Redefining the Wking Relationship Local Govt and Industry

8/3/2019 Redefining the Wking Relationship Local Govt and Industry

1/12

www.digitalcommunities.com

Cause for Optimism:Redefning the Working Relationshipbetween Local Government and Industry

By Todd Sander, director o the Digital Communities program, with the assistance o

the Large Jurisdiction Chie Inormation Ocer Working Group


2/12

The e.Republic, Inc. Digital Communi-

ties Large Jurisdiction Chie Inormation

Oicer (CIO) Working Group is com-

prised o members rom the very largest

cities and counties in the United States

and industry executives representing

some o the worlds leading inorma-

tion and communications technology

(ICT) companies. Because o the size o

the governments involved, the number

o citizens they serve and the amount

o money they spend on ICT tools, the

strategies they employ have a very real

inluence on how their industry part-

ners position themselves and respond

with products and services to the needs

o local government. We believe that bybringing the public and private sector

together at the same table, it allows all

participants to urther the shared goal

o improving public service through the

eective use o IC T.

Each year, Digital Communities

convenes ace-to-ace meetings or

members. In addition, members have

access to an online collaboration and

inormation-sharing site to acilitate

discussion and the exchange o ideas

between the meetings. These venues

provide a sae place or both govern-

ment and industry to demonstrate the

courage necessary to speak and to listen.

In an eort to respect and reward that

courage, some quotations in this paper

are included without attribution to a

specifc individual, jurisdiction or company

Evaluation, assessment and analysis o the

substance o the comments is more likely

to promote understanding and progres

than a ocus on the source.

A wide variety o topics are typically

discussed, but during the past two meet

ings members have placed a particula

ocus and priority on a single question

In todays economic, political and busi

ness environment, what constitutes a

successul relationship between govern

ment and industry?

This white paper is a product o tha

dialogue and collaboration. It is presented

not to answer the question, but rather to

urther identiy and clariy the issues tha

separate and rustrate government and

Cause for Optimism: Redefning the Working Relationshipbetween Local Government and Industry

Introduction

Courage is what it takes to stand upand speak; courage is also what ittakes to sit down and listen.

Winston Churchill


3/12

industry and to broaden the conversation. Itis the consensus o all group members that

a better and more complete understand-

ing o the pressures and demands aced by

both government and industry is necessary

to establish and maintain more successuland productive working relationships in the

uture. The group has not yet agreed upon

a defnition o successul relationship that

meets everyones needs, but members have

committed to continuing and broadeningthe conversation. A satisactory answer to

that key question is necessary i both the

public and private sector are to enjoy a suc

cessul and prosperous uture.

There is a classic vaudeville routine that

begins with a person coming to see his or

her doctor. The doctor says, What seems to

be the problem? The patient says, It hurts

when I do this. The doctor replies, Well

then, dont do that!

The ongoing discussion between gov-

ernment and industry has oten taken the

orm o that doctor/patient conversation

with each alternating between the role o

doctor and that o patient. Government

tells industry that the traditional structure

o contracts and licenses no longer works.

Pressures to downsize and consolidate

organizations and to operate with sig-

niicantly reduced and oten uncertain

budgets make the rigidity o historical

agreements unworkable. Government is

looking or industry to propose a new andmore lexible relationship based on greater

collaboration.

Industry tells government that regi-

mented and rigid procurement rules

prevent them rom proposing their best

and most creative solutions or ear o

being judged non-compliant i they stray

rom the checklist or, even worse, disquali-

ied or violating procurement rules that

severely limit interaction and inormation

exchange i they attempt to engage and

work together with government outside

the bounds o the procurement process.

They are let with no option but to propose

the traditional, speciied, amiliar and rigid.

Industry is look ing or government to open

the door to a new relationship with new

and more lexible procurement processes.

In essence, each is saying that the pain

and rustration they eel is the responsibil

ity o the other and each is waiting or the

other to act with more certainty to clear the

path to shared success.

Shared Pain


4/12


5/12

industry allows us to pool our resources and

licenses, says Quinn.

That approach may work, but it necessi-

tates a state or other large entity negotiating

with a vendor on behal o itsel and all the

smaller cities and counties within it, and a

desire by those local governments to be

included and bound by the terms and condi-

tions to which the state agrees. It also requires

a solid assessment o the potential size o the

enterprise and the number o system users

the agreement may cover so industry can price

it appropriately. Identiying all those poten-

tially covered by the agreement and more

specifcally the number that will actually use

the agreement is oten very dicult. One

reason is that without the executive authority

to compel participation, many jurisdictions will

simply opt out thereby eliminating much o

the beneft o an enterprise agreement.

Ira Levy, CIO o Howard County, Md.,

believes the answer lies in engaging elected

ocials in helping change historical systems.

I have seen success in the reduction o bar-

riers in creating partnerships and exibility

when elected ocials and senior manage-

ment are part o the initial goal setting, says

Levy. I certainly do not mean that CIOs arenot good negotiators but new models usually

require process redesign well beyond just the

technology and procurement departments

and only when everyone is working together

are barriers removed.

The issue becomes even more compli-

cated as cities and counties look to create

service relationships with other jurisdic-

tions where none existed beore. There is

no history or the larger jurisdiction to draw

upon when it licenses a system it may wish

to share. It is impossible or a jurisdiction to

appropriately scope and scale its contract

with the vendor when it doesnt know how

many potential others may be interested in

sharing the system. That is why government

wants greater exibility. Creating new rela-

tionships is not easy. The biggest problem

our local government has with consolidation

or sharing is politics. We cant even agree to

share resources internally because no one

wants to give up control, says Robert Patterson,

CIO o Allegheny County, Pa.

Industry wants to be exible and to help

get as many people as possible using their

tools and systems. However, they need to

have some frm sense o the size o the imple-mentation they are supporting. Is it likely to

be 100 users? 1,000? 10,000? Without gov-

ernment identiying specifc jurisdictions

in advance and the associated probable

number o users, industry has no data on how

to develop a pricing plan. Dan Gillison rom

Sprint says, Without more data rom govern-

ment we are let with the deault approach

o structuring an agreement based on seat

charges or services so we are able to accu

rately contract or that service and accurately

track it rom initial use to billing.

Some see the beginning o a shit starting

to take place in the way sotware is licensed

and paid or. Historically, customers paid a large

upront license ee and small ongoing main

tenance and support ees or a perpetual

license granting the right to use the sotware

orever, even i maintenance was discontin

ued. This model was fne or projects that were

unded through large grants or bonds where a

great deal o capital was available at the star

o the project. To accurately scope their license

purchase, organizations needed to correctly

estimate the ultimate size o the IT environ

ment right rom the start. In act, the pas

purchases o perpetual licenses are a catalysor much o the discussion taking place now

over transer rights or asset disposal as orga

nizations look or more exibility and legacy

systems are terminated or downsized.

Paul Christman o Quest Sotware thinks

that in the uture a move rom perpetua

licenses to term licenses where governmen

pays a at ee or the license, maintenance

and support that expires at the end o the

The biggest problem our local government has withconsolidation or sharing is politics. We cant even agreeto share resources internally because no one wants to

give up control.

Robert Patterson, CIO, Allegheny County, Pa.


6/12

contract term may create more ex-

ibility in todays uncertain environment.

I believe this model fts an inrastruc-

ture as a service oering that is sold by a

centralized organization, says Christman.

Term licenses are the right unit or new

ICT organizations to buy because it is the

same unit they will resell to their clients.

ICT organizations have more exibility to

pay as you go and buy what you need

rather than guess upront how big their IT

environment is or will be. Unused licenses

expire and retire automatically. There is no

need to transer licenses since there is no

perpetual asset to manage. Simply put,

term licenses, with their lower upront

costs, create more exibility and are less

risky or the buyer. In many cases it is

the best answer, but ultimately, sotware

pricing and packaging options need to be

available to support both exible, virtual-

ized models unded rom multiple sources

and those more centralized and unded

by a single source.But even as things change, industry, like

government, is bound by budgetary con-

straints and reporting requirements and

they want government to understand that

there are limits on how exible they can

be. Dan Gillison explained it this way: For

an agreement to be supportable by indus-

try it must take into account that private

sector organizations have their own fnancial

governance demands as well as ederal

government compliance and corporate

reporting requirements that must be met

under Sarbanes-Oxley legislation.

As service delivery models continue

to change, licensing is still an area where

there needs to be greater understanding

between the public and private sector.

One CIO said, I realize that the private

sector needs to be proftable, but the

licenses must be priced airly or we will

begin to see government scale back

and continue to drop licenses. But what

is airly? I out o economic neces-

sity or rustration government drops

licenses or stops paying or maintenance

then everyone potentially loses. Govern-

ments run systems without the beneft o

vendor support and vendors are denied

the income streams they need to improve

and enhance their product oerings.

Perhaps one impediment to greater

understanding o licensing cost structure is

a perception on the part o many in govern-ment that there is always a better deal to be

had. Negotiated contracts like GSA sched-

ules or US Communities are oten seen by

CIOs as simply a starting point or urther

negotiations. Is it possible then or there to

be more openness and visibility into indus-

try approaches to government pricing so

that through increased transparency every-

one knows more about what everyone else

is paying? More open pricing data wouldgive government some added assurance

they are not paying more than a neighbor

ing jurisdiction or the same product o

service, but additional transparency may

create a serious competitive disadvantage

or industry.

Group discussion on this topic wa

recently summarized by Phil Bertolini. We

need the private sector to be more exible

in their licensing models, but the conver

sation turned to the lack o exibility in

government procurement. Flexibility goe

both ways i we are going to change things

In todays environment, government wil

become very exible i value is brought to

the table.

Both government and industry group

participants seem to understand and

appreciate the need or new and innova

tive licensing schemes to be developed

that will support a undamental change

in government operations. A move away

rom, or at least something in addition to, a

per seat or even a fxed single enterprise

license seems to be required. Perhaps the

answer is the term licensing discussed

beore; perhaps not. Unortunately, at thi

point it does not appear that government

can describe with enough certainty o

industry what a new collaborative struc

ture may look like to provide industry

with a way to calculate a air and reason-able return on their intellectual property

Meanwhile, government is asking industry

to propose new licensing and suppor

models that will then help structure new

collaborative or multi-jurisdictional coop

eratives. Unortunately, both sides seem

to be stalled in a which comes frst, the

chicken or the egg? conundrum each

waiting on the other.

Flexibility goes both ways i we are going to changethings. In todays environment, government will become

very exible i value is brought to the table.

Phil Bertolini, County Administrator and CIO, Oakland County, Mich.


7/12

Government Practices:Rigid and Outdated?

Government has been clear in its call or

greater vendor exibility in supporting chang-

ing ICT organizational and support structures.

But there are two parts to the success equa-

tion and two points o view on where and in

what order the most benefcial changes need

to take place. Government says contracts and

industry says procurement. They are eec-

tively talking about two sides o the same coin.

IT procurement processes vary by state,

by county, by city and by agency and that

can lead to complexity, uncertainty and even

apprehension when procuring new tech-

nology solutions, says Lisa Young. There

needs to be greater exibility or vendors to

oer creative solutions in a timely manner.

One option is or government to shit rom

buying goods to buying broader solutions or

advanced technology such as cloud comput-

ing, virtualization and shared services through

multi-vendor contracts.

Government willingly concedes that

changes to procurement are in order

and while they may be necessary, simply

changing procurement is not sucient.

Government seems to be looking or a di-

erent kind o proposal than those that have

been typically received.

I believe that government would become

more creative and agile, in regard to procure-

ment, i the vendor community illustratedtangible value or proceeding, says Bertolini.

Deriving value over a 10- to 20-year time-

rame does not cut the mustard in todays

tough economy. The value must be realized in

the short term.

But while government says it wants more

ocus on near-term return on investment and

help making the business case or invest-

ment, industry still eels constrained and

oten prohibited rom oering their best

solutions and thinking by rigid procurement

processes.

Rather than evaluating proposals on the

merit o the technical solution only, or best

value, government should incentivize indus-

try to provide alternate solutions that will

meet or exceed the requirements rom a busi-

ness and technical standpoint combined,

says Ed White rom McAee. In addition, when

bids are deemed non-compliant due to the

act that they are not regimented in how they

respond to the request (i.e. omissions or addi-

tions) it orces industry to reply at the most

base level being compliant to the letter

o the law, answering the mail with nothingmore or nothing less. There is no room or cre-

ativity without penalty.

Government procurement practices have

indeed historically and traditionally penal-

ized proposals or omissions or unrequested

additions. In act, ailing to adhere to the

letter o the law in procurement processes

have led to challenges and protests rom

vendors charging that government is ailing

to compare apples to apples in a air and

open manner.

Balancing air and open with increased

collaboration is no easy task, but it is something

each side is looking or. Regular governmen

and industry collaboration is needed to allow

or open communication without the accusa

tion that it is providing unair advantage to

those who participate. State and local gov

ernments need a mechanism similar to the

ederal Critical Inrastructure Partnership Advi

sory Council (CIPAC) model which is exemp

rom the traditional constraints o the Federa

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which limits

the timerame and scope o what the advi

sory committee can accomplish, suggestWhite. However, the ederal model beneft

rom its applicability to a single governmen

enterprise. State and local governments are al

governed by separate and individual policies

and codes making it potentially more dicul

to establish a more collaborative process.

Another industry suggestion or improve

ment would have government begin planning

or projects sooner and invite vendors to give


8/12

basic pricing at that time. Terri Jones romHyland Sotware says, I think government

agencies need to begin their research earlier

and not mistake the request or proposal

(RFP) process or research. By consulting

with their colleagues at other agencies

or in other jurisdictions, they can identiy

best practices or deployment early on and

include them in their eventual RFP process.

Simply relying on a traditional and rigid RFP

process without talking to vendors or other

customers in advance may not result in the

best deployment, the best vendor or the

lowest price.

Industry would like to see greater col-

laboration and open communication

among agencies to share best practices,

business processes and operational

models in order to identiy areas where

technology innovation can be shared and

delivered eciently. Government would

like to see that too. The question is how

can that best be accomplished?

One proposal rom government would

have industry take more responsibility or

helping establish a compelling business case

or investment in addition to explaining the

unction and beneft o a tool or system. By

better leveraging the expertise o vendors

that want to support the public partner-

ship, I think many o us could have access

to better data to fnd the ROI aspects that

are not a part o the standard sales process,says Steve Emanuel, CIO in Montgomery

County, Md. I believe that vendors that have

done well in the last 5 to 10 years may have

options that we can explore and that these

principles o best practice, implementation

lessons learned and access to the next level

o technology and strategy will help public

sector develop the right business case, the

eciency and fscal rewards.

Some signifcant questions still remain.For example, what will industry need rom

government to be able to provide that

kind o analysis? How will such analysis be

worked into a air and open procurement

process and how ar is government willing

to go in opening its business practices and

records to industry?

Sharing Risk: Vendor Strategies and

New Technology Models

Government and industry working

together not just as customer and sup-

plier, but as partners developing strategy,

business case justifcations and ultimately

sharing risk and reward is a airly signifcant

change over the status quo in most jurisdic-

tions. It is something both sides say they

want but at present the operational param-

eters o a new relationship like that have not

been ully defned.

Perhaps the diculty stems rom the

act that there are multiple acets to such

a relationship. There are contractual and

operational components complicated by

a changing support environment. The old

structures and contractual relationshipand business models ocused on service

silos and individual agency and departmen

needs are giving way to broad enterprise

and even multi-jurisdictional strategies. The

technology itsel is also changing. More

robust, capable and aordable systems are

able to accommodate multiple users in a

shared environment and are acting as a

magnet pulling people toward an uncertain

uture. We used to be able to predict need

and outcomes over a 2 to 3 year period o

time, but with the current rate o techno

logical change combined with changes in

political and organizational priorities, we are

lucky these days to predict needs and satis

action outcomes six months to a year out

That makes investment decisions (people

services and solutions) ten times harder,

says Emanuel.

As they contemplate the nature o the

change and the role their industry partner

will play, CIOs routinely throw around term

like partnership and shared risk. This i

especially true when they are talking abou

new technologies or support models like


9/12

cloud computing. For example, Phil Bertolini

says, I believe that the hybrid cloud is a way

to bring the partners together to reap the ben-

efts. Government would beneft rom lower

costs and the vendors would beneft and

proft rom oering the cloud-based services.

Utilizing governments inrastructure creates

a trusted relationship that the vendors/part-

ners can trade o o. Steve Emanuel took the

concept one step urther: In the hybrid cloud

the government would be providing the phys-

ical data center and lending its reputation to

the partnership. The vendors would supply the

technical inrastructure and reap the profts.

This kind o relationship would be considered

sharing the risk.

That kind o proposal raises some signif-

cant questions. For example, exactly what

risk is being shared? Who are the eligible

customers or such a service oering; who

decides that and who recruits them? What

happens when something goes wrong? Whois legally liable and or what are they liable? Is

it appropriate or even legal or a private entity

to make a proft utilizing governments inra-

structure? Some states have prohibitions

against giting public assets in this ashion

that may bar such a relationship. Is it appropri-

ate or a government to lend its reputation

to a private entity? I it did, would industry

view that as valuable?

Despite some unanswered questions, there

is interest in fnding a way to provide services

based on a new and dierent relationship

between government and industry. Numer-

ous CIOs have said they are interested in

participating in a service solution that includes

both government and industry working as

joint providers. Emanuel says, I remember

asking one vendor that is in the storage busi-

ness, what it would take or them to consider

building cloud-type storage in my colleagues

data center. While my accessing their storage

capacity would be a service I would purchase

rom them as a private company, I have ewer

security concerns about buying cloud services

knowing that a government colleague would

be assisting in the management o security

and connectivity.

That kind o arrangement might ease the

nerves o CIOs, but it isnt clear that it would

signifcantly reduce cost or greatly improve the

services provided and received under currentmodels. However, industry is interested in

working closely with government to explore

the potential o new relationships and struc-

tures as long as both parties are willing and

able to change.

There have been many types o share in

savings models brought orward over the

years. Some around award ees i the vendor

exceeds specifc service level agreements

(SLA) or other benchmarks, but nothing thahas been derived rom a collaborative per

spective around business models, points ou

Ed White. I through close collaboration

it is determined that there is a need or

new model, then the government should be

willing to participate in promoting that mode

and encouraging use by other jurisdictions, o

without use it is destined to ail.

That view would seem to require that gov

ernment not only take on an active role in

defning a new, joint business model but som

signifcant responsibility as part o the part

nership or successully marketing it. Would

government participating in a partnership

relationship like this with a private entity and

marketing their services to other government

place them in competition with other private

sector companies and perhaps in violation o

procurement or other statutes? White doesn

think so as long as what government promote

and endorses is the concept o doing busines

in a better way and not a specifc contracto

or solution.

There are clearly some signifcant que

tions that have yet to be asked and answered

but both government and industry seem to

be in ull agreement that this is the time to

undamentally rethink the nature o what con

stitutes a successul relationship and evaluat

the possibility o moving beyond the historica

provider to a customer relationship and into

a truer orm o partnership.

Partnership: Be Careful What You

Ask For

The term partnership is generally use

as the most common descriptor o a new

and dierent kind o relationship between

government and industry. The notion o

government and industry working togethe

in partnership, or perhaps more accurately

In the hybrid cloud the governmentwould be providing the physical datacenter and lending its reputation to thepartnership. The vendors would supplythe technical inrastructure and reap theprofts. This kind o relationship would beconsidered sharing the risk.

Steve Emanuel, CIO, Montgomery County, Md.


10/12

public-private partnership has been dis-

cussed or many years. In 2006, the National

Association o State Chie Inormation O-

cers (NASCIO) Corporate Leadership Council

(CLC) explored the issue.

In looking at the defnition o partnership

they postulated, The nature o partner-

ships are oten in the eye o the beholder,

however, there is a key distinguishing actor

o public-private partnerships: the transer

o risk between partners. The appropri-

ate allocation o risk is the big question

to answer, but always necessary to the

success o the partnership.

The appropriate allocation o risk is at the

heart o the discussions the CIO Working

Group has been having. It is perhaps

more complicated now than ever beore,

though, as fscal conditions are driving gov-

ernments to seek out more complicated

relationships with non-traditional partners

in search o sustainable economic and

technical exibility.

Working Group members recognize

that i there is going to be success, someundamental things have to happen and

there are other things they would like to

see change.

One CIO would like to see agreements

organized this way: The public-private

partnership will be successul i frm goals

are established and agreed to at the outset

o the relationship. For example, the stated

goals o the deal should be: cost-eective

price, quick implementation, exible licens-

ing model and invoicing system, solid

technical roadmap to ease upgrades, and

increased unctionality that meets our

needs. This will allow or objective metrics

to measure success o the business partner-

ship and mitigate the transaction risk or

both parties.

Those are indeed fne metrics rom a

government customer standpoint, but

what in there speaks to a partnership

where both risks and rewards are shared

equally? Perhaps more to the point, how

and by whom will, cost eective, quick,

exible, and solid be defned? The

CIOs approach may go a long way toward

making a traditional sale and implemen-

tation successul but it doesnt seem to

provide a oundation or partnership.

The uncertainty some industry

members o the group have demonstrated

when challenged by government to

enthusiastically engage in discussion o

greater and more open collaboration is

understandable. One sotware companyexecutive put it this way: For government

the historical view o collaboration has

always been one-way, restricted, govern-

ment to industry. The mindset is that open

collaboration is not allowed. That needs to

be changed. It has to be championed rom

within the government. As long as the reg-

ulatory mechanisms are there or it to take

place then it will ourish and grow.

Industry has always been in avor oclose collaboration, as long as it is thei

company that enjoys the beneft o that

collaboration. Moving toward a true part

nership model, by defnition, means tha

under uture agreements some companie

will be even closer to their historical cus

tomers while others will be essentially le

on the outside. Another question that ha

yet to be answered is: What are the appro

priate regulatory mechanisms that wi

allow or the creation o closer partnership

while respecting the legal mandates or ai

and open competition?

There is one major point on which the

group seems to have come to consensus

To successully identiy and implemen

new working relationships, the operat

ing principles and constraints that each

public and private must operate

under need to be demystiied and bette

understood.

Government is bound by laws and

policies that vary rom jurisdiction to juris

diction. It is also under unprecedented

fscal pressure, resulting in budgets and

sta levels being routinely cut.

However, government isnt alone in

acing pressure. The private sector wants to

successully work with government, but like

government, there are budgets that mus

be adhered to and per ormance goals tha

must be met. O ten what may be perceivedby government as private sector reluctance

to engage in reewheeling negotiations

stems rom industrys need to meet com

pliance and reporting requirements placed

on it by some level o government. New

relationships, whatever orm they may take

need to be built upon a ull and reciproca

understanding o the business and lega

realities both parties must navigate.

To successully identiy and implement new workingrelationships, the operating principles and constraintsthat each public and private must operate underneed to be demystifed and better understood.


11/12

There is a good reason the changing

nature o the relationship between the

public and private sector has been at the

top o the CIO Working Group agenda or

the past year. The more group members

interact and talk with each other, the clearer

it has become: The old way o doing things

simply isnt working very well or govern-

ment or industry.

There are many questions that still need

to be answered beore signiicant change is

likely. First among them seems to be, Who

moves irst?

Phil Bertolini says, Governments must

learn to work closer with the private sector

to survive and the private sec tor must learn

to work closer with government to remain

proitable. We need each other! But irst,

governments need to learn to work with

each other more closely; in many cases

this is where the partnerships break down.

Maybe the private sector could create

innovative licensing models that reward

government cross-boundary partnerships.

So then, what would these innovative

licensing models look like and how can

industry be expected to accomplish this

when government, by its own admission,

oten has diiculty working in a coopera-tive environment?

It would seem that Steve Emanuel has

identiied a undamental prerequisite or

change when he says, I keep coming back

to trying to better understand how govern-

ment best aligns with the private sector

capabilities that surround us. To a large

degree, Steves view is shared by his CIO

peers. Does this mean that government is

willing to align itsel according to the capa-

bility industry is positioned to provide, or

will the traditional demand or industry

to conorm to the unique and individual

desires o separate government entities

continue to prevail?

The stakes are high or both government

and industry. Phil Bertolini summarizes

CIO concern when he says, I we do not

ind a way to change the way we work

together then the drag on government IT

will become so strong it may kill innova-

tion as we know it. As revenues continue

to decline, the ability to remain innovative

is strained. New models need to be devel-

oped and tested. We cannot keep moving

orward in our old paradigm.

Ed White sees it the same way on the

industry side. I things dont change we

will only see status quo, consolidation

and missed opportunity. There will be

limited innovation without better collabo-

ration between government and industry.

Shrinking budgets will orce industry into a

consolidation that promotes a risk-adverse

posture. This will in turn drive industry to

deliver to the lowest common denomina-

tor to remain competitive, thereby stiling

innovation. There will be some innovativethinkers that will remain, but without gov-

ernment having access to them through an

easy, collaborative mechanism, the oppor-

tunity to beneit rom their advances and

new ideas will be missed.

The good news is there is cause or

optimism. Government and industry are

committed to continuing their dialogue in

an eort to better understand each other

and to ind a better way to work togethe

I believe that there are business entitie

that are looking at government as mor

than a customer, but we need to ind

way to develop an approach that talks to

the government need, iscal condition and

legislative constraints while ensuring tha

businesses are not over extended, incor

porating new and unnecessary risk, say

Steve Emanuel.

So perhaps the solution to the problem

o who moves irst isnt an either/or sce

nario ater all. Through the current proces

o interaction and engagement both gov

ernment and industry are developing a

better understanding o the challenge

and opportunities they share. The best wa

to make real and lasting progress and to

improve the working relationship between

government and industry is or both side

to continue down the path together. Ate

all, together they share the responsibilit

or answering the only question that really

matters and that is, How can governmen

best provide the services citizens need

and expect? By keeping the conversation

going in a spirit o good will and with the

courage to both stand up and speak and

sit down and listen there is no doubt thaby their continuing to work together tha

question will be satisactorily answered.

Summary and Next Steps


12/12

The Center or Digital Government and Government Technologywould like to thank the

Digital Communities CIO Leadership Group members or their support and assistance in the

creation o this report, with special recognition to the ollowing task orce members or their

specifc contributions.

2011 e.Republic. All rights reserved.

www.digitalcommunities.

IndustryMembers:

Peter Anderson Fort Worth, Texas, Chie Inormation Ocer

Glenn Angstadt Chester County, Pa., Chie Inormation Ocer

Phil Bertolini Oakland County, Mich., Deputy County Executive and CIO

Mike Bilardo Hyland-OnBase

Paul Christman Quest Sotware

Otto Doll Minneapolis, Minn., Chie Inormation Ocer

Steven Emanuel Montgomery County, Md., Chie Inormation Ocer

Daniel Gillison Sprint

Terri Jones Hyland-OnBase

Ira Levy Howard County, Md., Chie Inormation Ocer

Catherine Maras Bexar County, Texas, Chie Inormation Ocer

Robert Patterson Allegheny County, Pa., Chie Inormation Ocer

Gary Quinn Suolk County, N.Y., Chie Inormation Ocer

Edward White McAee

Lisa Young AT&T

Redefining the Wking Relationship Local Govt and Industry

Documents

Transcript of Redefining the Wking Relationship Local Govt and Industry