The authors employed multiple methods in gathering their information including a mail survey of data processing directors and other top county officials, a telep hone survey of top elected and appointed officials, detailed case studies of 13 selected counties, and a detailed analysis of the budgets of 40 counties. As a result, the report contains not only a wealth of quantitative data but also qualitative insights. The most striking finding is the massive nature of the investment in information management. The authors note that certain elements of information management costs are hidden because they are not broken out as separate line items. Despite the huge size of the investment, only 34 percent of the top county executives had a planning process for information management.
Training is the most neglected of information management functions.
However, less than one percent of information management positions are dedicated to training. Training is the first area to be cut in county budgets. They also found that 24 percent of all county training positions were vacant. The auth ors point out that training must be viewed as a continuous process which cannot be terminated after a one-time event for employees. Unless more attention is devoted to training, the vast investment in software and hardware will not result in the producti vity gains expected by government.