the ashes of defeat into a beautiful and wonderful entity.

Sarcasm aside, this is a good idea -- in theory. The Commonwealth doesn’t need 91 different agencies with 91 different contracts for high-speed dongles at 91 different prices. One contract, using economies of

scale, can indeed save the Commonwealth money.

But there are issues with the new VITA that conceivably could turn "VITA: New Hope" into "DIT 2: Train Wreck."

One recurring concern is management. Many years ago, someone had the bright idea of consolidating information technology functions into what is now DIT, for the same reasons that VITA is now being formed. That, too, seemed like a good idea. But as DIT management grew more and more distant from what was occurring in the field, it became an  unwieldy behemoth that couldn’t seem to do anything right. DIT lost its ability to adapt to cutting-edge

developments. Its services became outdated and poorly managed. In a nutshell, management didn't have the foggiest idea what it was doing.

Now, it appears, VITA will be staffed by the very people who made DIT the joke it was. How will merely changing an agency’s name have any significant

benefit? If management couldn’t manage DIT, what makes anyone think it will be able to manage VITA any better? Shifting desks and buying new agency t-shirts won’t have any impact on how the rest of Virginia

government sees VITA. And if people regard VITA the way they saw DIT, that’s an iceberg you see up ahead, folks.

The response from the Secretary of Technology's office is far from reassuring. When I submitted questions by e-mail (using my pseudonym, Eddie Capra) to the secretary of technology's office and VITA transition office, Judy Napier, the assistant secretary of technology, was given the task of answering. When asked how VITA would differ from DIT if all the employees were the same, she responded: “As of July 1, VIPnet, DTP (the Department of Technology Planning) and DIT are abolished and those employees will become VITA employees."

The exact details of how VITA would distinguish itself from DIT, I was told, are something for the as-of-yet unformed VITA Board to decide.

So, the governor and secretary of technology spent all that work creating the idea of VITA, and even hand-picked who they wanted to lead the flagship, but never considered the question of how it would be any different from what we already had. I find that hard to believe. With all the money the Commonwealth shoveled into BearingPoint’s pocket for research and due-diligence reports, one would hope a more concrete plan would have been created than just, “Build it and they will come.”

Another problem apparently flying under the VITA Transition Office’s radar is accountability. DIT, though difficult to manage, at least had a clear line of accountability through the secretary of technology and, then, to the governor. VITA, by contrast, will answer to a board, some of whose members are appointed by the General Assembly. If the old DIT

wasn’t responsive to the secretary and the governor, what reason is there to think VITA will be any more responsive to a board and an autonomous CIO?

State IT workers are totally skeptical, as evidenced by the VITA tagline jokingly passed around the halls of Virginia government: “VITA, not quite as bad as DIT.”

And that's being optimistic! We have no reason

to believe VITA won’t be exactly like DIT. Spending a few million on a new building and a new logo won’t change DIT's core deficiencies. Early signs coming out of the VITA Transition Office indicate that the level

of confusion is even greater than expected. Elements of the strategic plan are months past their deadlines, website design guidelines and other “best practices” are stalled or improperly followed, and everything involved in the process is either late or defanged. No mandates are on the horizon, and no plans for dealing with hundreds of “disenfranchised” IT workers are

evident.

The official party line is that there will be no layoffs, yet there will be a consolidation of IT staff and a cost savings. Sure, that'll motivate people -- along with the dynamite pay raises, bonuses, stock options and other juicy perks the state provides.

In all seriousness, how can anyone expect a change in organizational culture when the dysfunctional state personnel system remains in place? The state has few tools to motivate the top performers and no efficient way to weed out the incompetents. State employees are incentivized to play it safe, wait out the changes, retire and collect their pensions.

In short, if anyone thinks VITA will be a success, he hasn't been paying attention. The big question now is who will pay for the cleanup? And how many good IT workers will the state lose to attrition and apathy in the process?