application and software report: citizens' commission on lewiston and auburn cooperation
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
1/37
Cities of Lewiston and Auburn
Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and AuburnCooperation
Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations(Analysis and Development for Common Applications in the IT Infrastructure)
October 23, 2008
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
2/37
Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Project Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Project Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.4 Analysis Process ....................................................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Report Format.......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 Analysis and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 10
2.1 Revised Consolidation Priorities ............................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Consolidation Analysis and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Help Desk ...................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 GIS (Geographic Information Systems) ......................................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Email & Calendars ......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.4 Office Productivity ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.2.5 Permitting and Inspections ........................................................................................................... 162.2.6 ERP - (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax) ..................................... 17
2.2.7 Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory ..................................... 19
2 2 8 Motor Vehicle Registration 21
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
3/37
Executive Summary
Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker (BDMP) was retained by the Joint Services Commission to conduct an
independent and objective review of the Cities current business applications and information
technology (IT) infrastructure and identify recommendations related to the design of a future
consolidated IT environment. We worked with City leaders and stakeholders to clearly define the scope
of this project and its primary purpose as evaluating key business applications and recommending which
of these the Cities should consolidate into a shared IT environment. This analysis was conducted based
on the assumption that the Citys of Lewiston and Auburn (the Cities) will merge some or all of their IT
functions. Therefore our analysis, and this report, does not recommend whether the Cities should merge
their IT functions, but rather identifies recommended alternatives and priorities for each business
application area and IT service should the Cities move ahead with IT function consolidation.
While it was necessary for us to consider the potential costs and benefits of each alternative, the scope
of our work did not include a formal cost-benefit analysis for each recommendation. The following table
provides a summary of the recommendations made in this report:
Table 1: Summary of Recommendations
Final
Ranking Function
BDMP
Recommendation Summary of Reason
1 HelpdeskIssue an RFP for a new
software application
Neither City is currently using a helpdesk application. This
application will be critical to enable effective collaboration and
support of a diverse group of stakeholders/customers supported by
a combined IT department.
2 GISContinue existing
collaboration activities
Both Cities currently use ESRI GIS software and are already engagedin consolidating efforts to leverage work being done by each City
Department, and minimize costs (for example, housing data for
both Cities on one centralized data server).
C lid t t A b
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
4/37
Table 1: Summary of Recommendations
FinalRanking Function
BDMPRecommendation Summary of Reason
and Inventory
8Motor Vehicle
Registration
Consolidate to Auburns
Application (MUNIS)
Both Cities are using applications that are built on current
technology and are supported by reputable vendors in the
marketplace today; Trio Software (Lewiston) and Tyler/MUNIS
(Auburn). Our research showed that these applications are
comparable in terms of technology viability, level of integration,
business needs (reported level of user satisfaction) and cost.
Therefore our decision has been based upon simplification of
software/hardware/services support, by continuing to leverage
modules provided by MUNIS.
9 CAMA
Consolidate to
Lewistons Application
(CLT IAS)
Both Cities are using applications that are built on current
technology and are supported by reputable vendors in the
marketplace today; CLS-IAS/Tyler (Lewiston) and AssessPro/Patriot
Properties Inc. (Auburn). Our research showed that these
applications are comparable in terms of technology viability, level of
integration, business needs (reported level of user satisfaction) and
cost. Therefore our decision has been based upon simplification of
software/hardware/services support, by continuing to leverage
modules provided by MUNIS.
10Document
Management
Issue RFP for a new
software application
Each City has recently begun to implement new document
management systems. These efforts are focused on two different
functional areas; GIS (Auburn) and Human Resources (Lewiston).
Neither City is currently planning to roll out document management
at an enterprise level. We recommend that the Cities continue to
learn from these efforts and consider future consolidation
opportunities (through a structured RFP process) based on refined
document management needs.
11
Building
Environmental
Control
Issue RFP for a new
software application
Due to the hardware and software integration complexities and the
potential costs of replacing hardware prior to the end of its useful
life, we recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a single
vendor who can consolidate the monitoring and control of both
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
5/37
detailed analysis and recommendations; and Section 3, other considerations the Joint Services
Commission and the Cities should consider should IT consolidation efforts move forward.
Finally, during the course of this project, we received a tremendous amount of support, assistance,
courtesy, and flexibility from project participants in both Lewiston and Auburn. We would like to thank
the leaders and stakeholders from the Cities that participated in the project and worked hard to gather
much of the information that was needed to conduct our analysis.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
6/37
1.0IntroductionThis section of the report includes a project background, a summary of the project approach used during
the project, and a detailed summary that describes the format of this report.
1.1 Project BackgroundThe cities of Lewiston and Auburn (the Cities) are in the process of merging certain areas of theirmunicipal service delivery and operations as a result of recommendations from the Joint Services
Commission. The Commission was established to identify opportunities for the Cities to consolidate
operations to reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of local community services. The intent of this
project is to provide the Cities with an independent, objective review of the Cities current IT
infrastructure and business applications and offer specific recommendations related to the design of a
future consolidated IT environment.
In our work, we have endeavored to conduct a detailed analysis and deliver a final report that as closely
as possible adheres to the Commissions stated charter to:
develop plans for the implementation of new and enhanced cooperative,
collaborative and/or consolidated municipal operations and services to
improve the quality and effectiveness of the services provided to the
citizens of Lewiston and Auburn, while at the same time increasing the
productivity of municipal government and reducing the cost to the
taxpayers.
1 2 Project Approach
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
7/37
Deliverable D1: Information Request Sheet and Software Application Inventory Template(s).
2. Reviewed existing documentation, develop application inventory, and prepared an onsitemeeting schedule. We reviewed all available documentation regarding current administrative
business processes and supporting applications for both Cities that was provided. Utilizing the
templates regarding the existing applications used in both Cities, we compiled a single
Application Inventory document. After reviewing this information and as a result of working
with both City project leads, we established an onsite meeting schedule for our fact-findingwork.
Deliverable D2: Application Inventory and On-site Meeting Schedule.
3. Facilitated on-site meetings. We conducted interviews with personnel from the IT departmentsat both Cities and business areas impacted by potential consolidation efforts. These interviews
deepened BDMPs understanding of the Cities current environment and included discussion on
IT infrastructure, servers, applications; user satisfaction; security processes; budgets; projects
that are planned or are in progress; and short and long-term goals and objectives. The primary
purpose of these meetings with Cities was to fill in holes where data that was provided by the
Cities may not have been complete. In addition to meeting with IT and Business Users with each
City, we also had an initial meeting (on August 7, 2008) with the Joint Services Commission to
describe our project approach and work to date.
4. Prioritize application consolidation opportunities. A joint meeting with representatives fromeach City and BDMP was held on Wednesday, September 24th. During this meeting, participants
worked collaboratively to grade each business function from the perspectives of Need,
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
8/37
5. Develop Application Consolidation Recommendations Report. Once we had City approval onthe prioritized list of application consolidation opportunities, we assessed the currentapplications used by the Cities of Lewiston and Auburn and provided one of four
recommendations:
1. Consolidate to Auburns application;2. Consolidate to Lewistons application;3. Issue RFP for a new software application;4. Continue existing collaboration activities;
When providing these recommendations, we included a comparison of costs (current annual
software license maintenance, one-time estimated consolidation cost, and estimated
consolidated annual software license maintenance cost), viability of the company, ability to fit
within the Citys hardware/network architecture, and a measure of the consolidated
applications ability to improve existing business processes within the organization.
Deliverable D4: Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations
1.3 Project AssumptionsCity management directed BDMP to proceed under the following assumptions:
1. City IT Departments will merge in the future. City Management indicated that when conductingour analysis we should assume that the Cities IT Departments will be merged into one ITDepartment.
2. Organizational buy-in and consensus should be assumed. City management indicated that
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
9/37
best practices, and previous project experience. Additional assumptions we made that were used to
guide our recommendation process include:
- Application costs are based on new implementations and include three components: initialsoftware licensing costs (35% of total), hardware (10%), and implementation services (55%, i.e.,
data conversion, training, etc). This breakdown of costs is what we would expect based on
industry best practice and experience conducting similar projects for municipalities the size of
Lewiston and Auburn.
- Although the Cities may avoid some or all application implementation costs by conducting all, ora portion of, the implementation services internally, our estimates assume this responsibility
will be fully provisioned by the company implementing the systems.
- Ongoing annual maintenance costs typically approximate 20% of the initial software licensingcost component of the total implementation cost.
- Although the Cities may benefit from utilizing existing or shared hardware to support multipleapplications, our analysis assumes new hardware for each application and does not include
consideration for desktop computers.
- Our cost estimates do not include consideration for savings from future business process relatedefficiencies that might be gained by consolidating applications.
1.4 Analysis ProcessWe conducted our independent analysis based on four criteria including technology viability,
integration, business needs, and application costs. We worked with each IT department to collect
information for each category using focused questions (Appendix B) as a framework.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
10/37
analysis be conducted to determine if existing business or technical functionality may be lost
from migrating from one system to the other.
4. Application Costs: Finally, we evaluated available cost information for each Citys applicationsincluding both initial implementation costs and ongoing maintenance costs. In addition to
reviewing reported implementation and ongoing maintenance costs for current applications, we
also developed one-time cost and ongoing maintenance costs for each of our recommendations,
demonstrated in Appendix C (Estimated Consolidation Costs), which factored into our
consideration of cost.
Recommendation Categories
We undertook our analysis with the intent to provide one of four recommendations:
1. Consolidate to Auburns application;2. Consolidate to Lewistons application;3. Issue RFP for a new software application;4. Continue existing collaboration activities;
1.5 Report FormatOur report presents our analysis and recommendation for each of the final business functions that were
selected for the Commission to consider in their recommendations to the Cities. Additionally, we have
provided additional recommendations the Commission may consider as a means to improve current and
future collaboration. Our analysis is supported by information contained in the attached appendices.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
11/37
2.0Analysis and RecommendationsThis section of the report includes a summary list of the applications and the revised consolidation
priorities we considered as part of our analysis. This section of the report also details the analysis we
used to provide our recommendations within each major business function.
2.1 Revised Consolidation PrioritiesIn our analysis, we have made revisions to the opportunity priority ranking based on either new
information collected subsequent to the first ranking, or our professional experience. In general, we
ranked the opportunities based on a number of subjective criteria including current application projects,
the Citys strategic objectives, business needs, and project complexity. Table 2 below is the list of
software applications and the revised consolidation priorities we considered as part of our analysis:
Table 2: Current City Applications and Business Process PrioritiesFinal
RankingBusiness Function
City of Lewiston
Current
City of Auburn
Current
1 Helpdesk None None
2 GIS ESRI ESRI
3 Email and CalendarsGroupWise
(Novell)Exchange Server
(Microsoft)
4Office Productivity (wordprocessing, spreadsheet,
etc)
Office 2003, WordPerfect, & others(Microsoft, Corel)
Office 2007(Microsoft)
Permitting and GeoTMS PermitTrack
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
12/37
Table 2: Current City Applications and Business Process Priorities
FinalRanking
Business Function City of LewistonCurrent
City of AuburnCurrent
9 CAMACLT IAS
(Tyler Technologies)AssessPro
(Patriot Properties, Inc.)
10 Document ManagementFortis SE
(Westbrook Technologies, inc.)GemWarehouse(Knowledge Tree)
11 Building EnvironmentalControl
Tracer Summit (Trane): Controls HVAC
at City Hall & Violations Bureau Bldg
Metasys Building Automation System(Johnson Controls): Public Works and
Police Department Buildings.
Insight(Siemens)
12 Fuel ManagementSentry
(Trak Engineering, Inc)
Fuelmaster(Syn-Tech Systems, Inc.)
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
13/37
2.2 Consolidation Analysis and Recommendations2.2.1 Help Desk
Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
None None RFP for new application
Definition: Help desk software applications are designed to support IT departments in the collection,
categorizing, and correction of IT technical issues. Help desk solutions may be as simple as customizedspreadsheets used to track issues in small IT Departments to more robust help desk applications that
support such things as work orders, inventory, and online support for users.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that neither City is using a robust method for tracking IT related technical support issues.
We recommend the Cities IT Department work together to identify and implement a shared help desk
solution that could become a first step toward closer coordination and sharing of resources.
We made this decision based on the need for both Cities to have a help desk solution and the potential
benefits a shared solution may have on future collaboration efforts.
Benefits: By implementing a shared help desk application, the IT Departments may begin evaluating
how they might share technical support resources to maintain IT assets across both Cities. In particular,
as the Cities move toward standardizing around common technology environments, the common
experience and knowledge from both IT Departments may be leveraged to benefit both Cities throughprocess efficiencies and improved service. The Cities may also take advantage of capabilities offered in
robust helpdesk applications such as the ability for users to submit service requests via Internet,
t ti i t f i f l ti t i di id l bilit t t k d t
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
14/37
2.2.2 GIS (Geographic Information Systems)Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
ESRI ESRI Continue existing collaboration
activities
Definition: A geographic information system (GIS) is an application for capturing, storing, analyzing,
managing and presenting data that is linked to a specific geographical location (spatially referenced).GIS applications can allow users to create interactive queries (user-created searches), analyze spatial
information, edit data, maps, and present the results of all these operations. Depending on their
technical sophistication and configuration, GIS applications may integrate with CAMA applications,
permitting and inspection applications, and document management systems.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that both are using the same application (ESRI) and are already engaged in efforts to moreclosely coordinate and consolidate their GIS applications. For example, we learned that the Cities are in
the process of consolidating their data to one server (hardware device) environment instead of having
two servers to house the City specific data. This will reduce support and maintenance costs for the
future environment. We recommend that the Cities continue to support the existing consolidation
efforts by each engineering group and to use this as an example of how other City departments might
collaborate on technology initiatives.
Benefits: Continued success in lowering overall system support costs by sharing resources (such as data
servers) and benefiting from shared experience on the system.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
15/37
2.2.3 Email & CalendarsLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
GroupWise
(Novell)
Exchange Server
(Microsoft)
Consolidate to Auburns
Application
(Microsoft Exchange Server)
Definition: Emailing and Calendar applications are the foundation for group collaboration andcommunication. Typically, these applications include a server application and an application on each
users computer.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that each has decided to standardize their application environment to Microsoft server
technology. Thus, our recommendation is for Lewiston to move from their current Novell solution and
implement Microsoft Exchange Server.
However, while Lewiston should (and is already committed to) migrating to the MS Exchange Server
solution, we believe this is not a critical project since the current Novell environment is meeting the
Cities business needs. Therefore, this migration could be undertaken later as part of a larger project
such as potentially merging data centers.
Benefits: By consolidating to the same technology architecture, the primary benefit will be the need to
maintain only one environment for both Cities. Thus, the Cities may more easily share helpdeskresponsibilities, training resources, and infrastructure costs. The Cities may also make use of Microsofts
built in capabilities such as being able to view other users calendars for scheduling, sharing a global
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
16/37
Definition: Office Productivity software is perhaps the most recognized set of software applications and
is built around word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software. The predominant leader in thiscategory is Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), although there has been new competition in
that space with products such as OpenOffice and Google Docs.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that both are already deeply invested in MS Office applications. Lewiston is using an older
version of Office (2003) and has some individual users that still rely on alternative applications such as
WordPerfect. Auburn is current on the latest version of Office (2007). We recommend that the Citieswork to consolidate on the same MS Office version and eliminate the use of non-Office applications.
Benefits: By consolidating to a common office productivity software, the primary benefit will be the
need to support only one technology environment for both Cities. Thus, the Cities may more easily share
helpdesk responsibilities and training resources.
2.2.4 Office ProductivityLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
Office 2003, WordPerfect, etc
(Microsoft, Corel)
Office 2007
(Microsoft)
Consolidate to Auburns
Application
(MS Office 2007)
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
17/37
2.2.5
Permitting and InspectionsLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
GeoTMS
(Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions Inc.)
PermitTrack
(Custom MS Access)
RFP for new application
Definition: Applications related topermitting and inspection functions are used by city engineers and
inspectors for activities related to real estate parcels such as inspections, permits, complaints, andcorrective actions. From an enterprise perspective, such a system may be closely integrated with GIS,
CAMA, and/or financial applications to present all critical information related to land parcel.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
conducted user interviews to determine that the Cities should work together to identify and implement
a new Permitting and Inspection application solution.
We made this decision based on the mutual need evidenced by Auburns dissatisfaction with their
current application and Lewistons interest in alternatives. Auburn uses a non-vendor supported
application called PermitTrack that was custom developed with Microsoft Access. Additionally, it does
not contain the standard functionality that is available with other COTS (commercial off the shelf)
applications on the market today (i.e. Local Government Manager, Accela Land Management,
PermitSoft, etc). Lewiston has found the GeoTMS product difficult to use and not intuitive. While the
application is supposedly designed to integrate with the GIS system, it is not currently configured to do
so. The current users only use very basic functionality and do not have the resources and time to
leverage additional functionality.
Although our recommendation is for the Cities to consolidate through an RFP process for a new
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
18/37
2.2.6
ERP - (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax)Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
Pentamation (Sungard):
miscellaneous accounts
receivable (non-tax), accounts
payable, budgeting, general
ledger, human resources, and
purchasing.
Keystone (Keystone Software Solutions,
Inc): billing and accounts
receivable for property tax.
MUNIS (Tyler Technologies): Water &
Sewer billing and accounts
receivable
MUNIS
(Tyler Technologies, Inc.)
Consolidate to AuburnsApplication
(MUNIS)
Definition: ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) applications are often the most expensive and complex
software systems that municipal organizations may implement. ERP systems seek to seamlessly
integrate multiple business function applications and data into a single application and database. The
intent is to avoid the technical challenges and financial costs of having to create customized interfaces
or conduct manual transfers between several, non-integrated applications. Despite their promise, ERP
systems are difficult to implement because they impact virtually every business process in an
organization. In many cases, the most significant implementation costs and challenges are related to the
organizational changes and process improvements ERP systems typically require.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
19/37
Sungard Pentamation system to support miscellaneous accounts receivable (non-tax), accounts payable,
budgeting, general ledger, human resources, and purchasing. However, it uses the Keystone application
for billing and accounts receivable for property tax, and the MUNIS system for billing and accounts
receivable for water and sewer. Lewiston updated its Pentamation system three years ago for
approximately $600,000 and just implemented the MUNIS system for billing and accounts receivable
functions related to water and sewer for approximately $100,000. Lewiston City users are pleased with
their applications and have implemented processes and procedures required to support management
control and oversight.
Auburn uses Tyler Technologies MUNIS application for these same functions except water and sewer
which is not handled by the City. Auburn implemented MUNIS in 2006 for approximately $175,000 and
has spent considerable time and resources integrating it into their Citys business processes. Despite the
steep learning curve, Auburn City users have become familiar with the application and appear pleased
with its ability to meet their business needs.
Given the large, recent investments by both Cities, we believe it is unreasonable to expect that either
City will wish to consider consolidating to a common application in the near-term. However, for the longterm, we recommend that the Cities work toward consolidating to the MUNIS system since Lewiston
would be able to reduce the number of its applications from three (MUNIS, Keystone, and Pentamation)
to one and therefore reduce its IT support overhead and complexity. Lewiston already uses MUNIS for
utility billing and a Tyler Technologies product (CLT-IAS) for its CAMA system. Therefore, it makes sense
that Lewiston would eventually seek to consolidate toward a system that can also take advantage of
existing applications. Finally, Lewiston would benefit from leveraging Auburns familiarity with the
system.
Benefits: The primary benefit from consolidating to a common ERP system will be centralized data that
will enable the Cities to investigate improved performance measures based on historical data We
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
20/37
2.2.7
Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and InventoryLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
RTA: Fleet and Inventory Management
(Ron Turley Associates)
eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility
Management
(E-Govlink.com)
gbaMS
(GBA Master Series, Inc.)
Consolidate to Auburns
Application
(gbaMS)
Definition: For this engagement, we considered applications that consolidate the functions of work
orders, fleet management, inventory, and facilities management. As an example, such systems may
allow municipal citizens to submit service requests (i.e. pot holes, street lamps, road signs, etc) via
online web interface, convert the request to a work order and have it routed to the right department,
track the work accomplished, (including labor, materials, and overhead), create a bill or cross-charge,
and pass relevant accounting information to the municipal financial accounting system. Such systemswould also keep track of vehicle repairs, repair parts inventory (i.e. replacement pumps, fans, vehicle
parts, etc), bulk inventory (i.e. sand, salt, chemicals, etc), and support other functions related to
maintaining a public works department.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
spoke with representatives from both IT Departments and Lewistons Public Works department to
determine that the Cities should consolidate on the gbaMS application.
We made this recommendation because Auburn has recently implemented gbaMS solution to meet the
needs of the four identified public works functions (Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
21/37
work order management system. For example, the website may collect a request from a citizen to fix a
pothole, but a work order for this work is not automatically generated.
Benefits: For Lewiston, the primary benefit of this recommendation will be the consolidation of multiple
functions onto one application and adding functionality that does not currently exist. This system may
then be configured to more easily integrate with other City systems as needed to facilitate management
monitoring and control. Lewiston may also benefit from leveraging Auburns experience with the
system.
For both Cities, the potential benefits of this recommendation is the opportunity to work towardmerging both departments onto one database so that there can be one, shared view of the public works
departments. Once a common technology environment is in place, the Cities may begin to consider
other opportunities such as shared vehicle maintenance, more efficient plowing routes, and improved
staffing efficiencies.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
22/37
2.2.8
Motor Vehicle RegistrationLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
Trio Software
(Harris Computer Systems)
MUNIS
(Tyler Technologies, Inc.)
Consolidate to Auburns
Application
(MUNIS)
Definition: Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) software is the software used by City admin personnel toreceive citizen payments for vehicle registration and pass this information on to the States computer
systems.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that both are pleased with their current applications which are current and meet each Cit ys
business needs. We recommend that the Cities pursue eventual consolidation of their MVR applications
as part of a larger ERP project to consolidate on MUNIS in the future. We made this decision based on
our experience that when selecting between two comparable applications, it is preferable to consolidate
on a common vendor in order to take advantage of more closely integrated applications and support
services.
Benefits: The primary benefit from consolidating to a common MVR system will be the potential to gain
improved efficiencies from decreasing the complexity of the IT support environment. This benefit will be
realized by IT support staff maintaining one server (versus two), one application from one vendor
(versus two applications from two different vendors), and through consolidated/shared training
opportunities for staff across both cities.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
23/37
2.2.9
CAMA (Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal)Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
CLT IAS
(Tyler Technologies)
AssessPro
(Patriot Properties, Inc.)
Consolidate to Lewistons
Application (CLT-IAS)
Definition: CAMA applications are used by Cities to track and assign parcel valuations and tax rates that
are used to calculate real estate tax amounts. They typically then pass this information to a billing andaccounts receivable application to track collection.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that both are pleased with their current applications. The Patriot (AssessPro) and Tyler
Technologies (CLT-IAS) products are well recognized in the industry and have been integrated
successfully with other mainstream financial applications at similar sized municipalities. Lewiston and
Auburn have each implemented these applications recently (within four years) and the useful life of
these systems has not run its course.
However, we believe Auburn should consolidate on Lewistons application, the CLT-IAS product by Tyler
Technologies. We made this decision based on our experience that when selecting between two
comparable applications, it is preferable to consolidate on a common vendor in order to take advantage
of the opportunity for more closely integrated applications and support services.
Benefits: The primary benefit from consolidating to a common CAMA system jointly used by bothmunicipalities will be centralized data that will enable the Cities to more easily consider and ultimately
work toward consolidation of business functions. Also, by consolidating to a common vendor (Tyler
Technologies) the Cities may gain improved efficiencies from decreasing the complexity of the IT
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
24/37
2.2.10
Document ManagementLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
Fortis SE
(Westbrook Technologies, inc.)
GemWarehouse
(Knowledge Tree)
Issue RFP for a new software
application
Definitions: Document management encompasses a wide range of possible uses but is primarily focused
on the digitizing of documents and making those digital files available to a larger audience. Access tothese documents may be done through a number of different methods including a web-browser or
through integration with specific applications. A significant cost element for document management is
the hardware (scanners) and labor (scanning documents) required to convert existing paper documents
into digitized files that are then imported and stored in the document management system.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
spoke with representatives from both IT Departments to determine that the Cities. Each City has
recently begun to implement new document management systems. These efforts are focused on two
different functional areas; GIS (Auburn) and Human Resources (Lewiston). Neither City is currently
planning to roll out document management at an enterprise level. We recommend that the Cities
continue with their current plans to implement Fortis SE and GemWarehouse as these efforts are
relatively inexpensive and will provide an opportunity to learn and refine citywide document
management needs.
We also recommend that should the Cities decide to consolidate IT functions, a Document ManagementPlan should be developed that allows each City, and their respective School departments to leverage a
combined future document management investment. The decision for the future system should be
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
25/37
2.2.11 Building Environmental ControlLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
Tracer Summit (Trane)
Metasys Building Automation System
(Johnson Controls)
Insight
(Siemens)
Issue RFP for a new software
application
Definition: Building environmental control software allows for the centralized monitoring of
environmental sensors and monitoring / control of HVAC settings for multiple buildings. This allows an
organization to consolidate its facility environmental management in one location and implement
standard environmental control policies throughout the buildings.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that each City is using an environmental control application (or in Lewistons case, two
applications) that are provided by a major HVAC vendor in the market today and that are closely
integrated with environmental control equipment dispersed throughout each city. Due to the hardware
and software integration complexities and the potential costs of replacing hardware prior to the end of
its useful life, we recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a single vendor who can consolidate the
monitoring and control of both Cities installed HVAC equipment. Due to the complexities and
uncertainties about what hardware is supported by specific vendor software, we believe that an RFP
process will help the Cities identify the costs involved with reconfiguring software to accommodate
existing hardware. This in turn, will allow the Cities determine if hardware replacement or software
customization/configuration is the most appropriate strategic direction.
Benefits: The primary benefit of consolidating to a common building environmental control system will
b h i l i i d ffi i i f h d Ci i d d h l i d
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
26/37
2.2.12 Fuel ManagementLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation
Sentry
(Trak Engineering, Inc)
Fuelmaster
(Syn-Tech Systems, Inc.)
Issue RFP for a new software
application
Definition: The Fuel Management system refers to the hardware and software at the public works fuel
pumps that keep track of how much fuel is dispensed to what vehicle. Typically, each vehicle is assigned
a unique identification number that is used to track fuel consumption. The Fuel Management system
passes this information to a more sophisticated applicationsuch as Auburns gbaMS system where it
is captured as part of a vehicles history and is billed to the appropriate departments.
Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and
determined that fuel management applications are closely integrated with specific vendor hardware
used at the various fueling stations. Thus, it is likely that a decision to consolidate will be based on the
need to update fueling station hardware, not the application. Both Cities indicated that while there is no
immediate need for new fueling systems (each system is already integrated with their fleet management
systems), neither is particularly pleased with or invested in their current system. Due to the hardware
and software integration complexities and the potential costs of replacing hardware prior to the end of
its useful life, we recommend the Cities issue a joint RFP for the replacement of their fuel management
software (and if necessary hardware) at the end of the current systems useful life. This RFP would
identify a single vendor who can consolidate the monitoring and control of hardware within both Cities.
Benefits: The primary benefit of consolidating to a common fuel management system will be the
i l i i d ffi i i f h d Ci i d d h l i d
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
27/37
2.3 Recommendation SummaryAs described earlier in this report, our recommendation priority has been based on an evaluation of
need, opportunity, and practicality related to project timing and other ongoing projects. Table 3 is a
summary of our recommended applications for each business function for each City and the order in
which we recommend the City consider for implementation.
Table 3: Final Application Recommendation Summary
Final
Ranking Business FunctionCombined
Cities
City of Lewiston
Only
City of Auburn
Only
1 Helpdesk New System NA NA
2 GIS ESRI NA NA
3 Email and CalendarsExchange Server
(Microsoft)NA NA
4
Office Productivity (word
processing, spreadsheet,
etc)
Office 2007(Microsoft)
NA NA
5 Permitting and Inspections New System NA NA
6
ERP (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL,
HR, Purchasing, Revenue
Collection - tax)
MUNIS(Tyler Technologies)
NA NA
7
Work Orders, Facility
Maintenance, Fleet
Management, and Inventory
gbaMS(GBA Master Series,
Inc.)NA NA
8 Motor Vehicle Registration MUNIS(Tyler Technologies)
NA NA
9 CAMACLT IAS
(Tyler Technologies)NA NA
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
28/37
3.0Other Considerations for ConsolidationDuring the course of this project, other considerations related to a consolidation effort came to the
attention of our project team. In this section of the report we have provided a list of other
considerations related to the Cities consolidation efforts.
Through the course of this project, we noted that the Cities have historically had very different ITDepartment organizational structures, philosophies, and technology preferences. These differences
created significant obstacles to productive cooperation between the Cities. However, it appears that
recent events have led to a new environment that may reopen the door to investigating opportunities
for the IT Departments to work together. Toward this end, we identified several potential actions the
Cities might consider as steps to take toward improving cooperation and collaboration.
1. Joint IT Coordination: We noted several current and potential projects that the Cities have incommon. However, neither City was aware of these projects and the potential opportunities to
collaborate. We recommend that each City require their respective information technology
management teams to more closely coordinate the Cities IT activities and make periodic reports to
the Councils on the results of these activities.
2. Develop a Joint IT Strategic Plan: We noted that the Cities do not have a long-term vision of howthey might collaborate and/or consolidate at some point in the future. We believe that the creation
of this future vision leads to new ideas and opportunities that may form the foundation of future
endeavors. In the absence of a strategic plan for the Cities to work toward consolidation, we
recommend that the Cities IT Departments collaborate to create a shared IT Vision that specifies
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
29/37
standards for both Cities. These conditions will make it easier for the Cities to collaborate on
increasingly more complex IT initiatives as it pursues business application consolidation.
4. Merge IT Data Centers: We noted that the Cities maintain multiple data centers that both supportvarious levels of overhead support including backup power, fire protection, security, etc. We
recommend the Cities work toward consolidating their data centers so that all major City
applications will reside in one location and be backed-up to a shared secondary location. There is
already a dedicated data line connecting the two Cities that is reportedly under-utilized. We believe
that consolidating on two data centers (primary and backup) will have significant benefits in
reducing overall system complexity, improving the reliability of data access and recovery, and
generally improve service and performance.
5. Procurement and Licensing: To undertake some of the recommendations in this report, the Citieswill need to undertake various procurement and contracting activities to consolidate business and IT
functions. This will require the Cities to work together on system procurement activities and address
software licensing and potentially management services agreement type issues to allow the Cities to
share resources. The Cities will need to establish a structure to facilitate resource sharing to addressnecessary procurement, contracting, and vendor product licensing requirements.
6. Alternative Application Access Models: As the Cities evolve toward an IT environment that is moreclosely integrated and connected, it may be possible to consider alternative application access
strategies that could reduce the software licensing costs and simplify application update
maintenance. For example, instead of paying to have a separate Microsoft Office license for each
computer within an organization, the Cities may select a concurrent license model that pays for a
much smaller number of licenses that reflect the actual number of times a certain application may
be used concurrently (thin client architecture for example). The application might then be accessed
and maintained from a common server This is just one of many different pricing / licensing models
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
30/37
but perhaps most importantly is the timeframe selected to undertake the migrations. We believe
the Cities should consider utilizing additional resources for project management and/or project
oversight activities.
During the course of this project we received a tremendous amount of support, assistance, courtesy,
and flexibility from both Lewiston and Auburn. We understand that the fact-finding components of
these types of projects can be overwhelming and daunting. We appreciate the level of effort and quality
of work provided by both project teams.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
31/37
Appendix A: Data Collection Questions
Data collection process: BDMP conducted the following steps to compile information on each core
application from each Citys IT Department personnel.
We established and got agreement from the City to evaluate the applications on the four criteria
of technology viability, integration capabilities, ability to meet business needs, and total life-
cycle costs;
We developed and reviewed with IT personnel the following set of questions (below) related tohelp us evaluate application capabilities based on the four criteria;
We utilized an online data collection tool for City IT Department personnel to use when
submitting information on each of the core applications consider in our analysis;
We reviewed the data submissions and conducted follow-up interviews to address any
unanswered or new questions.
The compiled data was used to determine the findings and recommendations included in this report.
We have placed this data on a CD for each City as part of our final report.
The following questions were used to conduct our analysis:
# Questions Relative Selection Criteria
1 What is the name of the software vendor? 1. Viability of the Technology Platform
2 What is the initial installation date of the software? 1. Viability of the Technology Platform
3 What software version being used by the City today? 1 Viability of the Technology Platform
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
32/37
# Questions Relative Selection Criteria
11 Is the application supported by what you would
consider to be "outdated technology"? (Yes or No, and
if Yes, please describe what you feel is outdated.)
1. Viability of the Technology Platform
12 Are there risks/concerns associated with this
application being used by both the Cities of Auburn
and Lewiston as the consolidation recommendation (if
Yes, please describe the risks)?
1. Viability of the Technology Platform
13 List the other applications this software integrates
with.
2. Ability to Integrate with Other Applications
14 Describe the satisfaction level with the existing level of
integration with other City systems.
2. Ability to Integrate with Other Applications
15 Indicate other external applications that this
application does not integrate with in the current
environment, but should.
2. Ability to Integrate with Other Applications
16 Does the application meet the business needs of mostsystem users? (Yes or No, if No please describe the
most significant areas of non-satisfaction.)
3. Ability to meet existing business needs
17 Are users of the application satisfied with the
application? (Yes or No, if No please describe the most
significant areas of non-satisfaction.)
3. Ability to meet existing business needs
18 If applicable, are users of the application satisfied with
the reports produced by the application? (Yes or No, if
No please describe the most significant areas of non-
satisfaction.)
3. Ability to meet existing business needs
19 Identify the key personnel who utilize this application 3 Ability to meet existing business needs
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
33/37
# Questions Relative Selection Criteria
24 How many users need access to this system from your
City?
3. Ability to meet existing business needs
25 How many licensed application "seats" are owned by
the City? Of these how many are currently used?
4. Application Costs
26 What was the initial software purchase cost? 4. Application Costs
27 What was the initial hardware purchase cost? 4. Application Costs
28 What was the initial implementation service(s) cost? 4. Application Costs
29 What is the ongoing annual software license
maintenance cost?
4. Application Costs
30 What is the ongoing annual hardware support cost? 4. Application Costs
31 Are there additional ongoing support costs besides
software license maintenance and hardware support?
(Yes/No, and if Yes, please describe these costs)
4. Application Costs
32 How many internal support staff are required to
support this application annually? (Express in Full Time
Equivalent)
4. Application Costs
33 Is this application supported by staff outside of the IT
department? (Yes or No, if Yes, please provide name,
title and department)
4. Application Costs
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
34/37
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix B: Recommendation Summary 33
Appendix B: Recommendation Summary
Final
RankingBusiness Function
City of Lewiston
Current
City of Auburn
Current
BDMP
RecommendationSummary of Reason
1 Helpdesk None NoneIssue an RFP for a new
software application
Neither City is currently using a helpdesk
application. This application will be critical to enable
effective collaboration and support of a diverse
group of stakeholders/customers supported by acombined IT department.
2 GIS ESRI ESRIContinue current
efforts
Both Cities currently use ESRI GIS software and are
already engaged in consolidating efforts to leverage
work being done by each City Department, and
minimize costs (for example, housing data for both
Cities on one centralized data server).
3 Email and CalendarsGroupWise
(Novell) Exchange Server
(Microsoft)
Consolidate to
Auburns Application
(MS Exchange)
The City of Lewiston is planning to migrate from
Novell GroupWise to Microsoft Exchange/Outlook.
4
Office Productivity
(word processing,
spreadsheet, etc)
Office 2003, WordPerfect, & others(Microsoft, Corel)
Office 2007(Microsoft)
Consolidate to
Auburns Application
(Office 2007)
Lewiston has made a strategic decision to support
Microsoft Office Productivity Software (Excel, Word,
PowerPoint, etc.).
5Permitting and
InspectionsGeoTMS
(DesLauriers Municipal Solutions Inc.)PermitTrack
(Custom MS Access)
Issue an RFP for a new
software application
Neither City is satisfied with its current Permitting
and Inspection application. The City of Auburn is
utilizing an unsupported custom developed
Microsoft Access database that has created support
challenges for the Auburn IT Department.
6
ERP (AR, AP,
Budgeting, GL, HR,
Purchasing, Revenue
Collection - tax)
Pentamation (Sungard): miscellaneous
accounts receivable (non-tax), accounts
payable, budgeting, general ledger,
human resources, and purchasing.
Keystone (Keystone Software Solutions,
Inc): billing and accounts receivable for
property tax.MUNIS (Tyler Technologies): Water &
Sewer billing and accounts receivable.
MUNIS(Tyler Technologies)
Consolidate to
Auburns Application
(MUNIS)
Lewiston is using multiple, non-integrated systems
and will benefit in the future from consolidating to a
fully integrated ERP application. This is a major
effort and should only be pursued at some point in
the future when Lewiston must either update or
replace its current ERP applications (Pentamationand Keystone).
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
35/37
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix B: Recommendation Summary 34
Final
RankingBusiness Function
City of Lewiston
Current
City of Auburn
Current
BDMP
RecommendationSummary of Reason
7
Work Orders, Facility
Maintenance, Fleet
Management, and
Inventory
RTA: Fleet and Inventory Management(Ron Turley Associates)
eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility
Management
(E-Govlink.com)
gbaMS(GBA Master Series,
Inc.)
Consolidate to
Auburns Application
(gbaMS)
Lewiston has multiple, non-integrated systems that
support these four functional areas and would
benefit from implementing a new integrated system.
Auburn has recently implemented gbaMS and is
satisfied with the level of integration between each
of the four applications as well as with the Cities
financial system (MUNIS).
8Motor Vehicle
Registration
Trio Software(Harris Computer Systems)
MUNIS
(Tyler
Technologies)
Consolidate to
Auburns Application
(MUNIS)
Both Cities are using applications that are built on
current technology and are supported by reputable
vendors in the marketplace today; Trio Software
(Lewiston) and Tyler/MUNIS (Auburn). Our research
showed that these applications are comparable in
terms of technology viability, level of integration,
business needs (reported level of user satisfaction)
and cost. Therefore our decision has been based
upon simplification of software/hardware/services
support, by continuing to leverage modules
provided by MUNIS.
9 CAMACLT IAS
(Tyler Technologies)AssessPro
(Patriot Properties)
Consolidate to
Lewistons Application
(CLT-IAS)
Both Cities are using applications that are built on
current technology and are supported by reputable
vendors in the marketplace today; CLS-IAS/Tyler
(Lewiston) and AssessPro/Patriot Properties Inc.
(Auburn). Our research showed that these
applications are comparable in terms of technology
viability, level of integration, business needs
(reported level of user satisfaction) and cost.
Therefore our decision has been based upon
simplification of software/hardware/services
support, by continuing to leverage modules
provided by MUNIS.
10Document
ManagementFortis SE
(Westbrook Technologies, Inc.)GemWarehouse(Knowledge Tree)
Issue RFP for a new
software application
Each City has recently begun to implement new
document management systems. These efforts are
focused on two different functional areas; GIS
(Auburn) and Human Resources (Lewiston). Neither
City is currently planning to roll out document
management at an enterprise level. We recommend
that the Cities continue to learn from these efforts
and consider future consolidation opportunities
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
36/37
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix B: Recommendation Summary 35
Final
RankingBusiness Function
City of Lewiston
Current
City of Auburn
Current
BDMP
RecommendationSummary of Reason
(through a structured RFP process) based on refined
document management needs.
11
Building
Environmental
Control
Tracer Summit (Trane): Controls HVAC
at City Hall & Violations Bureau Bldg
Metasys Building Automation System
(Johnson Controls): Public Works andPolice Department Buildings.
Insight
(Siemens)
Issue RFP for a new
software application
Due to the hardware and software integration
complexities and the potential costs of replacing
hardware prior to the end of its useful life, we
recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a
single vendor who can consolidate the monitoringand control of both Cities installed HVAC
equipment.
12 Fuel ManagementSentry
(Trak Engineering, Inc)
Fuelmaster(Syn-Tech Systems,
Inc.)
Issue RFP for a new
software application
Due to the hardware and software integration
complexities and the potential costs of replacing
hardware prior to the end of its useful life, we
recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a
single vendor who can consolidate the monitoring
and control of hardware within both Cities.
-
7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
37/37
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix C: Estimated Consolidation Costs 36
Appendix C: Estimated Consolidation Costs
Final
RankingFunction BDMP Recommendation
Estimated Software
Cost
(35%)
Estimated
Hardware Cost
(10%)
Estimated Service
Cost
(55%)
Estimated One
time Consolidation
Cost
Recurring Annual
Maintenance
Cost
1 Helpdesk Issue RFP for a new software application 25,000 7,143 39,286 71,429 5,000
2 GIS Continue current efforts Not applicable
3 Email and CalendarsConsolidate to Auburns Application
(MS Exchange)45,000 12,857 70,714 128,571 9,000
4 Office ProductivityConsolidate to Auburns Application
(Office 2007)30,000 30,000
5 Permitting and Inspections Issue RFP for a new software application 90,000 25,714 141,429 257,143 18,000
6ERP (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR,
Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax)
Consolidate to Auburns Application
(MUNIS)140,000 40,000 220,000 400,000 28,000
7 Work Orders, Facility Maintenance,Fleet Management, and Inventory
Consolidate to Auburns Application(gbaMS)
55,000 15,714 86,429 157,143 11,000
8 Motor Vehicle RegistrationConsolidate to Auburns Application
(MUNIS)20,000 5,714 31,429 57,143 4,000
9 CAMAConsolidate to Lewiston's Application
(CLT-MUNIS)30,000 8,571 47,143 85,714 6,000
10 Document Management(Note 1) Issue RFP for a new software application 40,000 11,429 62,857 114,286 8,000
11 Building Environmental Control(Note 2) Issue RFP for a new software application 20,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD
12 Fuel Management (Note 2) Issue RFP for a new software application 20,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Notes:
1. Document management cost estimates do not include the costs associated with scanning existing paper documents into digital files for storage in the document management system.
2. Both Environmental Control and Fuel Management applications are believed to be parts of a much larger, hardware intensive service application. Therefore, our estimate does not include the
actual cost of hardware related to each function as part of a complete solution.