2007 Annual Report, 2007 July 1

Taking steps to improve 
digital government
A N N U A L 
R E P O R T
07
C O N T E N T S
 1 Taking Steps to Improve Government
 2 Mobile Technology in the Public Sector: It’s more than just the laptop
 6 Regional Coordination: Exploring new response capability
 10 The Performance Measurement Puzzle
 14 A Capability-based View of Government IT Innovation
 18 Projects
 23 Disseminating Knowledge
 26 Resources from CTG
 28 Scholarly Papers
 30 Academics
 31 2007 Financial Portfolio
 32 Project Partners
 33 Staff and Standing Committee Members
© 2008 The Research Foundation of State University of New York
M I S S I O N
The Center for Technology in Government works with government to develop 
well-informed information strategies that foster innovation and enhance the 
quality and coordination of public services. We carry out this mission through applied 
research and partnership projects that address the policy, management, and 
technology dimensions of information use in the public sector.
Taking steps to improve 
digital government
2007 Annual Report
1
I
n this year’s Annual Report, you will find news of a broad scope of CTG projects 
to improve government, ranging from deploying mobile technology to protect 
children at risk, to preserving eastern hardwood forests, to guarding our 
telecommunications infrastructure, to advising governments on IT development 
as near as Albany County, NY and as far away as China and Turkey. 
There are four in-depth articles on subjects of particular importance for the current and future development 
of government information resources. Each article provides a review of our overall results, in addition to more 
in depth links to related project reports. 
• The mobile technology article explores how New York State deployed laptops and other mobile devices for 
child protective service workers. The lessons from our assessment studies point to better ways of integrating 
new technologies in complex human services environments. 
• A related article reviews the issues in performance measurement that emerged from our work on public 
return on investment analysis and performance management projects. We discuss both the promise of 
performance measurement to improve government and the limitations of current methods and models. 
• In another area of concern for performance, the article on regional coordination explores how improvements 
in emergency response can result from better information sharing and coordination structures across state 
boundaries. 
• How to improve information sharing capability, as well as capability for other demanding government 
actions, is the focus of the fourth article. It reports on the new frameworks for understanding and enhancing 
specific capabilities developed in recent CTG projects. 
CTG also had the chance this past year to conduct a self-study of all our work since its founding in 1993. 
That review started in the fall of 2007. The self-study report was completed in January 2008 and is available 
on the CTG Web site. Preparing the report was a valuable opportunity to review and reflect upon CTG’s 
outstanding record of accomplishment and to set the stage for continued success. 
We thank the many government professionals, corporate partners, and academic researchers who have 
contributed to our 2007 accomplishments. As we work with government on all levels in the U.S. and expand our 
efforts internationally, we will continue to share results in ways we hope will benefit those who face the daily 
challenges, risks, and unknowns of investments in information driven innovation.
Center for Technology in Government
O
ne of the most difficult problems facing government managers who want to implement 
new technology is anticipating how it will affect work. Of course, the primary goal is to 
improve performance. However, it is nearly impossible to take into account all the human, 
organizational, and external influences that may impact how well that goal is achieved. Until the 
technology is put to work, planning is often little more than speculation. This is particularly true 
with mobile technology, which may have substantial potential, when combined with wireless 
networks, to expand the time, locations, and effectiveness of many types of government work. 
Fully exploiting this potential, however, presents a complex problem for government managers.
Mobile Technology in the Public Sector: 
It’s more than just the laptop
Center for Technology in Government
Finding the right balance between 
what the individual wants, the realities 
of the work, the device capabilities, 
and the overall connectivity options 
can help guide public managers in 
making the best technology choice. 
2
2007 Annual Report
comfortable using. Some people may be very comfortable 
using a laptop, while others may prefer to dictate their notes 
via voice recognition software on a laptop or using a cell 
phone to call a telephonic dictation service. Taking into 
consideration individualities when selecting a technology 
can also help with buy-in and acceptance. People may be 
more willing to try something if they know that management 
spent time understanding their needs. 
Nature of the Work 
The nature of the work plays a tremendous role in choosing 
a mobile technology. Depending on the focus of the work and 
the type of work (non-routine and less structured or highly 
automated and structured) some technologies may not fit. For 
example, transportation professionals who monitor critical 
infrastructure such as roads and bridges may need different 
technologies than a foster care caseworker who interviews 
families for potential child placement. Field work within each 
profession or area of government is situated within its own 
mission, functions, policies, and practices, so not every 
technology will work the same way within every context. 
For example, CPS caseworkers spend a considerable 
amount of time interviewing families and observing home-life 
situations. Using some types of technology in this intimate 
environment therefore may not be productive. One of the 
caseworker’s goals is to establish a rapport with the family, 
which is primarily done by making eye contact, actively 
listening, observing the surroundings, and showing physical 
signs of attentiveness. Subsequently, in this situation, 
using a wireless laptop within someone’s home may not be 
practical, but rather using it immediately after the visit to 
quickly recall conversations and surroundings can improve 
the timeliness and accuracy of documentation. 
On the contrary, public utility workers who monitor and 
service electrical, gas, water, and wastewater systems 
must also take detailed readings and document findings, 
but in this context the goals are different, because they are 
not also charged with establishing relationships. Therefore, 
using a handheld device to document numerical or 
technical infrastructure conditions can be used in real time. 
Capability of Technology 
Different mobile technologies offer a range of capabilities 
when out in the field. Some technologies, when considered 
independently, cannot perform a host of functions. Cross 
referencing critical work tasks with each technology’s 
capabilities will show how much can be accomplished from 
the field. For example, a cell phone can be used to make phone 
calls and to dictate notes to a telephonic dictation system, 
2007 Annual Report
Recent work at CTG provides some valuable information 
to help government decision makers deal with these issues. 
This opportunity came in a project to assess how laptop use 
affected child protective service work (CPS) in New York 
State. In this project (Assessing Mobile Technologies in Child 
Protective Services), the NYS Office of Children and Family 
Services (OCFS) engaged CTG to conduct an independent 
assessment of the use of mobile technologies in CPS casework. 
OCFS took a systematic, staged approach to deployment 
and testing these mobile technologies that yielded a large 
amount of useful information about the policy, management, 
and organizational influences on integrating technology into a 
mobile, human service workforce.
H O W  D O  I N D I V I D U A L S  A N D  T H E 
E N V I R O N M E N T  A F F E C T  M O B I L I T Y ? 
W
hen technology is put into the hands of front line 
government professionals, it becomes quickly 
apparent how and where the technology fits into 
their specific work. That fit will depend on the individual and 
his or her work preferences, the nature of the work itself, 
on the capabilities of the technology, and on factors in the 
environment; all of these elements can have an impact on 
whether mobile technologies are readily adopted and used 
effectively. Every factor is important in its own right and in 
combination with others. For example, working in a car 
between appointments in the summer may be feasible for a 
CPS worker in rural upstate New York, but not in the winter.
Individual Factors
Individual differences among workers can play an important 
role in how mobile technologies are ultimately used. One size 
does not fit all. Each person brings his or her own history, 
experience, and personal circumstances to any work position, 
along with already formulated general attitudes and preferences. 
Since mobile technologies are used to increase mobility while 
completing work functions, these personal circumstances 
and attitudes will play an important role in their adoption. 
Factors such as where a person lives in relation to work 
and modes of available transportation can affect his or her 
ability to use mobile technologies. Some people have long 
commutes via public transportation and will take advantage 
of this time to do work. Others may not feel safe or 
comfortable working with an expensive piece of technology 
on public transportation or in other crowded areas. In rural 
areas where connectivity is unreliable, “connecting” from 
home may not be an option. 
In addition, the skill sets that people amass throughout 
their careers impact which technologies they are most 
3
but in most cases cannot be used for documentation or 
retrieving information. Digital pens can be used in the field, but 
must also be accompanied with a PC or laptop to digitize 
the information. In CPS work, CTG found that wirelessly 
connected laptops provide more capabilities for both receiving 
and entering information than any other device tested. 
To create opportunities to work in multiple locations one 
should determine if the chosen technology offers the quickest 
and easiest way. Is the technology adding steps to work 
processes or is it making work more streamlined? For 
example, documentation is a common function performed 
in the field. In its simplest form, the steps of documentation 
are to move data gathered while doing work in the field into 
a digital format so that it can be stored electronically. Boiling 
down the number of steps in this process can maximize time, 
so it is important to carefully study the steps involved in 
taking information from an analog to digital state with different 
mobile technologies. 
Devices and Connectivity 
Device and accessory characteristics play an important role 
in how or even if the technology gets used. If a device is 
heavy and short on battery time, workers may decide to leave 
it behind at the office to avoid physical discomfort. Devices 
that are light, yet durable, that fit into work bags and have a 
long battery life are more likely to be used. 
Connectivity is one of the most pivotal components of 
mobility. As mobile and wireless are terms that are interchanged 
often, connectivity is the foundation to constant access. 
Workers in rural areas or urban neighborhoods with tall 
buildings may find various limitations in connectivity that 
limit the benefits of a mobile device. As such, if establishing 
and maintaining a connection with a device is difficult, it 
can easily lead to a level of frustration where the workers 
don’t want to deal with it. 
Finding the right balance between what the individual 
wants, the realities of the work, the device capabilities, 
and the overall connectivity options can help guide public 
managers in making the best technology choice. 
D O E S  T H E  O R G A N I Z A T I O N  S U P P O R T  M O B I L I T Y ? 
W
hen government agencies decide to support 
their staff by offering mobile technologies, it is 
sometimes seen as strictly a technology project. 
In reality, mobile adoption is an organizationwide change 
that needs programmatic and policy attention. Introducing 
technology means that the work conditions are changed 
and the environment is modified, therefore existing policies, 
practices, and regulations may need to be updated or even 
created. Government managers need to decide exactly 
how mobile they really want their workforce to be and take 
the appropriate measures to ensure that level of mobility. 
Revisiting current policies to make certain that they are 
still valid and appropriate for the new environment is critical. 
The types of policies and practices that seem to be affected 
by increased mobility include working from home, work time 
scheduling, compensation for work outside normal hours, 
and ensuring privacy and security of government data. But 
policies aren’t the only area needing attention. Established 
technical infrastructure must be reviewed to identify if and 
how it can support a more mobile workforce. Maintaining 
devices and infrastructure that remains on site is different from 
maintaining ones that are in constant movement. 
Policies 
One of the goals of introducing mobile technologies is to 
enable workers to complete work functions outside of the 
traditional office. In many cases, this includes doing work at 
home, either within or after regular work hours. However, 
many government organizations do not have policies that 
address working from home or they have policies prohibiting 
it. In either case, policies or lack thereof could hinder the 
intended productivity gains or mobility of workers. If the goal 
is to make the professional as mobile as possible, then 
developing policies that support this goal is essential. 
For example, if CPS caseworkers have wirelessly connected 
laptops, they can receive case information anywhere. This 
means they would not have to commute to the office first 
thing in the morning before making home visits; they could 
check all files from home then go straight to their visits. In 
another example, state lottery representatives also spend a 
large portion of their time in the field inspecting lottery 
machines in local businesses on a regular basis. All information 
about the machine, location, and environment must be 
collected. Allowing these representatives to finish entering 
data from home would increase efficiency in visiting all the 
locations they must inspect each day. 
The policies for overtime and compensatory time can 
present concerns if there is no provision for compensation for 
working with the mobile technology after regular work hours. 
If the technology is a change for the organization, it may 
require them to look at the processes that govern overtime 
M O B I L E  T E C H N O L O G Y  I N  T H E  P U B L I C  S E C T O R
Center for Technology in Government
4
Mobile government, or m-government, is a term 
broadly defined as “government’s efforts to provide 
information and services to public employees, citizens, 
businesses, and nonprofit organizations through 
wireless communication networks and mobile devices.” 
However, the terms mobile and wireless are often used 
interchangeably, as mobile implies technologies that 
are portable and wireless implies that a device can be 
connected wirelessly to local or wide area networks.
and compensatory time. In some cases, management 
practices are such that overtime is only for extra time spent 
in the office. Compensating for work not completed in the 
office may have to be tied to production of deliverables or 
written descriptions of work completed. 
System Design 
Integrating mobile technologies into existing systems will 
require varying amounts of organizational resources and 
effort. For example, some technologies require a change in 
overall network design, such as the introduction of wirelessly 
connected laptops, while other technologies do not require 
any back-office reconfigurations. Technologies such as cell 
phones and PDAs may not require changes, however, some 
handheld devices and almost all wirelessly connected laptops 
and tablets that connect directly to a central information 
system will generally cause a need for configuration, policy, 
or general practice changes. In many cases, all direct access 
into a central information system is governed by specific 
security rules and regulations, some set forth by the agency 
and others by governing bodies. Subsequently, moving 
through the connection process may result in routing users 
through a series of time consuming log-ons, sometimes 
negating any efficiencies realized by the mobility. 
Allowing government workers to do work from multiple 
locations is not just a technology issue, or even a mobility 
one—it’s an organizational change and a leap in the direction 
of conducting government work differently. This type of large 
scale change requires multiple perspectives to help identify 
the range of factors that can promote or hinder the way work 
will be done. 
I S  I N C R E A S E D  M O B I L I T Y  T H E  G O A L ? 
I
n many cases, when an organization agrees to buy mobile 
technologies the reasons are centered around increasing 
workforce mobility or increasing the ability to do work in 
the field. But if you dig deeper, descriptions of mobility are 
followed up with statements like “change in productivity,” 
“using time more efficiently,” “increased opportunities to work,” 
and “increased satisfaction and morale.” All of these are 
important and justified goals but are usually not communicated 
as much as increased mobility—at least in the beginning. 
Asking questions such as “what change are we expecting?” 
will help start to uncover assumptions about how others 
think mobility will impact the work. 
Productivity 
Increasing employee productivity is often the number one 
reason for adopting mobile strategies. Mobile technologies 
allow employees to communicate in new ways and access 
and enter information from critical applications without 
returning to the office. Productivity is often described as being 
more timely, doing more, or catching up on work. While 
productivity gains can be realized with mobile technologies, 
its important to specifically state what changes are expected. 
In the case of the CPS caseworker, changes in productivity 
were specifically stated as more timely documentation of 
progress notes or a decrease of backlog in documentation, 
which results in more case closings. Identifying how 
productivity might change with the technology can certainly 
help in setting expectations before it’s deployed. 
Satisfaction 
Increased satisfaction and higher employee morale is always 
a good thing. If people feel valued because the organization 
has chosen to invest in technologies for them, their overall 
performance may increase. More specifically, mobile 
technologies may give some employees increased autonomy, 
which can result in their feeling more trusted and valued 
within the organization. This validation can be just as powerful 
as productivity gains. In many organizations that are 
constrained by tight resources and budget deficits, employees 
may not always get the resources needed to do their jobs. 
Efforts that increase morale could bolster job satisfaction 
and potentially affect performance. Stating in a public way 
that investments in mobile technologies are an investment in 
the people may potentially be one of the best ways to get 
and keep everyone on board. 
C O N C L U S I O N 
T
he notions about how mobile technologies will be used 
are not always what actually happens. This is normal 
and many times, expected. Technology sneaks into 
workplaces and impacts the environment in ways that most 
do not think about until it’s at the front door. In the case of 
NYS OCFS, one of the original assumptions was that the 
mobile device would be used mostly in court and at or 
in-between appointments. However, in all three deployments, 
CTG found that caseworkers most frequently used the 
mobile technologies at home. This was a little surprising in 
the first effort, but was then confirmed as it emerged as a 
major finding in the subsequent efforts. These sort of findings 
that differ from original assumptions make it necessary for 
government managers to take proactive steps to address 
the human and organizational issues that may affect mobility. 
Meghan Cook, Program Manager, Center for Technology in 
Government
2007 Annual Report
5
Center for Technology in Government
Regional Coordination: 
Exploring new response capability
A 
crisis rarely occurs in one jurisdiction or community; they tend to cross multiple 
geographic and organizational boundaries. The effects of the World Trade Center 
attacks, for example, extended far beyond New York City and the effects of Hurricane 
Katrina were felt far beyond the city of New Orleans. Events such as these continue to 
generate new insights into the coordination across boundaries necessary to ensure effective 
response to incidents—both natural and man-made. 
“The cost of not being prepared to 
share information, to coordinate our 
responses, and to work together 
is well understood. If we are 
unprepared, the next event will cause 
incalculable human misery…” 
World Health Organization, Nov 2007
Center for Technology in Government
6
2007 Annual Report
incidents is unlimited, the resources to respond are not; 
building coordination capability is a necessary component of 
response preparedness.
The nation’s critical infrastructure is receiving an increasing 
amount of attention in terms of creating new and more 
coordinated response capability. Key stakeholders are 
coming together in a variety of sub-domains of the critical 
infrastructure such as power, communications, transportation, 
and water to ensure continuity of operations. One strategy 
being implemented in some domains and explored in others 
is regional coordination. Regional coordination links together 
stakeholders in close proximity to one another to pursue 
joint or similar goals and responsibilities.
Regional coordination efforts are being organized to provide 
a forum for teamwork, collaboration, and cooperation to 
occur through physical and virtual co-location. The challenge 
to coordinating incident response efforts within regions is 
that coordinated response requires leveraging currently held 
resources in innovative and potentially more efficient ways, as 
well as establishing new business processes, communication 
flows, and a system of governance that satisfies the needs 
of all stakeholders. In addition, trust, collaboration, and 
timely cross-boundary information sharing all play a pivotal 
role in this new model. 
W H A T  I S  “ I N F R A S T R U C T U R E ” ?
The basic facilities, services, and installations needed 
for the functioning of a community or society, such as 
transportation and communications systems, water and 
power lines, and public institutions including schools, 
post offices, and prisons. 
American Heritage Dictionary
Information for 
Preparedness
• Physical, social, and 
economic attributes of 
the community
• Likely threats and 
vulnerabilities
• Resources and capabilities 
for response
• Action and coordination 
plans for foreseeable 
events
• Business continuity plans
Information for 
Immediate Response
• Immediate and ongoing 
assessment of damage 
and danger
• Knowledge about 
continuing or ancillary 
threats
• Availability and capability 
of response assets
• Deployment and 
coordination of responders
Information for Recovery 
and Restoration of Services
• Nature and extent of 
damage to infrastructure 
and services
• Identification and 
assessment of needs 
and problems
• Availability and capabilities 
of recovery and restoration 
assets in the wider 
community
• Deployment and 
coordination of assets 
and status of recovery
Information for 
the Public
• Immediate and emerging 
threats to civilians and 
guidance for personal 
protection
• Ongoing advisement of 
continuing threats and 
what to do
• Ongoing advisement of 
recovery and restoration 
activities
• Continuing awareness 
and education
T A B L E  1 :  C R I S I S - R E L A T E D  I N F O R M A T I O N  N E E D S
2007 Annual Report
7
The 9/11 Commission highlighted the need for a new kind 
of cross-boundary coordination in emergency response 
efforts, stating that “the attacks on 9/11 demonstrated that 
even the most robust emergency response capabilities can 
be overwhelmed if an attack is large enough. Teamwork, 
collaboration, and cooperation at an incident site are critical 
to a successful response.” But as these events have taught 
us, coordination capability must be built long before a crisis. 
Investment in coordination prior to an incident is necessary to 
develop real understanding about roles and responsibilities, 
to build the institutional and individual relationships necessary 
to carry out those responsibilities, and to outline the 
requirements of an effective response. The range of possible 
of services, and for the public (see Table 1 on page 7). 
These information needs span the duration of the crisis and 
extend from preparation to assessment. 
Information was critical to the 9/11 recovery effort, where 
“it’s existence, availability, quality and distribution clearly 
affected, sometimes dramatically, the effectiveness and 
timeliness of the response and recovery efforts.” The most 
recent draft of the new National Response Framework, 
which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
published in January of 2008, speaks to the critical role of 
information in crisis response. 
For an effective response, expertise and experience 
must be leveraged to support decision-making and 
to summarize and prioritize information rapidly. 
Information must be gathered accurately at the scene 
and effectively communicated to those who need it. 
To be successful, clear lines of information flow and 
a common operating picture are essential.
To provide an effective response to an incident, disaster 
response teams need pertinent details about that incident. 
In the most basic terms, they need information. When a 
response team is built from multiple organizations or relying 
on information from multiple organizations, coordination 
across the boundaries of those organizations becomes key. 
I N F O R M A T I O N  S H A R I N G 
G
overnments around the world are increasingly 
turning to information sharing as a lead strategy for 
developing response capacity for problems in a wide 
range of program and policy areas. Developing cross-boundary 
information sharing to support government response 
capacities requires change—in some cases, significant 
change—in policies, procedures, processes, and systems. 
These changes require new capability in technology certainly, 
but also in group decision making, learning, understanding, 
trust building, and conflict resolution, among others. Many 
organizations are just beginning to understand how difficult 
it is to create information sharing capability both in normal 
times and in times of crisis. 
R E G I O N A L  C O O R D I N A T I O N  A N D  T H E 
T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S  I N F R A S T R U C T U R E
T
he telecommunications infrastructure represents 
a unique set of challenges to coordination efforts 
because while privately owned, it is regulated by 
government. Government agencies and private sector 
organizations are jointly responsible for the communications 
infrastructure. Ultimately, continuity of operations, both 
governmental and private sector, is at the heart of any critical 
infrastructure incident response effort. Regional coordination 
strategies have the potential to improve these response 
efforts if they enhance the capability that exists without 
creating unnecessary duplication of effort. At the core of any 
strategy is securing coordinated access to real-time data 
to support informed decision making across four stakeholder 
groups: government, telecommunications providers, the 
private sector, and citizens. 
Drawing on the reviews of the 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina 
responses, which cited the need for stronger national as well 
as regional preparedness, the organizations responsible for 
the telecommunications infrastructure are exploring ways to 
develop regional coordination capability. In particular, they 
are seeking ways to respond to the broad recommendation 
that coordination efforts must “be tailored to meet the needs 
of specific regions.” The recommendations, together with 
success in efforts at the national level and encouragement 
from the telecommunications community, have raised interest 
among states and localities as well as providers about the 
creation of regional coordination of telecommunications 
incident response as a complement to existing state and 
local level incident response capabilities. These coordination 
efforts have focused in four key areas: information needs, 
information sharing, relationship building, and the public value 
of coordinated response efforts. 
I N F O R M A T I O N : 
K E Y  T O  A  C O O R D I N A T E D  R E S P O N S E
T
o respond to an incident, regardless of its severity, 
managers of the critical infrastructure need information 
about that incident—both their own and that of others—
in order to react. Successful incident response cannot 
occur without reliable access to accurate information. CTG’s 
report, Information, Technology, and Coordination: Lessons 
from the World Trade Center Response, identified four 
critical categories of crisis-related information needs: for 
preparedness, immediate response, recovery and restoration 
“The time of a crisis is not the occasion to start sharing business cards!” 
– Participant, Protect New York Conference 
R E G I O N A L  C O O R D I N A T I O N
Center for Technology in Government
8
C R O S S - B O U N D A R Y  A N D  C R O S S - S E C T O R 
R E L A T I O N S H I P S 
R
esearch and experience show that trust plays a 
significant role in the building of public-private 
partnerships where issues of confidentiality, proprietary 
information, and differing organizational cultures may arise 
and clash. Although both government and the private sector 
may have similar goals, they have different expectations about 
the type and amount of information that needs to be shared 
and how that information should be used once shared 
Within the telecommunications infrastructure, 
telecommunications incident reporting requires adept 
management of both organizational and technological 
resources. While private sector telecommunications providers 
are required to report information about threats to the critical 
infrastructure, government regulators still heavily rely on 
trust and cooperation as a means to gather sensitive data. 
Trust (or mistrust) develops out of the joint experience of 
working together. By observing how different individuals or 
organizations deal with risk and vulnerability, we learn to 
expect certain behaviors. Managing the cross-boundary 
sharing of information about telecommunications security 
requires sensitivity to both government and private sector 
needs, while remaining true to the public value of ensuring 
a secure communication network.
T H E  P U B L I C  V A L U E  O F 
R E G I O N A L  C O O R D I N A T I O N
A
ltering a familiar and established crisis management 
response framework is a risky endeavor. The new 
response framework may duplicate the same problems 
in the current response or, worse yet, create new and 
unfamiliar problems. Ultimately, regional coordination should 
only be considered if it enhances the system that currently 
exists without institutionalizing redundancies. One way to assess 
the potential added value of new regional coordination 
capability is to use CTG’s Public Value Framework to consider 
the value in two ways: 
• By improving the value of the government itself from 
the perspective of the citizens, and
• By delivering specific benefits directly to persons, 
groups, or the public at large.
To enhance the public value of investments in regional 
coordination these efforts should produce response capability 
that increases both the likelihood for continuity of operations 
of government in times of crisis and the quality of service in 
normal times. 
I
n a recently completed CTG project focused 
on regional coordination for telecommunications 
incident reporting, key stakeholders from the 
telecommunications infrastructure in New York State 
brainstormed a list of recommendations for moving 
forward with regional coordination in that sector. Based 
on those specific recommendations and conclusions, 
CTG offers the following general recommendations 
for regional coordination:
1. Jointly establish guiding principles. Bring 
together key actors from across the sectors 
to collaboratively establish guiding principles.
2. Learn from others. Conduct current practices 
in regional coordination efforts. Research 
should specify focus on regional coordination 
of telecommunications incident response, in 
addition to models for governance and 
information sharing agreements of existing 
regional response efforts.
3. Learn from yourself. Increase knowledge 
sharing about information resources, practices, 
and capabilities among key stakeholders and 
avoid duplicating response capabilities in either 
the public or private sectors.
4. Act on new shared knowledge. Develop 
information flow models through collaborative 
group model building sessions to create shared 
understanding of where information is needed 
and how it gets to those places from where it is 
captured. Use new models of information flow 
and the results of recommendations 1, 2, and 3 
to create necessary policies, procedures, and 
systems.
5. Secure funding for continued exploration. 
Continue to assess progress and make 
assessments of impact as a strategy for securing 
funding for ongoing capability development efforts.
2007 Annual Report
9
Donna Canestraro, Program Manager, Center for 
Technology in Government
Center for Technology in Government
The Performance Measurement Puzzle
T
here is a simple and persuasive proposition that is quite common in government policy 
and practice: better measurements of performance will lead to overall improvements 
in government. That proposition is fundamental to any notion of governing as rational 
decision making, from at least as far back as the Program Planning and Budgeting 
Systems (PPBS) and government accountability movements in the 1960’s, up to the 
emergence of ComStat-style programs currently operating in many agencies. Performance 
measurement is central as well to the President’s Management Agenda for improving U.S. 
federal agency operations, and many similar initiatives that can be found in state agencies. 
In spite of this long history of concern with performance measurement, however, it remains 
a puzzling problem for governments at all levels. 
Center for Technology in Government
10
Actions and programs that make 
government more transparent, 
more just, or a better steward have 
added public value, a non-financial 
but nonetheless important aspect 
of performance.
2007 Annual Report
needed for a measurement effort. In the local policing 
project, the main issues were not availability, but usefulness 
of data. As the project report noted: 
The critical question … is not just can the department 
develop a set of categories, indicators, and measures that 
they believe will be useful in assessing their performance, 
but can Town management and the PD come to some 
consensus about these elements and agree to use them 
as the foundation of future examinations of department 
priorities, practices, and outcomes.
This question was ultimately resolved by identifying eleven 
broad performance categories aligned with the performance 
goals [see box above]. Indicators and measurements for 
each were then identified through broad participation of 
government managers and staff. The result was a performance 
measurement framework with broad support and a realistic 
set of measurements that could be collected and used 
without major disruption to existing operations.
This list illustrates a rather expansive response to the 
question of what to measure, in particular, how the performance 
of a police department or any other government unit can 
be perceived from different perspectives. The list includes 
measures relevant from the point of view of internal department 
operations, like officer safety and morale, along with others 
relevant from the point of view of the community at large, 
like public safety and responsiveness. When the scope of 
performance measurement is opened to this latter, public 
perspective, many more potential indicators and measurement 
problems are revealed as well.
Exploring some of these public value measurement 
problems was the focus of a different CTG project that 
developed a framework for assessing public returns on 
government IT investment. The performance perspective 
employed in that project identified performance goals in 
terms of a public value proposition, i.e., the value to the 
public returned from government operations or investments. 
Recent work here at CTG addressed some aspects of 
that puzzle and provided us with some reflections on 
government performance measurement. Those reflections 
involve three questions that are closely related, but speak 
to different parts of the overall puzzle:
1. What to measure. To be useful, measurement must 
probe beneath the general performance goals of 
government to employ specific indicators and data 
elements. However, identifying and agreeing on these 
can present daunting challenges. 
2. How to conduct valid measurement and analysis of the 
results. Measurement issues are central to the feasibility 
of performance assessment as well as its credibility. 
3. How to link the measurements to both operations and 
the longer term outcomes of government programs. 
Measuring outcomes alone is necessary, but not sufficient.
CTG explored these questions in projects at different 
levels of government and with varying goals and scopes of 
operation. They included work with one local government 
in New York State which sought to define and measure 
performance in a particular area of government: policing. That 
case clearly demonstrated why performance measurement 
is never neutral, with its potential to affect many aspects of 
government operations and stakeholder interests. 
Another project addressed the many questions involved 
in identifying and collecting the valid data needed for 
comprehensive performance measurement at the national 
level, across government agencies. In this project, the Turkish 
Ministry of Finance joined CTG in a workshop to help develop 
their governmentwide performance management program. The 
workshop focused on frameworks for linking budget-making 
to cost and operational data from government agencies and 
to evidence of the results they are intended to achieve. 
A third recent project took on the question of how to 
expand the scope of performance measurement. That effort 
focused on ways to include the public value of government 
IT investments; the social, economic, and political returns. 
Lessons from each of these projects help to fill in pieces of 
the performance measurement puzzle.
W H A T  T O  M E A S U R E ?
T
he scope of performance measurement can be 
problematic for several reasons. For any particular 
government program or activity there are sure to be 
multiple goals, stakeholders, and possible indicators of 
effectiveness. Some level of consensus about goals and 
priorities is necessary to mobilize the support and resources 
• Responsive to community needs
• Public safety
• Officer safety
• Officer morale
• Officer integrity 
• Effective internal controls
• Community recognition and support
• Incidences of crime
• Recognition by peers
• Efficient administrative procedures and operations
• Efficient and effective personnel management
Police Department Performance Categories
2007 Annual Report
11
That value proposition must be broadly conceived to 
do justice to the scope of government and how it affects 
individuals, groups, and both public and private organizations. 
The research in that project revealed an expanded way 
to describe public value in terms of six kinds of impacts 
governments can have on the interests of public stakeholders: 
• Financial—impacts on income, asset values, liabilities, 
entitlements, and other kinds of wealth or risks to any 
of them.
• Political—impacts on the ability to influence government 
actions or policy, or to participate in public affairs as a 
citizen or official.
• Social—impacts on family or community relationships, 
opportunity, status, or identity.
• Strategic—impacts on economic or political advantage or 
opportunities for future gain.
• Ideological—impacts on beliefs, moral or ethical values, 
or positions.
• Stewardship—impacts on the public’s view of government 
officials as faithful stewards in terms of public trust, integrity, 
and legitimacy.
Expanding the scope of government performance in this 
way brings into focus two distinct but equally important types 
of public value. One is performance in terms of the delivery 
of benefits directly to citizens. The other is performance that 
enhances the value of government itself as a public asset. 
Actions and programs that make government more transparent, 
more just, or a better steward have added public value, a 
non-financial but nonetheless important aspect of performance. 
This framework describes how to include both in public 
value assessments.
Such an expanded scope of performance measurement 
has both positive and negative implications. More things to 
measure means more cost and complexity in the measurement 
process. Increasing the scope of goals and measures can 
also greatly increase public expectations for government 
performance, with greater risk of disappointment and failure. 
Those concerns are discussed in more detail below. On the 
positive side, however, the greater the value potential of a 
government program or investment, the stronger the argument 
can be for mobilizing public support and resources. 
Neglecting an expanded view of public value propositions in 
performance measurement can result in lost opportunities to 
increase support and enthusiasm for government programs.
H O W  T O  M E A S U R E ?
T
he method issues in performance measurement for 
government are as diverse and complex as the functions 
of government itself. Even when there is clear consensus 
on and specification of goals and indicators, the problems 
of data validity, access, quality, and interpretation remain 
daunting. One performance category for the police department 
in the example above was “responsiveness to community 
needs.” While a laudable goal, the department could not rely 
on standard ways to identify, prioritize, or assign numbers 
to community needs or even to how “responsive” individual 
police actions might be. Similar problems inhabit most 
government performance goals and criteria. While hardly 
solving a wide range of these problems, the CTG project 
provided some valuable insights about measurement issues. 
One important insight is that improving performance 
measurement is a systemic process. In both the local police 
department and the Turkish Government projects, the 
measurement initiatives touched all parts of the governments. 
Changing data collection and reporting processes had human 
resource and business process impacts. Most existing data 
collection and reporting requirements remained in place, 
resulting in increased work loads or shifts in work processes. 
Existing information systems were not fully adequate to the 
new tasks. Establishing new information flows within and 
across organizational units can encounter many technical, 
managerial, and political barriers. Overcoming these barriers 
and constraints will require effective collaboration, strong 
managerial support, and close attention to what is feasible, 
as opposed to ideal, in terms of new data and analyses.
A second insight is that the work of performance 
measurement improvement should be seen as ongoing, rather 
than a one-time project with a fixed end date. Because of the 
complexity and cost of performance measurement initiatives, 
it is usually best to build them in phases. That will provide 
opportunities to adjust and adapt the design to what is learned 
along the way. The progress of CompStat and CityStat 
programs in several cities has been uneven and subject to 
development along the way, in spite of significant successes. 
The reinventing of the U.S. federal government, begun in the 
early 1990’s, and several follow-on initiatives have gone 
through modifications and will almost certainly continue to 
evolve. The Turkish Government’s performance management 
program is planned for phased deployment, with provisions 
for learning and adjustment over a multi-year period. As the 
capabilities and demands on government change, so must 
the mechanisms for performance measurement. 
It is also important to recognize that performance 
measurement has consequences. The results can be used 
T H E  P E R F O R M A N C E  M E A S U R E M E N T  P U Z Z L E
Center for Technology in Government
12
to reward, to punish, to change work practices, affect careers, 
and shift political power relationships. How measurement is 
designed and conducted is consequently of much more than 
just technical interest. Therefore the validity and integrity of 
performance measurements and their underlying data 
resources are always at risk. Mitigation of those risks is then 
an essential part of a good performance measurement design.
L I N K I N G  P E R F O R M A N C E  M E A S U R E M E N T 
T O  O P E R A T I O N S  A N D  O U T C O M E S
T
he linkage problems of interest here are bidirectional. 
That is, they involve the way performance measurement 
methods link in one direction to the operations and 
business processes within the government program, and in 
the other to the outcomes that represent performance. 
Measuring the outcomes alone is necessary but not sufficient. 
Without the linkages into the operations and business 
processes, there is no way to know where the results came 
from or how to intervene to improve them. Cost-effectiveness 
measures, for example, require knowing what resources 
went into creating a particular outcome as well as the value 
of the outcome itself. Thus one set of linkages extends into 
the operations and information resources of the government 
programs, the other into the environment where the results 
can be detected and measured. Each presents a different 
set of challenges to performance measurement.
The challenges related to the internal operations of 
government are typically a mix of resource constraints, 
inadequate data, and conflicts of interest. Expanded 
performance capability in a government agency requires new 
or re-allocated resources, often of a significant magnitude. 
The Turkish Government’s performance based management 
initiative, for example, called for new data collection and 
reporting procedures to eventually be implemented across 
all national government agencies. There were similar efforts 
included in the studies CTG conducted for the public value 
assessment project: governmentwide ERP implementations 
in Israel and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and one 
in the Ministry of Finance in Austria. All were multi-million 
dollar, multi-year initiatives that included major performance 
measurement components. Even though on a much smaller 
scale, the performance measures that emerged in the police 
department project described above included some substantial 
new data collection and reporting procedures. 
The need for these investments points out the importance 
of expanded data resources to track the processes that 
influence, generate, and document performance. The extensive 
cost accounting, process analysis, and activity reporting 
capabilities needed for performance measurement are seldom 
fully developed in governments. Financial management 
systems and management information systems may require 
major overhauls to produce the needed data.
That same challenge applies to the assessment of 
outcomes. Consider the performance assessment issues faced 
in a program to improve the nutritional health of a city’s 
homeless population. It may be relatively straightforward to 
count the number of meals served, the costs incurred, and 
the number of clients the program engages. But none of 
those measures directly reflect the nutritional health of the 
participants. That would require knowing much more about 
the health status and nutritional habits of the homeless 
population than is feasible to collect. Crude, indirect measures 
may be all that’s available. This necessity to often rely on 
problematic inferences to gauge performance is unfortunately 
common in most human service programs and represents a 
threat to the credibility and validity of many outcome measures.
A more serious threat to the validity of performance 
measurement can result from vulnerability of the data to 
manipulation, particularly when the measurement is linked 
to budgets or personnel evaluation. The risk of manipulation 
exists anytime a government worker reports, collects, or 
otherwise handles data in which they have a personal interest. 
Therefore, performance management systems typically go 
to considerable lengths to eliminate or control that kind of 
data tampering. Colleges that use student questionnaires to 
evaluate teaching, for example, do not allow the professor 
involved to administer or handle the results. In many cases, 
however, performance measurement systems rely on reporting 
from the workers whose performance is being evaluated. 
Those situations call for monitoring or auditing systems to 
preserve the integrity of the information resources.
These problems and challenges make clear that 
performance measurement in government will never be an 
exact science. There will almost certainly be contention 
both inside and outside government about any performance 
assessment, with many valid questions about the value of its 
results. However there is also great promise in the efforts to 
improve performance measurement capabilities. They can 
shed valuable new light on areas where real improvements 
are possible and where more efficient use can be made 
of public resources. Though less than perfect, these kinds 
of measurement initiatives can be very valuable learning 
experiences as a foundation for government improvements. 
Anthony M. Cresswell, Interim Director, Center for 
Technology in Government
2007 Annual Report
13
Center for Technology in Government
A Capability-based View 
of Government IT Innovation
T
he obvious difficulty and high failure rate of information technology (IT) innovations in 
government and elsewhere have been central concerns in much of CTG’s work over 
the past 15 years. Our first-hand experiences, coupled with reviews of the current 
research, highlight the importance of organizational capability as a critical success factor in 
IT innovation. It is clear that successful IT innovations, and the transformation they seek to 
support, depend at least as much on how well the organizations and individuals perform 
as on the chips, networks, and software. This finding led us, in turn, to further explore the 
concept of organizational capability and to work with government agencies to develop 
tools to enhance capability for IT innovation. 
Center for Technology in Government
14
For citizens to benefit from government 
investments in innovation, government 
agencies and their partners must be able to 
think innovatively as well as to act effectively. 
The most important innovation may be greater 
attention to the complexity of a particular 
IT initiative and of the context within which 
that initiative will be carried out.
2007 Annual Report
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L  C A P A B I L I T Y 
F O R  I T  I N N O V A T I O N 
C
TG recognized the need for a more useful way to 
think about organizational capability for IT innovations. 
The key problem in most existing approaches is that 
they are too static and based on oversimplified models. As a 
result, they do not reflect the high complexity and intricate 
dynamics of capability as it played out in the 
projects that were part of our research. 
Some of the most prevalent approaches, for example, 
treat capability as a kind of maturity. That is, an organization’s 
ability to achieve some goal, such as a new software 
application, is a matter of its place on a maturity scale; each 
successive level represents higher capability, building on the 
preceding one. Assessing this maturity is commonly based on 
ratings of many specific performance and resource factors. 
This kind of maturity model identifies many of the important 
factors in software development capability, for example, but 
largely ignores the interactive aspect of complexity. What’s 
more, the maturity model suggests a kind of generalized 
capability across known tasks and processes, whereas 
innovation projects present organizations with new and often 
unanticipated task requirements. Other prevalent ways of 
describing capability are based on existing work routines or 
combinations of resources available in the organization, yet 
none seemed adequate.
Part of the problem is the variety in both the every-day 
usage of “capability” and in formal theories. Much of the 
language is familiar to today’s managers: performance, 
accomplishment, having the legal right to perform, 
competent, and having or showing general efficiency. One 
dictionary definition includes competency in action and in a 
legal sense, as in competent to enter into a contract. This 
variety in concepts, combined with lack of attention to the 
importance of interactions, leads to overly simplistic and 
inconsistent ways of assessing and building capability. Failure 
to address the multiple dimensions of capability can then 
create challenges for those who seek to be innovative and for 
those who rely on innovation as core to their government 
improvement agendas. 
Our work has been aimed at helping government 
leaders develop a broader understanding of capability as 
multi-dimensional. This broader understanding can extend 
discussions about innovation beyond the technical aspects to 
address policy and organizational capability and the ways they 
influence each other. Technical advances make many innova-
tions possible, but technology is not enough. Research and 
experience tells us that innovation planning and management 
regularly fails to critically assess the capability to perform the 
actions necessary for success. As a consequence, new 
projects and innovative programs are unable to deliver on 
the promises of government transformation. 
L I N K I N G  C A P A B I L I T Y  T O  C O N T E X T
T
he multidimensional view of capability helps innovators 
take into account the importance of context. Our 
experience in projects and research highlights the 
necessity of understanding capability in the complex context 
of innovative IT projects. Drawing on these experiences and 
new understanding we can identify four key characteristics 
of capability:
• Multidimensional—it is made up of several dimensions, 
all of which contribute to overall capability.
• Complementary—high or low overall levels of capability 
can result from different combinations of factors, high 
levels in some dimensions can often compensate for lower 
levels in others.
• Dynamic—it can increase or diminish due to changes 
within an initiative or in its external environment.
• Specific to its setting—some elements of capability apply 
to all settings, but capability for any particular project 
must be assessed relative to its own specific objectives 
and environment.
Several projects at CTG have focused on linking this view 
of capability to specific context characteristics. These projects 
have focused on intergovernmental information sharing, digital 
preservation partnerships, and electronic records access 
programs. Experience in each of these projects showed how 
specific capabilities necessary in that context contributed 
to success. We used that experience to then create toolkits 
designed to assess and help enhance capability.
Roughly, by a complex system I mean one made up of 
a large number of parts that interact in a nonsimple way. 
In such systems the whole is more than the sum of its 
parts, not in an ultimate, meta-physical sense but in the 
important pragmatic sense that, given the properties 
of the parts and the laws of their inter-action, it is not a 
trivial matter to infer the properties of the whole.
Herbert A. Simon
The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd Ed.
2007 Annual Report
15
The broad view of capability dimensions used in these 
projects includes grouping the dimensions into two closely 
related but distinct groups:
1. capability to create effective collaboration across 
organizational and governmental boundaries; and
2. capability to develop new systems and procedures. 
The first, collaboration capability, includes dimensions 
that reflect the ability to work together and make plans and 
decisions in new ways. This type of capability is often lacking. 
Dimensions in the second group reflect the ability to build 
systems and inter-organizational processes. This is historically 
where most attention is directed. However, in more recent 
research, as illustrated in the case of Oregon’s response 
to the West Nile Virus outbreak, practitioners increasingly 
recognize the need to build capability in both areas. 
C R E A T I N G  T W O  K I N D S  O F  C A P A B I L I T Y 
F O R  I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y
I
n 2004, Oregon was one of the last states in the United 
States to experience human cases of the West Nile Virus 
outbreak that began in the late 1990s. Interoperability 
was a central part of the response coordination effort and 
required new levels of cooperation between state and with 
federal agencies. One county-level communicable disease 
expert involved in response efforts found that for agencies to 
achieve interoperability on a more systemic and institutional 
level, they must understand each other’s missions and 
needs. To achieve this level of understanding, she said, 
agencies go through several stages of collaboration. The first 
stage is shake hands: meet and get to know the people 
from agencies you will be working with. The second stage is 
to coordinate planning and training with agencies through 
exercises and routine responses. Only after going through 
these first two stages can agencies reach the stage of true 
interoperability. Building this collaboration capability takes time 
and resources, and only through legislative and executive 
support can individual agencies begin to work through the 
first two stages and be prepared for interoperability when 
and where it’s needed. 
Results from this and related projects reveal a more robust 
understanding of the characteristics and components of 
capability in the context of government IT innovation. This 
new understanding provides a foundation for a transition 
from a technology-based view of government transformation 
to a capability-based view.
A  C A P A B I L I T Y - B A S E D  V I E W  O F  I T  I N N O V A T I O N
U
sing this new understanding, we set out to model 
capability for IT innovations of various kinds in a 
different way. Our approach was to focus on a 
particular type of IT innovation that was both an important 
goal for government agencies and one that might yield new 
insights. We began with information sharing and integration 
in the criminal justice domain. With support from the 
U.S. Department of Justice, we recruited a group of over 
20 criminal justice professionals and researchers from across 
the U.S. who were engaged in information sharing initiatives. 
They worked with CTG to help build a new capability model 
and assessment method from the ground up. This group 
worked with CTG research staff over a two-year period to 
develop and test a new capability framework and assessment 
tool. That tool was well received by the criminal justice 
community and is now being used in information sharing 
initiatives in government agencies. 
The tool, and the framework it is built upon, treat capability 
for creating new information sharing systems as both 
multi-dimensional and multi-organizational; complex systems 
with interacting parts. The way we describe the overall 
health of a person, for example, might be based on a profile 
of many measures, such as blood pressure, cholesterol 
levels, fitness, etc., not a single measure or the health of a 
single organ. Similarly, information sharing involves multiple 
agencies or parts of agencies. Therefore, a capability 
framework must include individual organizational units along 
with how they interact to create a capable collective.
This premise requires a multi-level rating or assessment 
scheme. In CTG’s approach, the participants in an individual 
organization create the capability profile by rating their unit 
on 16 dimensions. The rating on each dimension is the 
aggregate of their ratings on several sub-dimensions that 
reflect a more detailed understanding of each dimension 
(180 sub-dimensions overall). The 16 main dimensions and 
their sub-dimensions were developed by the project team, 
based on their knowledge and experience, and modified by 
field testing. Table 1 shows how this dimensional framework 
links to previous research on capability and innovation, in 
particular to four main organizational challenges to successful 
innovation. Using the same approach of a combined expert 
panel and literature review, a similar set of dimensions 
and assessment methods has been developed to support 
the government archive and library communities in the 
development of partnership programs for the preservation 
of state government information in digital form.
Center for Technology in Government
16
A  C A P A B I L I T Y - B A S E D  V I E W  O F  G O V E R N M E N T  I T  I N N O V A T I O N
Dimensions 
 
                         Challenges
 
Mobilizing  
Uncertainty   
Aligning 
Operational
 
Resources 
& Knowledge 
Rountines 
Control &
 
 
Acquisition 
& Practices 
Coordination
T A B L E  1 .  C A P A B I L I T Y  D I M E N S I O N S  A N D  I N N O V A T I O N  C H A L L E N G E S
Business Model & Architecture Readiness 
 
X 
X
Collaboration Readiness 
 
 
X 
X
Data Assets & Requirements 
 
X 
X
Provisions for Governance 
X 
 
 
X
Information Policies 
 
X 
X 
X
Leaders & Champions 
X 
 
 
X
Organizational Compatibility 
 
X 
X
Performance Evaluation 
 
X 
X 
X
Project Management 
X 
 
 
X
Resource Management 
X 
 
 
X
Secure Environment 
 
X 
X 
X
Stakeholder Engagement 
X 
X
Strategic Planning 
X 
 
 
X
Technology Acceptance 
 
 
X 
X
Technology Compatibility 
 
 
X 
X
Technology Knowledge 
 
X 
X 
X
C O N C L U S I O N
M
obilizing resources, uncertainty and knowledge 
acquisition, aligning routines and practices, and 
operational control and coordination are four well 
known challenges to innovation. How these challenges play 
out in particular IT innovations in the governmental arena 
depends on the capabilities of the team driving that innovation, 
as well as capability within the broader policy and organizational 
environment of the initiative. The capability-based view 
offered here allows for a more specific consideration of the 
complexity of an IT innovation in context; an examination of 
the 16 dimensions of capability by each participating agency 
and then collectively across those same agencies provides 
for a more nuanced and detailed understanding of what is 
actually possible. 
For citizens to benefit from government investments in 
innovation, government agencies and their partners must be 
able to think innovatively as well as to act effectively. The 
most important innovation may be greater attention to the 
complexity of a particular IT initiative and of the context 
within which that initiative will be carried out. The capability-
based view of IT innovation developed here at CTG provides 
a framework for guiding more systematic assessments of 
capability and for laying out plans for both building missing 
capability and leveraging existing capabilities toward 
successful initiatives.
Theresa Pardo, Deputy Director, Center for Technology in 
Government
2007 Annual Report
17
I N T E R N A T I O N A L
Building a Sustainable International Digital Government 
Research Community 
T
oday, most digital government research addresses 
challenges within the context of a single country; few 
investigations have compared results across national 
boundaries or tackled problems that are transnational in scope. 
This National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded project begins 
to fill that gap by providing a set of opportunities for doctoral 
students and established scholars to expand their research 
interests and methods to international dimensions. These 
opportunities include a reconnaissance study describing the 
current status of international digital government research, 
an annual research institute for doctoral students, and a 
framework for supporting several international working groups.
1) The Reconnaissance Study was completed in 2007 
and provides a broad overview of the current state of 
international digital government research, identifying its main 
contours and current directions. The report establishes a 
baseline against which to measure the future development 
of internationally-oriented digital government research.
2) The first Annual International Digital Government Research 
Institute, the iGov Research Institute, was held in July 2007 
in New York City with sixteen students from eleven different 
countries [see sidebox for more details].
P R O J E C T S
Members of the North American Digital Working group gathered 
in front of the main entrance of the Villas Arqueologicas Hotel in 
Cholula, Mexico.
3) The three international working groups selected by peer 
review in 2006 began their work and met in various 
locations around the globe during 2007. The groups 
chosen are addressing transnational and comparative 
issues of governmental processes, organization, decision 
making, and citizen participation. These first meetings 
focused on group formation, formulation of work plans 
and research agendas, and identification of potential 
collaborative products. The groups will continue to meet 
through 2009. 
Turkish Ministry of Finance Performance Management 
in the Public Sector
G
overnments around the world are looking to 
performance management to help them achieve their 
strategic goals. This project was designed to build 
the capability of the Turkish Ministry of Finance to improve 
their performance planning and assessment model prior 
to implementation in the Turkish government. To do this, 
the Turkish Ministry of Finance sought CTG’s expertise to 
help them learn about existing U.S. government strategies 
and models for assessing the performance of government 
agency programs.
CTG coordinated two sets of activities over a two-week 
period in fall of 2007 with the first week in Albany, NY and 
the second in Washington D.C. The activities included two 
workshops with the CTG team and a variety of guest speakers, 
as well as site visits and meetings with experts in government 
financial management, budgeting, and performance 
management from several New York State agencies, two 
federal agencies, and the IBM Center for the Business of 
Government. Throughout the visit, CTG worked closely with 
the Turkish officials to develop strategies and action plans 
in support of their performance-based budgeting strategy. 
The Turkish delegation included eleven individuals 
representing the Turkish Ministry of Finance, the Turkish 
Institute for Industrial Management (TUSSIDE), and Stratek 
Strategic Technologies R&D.
Representatives from Turkey and staff from CTG gather for a 
group picture in front of the White House.
Center for Technology in Government
18
2 0 0 7  i G O V  R E S E A R C H  I N S T I T U T E
iGov 2007 was held in New York City with sixteen students 
from Canada, China, Denmark, Germany, India, Italy, The 
Netherlands, South Korea, Togo, and the United States. 
The students are from multiple academic disciplines and 
are studying at 14 different universities in the U.S., Europe, 
and India. 
The program was organized around the theme of “the 
city” as a coherent unit of government that operates within 
a larger world. Through both academic activities and field 
visits, the program addressed such topics as: 
• pressing digital government (DG) problems and research 
questions and ways to study them,
• comparisons of the philosophies, questions, and methods 
among the disciplines that make up DG research,
• how to apply multi-method and multi-disciplinary 
approaches to DG research,
• how to design and participate in an international 
investigation, and
• how to manage an international project.
Internationally known researchers from a variety of 
academic institutions shared their expertise and experiences 
and led discussion groups on such topics as cross-cultural 
research, urban regeneration and simulation, interorganizational 
information sharing and integration, and digital government 
research frameworks. Senior government officials from the 
City of New York served as guest faculty and hosted site 
visits to the City Health Department, 311 citizen call center, 
and the Port Authority—agencies that use information 
and communication technology, along with innovative 
public management approaches, to provide services to 
citizens and to manage the ongoing business, regulatory, 
and policy processes of city government. Site visits and 
discussions with these government leaders provided the 
essential link to government needs that characterizes 
digital government research.
iGov Institute faculty member, Alan Borning, Professor 
of Computer Science at the University of Washington, 
mentoring a small working group of students.
“Attending the 2007 Institute was one of the most valuable experiences of my 
graduate student education. The summer provided a multifaceted academic 
occasion which granted me an opportunity to view international digital government 
research and practice through a multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural lens.”
— Kayenda Johnson, 2007 Institute Student, Virginia Tech
2007 Annual Report
19
Creating an Action Plan for Preserving the Record 
of the International Criminal Tribunal of the Former 
Yugoslavia, United Nations
T
he International Criminal Tribunal of the Former 
Yugoslavia (ICTY) is committed to providing a permanent 
record of the work of the Tribunal for use by victims, 
future international courts, scholars, and the public. To assist 
ICTY in developing a roadmap for this effort, CTG held a 
four-day workshop with senior management and records 
management staff of the Tribunal. The resulting collaborative 
roadmap is being used to guide decision making as the 
Tribunal moves toward closure in 2010. 
The workshop included a series of large and small group 
planning sessions designed by CTG in collaboration with 
the archivist of the tribunal as well as other senior staff. The 
workshop sessions focused on two areas 1) outlining the policy, 
management, and technology capabilities required for success 
in preserving the record of the Tribunal, and 2) identifying the 
actions necessary to leverage existing preservation capability 
and to lay out a plan for the creation of new capability. In 
addition to generating a set of recommendations for internal 
capability development, the senior management team drafted 
a strategic vision to use in reaching out to key stakeholders in 
the interest of forming the strategic preservation partnerships 
identified as critical to success during the workshop.
Building Mission-level Records Management Capability—
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations
O
ne of the many tasks of the Department of 
Peacekeeping Operations’ (DPKO) mission is 
assisting in the implementation of comprehensive 
peace agreements and leading states or territories through 
the transition to a stable democratic government. Records 
management capability in this context is critically important 
both to support day-to-day operations of the missions 
as well as to ensure the creation of an accurate historical 
record of events. However, the specific conditions under 
which records management procedures are carried out 
varies greatly across missions as do the capabilities available 
to meet these responsibilities. 
To begin to address this challenge, the Archives and 
Records Management Section of the UN worked together 
with DPKO and CTG to design and deliver a workshop 
focused on building a new community of practitioners with 
expert knowledge in records management within the context 
of peacekeeping missions. The four-day workshop, held at 
the United Nations Logistics Base in Brindisi, Italy, brought 
together for the first time records managers deployed to 
the UN’s peacekeeping operations. The workshop included 
a set of lectures and exercises focused on best practices 
in recordkeeping, standards, and principles for managing 
records in peacekeeping operations of the United Nations. In 
addition, activities were designed to foster a new community 
among records managers from the various missions. 
As their first activity as a new community of practice, 
participants created a shared vision of an effective records 
management operation in a peacekeeping mission and spent 
time discussing how efforts to achieve this vision would be 
influenced by the variety of conditions found in the missions. 
They brainstormed an agenda for an annual meeting, as well 
as strategies for obtaining UN support for such an event. 
Records management staff from the International Criminal 
Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) break out into small 
groups during the workshop to identify their goals for the records 
of the tribunal.
The Archives and Records Management Section of the United 
Nations worked together with the Department of Peacekeeping 
Operations of the United Nations and CTG to design and deliver 
a four-day workshop held at the United Nations Logistics Base 
in Brindisi, Italy.
P R O J E C T S
Center for Technology in Government
20
N A T I O N A L
Modeling Interorganizational Information Integration 
I
ntegrating and sharing information across the boundaries 
of government organizations and with other partners 
involves complex social and technological interactions. 
These dynamic processes and their implications for better 
government are at the heart of CTG’s research agenda. 
This NSF-funded project is in its fifth year and continues to 
contribute globally to both practitioner decision making and 
research dialogue on this issue. 
The project began with a study of information integration 
initiatives in the policy areas of criminal justice and public health. 
Based on findings from two New York State case studies 
and projects in six other states, CTG researchers completed 
the development of a theoretical model of social and 
technical interactions in cross-boundary information sharing 
initiatives and crafted a first-ever definition of cross-boundary 
information sharing. 
The model is currently being tested through a national 
survey of over 700 government professionals from criminal 
justice and public health agencies at the local and state levels 
from across the 50 states. These individuals were identified 
either by their involvement in past or current cross-boundary 
information sharing related projects in these areas or by their 
positions in government agencies responsible for providing 
criminal justice or public health services. 
N E W  Y O R K  S T A T E
Assessing Mobile Technologies in Child Protective Services
I
n early 2006, the NYS Legislature and the NYS Office 
of Children and Family Services (OCFS) initiated a pilot 
program to explore how portable information technology 
could be used in child protective services (CPS) casework. In 
parallel to this exploration of use, CTG was asked to conduct 
a series of assessments aimed at learning more about the 
conditions and efforts needed to deploy mobile technologies 
statewide, as well as to investigate the impacts on CPS work 
and work processes. The results are presented in findings 
about caseworker productivity, mobility, and satisfaction. 
The first assessment, the NYS Portable Information 
Technology Pilot, focused on small-scale pilots carried out 
during the summer and fall of 2006 in three local social services 
districts. The second assessment, concluded in December 
2007, was based on the findings from the first, and involved 
assessing the impact of the deployment of laptops with 
wireless connectivity to over 135 caseworkers in Manhattan 
and Staten Island for the Extended Pilot in New York City’s 
Administration for Children Services. 
The third assessment, the Portable Technology 
Demonstration Project in 23 NYS Local Social Service Districts, 
began in late 2007 with a focus on over 400 laptops and 
tablets deployed to 23 Local Social Service Districts in NYS. 
This assessment concluded in March 2008. 
Each assessment produced a report to the Governor, the 
New York State Legislature, OCFS and the Local Districts. 
Overall these assessments are providing insights in the 
following areas: 
• technologies that provide the most functionality for CPS 
work while in the field,
• common locations where CPS caseworkers do work,
• effects on productivity through changes in timeliness 
and backlog,
• change in mobility and satisfaction with more flexibility 
and opportunities to work,
• common obstacles to field-based work such as 
connectivity, physical environment, and nature of work,
• policies and management practices needed for 
maximizing mobile technology use, and
• implications and recommendations for statewide IT 
deployment.
Exploring Regional Telecommunications Incident 
Response Coordination
I
n an increasingly interconnected world, neither the public 
nor the private sector can claim sole stewardship of the 
critical infrastructure; they are now interdependent. These 
interdependencies require new kinds of coordination in a 
variety of areas, particularly in response to incidents that 
threaten the stability of the infrastructure. Events such as 
the World Trade Center attacks and Hurricane Katrina have 
generated new discussions among stakeholders about the 
coordination necessary to ensure continuity of operations 
across the critical infrastructure.
In 2006, the New York State Department of Public 
Service (DPS), as a key actor in the national and regional 
telecommunications community, began to engage in 
discussions with other key actors about regional coordination 
of telecommunications incident response. Encouraged by 
interest from stakeholders, DPS partnered with CTG to 
organize a preliminary discussion among members of the 
regional telecommunications community. 
CTG brought together individuals from telecommunications 
providers, state emergency management agencies, federal 
communications agencies, state regulatory authorities, state 
departments of homeland security, state cybersecurity, and 
the financial sector in March 2007 for a day-long workshop. 
The workshop participants engaged in discussions about 
2007 Annual Report
21
the value proposition of coordinated response capability, 
explored varying perspectives on the current state of affairs, 
brainstormed strategies for increasing regional response 
capability, and concluded the session by producing a set of 
five recommendations for next steps in exploring regional 
coordination efforts. The workshop report, prepared by 
CTG, was designed to trigger new and more broad-based 
discussions about the stability of the critical infrastructure, in 
particular, about focusing discussions on regional response 
coordination.
A  G R O W I N G  I N T E R N A T I O N A L  P O R T F O L I O
G
overnments around the world are increasingly looking 
to information and communications technology as 
levers for innovation as well as social and economic 
development. In response, CTG began to work in an 
international context in the mid-1990s and over the past ten 
years has earned a reputation as a global leader in the field. 
We regularly receive inquiries from international organizations, 
foreign governments, and international scholars and 
practitioners seeking a relationship. This year alone, we 
signed collaboration agreements with organizations in 
China, Taiwan, and Mexico. In addition, we’ve worked with 
government and academic colleagues in Portugal, the UK, 
Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Lebanon, Germany, Canada, 
Brazil, and Turkey. This work has included such international 
organizations as the United Nations Department of Peace 
Keeping Operations, the International Criminal Tribunal of the 
Former Yugoslavia, and the European Commission. 
In the fall, we signed an agreement with the Chinese 
National School of Administration to collaborate on research 
and to offer executive development programs for Chinese 
government officials. Research topics that are expected to 
generate comparative work revolve around the concepts, 
strategies, and implications of information sharing across 
agencies and levels of government. Two areas where 
collaboration is likely are public health and product safety.
The United Nations (UN) continues to be an important 
partner for CTG, with current projects involving a number of 
different UN programs. Recent projects have been carried 
out in partnership with the UN University Institute for 
Software Technology in Macao (UNU-IIST), the Department 
of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), the Department of 
Peace Keeping Operations (UNDPKO), and the Archives and 
Records Management Services (UNARMS). 
CTG is also working in partnership with UNDESA and 
Microsoft Corporation to revise the United Nations METER 
tool. The objective of METER is to assist policy makers in 
selecting where to direct investment efforts designed to 
facilitate e-government development. CTG is working closely 
with UNDESA to revise the framework and content of the tool 
to more generally reflect new understanding about capabilities 
and digital government. We will focus on integrating our 
expertise in information sharing and interoperability into METER, 
particularly in terms of capability assessment, public value 
assessment, and technology investment decision making.
The New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) partnered 
with CTG to organize a workshop with key stakeholders from the 
regional telecommunications community, pictured here prioritizing 
recommendations that were ultimately refined for the final report.
CTG interim director, Anthony M. Cresswell, shaking hands with 
Bu Deying, director of Informatization Research Institute, China 
State Information Center, after signing a partnership agreement.
P R O J E C T S
Center for Technology in Government
22
2007 Annual Report
23
A 
core aspect of CTG’s mission is to take an active role in the community 
of researchers and managers engaged in building and sharing knowledge 
about information technology (IT) innovation in government. We accomplish 
this, in part, through our participation in local, national, and international academic 
and professional conferences. In addition, staff are involved in workshops, panels, 
and advisory boards at all levels of government and internationally to explore and 
advise on key issues such as intergovernmental relations, electronic records 
management, project management, and technology and public policy. 
The following is a list of 
the venues where staff 
participated as speakers or 
presented research papers 
and project findings in 2007, 
along with the advisory 
and editorial boards and 
study panels on which CTG 
representatives served.
C O N F E R E N C E S
International 
20th Bled e-Conference
Bled, Slovenia
DEXA eGovernment 
Conference
Regensburg, Germany
eChallenges 2007
The Hague, The Netherlands
40th Hawaii International 
Conference on System 
Sciences (HICSS)
Big Island, Hawaii
International Conference on 
Electronic Governance 
(ICEGOV2007)
Macau, China
8th International Digital 
Government Research 
Conference (dg.o 2007)
Digital Government Society 
of North America
Philadelphia, PA
The Shifting Sands of Public 
Service Delivery: People, 
Partnerships and Performance
Institute of Public 
Administration of Canada
Nova Scotia, Canada
National 
2007 APSA Annual Meeting
American Political Science 
Association
Chicago, Illinois
Virtual Town Hall Technical 
Conference
www.virtualtownhall.org
Regional 
Government Technology 
Conference (GTC) East 2007
Albany, New York
New York State 
Telecommunications Reliability 
in the Information Capital of 
the World Conference
New York Telecommunications 
Reliability Advisory Council
Columbia Institute for 
Tele-Information at Columbia 
Business School
New York, New York
Information Technology & the 
Technology Transfer Process: 
A Holistic Perspective
Novartis
New York, New York
New York State Local 
Government IT Directors 
Association Fall Conference
Corning, New York
R E S E A R C H  S E M I N A R S , 
W O R K S H O P S , 
A N D  P A N E L S 
Authentic Legal Information 
in the Digital Age: A National 
Summit
American Association of 
Law Libraries
Schaumburg, IL
China E-Government Forum
National School of 
Administration
Beijing, China
E-government in a Global 
Context
The NYS Forum 
Albany, New York
Best Practices for Developing 
IT Skills Seminar
The NYS Forum
Albany, New York
Information Strategy and 
Management Seminars
New York State Public 
Management Intern Program
Albany, New York
D I S S E M I N A T I N G  K N O W L E D G E
23
Center for Technology in Government
24
Digital Preservation: 
Records Management in 
the Electronic Age
Pennsylvania State 
Association of Township 
Secretaries and the 
Shippensburg University 
Institute of Public Service 
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania
Electronic Records 
Management Workshop
South Dakota State Archives 
and State Library 
Pierre, South Dakota
7th Global Forum on 
Reinventing Government: 
Building Trust in Government
Capacity Development 
Workshop on Managing 
Knowledge
United Nations Online 
Network in Public 
Administration and Finance
Vienna, Austria
Business Continuity Planning 
for Research Organizations
Annual Research Colloquium
University at Albany, State 
University of New York
Albany, New York
S T U D Y  P A N E L S , 
A D V I S O R Y 
C O M M I T T E E S ,  A N D 
W O R K I N G  G R O U P S 
Working Group on Electronic 
Rulemaking
American Bar Association
Board Member, Officer, and 
Sponsorship Committee 
Digital Government Society of 
North America
EUReGOV Expert Working 
Group
European Commission 
Information Society & Media 
Directorate
Nominations and Election 
Committee
European eGovernment 
Society
Advisory Committee
Government Technology 
Conference (GTC East)
Study panel on IT 
Management at the USDA 
Forest Service
National Academy of Public 
Administration
Advisory Committee on 
Electronic Records Archive
National Archives and 
Records Administration 
Business and Operations 
Advisory Committee
National Science Foundation 
Proposal Review Panel on 
Information Security
National Science Foundation 
Strategic Alliance Action Team 
New York State CIO Council
Academic Advisory Group
New York State Commission 
on Local Government 
Efficiency and 
Competitiveness
Project Management Steering 
Committee
The NYS Forum
Local Government 
Committee
New York State Office of 
Cyber Security and Critical 
Infrastructure Coordination
New York State 
Telecommunications 
Reliability Advisory Council
New York State Public 
Service Commission
Academic Advisory Committee
Financial Markets Regulation 
Program 
University at Albany, State 
University of New York
Academic Advisory Committee
University at Albany, State 
University of New York
University Governance Council
University at Albany, State 
University of New York
University Selective 
Investment Committee 
University at Albany, State 
University of New York
C O N F E R E N C E 
L E A D E R S H I P
Co-Chair
HICSS Egovernment 
Symposium
40th Hawaii International 
Conference on System 
Sciences (HICSS)
Big Island, Hawaii
Mini-Track Co-Chairs
– Egovernment Emerging 
Topics
– E-Government 
Organization and 
Management
– E-Policy, Law, and 
Governance
40th Hawaii International 
Conference on System 
Sciences (HICSS)
Big Island, Hawaii
General Co-Chair
International Conference on 
Electronic Governance 
(ICEGOV2007)
Macau, China
Program Committee 
Co-Chair
International Conference on 
Electronic Governance 
(ICEGOV2007)
Macau, China
Conference Co-Chair
The 8th International 
Conference on Digital 
Government Research (dg.o)
Digital Government Society 
of North America
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Chair, Poster and Demo 
Sessions
The 8th International 
Conference on Digital 
Government Research (dg.o)
Digital Government Society 
of North America
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
E D I T O R I A L  B O A R D S 
Government Information 
Quarterly (GIQ)
International Journal of 
Electronic Governance (IJEG) 
Information and 
Communication Technologies 
for Human Development
Journal of Information 
Technology and Politics
Transforming Government: 
People, Policies, and 
Practices
D I S S E M I N A T I N G  K N O W L E D G E
2007 Annual Report
25
Copyright for Scholarly 
Authors: What Are Our Rights 
and Should We Keep Them? 
Lorre Smith, librarian for 
Digital Library Initiatives, 
University at Albany
Development of 
e-Government in China 
Yu Shiyang, division chief of 
the Informatization Institute, 
State Information Center in 
Beijing, China
Fundamental Research of 
e-Government Management 
Theory and Approaches
Zhang Pengzhu, Antai 
College of Economics & 
Management, Shanghai Jiao 
Tong University in China
Lessons of Disaster: 
How Can We Learn from 
Disaster Experience? 
Tom Birkland, associate 
professor of Public 
Administration and Policy 
and director of the Center 
for Policy Research, 
University at Albany, SUNY
Presentation on the Center 
for the Transfer of Open 
Technologies and Best 
Practices (CETRATEC)
Carlos Mondragon, chief of 
staff to the Governor of 
Michoacán, Mexico and 
Martin Levenson, IT advisor 
to the Governor of 
Michoacán, Mexico
Yu Shiyang, division chief of the Informatization Institute, State 
Information Center in Beijing, China presenting on Development 
of e-Government in China as part of CTG’s Research Discussion 
Breakfast series.
I C E G O V  2 0 0 7 
CTG was co-organizer of the 1st International Conference 
on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance 
(ICEGOV 2007) in Macao SAR, China. This partnership 
with the United Nations University International Institute for 
Software Technology (UNU-IIST) and the UN Asian and 
Pacific Training Centre for Information and Communication 
Technology (APCICT) attracted practitioners, developers, 
and researchers from government, academia, industry, 
and non-governmental communities worldwide. 
Participants came together to share the latest findings in 
the theory and practice of Electronic Governance and to 
discuss their specific experiences and concerns.
Sharon Dawes, CTG senior fellow, served as general 
co-chair and gave one of three invited talks on Advancing 
E-governance: Connecting Learning and Action. Theresa 
Pardo, CTG deputy director, served as program co-chair 
and was co-coordinator of a tutorial and workshop on 
organization and management with Yuanfu Jiang from 
the National School of Administration, P.R. China.
E L E C T R O N I C  R E C O R D S  M A N A G E M E N T 
W O R K S H O P S 
Brian Burke, senior program associate at CTG, 
conducted two workshops in 2007 to help state and 
local governments with strategies for improving the 
management and preservation of government information 
in digital form. The first was sponsored by the Pennsylvania 
State Association of Township Secretaries and the 
Shippensburg University Institute of Public Service. CTG 
developed the workshop for the Institute for Municipal 
Secretaries, Clerks and Administrators and Master 
Municipal Clerk Academy, with nearly 30 government 
managers from approximately 30 different local 
governments in Pennsylvania participating. The second 
was held in Pierre, South Dakota and included staff 
from approximately 20 South Dakota state government 
agencies and was sponsored by both the State Archives 
and State Library under a National Historical Publications 
and Records Commission grant. 
Sharon Dawes (far right) and Theresa Pardo (second from 
right) with Dr. Olu Agunloye (front row, sixth from right), who 
gave the practitioner keynote at ICEGOV 2007 presenting 
the strategies behind e-governance in Nigeria, along with the 
rest of the Nigerian delegation.
R E S E A R C H  D I S C U S S I O N S  A T  C T G
International Digital Government 
Research: A Reconnaissance 
Study
Today, digital government research 
is going on all over the world; 
generally these studies are focused 
within the geographic and political 
context of a single country. Given 
the growing influence of global 
economic, social, technical, and 
political forces, digital government researchers are expanding 
their study to international dimensions. International digital 
government research explicitly focuses on understanding topics 
that cross the jurisdictions, cultures, and customs of different 
countries. This reconnaissance study takes a broad look at 
the current state of international digital government research 
to identify its main contours and current directions. It provides 
a baseline against which to measure the future development 
of internationally-oriented digital government research. 
Knowledge Sharing Innovations 
in the Natural Resources 
Community: A toolkit for 
community-based project teams 
There are benefits and challenges 
in using information technology for 
communication and knowledge 
sharing in the natural resources 
community. Eight project teams 
were funded by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Northeastern 
Area States, and Northern Initiatives to explore how 
technology-based strategies such as Web sites and Webinars 
can be used as tools for sharing knowledge on topics of 
concern to their communities and to build communities of 
practice. The report documents the experiences of these 
eight project teams as collected by CTG through a series of 
interviews and a workshop. While the report is specifically 
directed toward natural resources practitioners in government, 
academic, and not-for-profit settings, it also provides valuable 
lessons for any organization involved in community-based 
collaborative knowledge sharing activities with geographically 
dispersed teams and constituents. Advice for use by funding 
organizations was also captured from the project teams and 
is shared in the report. 
 
Assessing Mobile Technologies 
in Child Protective Services: 
An Extended Pilot in New York 
City’s Administration for 
Children’s Services 
Mobile technologies have the 
potential to increase the efficiency 
and effectiveness of Child Protective 
Service (CPS) investigations. This 
report was done under contract 
with the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), 
in conjunction with the NYS Administration for Children 
Services (ACS). The report is an assessment of a large scale 
deployment of wireless laptops to CPS workers in New York 
City’s ACS involving approximately 135 child protective 
services workers and supervisors in the Staten Island and 
Williams Street (Manhattan) offices. The assessment by 
CTG shows the complexity of deploying technology into a 
well established profession. The study focused on mobility, 
productivity, and satisfaction, and includes a set of 
recommendations and future considerations. 
Exploring Regional 
Telecommunications Incident 
Response Coordination 
In an increasingly interconnected 
world, the public and private sector 
need to work together to provide 
a stable telecommunications 
infrastructure. In 2006, the New 
York State Department of Public 
Service (DPS) partnered with CTG 
to organize a workshop with key stakeholders about the 
new kinds of coordination necessary to respond to incidents 
that threaten the stability of this infrastructure. This report 
summarizes the workshop discussions and includes a set of 
recommendations for next steps in exploring regional response 
coordination. In particular, discussions about the public 
value of regional response coordination and the perceived 
benefits of and challenges to coordination are presented. 
Suggestions for how this report might be used to assist in 
moving the discussion forward within and across each of 
the various sectors are also provided.
R E S O U R C E S  F R O M  C T G
Center for Technology in Government
26
Using XML for Web Site 
Management: An Executive 
Briefing on streamlining workflow, 
reducing costs, and enhancing 
organizational value 
XML is becoming a critical 
technology for all types of information 
services, in particular for Web site 
management. A typical government 
agency Web site contains thousands 
of pages and links, online transactions, and critical reports. 
It needs to be accurate, up-to-date, and available 24/7 to a 
wide audience from many locations using different devices. 
Unfortunately, the technologies and processes generally used 
to establish Web sites do not enable efficient management 
and growth. This Executive Briefing presents the features of 
XML—open standard, reusability, technologically neutral—
that make it an ideal strategy for managing the day-to-day 
operations of Web sites as well as to make it possible for 
cost-effective growth.
Using XML for Web Site 
Management: Lessons 
Learned Report 
Despite the clear advantages of XML, 
government agencies confront 
many obstacles to the adoption 
and implementation of XML-based 
Web site management. This report 
details lessons learned as well as 
key benefits of and barriers to the 
use of XML for Web site management. The report is based 
on the experiences of staff from five New York State agencies 
who participated in workshops, training, and prototype 
development activities as part of CTG’s XML Testbed. The 
report is not a technical how-to on the intricacies of XML; it 
is a presentation of the lessons learned by the participants 
as they explored the use of XML for Web site management. 
The cases include illustrations of lessons learned in workflow 
and content management, as well as increased flexibility 
related to creating and changing a public image on a Web 
site. Webmasters, public information officers, program 
managers, and anyone involved in getting information to a 
Web site will find value in this report. 
Staff at CTG contributed to a three part series of 
reports on state government electronic records 
management and digital preservation published by 
the National Association of State Chief Information 
Officers (NASCIO). NASCIO, which represents the 
chief information officers (CIOs) of all U.S. states, 
released the three-part series starting in the Spring 
of 2007 with the final report coming out in October. 
The reports present current issues, challenges, 
and recommendations for action by state CIOs 
related to electronic records management and the 
preservation of digital content.
The series of three reports can be viewed and 
downloaded from NASCIO’s Web site at 
www.nascio.org/committees/ea/pubArchive.cfm
Electronic Records Management and Digital 
Preservation: Protecting the Knowledge Assets 
of the State Government Enterprise PART I: 
Background, Principles and Action for State CIOs 
(May 2007)
Electronic Records Management and Digital 
Preservation: Protecting the Knowledge Assets 
of the State Government Enterprise PART II: 
Economic, Legal, and Organizational Issues 
(July 2007)
Electronic Records Management and Digital 
Preservation: Protecting the Knowledge Assets 
of the State Government Enterprise PART III: 
Management Leads and Technology Follows— 
But Collaboration is King (October 2007)
2007 Annual Report
27
B O O K
Digital Government: E-Government Research, 
Case Studies, and Implementation
H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg, R. Traunmueller, S.S. Dawes, 
E. Hovy, A. Macintosh, and C. Larson, eds. (Springer)
B O O K  C H A P T E R S
Introduction to Digital Government Research in 
Public Policy and Management
S.S. Dawes (In Chen, H., et al. eds., Digital Government: 
E-Government Research, Case Studies, and 
Implementation. Springer)
New Models of Collaboration for Delivering 
Government Services: A Dynamic Model Drawn from 
Multi-National Research
S.S. Dawes and O. Eglene (In Bhattacharya, Moonmoon, 
ed., E-Collaboration: An Introduction, Hyderabad, India: 
Icfai University Press)
The New York State Website: Accommodating Diversity 
through a Distributed Management Structure
J.R. Gil-Garcia and S.S. Dawes (In Rocheleau, Bruce, ed. 
Case Studies on Digital Government. Idea Group)
Putting the Results in Broader Perspective
S.S. Dawes (In Wimmer, M and Codanogne, C., eds. 
Roadmapping eGovernment Research: Visions and Measures 
towards Innovative Governments in 2020. eGovRTD2020, 
European Commission Project IST-2004-027139)
Sustainable Cross-Boundary Information Sharing
T.A. Pardo, J.R. Gil-García and B. Burke (In Hsinchun Chen, 
Lawrence Brandt, Sharon Dawes, Valerie Gregg, Eduard 
Hovy, Ann Macintosh, Roland Traunmüller, and Catherine A. 
Larson, eds., Digital Government: Advanced Research and 
Case Studies. Springer)
J O U R N A L  A R T I C L E S
Authority and Leadership Patterns in Public Sector 
Knowledge Networks
O.Eglene, S.S. Dawes, and C.A. Schneider (The American 
Review of Public Administration 37(1) March 2007, 91-113)
Geographic Information Technologies, Structuration 
Theory, and the World Trade Center Attack
T. Harrison, J.R. Gil-García, T.A. Pardo, and F. Thompson 
(Journal of the American Society for Information Science and 
Technology 58(14), 2240-2254)
Interorganizational Information Integration: 
A key enabler for digital government
T.A. Pardo, and G.K. Tayi (Government Information 
Quarterly, Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 691-715)
Invigorating Web site Management through XML: 
An e-government case from New York State
J.R. Gil-Garcia, J. Costello, T.A. Pardo, and D. Werthmuller 
(International Journal of Electronic Governance (1)1, 52-78)
C O N F E R E N C E  P A P E R S
Assessing Capability for Justice Information Sharing
A.M. Cresswell, T.A. Pardo, and S. Hassan (Proceedings 
of the 8th Annual International Conference on Digital 
Government Research: Bridging Disciplines & Domains, 
pp. 122-130: Digital Government Society)
Building a Research-Practice Partnership: 
Lessons from a government IT workforce study
S.S. Dawes and N. Helbig (Proceedings of the 
40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System 
Sciences—HICSS’07, p. 104c, Los Alamitos, CA: 
IEEE Computer Society Press)
(best paper nominee for e-government track)
Cross-national Information Policy Conflict Regarding 
Access to Information: Building a conceptual framework
L. Zheng (Proceedings of the 8th Annual International 
Conference on Digital Government Research: Bridging 
Disciplines & Domains, pp. 202-211: Digital Government 
Society)
S C H O L A R L Y  P A P E R S
Center for Technology in Government
28
Emergence of the Governance Structure for 
Information Integration Across Governmental Agencies: 
A system dynamics approach 
L.F. Luna-Reyes, D.F. Andersen, G.P. Richardson, T.A. Pardo, 
and A.M. Cresswell (Proceedings of the 8th Annual International 
Conference on Digital Government Research: Bridging 
Disciplines & Domains, pp. 47-56: Digital Government Society)
Government Leadership in Multi-Sector IT-Enabled 
Networks: Lessons from the response to the 
West Nile Virus outbreak
J.R. Gil-Garcia, T.A. Pardo, and G.B. Burke (Paper presented 
at “Leading the Future of the Public Sector”—The Third 
Transatlantic Dialogue, organized by the American Society 
for Public Administration and the European Group of Public 
Administration, Newark, Delaware, USA)
Informal Leadership and Networks: Lessons from the 
response to the West Nile Virus outbreak in North America
T.A. Pardo, J.R. Gil-Garcia, and G.B. Burke (Presented at 
the eChallenges e-2007 Conference, The Hague, The 
Netherlands. In Paul Cunningham and Miriam Cunningham, 
Eds. Expanding the Knowledge Economy: Issues, 
Applications, Case Studies. IOS Press, Amsterdam)
IT-Enabled Collaboration in Intergovernmental Settings: 
Lessons from the response to the West Nile Virus outbreak
T. Pardo, J.R. Gil-Garcia, and G.B. Burke (Paper presented 
at the 68th ASPA National Conference, organized by the 
American Society for Public Administration, Washington, DC)
Leadership and Cross-Boundary Information Sharing: 
Insights from the U.S. West Nile Virus outbreak
T.A. Pardo, J.R. Gil-Garcia, and G.B. Burke. (Paper presented 
at the 7th United Nations Global Forum on Reinventing 
Government, Vienna, Austria)
Scenario building for E-Government in 2020: 
Consolidating the results from regional workshops
M. Janssen, P. van der Duin, R.W. Wagenaar, M. Bicking, 
M. Wimmer, S.S. Dawes, and R. Petrauskas (Proceedings 
of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on 
System Sciences—HICSS’07, p. 109b, Los Alamitos, CA: 
IEEE Computer Society Press)
Structuration Theory and the Use of XML for Web Site 
Content Management in Government: Comprehensive 
prototyping as an induced change episode
J.R. Gil-García and A. Baker (Paper presented at the 
Sixth International Conference on Electronic Government, 
organized by DEXA 2007, Regensburg, Germany)
Understanding Context through a Comprehensive 
Prototyping Experience: A testbed research strategy 
for emerging technologies
J.R., Gil-Garcia, T.A. Pardo, and A. Baker (Proceedings of 
the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System 
Sciences—HICSS’07, p. 104b, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE 
Computer Society Press)
C O N F E R E N C E  P O S T E R S
Advancing Return on Investment Analysis for 
Government Information Technology
A.M. Cresswell, T.A. Pardo, G.B. Burke, and L.V.Dadayan 
(Poster presented at the 8th International Digital Government 
Research Conference—dg.o 2007, Philadelphia, PA)
Building Government IT Workforce Capacity: 
A competency framework
N. Helbig and S.S. Dawes (Poster presented at the 
8th International Digital Government Research Conference—
dg.o 2007, Philadelphia, PA)
Understanding Inter-Organizational Information 
Integration in Government: An interdisciplinary study of 
politics, technology, and bureaucratic decision-making
J.R. Gil-Garcia, T.A. Pardo, G.B. Burke (Poster presented at 
the 2007 APSA Annual Meeting, organized by the American 
Political Science Association, Chicago, IL)
Working Group on Comparative and Transnational 
Digital Government in North America
J.R. Gil-Garcia, N. Helbig, T.A. Pardo, L.F. Luna Reyes, 
and C. Navarrete (Poster presented at the 8th International 
Digital Government Research Conference—dg.o 2007, 
Philadelphia, PA)
2007 Annual Report
29
Center for Technology in Government
30
I N T E R N A T I O N A L  R E S E A R C H  P R O G R A M  I N 
C R O S S - B O U N D A R Y  I N F O R M A T I O N  S H A R I N G
T
he International Research Program in Cross-boundary 
Information Sharing is a new initiative at the University 
at Albany focused on building knowledge about 
cross-boundary information sharing in an international context. 
This innovative program is leveraging current research efforts 
by connecting doctoral students from the Public Administration 
and Policy and Information Science programs at the University 
with the findings from a National Science Foundation funded 
research project at CTG. In their dissertation research, 
students will draw on research findings from CTG’s Modeling 
Interorganizational Information Integration (MIII) study and 
seek to contribute to the development of new theory in 
cross-boundary information integration and sharing through 
testing these findings in an international context. The students 
and the CTG research team meet monthly to share knowledge 
about relevant topics such as comparative research design 
and developing culturally appropriate research methods. 
Dissertation studies are underway in China, Jordan, and 
Taiwan, with additional studies being planned in Mexico and 
Saudi Arabia. In addition to meeting regularly for knowledge 
sharing and coordination with CTG, each student works with 
his or her own dissertation committee at the University at 
Albany and with academic and practitioner partners in the 
host country.  
D I S S E R T A T I O N S  I N  P R O G R E S S
Lei Zheng
Public Administration 
and Policy, Rockefeller 
College of Public 
Affairs and Policy, 
University at Albany
Graduate Assistant, 
CTG
Lei’s dissertation is focusing on cross-boundary 
information sharing in product quality and food safety 
in China. Through his dissertation research, he will 
build a leadership mechanism model of cross-boundary 
information sharing in product quality and food safety 
in China, and then conduct a comparative analysis 
between his model and the model developed in the 
MIII project at CTG to identify and explore similarities 
and differences. 
Fawzi Mulki
Information Science, 
College of Computing 
and Information, 
University at Albany
Graduate Assistant, 
CTG
Fawzi’s dissertation is focusing on the impact of 
authority, executive involvement, and leadership on 
cross-boundary information sharing in response to 
chaotic events. The events are two public health 
crises—the outbreak of the West Nile Virus in the U.S. 
and the case of water pollution in Jordan. Fawzi will 
gather primary data in Jordan through semi-structured 
interviews with top-level government executives who 
played a key role in the crisis there and use secondary 
data gathered from public health officials in the U.S. 
through CTG’s MIII project.
The first organizing meeting brought together the CTG MIII 
research team with doctoral students from the University at 
Albany’s Rockefeller College of Public Administration and Policy 
and College of Computing and Information.
A C A D E M I C S
2007 Annual Report
31
■ 
Federal Grants 
40%
■ 
Government Contracts 
5%
■ 
CTG Base 
47%
■ 
Other Sources 
8%
I
n 2007, our diverse funding portfolio included both 
multi-year and short-term collaborations at the local, 
national, and international levels. Funded projects
covered a wide range of topics and areas of interest 
giving us the opportunity to explore important public 
problems and to share the practical results both locally 
and globally. 
This funding allows us to not only conduct the 
work, but to also offer the resulting project reports 
and practitioner guides on our Web site without 
charge. In addition, they are available in several 
formats, allowing access to all those interested in 
learning more about our signature methodologies, 
new models of thinking, and innovations for improving 
services and operations of state, local, and federal 
government agencies. 
CTG’s 2007 financial portfolio consists of 40% 
federal grants, 5% government contracts, 47% 
University at Albany base, and 8% other resources.
C T G  F O S T E R I N G  I N T E R N A T I O N A L  S T U D E N T 
C O L L A B O R A T I O N S
O
ver the years, CTG has brought together students 
from many disciplinary and cultural backgrounds. 
They come to CTG as graduate assistants, visiting 
students, and post doctoral fellows to actively participate 
in information management projects in government and to 
improve their research skills. While most move on after their 
studies, relationships built on mutual interests have grown 
into some very productive research collaborations.
One such relationship began in 2004, when Enrico Ferro 
from the Istituto Superiore Mario Boella in Italy joined CTG 
as a visiting student for six months. During that time, he 
discovered mutual research interests with two other doctoral 
students at CTG: Jose Ramon Gil-Garcia, who at the time 
was finishing his studies and working as a graduate assistant, 
and Natalie Helbig, who has worked at CTG for the past five 
years and is planning to finish her dissertation in December 
2008. They found mutual interest in the digital divide, which 
they have cultivated into a productive and ongoing research 
collaboration. The trio explore issues of the digital divide 
and e-government using data from Enrico’s Institute, which 
performs an annual information society survey. 
While Natalie remains at CTG as a program associate, 
Ramon, after finishing his PhD and spending a year as a 
post doctoral fellow at CTG, has moved back to Mexico 
where he is now assistant professor and director at the Data 
Center for Applied Research in Social Sciences at Centro de 
Investigacion y Docencia Economicas. Over the past three 
years, Enrico, Ramon, and Natalie have worked together 
through a variety of collaboration tools and successfully 
authored five papers together on the digital divide and 
e-government, including an entry in a research handbook 
and presentations at several conferences. Their first paper, 
Understanding the Complexity of Electronic Government: 
Implications from the Digital Divide Literature is forthcoming 
in Government Information Quarterly (GIQ).
F I N A N C I A L  P O R T F O L I O
Government
Albany County Department for Children, 
Youth and Families Programs & Services 
Children and Family Services 
Broome County Department of Social Services 
Chemung County Department of Social Services 
Clinton County Department of Social Services 
Columbia County Department of Social Services 
Fulton County Department of Social Services 
Jefferson County Department of Social Services 
Monroe County Department of Social Services 
Nassau County Department of Social Services 
New York City Administration for Children’s Services 
New York State Governor’s Office of Employee Relations
New York State Department of Correctional Services
New York State Division of the Budget 
New York State Office of the State Comptroller 
New York State Office of the Chief Information Officer 
and CIO Council
New York State Office for Technology 
New York State Office of Children and Family Services 
Niagara County Department of Social Services 
Onondaga County Department of Social Services 
Orleans County Department of Social Services 
Putnam County Department of Social Services 
& Mental Health 
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Finance Strategic 
Development Presidency 
Rockland County Department of Social Services 
Schenectady County Department of Social Services, 
Children and Family Services 
Seneca County Children and Family Services 
St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, 
Protective Services 
Suffolk County Department of Social Services, 
Child Protective Services Bureau 
Turkish Institute for Industrial Management (TUSSIDE)
Ulster County Department of Social Services, 
Children and Family Services 
United States Department of the Treasury
United States National Science Foundation
United States Office of Management and Budget
Washington County Department of Social Services, 
Child Protective Services Unit 
Wayne County Department of Social Services 
Westchester County Department of Social Services, 
Family and Children’s Services 
Corporate
IBM Center for the Business of Government
Stratek Strategic Technologies R&D 
Chief information officer at the New York State Department of 
Correctional Services (DOCS), Tom Herzog, came to CTG to 
speak with the representatives of the Turkish government about 
the implementation of performance measures at DOCS. 
P R O J E C T  P A R T N E R S
Center for Technology in Government
32
B U I L D I N G  O N  S T R O N G  F O U N D A T I O N S  A N D  T H E  G E N E R O S I T Y  O F  O U R  P A R T N E R S
CTG projects depend on active and ongoing partnerships with government agencies, technology companies, and academic 
scholars. From in-kind donations of equipment, expertise, and time to grants for applied research, these partnerships account 
for more than half our total resources.
We are grateful to the following organizations who supported our work in 2007:
Interim Director
Anthony M. Cresswell
Professional Staff
G. Brian Burke, Senior Program Associate 
Donna Canestraro, Program Manager 
Meghan Cook, Program Manager 
James Costello, Web Application Developer 
Sharon Dawes, Senior Fellow
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Postdoctoral Fellow 
Alison Heaphy, Communication Manager 
Natalie Helbig, Program Assistant 
Jana Hrdinova, Program Assistant
Linda Keane, Administrative Assistant
Jane Krumm-Schwan, Director of Administration and 
Outreach 
Gloria Lisowski, Administrative Assistant
Theresa Pardo, Deputy Director 
Anna Raup-Kounovsky, Program Staff Assistant
Paula Rickert, Administrative Coordinator
Derek Werthmuller, Director of Technology Services 
Lin Zhu, Visiting Scholar
Faculty Fellows
David Andersen, Public Administration and Policy and 
Information Science, UAlbany
Ophelia Eglene, Middlebury College
Teresa Harrison, Communication, UAlbany
Jing Zhang, Clark University
George Richardson, Public Administration and Policy and 
Information Science, UAlbany
Giri Tayi, Management Science and Information Systems, 
UAlbany
Graduate Assistants
Bahadir K. Akcam, Information Science
Andrea Baker, Information Science
Sara Berg, Criminal Justice
Lucy Dadayan, Information Science
Denise Dreany, Information Studies
Russell S. Hassan, Public Administration and Policy
Hyuckbin Kwon, Public Administration and Policy
Jeff Lorber, Public Administration and Policy
Akram Mohammed, Computer Science
Fawzi Mulki, Information Science
Fan Ping, Computer Science
Chen Song, Computer Science
Lei Zheng, Public Administration and Policy
Standing Committee Members
Gregory Benson, Jr.
Executive Director, The NYS Forum 
Joann Bomeisl
Chief of Technical Services, NYS Insurance Department
Paul Fisk
Assistant Unit Chief for the Public Protection Unit 
(retired 2007), NYS Division of Budget
William Johnson
Assistant Deputy Director and Chief Information Officer, 
NYS Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination
Robert G. Kelly
Chief Information Officer (retired 2007), NYS Division of 
Housing and Community Renewal
Diana Jones Ritter
Commissioner, NYS Office of Mental Retardation and 
Developmental Disabilities
Alex Roberts
Assistant Director, NYS Office of Justice Information 
Servieces, Division of Criminal Justice Services
Thomas J. Ruller
Manager Statewide Student Data Systems, NYS Office of 
Information Technical Services, State Education Department
Brian Y. Scott
Director of Information Systems and Health Statistics, 
NYS Department of Health
Onnolee Smith
Assistant Director, Workforce and Organizational 
Development Unit, NYS Governor’s Office of 
Employee Relations
Nancy Mulholland 
Chief Information Officer Federation, Administative Services 
Division, NYS Department of Transportation
2007 Annual Report
33
Staff
Center for Technology in Government
187 Wolf Road, Suite 301
Albany, New York 12205
Phone: 518-442-3892
Fax: 518-442-3886
E-mail: info@ctg.albany.edu
www.ctg.albany.edu