Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to ascertain how state IT departments, specifically Chief Technology or Information Officers (CTOs/CIOs) view changes in their external environment and their departments' ability to adopt and implement new information technologies. The research is based on a recently completed national survey of state IT departments in the US. Employees at three levels in the organization were surveyed: CIOs, managers and employees. This article only focuses on the CIO responses. It contributes to the scant systematic empirical research of state IT departments and their capacities to adapt to and manage technological change. Preliminary findings suggest that CIOs generally perceive their external environments as relatively stable and rich in opportunities. They see their offices as central in the formation, implementation, and evaluation of IT policy and practices throughout their state governments. They perceive their IT employees as actively scanning the external environment for relevant information and as being capable of importing, adapting, and utilizing new technology-related information. Interesting correlations emerged in that CIOs who described their environment as relatively stable and rich in opportunities also indicated their employees were actively engaged in knowledge scanning, their department had a high absorptive capacity, and their office is more central in IT policy formation. Future research will include information regarding the states' economic conditions, strategic and management environment as well as the states' policy innovativeness considering the adoption of various technologies.

REFERENCES

• 1: Adel M. Aladwani, An Integrated Performance Model Information Systems Projects, Journal of Management Information Systems, v.19 n.1, p.185-210, Number 1/Summer 2002
• 2: Alford, J. and Speed, R. 2006. Client focus in regulatory agencies: Oxymoron or opportunity, Public Management Review, 8, 313--332.
• 3: Alter, A. 2006. CIO Role Survey April 2006: Achievement is the Issue, Not Survival. CIO Insight, April. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcis/is_200604/ai_n19414342 on 11/20/2007.
• 4: Anderson, R., Bikson, T. K., Lewis, R., Moini, J. and Straus, S. 2003. Effective Use of Information Technology: Lessons about State Governance Structures and Processes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
• 5: Armstrong, D., Reid, M., Allen, M. and Riemenschneider, C. 2007. Managing IT employee retention: Challenges for state governments. In Modern Public IT Systems, D. Garson, Ed. Hershey, NY: IGI Publishing, pp.221--238.
• 6: Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., and Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207--218.
• 7: Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., and Callen, V. 2004. Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 507--532.
• 8: Bozeman, B. and Bretschneider, S. 1986. Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50, 5, 536--545.
• 9: Brunsson, N. 1982. The irrational organization: Irrationality as basis for organizational action and change. New York:Wiley
• 10: Paul R. Carlile, Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries, Organization Science, v.15 n.5, p.555-568, October 2004 [doi>10.1287/orsc.1040.0094]
• 11: Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128--152.
• 12: Alessia Contu , Hugh Willmott, Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learning Theory, Organization Science, v.14 n.3, p.283-296, May 2003 [doi>10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167]
• 13: Covin, J. G. and Slevin. D. P. 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75--87.
• 14: Thomas H. Davenport, Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system, Harvard Business Review, v.76 n.4, p.121-131, July-August 1998
• 15: Denhardt, J. V., and Campbell, K. B. 2006. The role of democratic values in transformational leadership, 38, 556--572.
• 16: Eggers, W. D. 2004. The adoption dilemma. Public CIO (February), http://www.govtech.com/gt/print_article.php?id=87088
• 17: Fernandez, S., and Rainey, H. 2006. Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66, 168--177.
• 18: Garson, D. 2006. Why information technology projects fail. In Public Information Technology and E-Governance, D. Garson, Ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publ., pp. 385--414.
• 19: General Accountability Office (OMB). 2004. Electronic government initiatives sponsored by OMB have made mixed progress (GAO-04-561T). Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.
• 20: Grint, K. 2005. Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of 'leadership'. Human Relations, 58, 1467--1494.
• 21: Groenewegen, P. and Wagenaar, P. 2006. Managing emergent information systems: Towards understanding how public information systems come into being. Information Polity 11, 135--148.
• 22: Holley, L., Dufner, D., and Reed, B. 2002. Got SISP? Strategic information systems planning in state governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 24, 2, 398--412.
• 23: Huang, Z. and Palvia, P. 2001. ERP implementation issues in advanced and developing countries. Business Process Management Journal, 7, 276--284
• 24: Judge, T. A., and Piccolo, J. E. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755--768.
• 25: Kay, A. 2005. A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83, 553--571.
• 26: Kelman, S. 2005. Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in government. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institute.
• 27: Korunka, C., Scharitzer, D., Carayon, P., and Ois Sainfort, F. 2003. Employee strain and job satisfaction related to an implementation of quality in a public sector organization: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 17, 52--72.
• 28: Lei, D., and Hitt, M. A. 1995. Strategic restructuring and outsourcing: The effect of mergers, acquisitions and LBOs on building firm skills and capabilities. Journal of Management, 21, 835--859.
• 29: Lozada, H. R., and Calantone, R. J. 1996. Scanning behavior and environmental variation in the formulation of strategic responses to change. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 11, 17--41.
• 30: Majchrzak, A, Rice, R., Malhotra, A. and Ba, S. 2000. Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported interorganizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24, 4, 569--600.
• 31: McHugh, M. 1997. The stress factor: Another item for the change management agenda?' Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10, 345--362.
• 32: Nadler, D. and Tuschman, M. 1997. Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 33: Nicolaou, A. I. 2004. ERP Systems Implementation: Drivers of Post-Implementation Success. http://s-cahvishnu.infotech.monash.edu.au/dss2004/proceedings/pdf/58_Nicolaou.pdf.
• 34: Paul A. Pavlou , Omar A. El Sawy, From IT Leveraging Competence to Competitive Advantage in Turbulent Environments: The Case of New Product Development, Information Systems Research, v.17 n.3, p.198-227, September 2006 [doi>10.1287/isre.1060.0094]
• 35: Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., and Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116--145.
• 36: Riege, A. and Lindsay, N. 2006. Knowledge management in the public sector: Stakeholder partnerships in public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 3, 24--39.
• 37: Robertson, P. and Seneviratne, S. 1995. Outcomes of planned organizational change: A meta-analytic comparison to the private sector. Public Administration Review, 55, 547--558.
• 38: Daniel Robey , Marie-Claude Boudreau, Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications, Information Systems Research, v.10 n.2, p.167-185, February 1999 [doi>10.1287/isre.10.2.167]
• 39: Rossotti, C. O. 2005. Many Unhappy Returns. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• 40: Schellong, A. 2005. CRM in the public sector. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 89, 326--332
• 41: Tu Q, Vonderembse M, Ragu-Nathan T, and Sharkey T. 2006. Absorptive capacity: Enhancing the assimilation of time-based manufacturing practices. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 5, 692--710.
• 42: Van Wart, M. 2003. Public sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review, 63, 214--228.
• 43: Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing, 2nd ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• 44: West, D. M. 2005. Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• 45: Yang, K. and Melitski, J. 2007. Competing and complementary values in information technology strategic planning: Observations from ten states. Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 3: 426--452.
• 46: Zahra, S. A. and George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 2, 185--203.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.1 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING
      Subjects: Government

Additional Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.3 Organizational Impacts
          Subjects: Reengineering
  K.5 LEGAL ASPECTS OF COMPUTING
      K.5.2 Governmental Issues
          Subjects: Regulation
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.1 Project and People Management

General Terms:
Design, Legal Aspects, Management, Theory

Keywords:
CIOs, adaptive capacities, organizational change, state information technology departments