"The future is just as much a condition of the present as is the past," wrote German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in 1883. Indeed, any stage of development is more purposeful if we are as aware of our present state as we are of what is to come. As the past moves us forward, projection to the future influences what we do today. This idea is especially true in the field of digital government, where citizens' needs and government goals move in a constant cycle of re-evaluation and self-adjustment.

As we regularly expend energy assessing digital government today, we should also look to the future and consider these questions: How will digital government look in the next five to 10 years? What role will the public CIO play during the next period of growth and change?

A group of experts in government, industry and academia predict the challenges ahead, and examine the outlook for technology, digital government and the leaders involved.


More Training, More Freedom
Costis Toregas, president emeritus, Public Technology Institute; chair, National Academy of Public Administration Panel on Social Equity in Governance


New CIOs have a wealth of new tools at their disposal -- Wi-Fi networks, PDAs, etc. -- that permit them to do things that were barely feasible before.

In the 1970s, there was no such thing as a CIO. The closest position was the manager of data processing, who was responsible for running big, laborious computer programs within mainframes and doing the drudgework of processing data. Today that has changed significantly; the ability to process data has been absorbed within the silicon chip and software, and CIOs create information environments in the workplace. We are also seeing more women in the ranks. Back then it was hard for them to break into the top rung.

With this increase in sophistication and responsibility for CIOs has come a lot of confusion in terms of how CIOs can play their proper roles in the public sector. There is also ambiguity among the titles of chief technology officer, CIO and chief knowledge officer. It's an interesting reminder that we are not about information, but about knowledge in this IT field.

CIOs, however, face a dilemma. They can increasingly handle technical issues that befuddle vendor relations, but are not positioned to do the most important thing in government and e-management: act on change and revamp business processes of the public sector. I say that out of respect for the emerging CIO. Few have enough power and authority to change business processes in agencies other than their own. They cannot reassign a public-works inspector or change the work program of a police detective. The bottom line of any IT investment is to keep people happy, not machines happy. We have not yet given CIOs the strength, skills or authority they need for the business part.

Right now, we are not spending IT dollars wisely in the public sector, because CIOs are not given the mandate to modify business processes. It should be the power of the individual to work better. CIOs relate to business customers in their units. The more they can engage those key business executives in real transformational implementations, the better the public's money will be spent.

We have spent the first 30 years of the IT revolution establishing a strategy and the position of CIO. Now more time must be spent on giving them authority and strategy to deliver proper results. CIOs need both more training and freedom. A dual role between technology and public administration is central to a successful public CIO's career, which is doing the public's business. It is in that direction that I see a very helpful and useful new dimension for CIOs.


Improvement Comes in Threes