AUTHOR'S RESPONSE TO SHELDON COHEN'S LETTER

Public Management, Sep 2009 by Collins, Scott

Many of Mr. Cohen's points regarding the strategic role of IT are well taken. He is correct in saying that "IT must be recognized as a tactical and strategic asset, and the use of it should be encouraged throughout the enterprise." There is also no question, as he points out, that "managers should be doing everything possible to encourage the effective and efficient use of IT wherever this benefits the local government."

The question, then, is how to achieve both objectives: ensuring that G? is a tactical and strategic asset, and ensuring that IT is used effectively and efficiently in support of the benefits of the local government. Whether or not IT functions as an internal service fund - if costs of IT are distributed with a cost-allocation methodology or if those costs are simply funded like any department in an organization's general fund - the challenge at hand still remains how to achieve both objectives.

The article's three authors, myself included, believe that IT will be successful if it meets the fundamental objectives of achieving transparency about the true cost of IT services, increasing accountability for services, determining that services provided by IT are competitive and value-added, and ensuring that services provided are relevant (as Cohen pointed out, relevant in the context of the benefits of the local government as a whole).

We believe, based on experience, that an internal service fund model can be an effective model for facilitating the identification of programs, determining accurate program costs, and evaluating those programs based on the objectives described - including transparency, accountability, and customer choice.

Cohen, describing a taxicab driver with the meter nmning, argues that this model could lead to less use of the service. Taxicabs, however, still provide an effective solution for people looking to achieve their transportation objectives.

Moreover, by the nature of the economic forces of competition, the taxicab offers a service that comes with a cost that the consumer is willing to accept. There is transparency and accountability in the transaction.

On top of this, the customer has a choice in the matter. The customer can compare the taxicab with other modes of transportation available to meet the objectives - walking, buying a car, public transportation, airplane. The taxi has its place as a strategic solution, when needed. And yet government does not pay taxicab operators, to ensure that the use of taxicabs does not go down.

Cohen is rightfully concerned about the final objective - access - and we now climb back into that taxicab: although government does not subsidize the cost of taxicabs to the public, when it comes to public transportation, sometimes those costs are indeed subsidized to encourage the use.

Why does government encourage the use of public transportation? Public transportation can lead to reduced environmental threats, better efficiency in overall fuel and energy consumption, economic gains as all citizens have increased access to jobs, and less traffic congestion, all of which improve transportation and mobility objectives.

Central to Cohen's point, access to IT, just like access to public transportation, makes sense when the provision of such access leads to the overall objectives of the local government. In an internal service fund model, or any model, access to basic, core, enterprisewide services should be provided within the context of the local government's enterprise objectives.

For transparency, accountability, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, value-added services, and access to services, the thoughtfully implemented internal service fund model appears to be the superior model most suited to meet all of the objectives.

SCOTT COLLINS

Greenprint Fellow, Recycling Initiatives City and County of Denver, Colorado

Scott.Collins@denvergov.org