FACT SHEET

LB&FC Study of Computer Interoperability Within Pennsylvania State Government

Computer interoperability refers to the ability to link different types of computers together so that they can readily communicate and share data and software applications. Pennsylvania, like many states, has established at least an informal goal of achieving computer interoperability between its state agencies. Also like many states, the Commonwealth's computer infrastructure has developed over many years with little regard for the need for interoperability between state agencies. We found:

• Greater computer communications and interoperability within state government can yield many advantages. These advantages include: expanded electronic mail, improved hardware and software purchases, shared equipment and resources, shared databases and reduced database redundancy, implementation of electronic data interchange, and improved linkages with other levels of government and the public.
• Computer networks exist between many state agencies, but many opportunities for productivity improvements remain. The Commonwealth's networks include the SNA CORENet, the FDDI, POSNet, CLEAN, JANET, Penn*Link, PREPnet, and Healthnet. Despite these noteworthy efforts, additional electronic communication and interoperability within and between governmental units would improve their productivity. The report cites some of the needs reported by 19 different departments and offices.
• Many obstacles and issues need to be addressed before the Commonwealth can realize the full benefits of computer interoperability. These obstacles and issues include: establishing technical and data standards, additional EDP staff and training, capital budgeting for automated technology purchases, establishing policies for public access to data, and establishing policies for agency responsibility over data management and integrity.
• Key policies have been slow to develop and have not been finalized. A 1993 policy statement entitled Pennsylvania Open Systems Interconnection Policy was drafted but never made official. In 1994 a proposed Commonwealth Computer Interoperability Standards Policy was developed and forwarded to the Secretary of Administration with the recommendation that it be issued as a management directive. As of mid-January 1995, no such management directive had been issued. Similarly, in April 1993 a proposed set of policies for access to automated public records was submitted to the Governor's Policy Office, but no action was ever taken.
• The Commonwealth has not had a clear goal, direction, or organizational structure for achieving greater computer interoperability. A 1988 Executive Order established the Governor's Committee on Automated Technology consisting of high-level executive branch, legislative, and private sector members to provide advice on automated technology in the Commonwealth, but the Committee has not met for at least 5 years. The 1988 Executive Order also created a Steering Committee on Automated Technology which meets only about once a year. The role and responsibilities of the Special Assistant to the Governor for Telecommunications and Technology Systems, whom some have viewed as the Commonwealth's chief information officer, have shifted in recent years and have never been clearly defined.

1. The General Assembly should consider creating in statute the position of Chief Information Officer to be the central point of accountability for the management of the state's automated technology resources. The CIO should be appointed by and report to the Governor.
2. The General Assembly should also consider creating a broad-based Information Resource Advisory Board to help establish a strategic vision for the use of automated technology within state government.
3. We recommend that the day-to-day operations of the Central Management Information Center remain with the Secretary of Administration and not be transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
4. We also recommend that the automated technology purchasing function, which is in the Department of General Services, not be included under the Chief Information Officer.
5. The General Assembly should consider amending the Capital Facilities Debt Enabling Act to clearly allow major automated technology purchases to be included in the Capital Budget.

   LB&FC: 2/15/95

   Response to the LB&FC Study of Computer Interoperability
   Within Pennsylvania State Government

   Response of the Director of the Bureau of Automated Technology Management:

   The Director of the Bureau of Automated Technology Management, a Bureau within the Office of Administration, submitted a five-page response. The Director stated that his Bureau is in conceptual agreement with the study's findings and recommendations. The Director agreed with the recommendation to create a Chief Information Officer position. However, the Ridge Administration believes the CIO function should be under the Office of Administration as the Deputy Secretary for Computer Operations and Technology. This Deputy Secretary would have responsibility over the Central Management Information Center, state government automated technology plans and policies, and would take the lead in developing policies for improving the public telecommunications infrastructure in Pennsylvania. The Bureau also recommends a strong preference for IPS as the best standard for achieving an open systems, interoperable environment in the Commonwealth.