Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson recently said, "My budget ... places a very high premium on information technology development - in fact, technology will be the cornerstone for the next two years, and will continue to dominate state government operations in the future." Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh, however, said, "Data processing is not one of the central missions of government, and we believe it can be best done by the private sector." Gov. Bayh plans to reduce his state's expenditures on data processing while maintaining the state's current level of "quality data processing."

CALL TO ACTION
In Gov. Thompson's call to action on technology, he said, "We will be asking agencies to identify more efficient ways of delivering services, and we will be expecting those efficiencies ... to embrace technology and to reengineer your work processes."

Gov. Bayh's call to action is much more radical. "I have started the process which will result in the shifting of the state's information technology services to a provider in the private sector," he said, "freeing government to use the results of the data to provide services to taxpayers." The state intends to issue an RFP that, according to the governor's office, will have a single prime contractor who, under a fixed-bid contract, will be responsible for all information technology activities including "the acquisition, maintenance and provision of all hardware, software, application programming and telecommunications systems."

WHICH APPROACH?
So which of these widely divergent approaches to utilizing information technology is more appropriate in the era of the "information revolution?" First, one must analyze the differing base premises of the role of information services in the public sector. Is the processing of information a "cornerstone" of government or is it "not one of the central issues?" To analyze that question we must ask "what are the major functions of government?"

State government incarcerates prisoners and builds roads. Both activities utilize information technology (IT) extensively, but it is not the central process in those functions. In almost every other activity of government, however, information processing is the essential process in service delivery and public policy implementation. Collecting revenue is the process of accepting data about earnings, analyzing that data against algorithms and other rules to determine taxes owed, and then issuing both invoices and refund checks. This process is an almost totally automated IT activity.

Consider the functions of health and human services agencies. They accept applications for services (data) and analyze them against eligibility criteria. States then manage files and reimburse care providers, or issue checks directly to recipients.

These are very IT-intensive activities, and with the advent of block grants, states will take on even more responsibility for these functions. The core process of government functions is information processing-based -- from issuing licenses and registering vehicles, to Workers' Compensation and unemployment processing.

TWO VIEWS
The difference between the views of Bayh and Thompson is the difference between an old world view of IT and the new wave. Bayh sees IT as a back-room function that provides data to "real" government workers -- processes are seen as just a bit more efficient with technology. Thompson and his administration have a view embraced by most in the Information Age that -- if properly integrated into program policy, development and service delivery design -- technology can be a catalyst for radical improvements in process effectiveness and efficiency. So on principal, the more progressive position of Thompson must be considered the more accurate one.

PRACTICALITY?
Principle is one thing, but what about practicality? Is outsourcing a more effective way to deliver information technology to government? Bayh's office asserts that "outsourcing firms are able to perform work more economically because they do a larger volume of work for several clients on equipment that is more efficient than is available to state government."