复旦大学：《电子治理》阅读材料（英文）：Smart IT决策分析方法 Making Smart IT Choices.pdf_大学文库

Introduction Frankly sir, we're tired of bein., on the cutting edge of technology. guide is designed to help you and needed to improve or change the way they ur organization make good decisions gather and use information. Here at the Center when and how to invest in information for Technology in Government, we have worked technology(IT). Put another way, it will help on projects in human services, criminal justice, you avoid becoming one of the statistics that financial management, and environmental dominate reports on information technology protection, among others. investments The agencies weve worked with range in Reports on failure rates range from 50 to 80 size from enormous federal departments to percent and sometimes more Failures don't tiny towns, and everything in between. Their happen because people arent smart or trying goals focused on a wide variety of functions hard. But failures do happen every day-mostly including case management, direct citizen because people fail to realize and appreciate contacts, research and analysis, general the complexity of these decisions and the way administration, and regulatory affairs. Some they affect nearly every other aspect of an had many years of experience in using IT; organization 's work others were novices Failure is almost inevitable if decisions Regardless of their differences, every project about IT are hasty, unrealistic, or uninformed encountered similar basic challenges. Early To help you avoid this fate, we lead you conceptualizations of their problems were through the complex and challenging process often oversimplified. The influences of their of analyzing an information problem or larger organizational and political environments need-and its context. We help you identify, were underestimated. The ways in which evaluate, and choose possible solutions And current work would have to change were not through the of building onsidered. In those a solid business case for investing in yo the effort needed to identify how people and or ways of working were considered, estimates recommendations processes work now(and how they would have Everything in this guide is based on years to change) were vastly insufficient. Agencies of experience working with dozens of times hoped that " the right " technology government and nonprofit agencies that would solve almost any problem CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES

CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES Introduction 1 This guide is designed to help you and your organization make good decisions about when and how to invest in information technology (IT). Put another way, it will help you avoid becoming one of the statistics that dominate reports on information technology investments. Reports on failure rates range from 50 to 80 percent and sometimes more. Failures don’t happen because people aren’t smart or trying hard. But failures do happen every day—mostly because people fail to realize and appreciate the complexity of these decisions and the way they affect nearly every other aspect of an organization’s work. Failure is almost inevitable if decisions about IT are hasty, unrealistic, or uninformed. To help you avoid this fate, we lead you through the complex and challenging process of analyzing an information problem or need—and its context. We help you identify, evaluate, and choose possible solutions. And we guide you through the process of building a solid business case for investing in your recommendations. Everything in this guide is based on years of experience working with dozens of government and nonprofit agencies that needed to improve or change the way they gather and use information. Here at the Center for Technology in Government, we have worked on projects in human services, criminal justice, financial management, and environmental protection, among others. The agencies we’ve worked with range in size from enormous federal departments to tiny towns, and everything in between. Their goals focused on a wide variety of functions including case management, direct citizen contacts, research and analysis, general administration, and regulatory affairs. Some had many years of experience in using IT; others were novices. Regardless of their differences, every project encountered similar basic challenges. Early conceptualizations of their problems were often oversimplified. The influences of their larger organizational and political environments were underestimated. The ways in which current work would have to change were not fully considered. In those cases where new ways of working were considered, estimates of the effort needed to identify how people and processes work now (and how they would have to change) were vastly insufficient. Agencies sometimes hoped that “the right” technology would solve almost any problem

These challenges that confront every process that accounts for program goals organization do not mean that the people stakeholders, processes, costs, and technology orking on them are not focused, skilled or alternatives In chapters three and four, we well versed in their fields. They emerge from guide you through the process of turning your highly complex work environments and from analysis into a business case and presenting it unexpected interdependencies among to various audiences organizations and processes. They require an appreciation for the critical importance of "up Part Two presents a wide variety of skills, front business and risk analysis echniques, and tools that can help you through the exercises introduced here We will also Too often, the quest for action-purchasing publish a series of case studies that provide "Don' t you know enough to move forward Q hiring, designing and programming-pushe practical examples of how these concepts critical knowledge-building activities aside tools, and techniques were used in some of our projects with an RFP yet? "is a question many of our agency partners have heard after just a few We know that no single formula can guarantee weeks-along with, We dont have time to cess in developing and implementing a study the business problem any more, we new IT resource. But this guide does offer a need a system in place in six months In our well-tested approach to reducing the risk of experience, when the pressure to act exceeds failure. The first principle is to apply the familiar the ability to understand the consequences of principle of modern architecture-that form action the risks of failure soar follows function. Accordingly, the initial focus of any IT effort needs to be on the service The Center for Technology in Government is an bjectives and underlying business processes applied research program at the University at of the organization(s)involved, rather than on Albany/SUNY. Established in 1993, the Center the technology itself. The best technology will works with government to develop information not correct outdated policies, inadequate strategies that foster innovation and enhance management practices, or poorly designed the quality and coordination of public services workflows We carry out this mission through applied research and partnership projects that address The second principle is to identify all of the the policy, management, and technology internal and external stakeholders and to dimensions of information use in the public understand clearly their different needs, sector resources, and expectations. Each stakeholder group needs to be to account in This guide offers our best thinking about how identifying and considering the costs and to define an information technology project and benefits of various options make a solid case for needed financial and organizational investments. It will be completed We also describe some ways to evaluate and in two parts choose among an ever-expanding array of technologies, including how to recognize whe Part One has four chapters and begins by the best solution is no new technology at all considering the special characteristics of the Finally, we offer some advice about how to use public sector as an environment for making performance measures to evaluate your management decisions and IT choices. In the results CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES

CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES 2 process that accounts for program goals, stakeholders, processes, costs, and technology alternatives. In chapters three and four, we guide you through the process of turning your analysis into a business case and presenting it to various audiences. Part Two presents a wide variety of skills, techniques, and tools that can help you through the exercises introduced here. We will also publish a series of case studies that provide practical examples of how these concepts, tools, and techniques were used in some of our projects. We know that no single formula can guarantee success in developing and implementing a new IT resource. But this guide does offer a well-tested approach to reducing the risk of failure. The first principle is to apply the familiar principle of modern architecture—that form follows function. Accordingly, the initial focus of any IT effort needs to be on the service objectives and underlying business processes of the organization(s) involved, rather than on the technology itself. The best technology will not correct outdated policies, inadequate management practices, or poorly designed workflows. The second principle is to identify all of the internal and external stakeholders and to understand clearly their different needs, resources, and expectations. Each stakeholder group needs to be taken into account in identifying and considering the costs and benefits of various options. We also describe some ways to evaluate and choose among an ever-expanding array of technologies, including how to recognize when the best solution is no new technology at all. Finally, we offer some advice about how to use performance measures to evaluate your results. These challenges that confront every organization do not mean that the people working on them are not focused, skilled, or well versed in their fields. They emerge from highly complex work environments and from unexpected interdependencies among organizations and processes. They require an appreciation for the critical importance of “up front” business and risk analysis. Too often, the quest for action–purchasing, hiring, designing, and programming—pushes critical knowledge-building activities aside. “Don’t you know enough to move forward with an RFP yet?” is a question many of our agency partners have heard after just a few weeks—along with, “We don’t have time to study the business problem any more, we need a system in place in six months.” In our experience, when the pressure to act exceeds the ability to understand the consequences of action, the risks of failure soar. The Center for Technology in Government is an applied research program at the University at Albany/SUNY. Established in 1993, the Center works with government to develop 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. This guide offers our best thinking about how to define an information technology project and make a solid case for needed financial and organizational investments. It will be completed in two parts. Part One has four chapters and begins by considering the special characteristics of the public sector as an environment for making management decisions and IT choices. In the second chapter, we describe an analytical

How the material is organized The Internet services testbed which involved seven state and local government This guide is organized to lead you through a careful analytical process that results in designing, and building their very first a sound business case for investing in a information services on the world wide significant IT project. Along the way, we refer you to specific tools and techniques that can The Bureau of shelter services and a score assist you. We also offer case illustrations that of nonprofit service providers and local show the tools in action in the context of governments who need to share information specific, real projects in order to evaluate services to homeless The analytical process, Part One, has four chapters. The first discusses the risks of IT a The Municipal Affairs Division and its effort innovation the second describes the kinds of to create a consistent statewide information problems that are worth the time and effort of repository to support regional staff working careful analysis we present a three-stage on the financial affairs of local governments nalytical process that helps you understand the problem and its context, identify and test the Council on Children and Families and olutions and evaluate alternatives and make its 13 member agencies who wanted to offer smart choices a wide variety of statistical information about children over the world wide Web Chapter three addresses the process of The Office of the State Comptroller and its turning your analysis into a business case effort to ground a redesign of the Central Chapter four suggests ways a business case can be presented to various stakeholders, Accounting System in a rigorous analysis of stakeholder needs including top management, budget officers, and elected officials as well as to users and We acknowledge, with thanks, the energy and customers collaboration of the federal state. local. an nonprofit agency managers and technical Part Two describes dozens of skills, techniques, staff who have participated in projects at and tools that are useful at various stages of analysis and case building. Many of them are CTG. We also thank the corporate partners and university faculty who contributed their well within the skills of any competent manager. expertise. Without their willingness to Others require the help of an expert. You may experiment with new approaches and their already be familiar with many of them. For strong commitment to improving government each, we describe its purpose, strengths, and limitations We also cite books and articles that services the work we describe here could not have been accomplished Jo into more detail In some cases, we also vill help other public sector organizations present "how tos"that you can apply on your own. We hope that these lessons and experier illustrations drawn from the foll cases are their own smart It choices used throughout this guide a The Adirondack Park Agency(APA)and its need to manage information and improve both customer service and records management related to land use permits CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES

CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES 3 ■ The Internet Services Testbed which involved seven state and local government agencies in a process of defining, designing, and building their very first information services on the World Wide Web. ■ The Bureau of Shelter Services and a score of nonprofit service providers and local governments who need to share information in order to evaluate services to homeless people. ■ The Municipal Affairs Division and its effort to create a consistent statewide information repository to support regional staff working on the financial affairs of local governments. ■ The Council on Children and Families and its 13 member agencies who wanted to offer a wide variety of statistical information about children over the World Wide Web. ■ The Office of the State Comptroller and its effort to ground a redesign of the Central Accounting System in a rigorous analysis of stakeholder needs. We acknowledge, with thanks, the energy and collaboration of the federal, state, local, and nonprofit agency managers and technical staff who have participated in projects at CTG. We also thank the corporate partners and university faculty who contributed their expertise. Without their willingness to experiment with new approaches and their strong commitment to improving government services, the work we describe here could not have been accomplished. We hope that these lessons and experiences will help other public sector organizations make their own smart IT choices. How the material is organized This guide is organized to lead you through a careful analytical process that results in a sound business case for investing in a significant IT project. Along the way, we refer you to specific tools and techniques that can assist you. We also offer case illustrations that show the tools in action in the context of specific, real projects. The analytical process, Part One, has four chapters. The first discusses the risks of IT innovation. The second describes the kinds of problems that are worth the time and effort of careful analysis we present a three-stage analytical process that helps you understand the problem and its context, identify and test solutions, and evaluate alternatives and make smart choices. Chapter three addresses the process of turning your analysis into a business case. Chapter four suggests ways a business case can be presented to various stakeholders, including top management, budget officers, and elected officials, as well as to users and customers. Part Two describes dozens of skills, techniques, and tools that are useful at various stages of analysis and case building. Many of them are well within the skills of any competent manager. Others require the help of an expert. You may already be familiar with many of them. For each, we describe its purpose, strengths, and limitations. We also cite books and articles that go into more detail. In some cases, we also present “how tos” that you can apply on your own. Illustrations drawn from the following cases are used throughout this guide: ■ The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) and its need to manage information and improve both customer service and records management related to land use permits

Chapter 1. The risks of IT innovation in government In 1995, the Standish Group began to publish using advanced information technologies reports of the IT failure rates of both public However, as the California dMv failure amp They suggested that more than 80 percen es and private organizations in the United Sta demonstrates,the risks of IT innovation in ply government are daunting of systems development projects fail in whole or in part. Most projects cost more, take longer Years of research on information system than planned, and fail to achieve all of their success and failure have been unable to goals. One-third are canceled before they are conclusively identify the factors that cause completed. good or bad results. Information technology success and failure seem to be in the eye of One system development project cancellation the beholder took place at the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles(DMV) in the mid-1990s Weve spoken to public managers who The project to move nearly 70 million vehicle, consider a project a success if it comes in license, and identification records from an on time and on budget. others, who evaluate antiquated system to a new relational database functionality and usability, might call the same was both behind schedule and over budget project a failure. Many see failure when regardless of time and budget, a new system When California s lawmakers finally decided makes it more difficult to do routine and to end the agency' s IT project, over $44 million familiar tasks. They have the latest technology had already been spent and no end was in but cant get their work done as well as they sight. One of the reasons the dMV project did before. Weve heard about systems that failed, says California Assemblyman Phillip perform beautifully, but can't be supported by Isenberg is "because the agency staff were in-house staff and therefore continue to over their heads with a technology they did not generate high costs for consultants to maintain understand The project also lacked a clear link between Failure may be a desirable statewide system agency operational goals and the capabilities that local governments cant use because of the selected technology. Due to procurement they lack their own expertise and technical restrictions, the agency was committed to a infrastructure to connect to it failure has also pecific hardware platform before all the been described as an on-time, on-budget vailable options could be explored. As a system with great user interfaces and function result of the failure, California' s technology ality, but users will not work with it because procurement process faces even greater they dont trust the underlying data sources control and oversight. Despite these problems, $1 billion, and more big projects are on the over California has an annual IT budget of well over How do you protect against something you can' t define? We advocate an approach that y are everywhere in the wo builds knowledge and understanding throug reful analysis of the goals, the larger Ict, government constitutes one of the environment, the specific situation, the likely d s largest consumers of information and the reasonable alternatives. tha technology. Because of its size, complexity, kind of thinking will help you raise useful and pervasive programs and services questions, engage partners, challenge old government cannot operate effectively without models, garner support, assess policies

CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES 7 Chapter 1. The risks of IT innovation in government In 1995, the Standish Group began to publish reports of the IT failure rates of both public and private organizations in the United States. They suggested that more than 80 percent of systems development projects fail in whole or in part. Most projects cost more, take longer than planned, and fail to achieve all of their goals. One-third are canceled before they are completed. One system development project cancellation took place at the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in the mid-1990s. The project to move nearly 70 million vehicle, license, and identification records from an antiquated system to a new relational database was both behind schedule and over budget. When California’s lawmakers finally decided to end the agency’s IT project, over $44 million had already been spent and no end was in sight. One of the reasons the DMV project failed, says California Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg, is “because the agency staff were over their heads with a technology they did not understand.” The project also lacked a clear link between agency operational goals and the capabilities of the selected technology. Due to procurement restrictions, the agency was committed to a specific hardware platform before all the available options could be explored. As a result of the failure, California’s technology procurement process faces even greater control and oversight. Despite these problems, California has an annual IT budget of well over $1 billion, and more big projects are on the horizon—as they are everywhere in the world. In fact, government constitutes one of the world’s largest consumers of information technology. Because of its size, complexity, and pervasive programs and services, government cannot operate effectively without using advanced information technologies. However, as the California DMV failure amply demonstrates, the risks of IT innovation in government are daunting. Years of research on information system success and failure have been unable to conclusively identify the factors that cause good or bad results. Information technology success and failure seem to be in the eye of the beholder. We’ve spoken to public managers who consider a project a success if it comes in on time and on budget. Others, who evaluate functionality and usability, might call the same project a failure. Many see failure when, regardless of time and budget, a new system makes it more difficult to do routine and familiar tasks. They have the latest technology but can’t get their work done as well as they did before. We’ve heard about systems that perform beautifully, but can’t be supported by in-house staff and therefore continue to generate high costs for consultants to maintain them. Failure may be a desirable statewide system that local governments can’t use because they lack their own expertise and technical infrastructure to connect to it. Failure has also been described as an on-time, on-budget system with great user interfaces and functionality, but users will not work with it because they don’t trust the underlying data sources. How do you protect against something you can’t define? We advocate an approach that builds knowledge and understanding through careful analysis of the goals, the larger environment, the specific situation, the likely risks, and the reasonable alternatives. That kind of thinking will help you raise useful questions, engage partners, challenge old models, garner support, assess policies

identify risks, consider contingencies, and The technology is only a part, and often a result in more successful innovation small part, of the story. Weve seen projects delayed or even halted due to unrealistic Risks of it innovation expectations about how quickly a project can be completed, about the human resource Expert observers of IT trends say organiza requirements, about how much collaboration tions waste time, money, and credibility on IT was necessary and how costly it can be, and because of a few fatal mistakes. They either about how much and how many kinds of new buy the wrong technology for the job, or they learning and training would be required to build buy the right technology but do not implement and use a new system it effectively. They allow technical experts to design systems without the substantive, Lack of organizational support and ongoing involvement of system users. They acceptance build systems that ignore the way people and Adoption of a new way of doing business or processes really work. They dont take into of a new technology is unlikely to succeed if account the other systems that are already in it does not have widespread organizational place. They start investing resources in an IT support and acceptance. Much has been solution before they really understand their ritten about the critical importance of to needs and options. They are ov confident that management support and this is surely D they will get it right and dont plan or budget for necessary. But, we've learned that success he inevitable post-implementation refinements depends on many other organizational factors that any system needs. They don't attend to as well. It also takes skilled and committed environmental realities such as workforce team members and support and acceptance limitations, election or business cycles, rapidly throughout the organization, especially among changing technologies, political processes, and the people who will use the new processes and competing priorities the new technology. Often this is the most important level of support, and often the most Clearly, IT innovation is risky business in difficult to achieve every organization. Repeatedly, organizations abandon IT projects because these initiatives Failure to evaluate and redesign business fail to accomplish the objectives they were processes intended to meet. In both the public and private IT management expert Michael Hammer sectors. a well-documented set of risks attends says systems may not meet performance IT innovation expectations because organizations"tend to use technology to mechanize old ways Unrealistic expectations of doing business. They leave the existing Organizational perceptions of new technology processes intact and use computers simply are critical to achieving success. Positive to speed them up expectations help lead to success, but too often overly optimistic expectations cause Meeting the needs of customers, employees, serious trouble All the people involved in an IT and decision makers means carefully studying initiative, from sponsors to users, need to have and evaluating business processes. In most realistic goals and must share a common organizations, new processes are added understanding of potential benefits, required needed, but old processes are rarely evaluated policy and process changes, and the financial to determine if they still make sense and organizational costs CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES

CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES 8 The technology is only a part, and often a small part, of the story. We’ve seen projects delayed or even halted due to unrealistic expectations about how quickly a project can be completed, about the human resource requirements, about how much collaboration was necessary and how costly it can be, and about how much and how many kinds of new learning and training would be required to build and use a new system. Lack of organizational support and acceptance Adoption of a new way of doing business or of a new technology is unlikely to succeed if it does not have widespread organizational support and acceptance. Much has been written about the critical importance of top management support and this is surely necessary. But, we’ve learned that success depends on many other organizational factors as well. It also takes skilled and committed team members and support and acceptance throughout the organization, especially among the people who will use the new processes and the new technology. Often this is the most important level of support, and often the most difficult to achieve. Failure to evaluate and redesign business processes IT management expert Michael Hammer says systems may not meet performance expectations because organizations “tend to use technology to mechanize old ways of doing business. They leave the existing processes intact and use computers simply to speed them up.” Meeting the needs of customers, employees, and decision makers means carefully studying and evaluating business processes. In most organizations, new processes are added as needed, but old processes are rarely evaluated to determine if they still make sense. identify risks, consider contingencies, and result in more successful innovation. Risks of IT innovation Expert observers of IT trends say organizations waste time, money, and credibility on IT because of a few fatal mistakes. They either buy the wrong technology for the job, or they buy the right technology but do not implement it effectively. They allow technical experts to design systems without the substantive, ongoing involvement of system users. They build systems that ignore the way people and processes really work. They don’t take into account the other systems that are already in place. They start investing resources in an IT solution before they really understand their needs and options. They are overconfident that they will get it right and don’t plan or budget for the inevitable post-implementation refinements that any system needs. They don’t attend to environmental realities such as workforce limitations, election or business cycles, rapidly changing technologies, political processes, and competing priorities. Clearly, IT innovation is risky business in every organization. Repeatedly, organizations abandon IT projects because these initiatives fail to accomplish the objectives they were intended to meet. In both the public and private sectors, a well-documented set of risks attends IT innovation. Unrealistic expectations Organizational perceptions of new technology are critical to achieving success. Positive expectations help lead to success, but too often overly optimistic expectations cause serious trouble. All the people involved in an IT initiative, from sponsors to users, need to have realistic goals and must share a common understanding of potential benefits, required policy and process changes, and the financial and organizational costs