Strong local control and equally strong central coordination.
Use of cross-jurisdictional working groups (not committees) committed to "do the right thing."
The introduction of competition into the governance structure.
An upward spiral in competency and service delivery.
Performance-based rewards.
Business-based planning driving technology strategies and services.
Sharing and reuse of like applications of technology.
Pointing to the successes enjoyed by Utah under the leadership of Gov. Leavitt, Webb acknowledged that other government leaders are quick to suggest that change in Utah has been easier due to the state's smaller size and cultural homogeneity. Webb offered a challenge to others, however, by responding that the elements of success are the same irrespective of size, and that other governments' larger size "makes a bigger carrot."

Moelk described the mission statement for information services initiatives within the city of Indianapolis as follows: "To cause public services to be delivered more efficiently through a competitive process that seeks to increase the quality of service at lowered cost. This is the bottom line. Government's customers have spoken eloquently ... No tax increases to support inefficient or ineffective government services. Clearly, we are no longer considered the 'only store in town.'"

Kost described a significant new freedom in Michigan state decision-making where administrators were not hampered by entrenched state process if "they knew it was the right thing to do on the basis of the business case."

It's true that the results we are seeking appear