Technology does not run itself. All items of technology need people to implement them, train their users and operate them. Election management bodies (EMBs) must employ staff for these purposes.
Internal or external staff
Perhaps the biggest technology staffing decision facing an EMB is whether to use internal staff or external staff (contractors or outsourced suppliers). There are advantages and disadvantages to either course, and the most effective solution may be to use a mix of both.
Where there is a need for full-time assistance to fulfil a technology function, as a general rule (depending on locally applicable terms and conditions), it is probably more cost effective in the long term to employ permanent staff. This is because external contractors tend to have a higher per-hour cost than permanent staff to compensate for lack of tenure and contract overheads.
However, where the need for technology related staff is intermittent, particularly during the implementation and training phase of technology use, it may be more cost effective to use external contracted staff. Use of external staff for purposes with a limited life span alleviates the need to find other employment for those staff when the project ends, or the necessity for severance payments.
Another advantage to using external staff, particularly for highly skilled functions, is that external specialists are more likely to have the necessary expertise than in-house staff. This is most relevant when the technology under consideration is new to the EMB, and internal staff are unlikely to have come into contact with it. However, even with ongoing systems, external staff with an exposure to a wide range of clients and access to specialised training may be more likely to be effective than internal staff not provided with the same opportunities.
Conversely, an advantage of using internal staff, particularly for ongoing use of technology, is that internal staff are more likely to have a thorough understanding of the EMB's specialised systems than external consultants would have. This is especially so where an EMB uses customised systems that are not in general use elsewhere.
Where internal staff are used, there is a risk of relying on a small number of individual staff members who carry their knowledge around in their heads. This is a dangerous situation, as all staff members move on eventually, by choice, accident or design. EMBs can take steps to ensure that the departure of key individuals do not place the operation of their technology at risk. These individuals can be required to document their knowledge so that others can operate the systems in their absence. Another solution is to ensure that a range of staff, internal or external, are able to operate each system, so that individuals do not have a monopoly of knowledge about a system.
As there are pros and cons to use of both internal and external staff, most EMBs tend to employ a mix. Internal staff are best used on ongoing functions and to ensure that institutional memory persists. External staff are best used for short-term tasks such as implementation and training, but they are also useful for specialised tasks requiring technical qualifications or wide experience.
An EMB will also employ a range of staff whose main purpose may not be to implement or operate technology, but who nevertheless may use technology every day in their occupation. Virtually all clerical and policy staff will use technology every day, even if they do not think of themselves as technology staff. In these cases, the decision to use internal or external staff will depend on their main function, rather than on their technological skills. As technology use becomes more prevalent, the technology skills of such staff will likely become more relevant to their selection and ongoing employment.
