One of the pivotal challenges to technology adoption is the implicit threat of dislocation for government IT workers. For anyone working in the public sector, job security is one of the key attractions. But what happens when an administration wants to cut costs or eliminate a deficit? What does a CIO do when the governor or mayor asks for technology solutions that might result in staff being moved, sent to the private sector or even laid off?

The answer is as uncertain as it is complicated. And when technology pits CIOs against public employee unions, the battle can be bloody. So the question becomes: In today's world of technology, automation and outsourcing, how do CIOs forge relationships with the very unions created to prevent them from doing what they've been asked to do?


Uncharted Waters
It's been under way for decades outside of government -- the downsizing, the relocating, the outsourcing. And many of these employee nightmare scenarios spring from the influx of technology that marches forever onward, streamlining enterprises and doing jobs that once required human beings.

Just as consumerism has driven business to become available 24/7, the public also demands their government be similarly available. Combining this increased demand with diminished budgets means CIOs often have no choice but to pursue a technology strategy that cuts costs while increasing efficiency. But the dark side of such technology endeavors can be that employees, once certain about their job with government, could become obsolete. And so, employee unions intervene to protect their members from the technological onslaught.

In recent years, government IT deployments -- from outsourcing to automation -- have made headlines. Some have been spectacular successes while others resulted in failure. In many of these situations, a CIO tried to strike a balance between the good of the government and the good of the employee -- all while facing an administration hungry for results and a union determined to keep its members employed.

"It's not the employees' fault. They are where they are; we put them there," said Virginia CIO Lem Stewart, who knows outsourcing's challenges. "What I try to do, if there is a significant effort under way -- like the one we're involved with that had an impact on some 900 employees -- I get them involved very early in the discussions and use them in an advisory capacity to help construct what would be transitional issues related to employees in the world of outsourcing."

Stewart oversaw one of the largest IT outsourcing projects in state government history. Under his watch, Virginia outsourced its entire IT infrastructure and two-thirds of its IT workers to Northrop Grumman. The resulting Virginia Information Technologies Agency has been heralded as a model of government IT outsourcing.

But Stewart didn't have to face any union challenges. He said he understands the difficulties presented by unionized IT shops, however, and offered his take on what it took to make his effort a success.

In this particular case, he explained, employees formed an advisory group that served as a liaison with the team that was negotiating the new partnership contract. "So we took into account what their concerns are, what the risks are," Stewart said, "and ultimately constructed what employees felt was -- while it was a transitional thing and a significant change for them -- fair and reasonable. It came out exceptionally well for us. We weren't expecting to get 67 percent of our staff to join the new partnership the first week. I attribute a lot of that to the fact we responded early on and incorporated those concerns and issues."


The Pennsylvania Project
Do these words of wisdom hold up when the CIO must manage a union that is potentially hostile to such a project? Former Pennsylvania CIO