icegov2012 proceedings

4.2 Operative CIO
The Operative CIO is characterized by his IT competence.
Political CIOs are more often than not almost laymen in IT issues.
The Operative CIO is head of the IT department without further
engagements. Thus, he is able to concentrate on his root tasks. On
management level the Operative CIO is involved in projects.
Requests from other authorities like local communities or other
federal states are addressed to him, even though he is not entitled
to make binding decisions.
The federal city state of Hamburg has an Operative CIO as
described above. Hamburg provides both a global fund for IT
projects and a pool with specialized staff. IT specialists are
delegated to work on projects within the operating department. All
in all Hamburg has a powerful CIO organization. The state of
Saarland has also an Operative CIO, but not as ideal as Hamburg.
Introducing a CIO organization means always a certain need of
concentration. That did not succeed, because there are still two
departments which handle statewide important IT issues. The CIO
of the state of Saarland is positioned as a staff unit at the Ministry
of Finance and is completely oriented on the project “IT reengineering”
with the aim to consolidate. It seems that the CIO
day-to-day business is not included.
4.3 Decorative CIO
Missing adequate resources Decorative CIOs are not able to reach
significant results. They only serve for image brightening.
Decorative CIOs have little or no managerial function. The state
of Brandenburg has a CIO with only representative functions. The
CIO is positioned deep within a department of the Ministry of
Interior and he is ancillary to the head of this department, which is
in charge of e-government and IT. Thus, Brandenburg has a CIO
but nothing else. The state of Lower Saxony also holds a CIO with
questionable reliability performance. Initially they recruited a CIO
from the private sector. This year the position was upgraded. The
state secretary took over additional task. To the present this is not
communicated in detail, which indicates that this CIO design is
located along the border to decorativeness.
4.4 Synopsis
Political CIOs are most common, seven german states have a CIO
that predominantly serve political purposes. That may be because
of their role in the federal IT council. The states seek to delegate
representatives who are able to speak on equal terms (two out of
three Decorative are also in the position of state secretaries).
Another three states’ CIO positon can be classified as Operational
CIO, three as Decorative CIO. Three German states have no CIO
position so far.
A further aspect is the department, in which the CIO performs.
Traditionally IT issues are handled in the Ministry of Finance.
That is because the first data possessing systems were introduced
for the tax authorities. Six German CIOs are employed at financial
departments. Another six CIOs are at the Ministry of Interior,
which is as a rule in charge of Public Service Modernization.
Possessing the CIO in the Ministry of Justice and Europe, Saxony
is an outliner.
Deriving from the localization of the state CIO in a certain
ministry is the hegemony over priorities and aims associated to
the use of technology [18] [19]. One can expect that a CIO
employed at financial departments is more likely to stress the
348
potential of ICT to strengthen efficiency in order to save money,
whereas a CIO at Ministry of Justice is more likely to focus on
subjects such as data protection or the restriction of crossauthority
exchange of data.
5. EXPLANATION APPROACH
One of the most fundamental lessons learned from evaluations of
the New Public Management is to take into account the public
sector’s specific conditions before transferring concepts from
private sector, as both sectors differ in a couple of basic
dimensions [15]. Although they clearly affect the CIO position in
the public sector, we do not want to elaborate on these basic
characteristics (such as stakeholder structure, orientation to the
common good or administrative culture) but to stress those
principles and conditions, which are directly tied to CIO’s
capacity to act and might explain our findings.
Probably as the most important difference, it starts with the
position in organisation hierarchy. Whereas in private sector the
CIO is member of the executive board or at least closely tied to it,
there is no comparable body in state governments. Unlike the
municipal level, where a central management body can be
identified (albeit with significant differences to private sector), a
state government’s cabinet combines the state ministers who lead
their respective departments independently and under their own
responsibility (departmental principle). It falls to the ministers, to
decide whether, where and how tasks are to be administrated.
For the CIO’s capacity to act consensus must exist on his crossdepartmental
responsibilities, and his respective remit clearly
defined, in particular if establishing the CIO function is
accompanied by the delegation of hitherto decentralised functions.
Some states and countries describe responsibilities, authority and
the allocation of dedicated resources by specific legislation.
Each type of CIO in public sector can be seen as an expression of
certain political conditions, thus as the result of intense
negotiations. Consensus is yet needed on where to establish the
prominent position, a question that might easily become subject of
envy, taking into account the idealistic understanding of
technology as a metaphor for progress and innovation. And
ministries are likely to seek being recognized as progressive and
innovative. Willingness on to abandon and cede once owned
responsibilities by delegating functions, capabilities or staff can be
seen as huge challenge. Thus, public sector CIO is also always a
moderator between the respective departments (and their IT
managers) likewise towards politics.
Considering constantly changing political power structures, hence
changing policies and priorities, the need for consensus is a steady
companion. For instance strategic and organisation wide planning,
which is without doubt one of the CIO’s key field of activity, is
subject to particular challenges specific to the public sector [3].
But what if consensus is reached neither on where to establish a
CIO function nor on its responsibilities or authority? A weak, thus
rather decorative CIO is likely to be the result. If departments
insist on keeping staff, capabilities or activities, if comprehensive
planning is not wanted, the CIO’s room for manoeuvre will dry
out. In case of Decorative CIOs a gap between the glorious title
and the actual rather slight capacity to act is self-evident.
But why do they introduce CIO-positions anyhow? From the
perspective of sociological new institutionalism [17] [16] they do
precisely because there is a need for decoration, in terms of a