Hannah Hoffman

Statesman Journal

The State of Oregon does not have a fabulous track record when one considers technology projects. Even discounting Cover Oregon, there's a long list of projects that have been very difficult to implement, and many agencies have never even gotten to start the projects they need to.

For example, the Department of Corrections badly needs an electronic medical records system. Its prisons are scattered all over the state, and inmates often move from one facility to another. Their medical charts, however, are all in big paper folders that are unwieldy to move. It's also impossible for two doctors in different prisons to look at the same chart simultaneously.

It's not an unreasonable or unusual need. Hospitals all over the country are adopting electronic records. So why can't the state?

The obstacles to doing so aren't just money or political will. Technology projects like that need people to build them and then maintain them, and that is what governments are lacking, a recent study found.

The report, done by Freedman Consulting LLC, was paid for by the Ford Foundation and MacArthur Foundation. It's a study inspired by the problems the federal government had in creating the national health care exchange website.

However, its findings will probably be relevant to Oregon state workers, whose departments have often struggled with a technology project or needed one that never got off the ground.

Here's what the study said:

• Government lacks technology experts. Government employees told researchers there aren't enough people working in the public sector who understand computers, electronic data or the Internet. Even if you have an amazing technology setup, it won't run itself. Without enough people who know what they're doing, projects stall or never get off the ground.

• It's really hard to hire (and keep) technology experts. The most common obstacle people mentioned was money, but they also talked about government's lack of flexibility. It's hard to pursue groundbreaking work or do anything that might be considered disruptive, they said. But new technology often is disruptive in the workplace, and it usually requires people to change how they do their jobs.

• On a related note, the public sector doesn't pay well. Technology experts get paid very, very well in the private sector. The private tech sector also offers an environment of innovation and creativity. (Think of Google's ping pong tables and open "campus" layout.) In contrast, the government doesn't usually offer those perks. It doesn't pay nearly as well, and it's certainly not known as an alternative Google. It can be hard to attract people to work in technology for the government when there is such a large opportunity cost attached.

• Government should take notes from other fields. Not every company has trouble hiring technology experts, and employees who were interviewed said the public sector should learn from success stories elsewhere.

• There are ways to attract young talent. Government agencies should offer internships, fellowships and other training opportunities to young people entering the technology field in order to get them familiar with the public sector and what it's like to work there.

• The culture needs to change. Government agencies need to be more open to using technology at work and more comfortable with experimentation and disruption. Greater comfort with changes in technology will make everything go more smoothly.

The problems at Cover Oregon were complicated and diverse. But no one can deny that the people involved did play a role. Only state employees know how much these points apply here in Oregon, but they're worth further discussion.

hhoffman@statesmanjournal.com, (503) 399-6719 or follow at twitter.com/HannahKHoffman