proproject workshop for city staff capitol region council of governments funded by state of ct opm...

PROPROJECT WORKSHOP FOR CITY STAFF

CAPITOL REGIONCOUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSFUNDED BYSTATE OF CT OPM

December 16, 2008

By: Sheldon S. CohenICA Consulting, LLC

IT APPLICATION SHARING& DEVELOPMENT:

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RESPONDINGTO THE

PRIORITIES OF THE TOWNS

GOAL OF THIS PHASEOF THE IT APPS PROJECT

Determine a limited set of applications which respond to the priorities of the towns and can be implemented by the end of May, 2009 in order to meet the requirements of the OPM grant and build a sustainable future for the towns.

PROJECTCHARACTERISTICS

Participative: All 32 towns involved throughout. Full view of possible applications. Examine alternatives: COTS or development. Consultant’s intense involvement. Key, active role of the Committee. Careful preparation of RFP’s & contracts. Thorough evaluation of alternatives. Towns/Committee make well informed choices. Implementation/Execution/Long-term Success.

WORK PLAN:PHASE I

• Coordinate closely with the Steering Committee, CRCOG & towns.

• Develop survey of potential applications.• Meet individually with all 32 towns to

promote understanding of the project and execute the survey, specifying each town’s priorities.

• Analyze surveys & prepare findings for Steering Committee.

• Committee’s findings & recommendations.• 32 towns make final decisions per

Committee’s findings & recommendations.

STEERING COMMITTEE’S CHALLENGES

• Respond to priorities of the towns as these may vary by size, etc.

• Meet the requirements of the OPM grant—what’s doable in next 6 months and represents fiscally prudent expenditure of OPM’s $$$.

• Establish criteria for decision-making.• Weigh input per 60 applications on the survey

with others suggested during this process.• Be able to explain findings and

recommendations to the 32 towns.• Establish a basis for sustainability.

SURVEY PRIORITIES BY TOWN POPULATION—Page 1

SMALL: 0–13,000 POP: N = 12• 1. On-line Permitting.• 2. E-mail Archiving.• 3. Remote Backup; Land Records

Integration; Recreation Registration.MID-SIZED: 13,000–30,000 POP: N = 15• 1. Disaster Recovery.• 2. Document Management.• 3. E-mail Archiving.

SURVEY PRIORITIES BY TOWN POPULATION—Page 2

LARGE: 30,000–61,000 POP: N = 5• 1. E-mail Archiving.• 2. Document Management.• 3. CAMA/Appraisal.

SURVEY PRIORITIES FOR ALL TOWNS WITH TOTAL

VOTES

• 1. E-Mail Archiving 20.• 2. Disaster Recovery 19.• 3. Document Management 17.5• 4. On-line Permitting 17.• 5. Remote Backup 16.• 6. Land Records Integration 16.• 7. Facility Management 13.5

OTHER APPLICATIONSSUGGESTED BY TOWNS

32 potential applications have been suggested in addition to those on the original list of 60.================The Steering Committee has reviewed these and, following an initial screening, has used the same criteria as the 60 to

evaluate those which are serious candidates for pilot projects.

2 CLASSESOF APPLICATIONS

1. Services-based: Involve the procurement of professional services,not software.

2. Software-based: Involve the procurement of application software.

1. SERVICES-BASED APPLICATIONS & VOTES

1. E-Mail Archiving 20

2. Disaster Recovery 19

5. Remote Backup 16

2. SOFTWARE-BASED APPLICATIONS & VOTES

3. Document Management 17.5

4. On-line Permitting 17

6. Land Records Integration 16

7. Facility Management 13.5

KEY CHARCTERISTICS: SERVICE-BASED

APPLICATIONS

Several vendors. Expedited procurement. Expedited implementation. Relatively low front-end cost. Relatively short-term contractual

commitment. Need for highly specialized contract.

KEY CHARCTERISTICS: SOFTWARE-BASED

APPLICATIONS

Relatively few vendors: < 5. Expedited procurement only by eliminating

usual detail in RFP. Challenging implementation. Relatively high front-end cost even with ASP

model, e.g., systems analysis, conversion, training.

Effective longer-term contractual commitment. Need for highly specialized contract.

COMMON ISSUES FOR SOFTWARE AND SERVICES

Organization: Subcommittees--specific responsibilities.

Organization: Monthly/Frequent meetings of Steering Committee and subcommittees.

Organization: Subject matter experts (SME’s). Complete, formal, written, documented plan for all

tasks from procurement through implementation and support.

Establish common standards, terms and conditions (mandatory?) for all services and software.

SPECIALISSUES

Constraints: Time & $$$. # of applications which can be done in next months. # of towns participating in the pilot for each

application. How to spend the $$$--how much for which specific

applications? Wide geographic area: Scotland=>Plainville. Population range of towns: 1,700 – 61,000. Differences in IT baseline—staffing, range and

quality of current applications, infrastructure. Sourcing: COTS or development? What else???

CRITERIA FORDECISION-MAKING

Responsiveness to town’s priorities/services. Show results quickly. Low lifecycle cost. Increase revenue/Reduce costs. Scalability. Sustainability/Future projects. Probability of success. Amenable to shared approach. Community visibility. Buy-in from towns. Intangible benefits.

EVALUATION OFAPPLICATIONS WITH SCORING

App Server 48On-line Permits 46Disaster Recovery 41E-Mail Archiving 39Pet Licensing 39Document Mgt 38Remote Backup 36

SUMMARY OF2 TOP APPLICATIONS

1. App ServerServes all 32 towns quickly with low

cost and broad range of immediately useful information.

2. On-line PermitsHigh vote getter with significant,

highly visible immediate and long-term value to many towns and their customers.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

The Steering Committee and towns may wish to think about which applications to put in the “parking lot.”================Those which may not be able to be implemented quickly but could have significant value to the 32 towns over the longer term.

APPLICATIONS IN THE PARKING LOT

3. Disaster Recovery.4. E-Mail Archiving.5. Pet Licensing.6. Document Management.7. Remote Backup.

MOVING TO PHASE II

What happens next—and how—now that the final priorities for the IT Application Sharing & Development project have been determined by the towns?

PROCUREMENTALTERNATIVES

1. COTS: Commercial Off the Shelf. 2. Existing development by towns. 3. New development by towns. 4. New development by COTS

vendors. ========= Same RFP for all alternatives in order

to assure the same functionality.

NO NEED TO CHOOSEONE HORSE

Make multiple awards for each application in order to maintain healthy competition among vendors.

===================No leverage if you give the house away.

Applies both to COTS andin-house development.

WHAT THE RFPMUST DO

Present the towns’ needs accurately. Stratify vendors’ proposals, e.g., by

population range, in an easy-to-use format. Choose more than 1 vendor. Keep options open: no need to make

preemptive choices. Apply to both new development and COTS. Incorporate performance-based contracting.

WHAT COTS & DEVELOPMENT HAVE IN COMMON

Oversight—initial and ongoing. Training—initial and ongoing. $ Costs—initial and ongoing. Maintenance/Support: timeliness & quality. Managing professional services: $$$. Need/Opportunity for BPI/OPT. Future enhancements: What, When, How

=====Committee decides.

STAFFING

The Town Can Only Implement What It Can Staff.

The Town Can’t Implement What It Can’t Staff.

Applications Change/Improve

Nothing

By Themselves.

===

Organizations and People

Achieve Change With Good Applications.

CHANGE

WHAT ORGANIZATIONSNEED TO DO TO

REENGINEER SUCCESSFULLY

1. Define the organization’s identity and determine Its goals:

A. Who are you today?B. Who do you want to be in the future?C. Why?

2. Determine how best to build support for reengineering:

A. External/Political.B. Internal/Organizational.

3. Define Resources:A. Human.B. Fiscal.C. Physical.D. Informational.

THIS IS A BUSINESSFIRST, LAST AND ALWAYS!

Realities.1. Business first: The Boeing story.2. Technology second.=====Why the RFP and performance-based contract are

critical to the immediate and long-term success of this project for the towns!!!

Thank youTo CRCOG and the Towns for All of Your Hard Work During This Project!

ICA Consulting, LLCSheldon Cohenshelcons@aol.com 978-470-1470