Over the past 40 years, the IT industry has done more to shape state and local governments than the other way around. The same can't be said for the federal government, which, coincidentally, spends about the same amount on technology.
Since the first generation of computers, the federal government has played a critical role in shaping the evolution of the technology industry. It was the federal government that sponsored the original research and development during WWII that led to what is now the computer industry. It was the federal government that purchased the first generation of computers for civilian use to help carry out the census in 1951. And it was the federal government that financed the creation of the network that was the forerunner of the Internet. Even now, the federal government continues to pioneer new security and information search technologies.
Some may point to legal actions a handful of states have taken during the past few years, especially concerning the software industry, as examples of the states becoming more assertive. But these steps have been largely defensive in nature and limited in scope to narrow industry business practices. Taking legal steps in court to get your voice heard is no substitute for exercising collective and proactive buying power in the marketplace.
Probably the greatest single barrier to exercising more influence in the market is the structural fragmentation of state and local government technology buying. Purchasing across more than 100,000 separate entities dilutes power in the market and inhibits state and local governments from acting from a position of strength that is commensurate with the size of their expenditures.
While fragmentation is a fact of life, it need not be an insurmountable barrier to acting in concert. Where state and local governments have been able to pool their purchasing, such as with volume purchases of commodity technology products on statewide buying schedules, it has served them well.
But being heard in the marketplace is not just about getting the best possible price on a purchase. It's also about influencing what new products and services are brought to market. And it is here that acting with one voice would best serve the interests of state and local governments.
There is probably no greater need--and no better time than now--for one voice than in the area of homeland security. State and local governments have had two years to do their homeland security planning and gain a firm understanding of their needs and requirements. During this same time, the technology industry has repositioned resources to meet the needs of government and, with the continued slowdown in technology spending by the commercial markets, is poised to be responsive.
State and local governments need to take advantage of this rare juxtaposition of market forces. It is an opportunity to receive more than just the usual assurance from the technology industry that it will deliver quality products and services at a competitive price.
What state and local agencies need is to have a seat at the table in shaping the functionality of the products and a voice in determining the standards of performance--security, infrastructure, software design--the products will be held to. And, if those products don't yet exist, they need to influence the research and development required to bring such products to market.
The challenge is much more complex and larger in scope than simply deciding what technology to buy. There are many complicated issues that need to be addressed in order for progress to be made. These include reforming purchasing regulations, adopting new standards, reengineering business processes and establishing rules of engagement with private industry.
When times were good, and other needs more pressing, it was certainly understandable that the states were comfortable operating within the traditional boundaries of working with the technology industry. However, it's now a different era. There is a pressing need today for the states to demonstrate to the technology industry that this market can be the "laboratory of technology innovation" as well as the "laboratory of democracy." But the states can hardly expect the technology industry to act any differently as long as its customers are not speaking with a unified voice.
