Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2010, B1 - FOXPRO APPLICATION REPLACEMENT - GIS/PERMITTING/WORK ORDERS 0 council Mdw 0� 9-21-10 j accnoA RepoRt Iteni NuinWr ar CITY OF SAN LUI S OBIS PO FROM: Mary Bradley, Interim Director of Finance & Information Technology Rachel Messner, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: FOXPRO APPLICATION REPLACEMENT—GIS/PERMITTING/WORK ORDERS RECOMMENDATION 1. Award a contract to EnerGov for replacement of the FoxPro geographic information systems (GIS), permitting and work order applications and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract totaling $815,000. 2. Appropriate $120,000 from the General Fund undesignated fund balance for the purchase of a document management system. 3. Award a contract to American Microlmaging, Inc. (AMI) for a Laserfiche document management system to replace several FoxPro planning applications and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract totaling $100,125. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The City must replace its FoxPro software applications due to a lack of continuing support for the products. This project has two distinct components: GIS, permitting and work order applications; and timecard and scheduling applications. The Council previously appropriated $1,150,000 for this project and awarded a $142,034 contract for the first track of the project, the timecard/scheduling applications. After extensive review of the finalist software vendors for the GIS, permitting and work order applications, staff recommends awarding a contract to EnerGov for$815,000. In addition, each of the software vendors identified the need for the City to purchase an enterprise-wide document management system in order to adequately replace the functionality of systems currently in use to manage plan files, permits and other documents. While this system had previously been identified as a long-term information technology (IT) need, no budget currently exists to address this project. Staff recommends appropriating budget for the purchase of a document management system, which will provide a unified and cost-effective records management plan to replace the functionality of several FoxPro applications. DISCUSSION Background As reported to the Council in October 2009, the City has been well-served over the past 25 years by high-quality integrated FoxPro applications developed and maintained at a very low cost in contracting with a local programmer. These applications are the user interface software for a wide range of mission-critical functions throughout the organization, including land use inventory, GIS, payroll timecards and work orders. The applications automate City business O O FoxPro Application Replacement Page 2 processes and are accessed by all departments. However, as discussed previously, it is necessary to begin replacing these applications with one or more "packaged" systems due to lack of continuing software support. While this will require an unplanned resource commitment, the replacement is necessary in delivering mission-critical, day-to-day services to the City's community in an efficient,reliable and cost effective manner. On February 23, 2010, the City Council approved the request for proposals (RFP) for the replacement of these FoxPro applications with a project budget of $1,150,000. Council also directed staff to return with recommendations for contract awards. Subsequently, on June 15, 2010, the Council approved the request to award contracts to replace the FoxPro timecard and public safety scheduling applications in the amount of$142,034. Due to increased work demands on the IT staff to prepare for the opening of the new Dispatch Center, the contract award for the GIS/Permitting/Work Orders piece of the project was delayed until now. Selection Process Since many of the vendors indicated that they could meet most (if not all) of the FoxPro application replacement needs, with the exception of the timecard application, two evaluation committees with members from the affected departments were formed: 1. GIS,permitting and work order applications 2. Timecards and scheduling applications Because of the distinct nature of these two project components and the specificity of the vendor solutions for each, they have been treated as two separate tracks of the project. As noted above, the Council previously approved the contract awards for the Timecards/Scheduling track. The GIS/Pennitting/Work Orders Committee thoroughly assessed the request for qualifications (RFQ)submittals, analyzed vendor qualifications and performed background checks with similar agencies that use the software to narrow the list of qualified firms to: Accela; Azteca; CitizenServe; EnerGov; Infor; and Sungard. Key criteria in selecting these finalists included the ability to meet most, if not all, of the replacement needs and operate in the current technology environment (such as Microsoft SQL Server database). These six finalist vendors then received the request for proposals (RFP) that focused on terms and conditions, installation schedule and price, with references to detailed documentation generated from group and one-on-one briefings in describing the workscope. Azteca choose not to submit a proposal in response to the RFP because its product is still in development and would not adequately meet the City's needs. Final vendor selection was based on the following criteria: 1. Understanding of the work required by the City. 2. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. 3. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. FoxPro Application Replacement Page 3 4. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. 5. Proposed approach in completing the work and ability to implement the replacement in a timely manner. 6. References. 7. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. 8. Proposed compensation. As reflected above, the contract awards are not based solely on price, but on a combination of factors such as user preference, program functionality, vendor availability and required information technology resources. Cost Estimates Vendors provided cost estimates based on their understanding of the City's needs. In addition, in some cases subsequent negotiations or clarification resulted in revised cost estimates. As summarized below, these cost estimates range from $349,000 to $815,000 and include: 1. Base software 2. Software modifications 3. Installation/system integration 4. Data conversion 5. Training Vendor Initial Fee Annual Fee Accela $740,873 $40,800 CitizenServe $349,000 $75,000 EnerGov $815,000 $98,884 Infor $762,096 $44,980 Sungard $496,870 $48,715 Committee Recommendation The committee compared the vendors' years of experience, interface capabilities, program functionality, references, and ability to replace most FoxPro applications. Based on the above factors, the committee selected EnerGov to replace the GIS/Permitting/Work Order FoxPro applications. CitizenServe. This was the most cost effective option, providing "on-demand" software rented to customers based on a standard fee. Without the need to purchase software and servers, the costs are lower than purchased systems. However, renting software on a hosted system may be a risky solution. For example, if CitizenServe went bankrupt, the City could lose access to mission-critical applications for a period of time. Additionally, the hosted applications will be dependent on the City's Internet connection and so, to some extent, dependent on Cal Poly's network for mission critical applications. If Cal Poly's network is slow then access to the City's hosted applications could also be slow. Perhaps most importantly, this solution was not able to meet all of the City's replacement needs. D \j FoxPro Application Replacement Page 4 Sungard. This program was not selected because the committee did not believe it provided the same level of functionality that the other programs offered. The committee was also not comfortable with the older, Unix style operating system design of the software. Accela. Although the committee liked the functionality of this program, it was not the most comprehensive solution and does not integrate with Microsoft Outlook. Infor. The Utilities Department currently utilizes software from Infor and the committee recognized the appeal of creating a consistent software environment among City business processes. However, the GIS staff had strong concerns about the vendor's redundant database maintenance and history of limited GIS support. They prefer a GIS-centric program such as the one from EnerGov which fully utilizes GIS technologies. EnerGov. This product offered the most comprehensive solution to meet the City's needs and was the best fit for the City's technology infrastructure: EnerGov also maintains a 100% customer retention rate and does not outsource to third party vendors for implementation.services or software development. This ensures that the City will maintain consistency while working with only one vendor for support and problem resolution. EnerGov is an Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) Authorized Business Partner / Application Developer which will enable the City to leverage the power of GIS data through a GIS-centric enterprise program. EnerGov is also the only Certified LaserficheTM Professional Development Partner within the Community Development and Land Management automation industry. Finally, perhaps most importantly, the committee overwhelmingly, and nearly unanimously, preferred the functionality and usability of the EnerGov program. ENERGOV SOLUTIONS Negotiations Although the committee greatly preferred the EnerGov solution over the other options, the vendor's original cost estimate was far above the project budget at $1,726,393. After several rounds of negotiation with City staff and a thorough analysis of the software, implementation and training costs, EnerGov lowered its estimate by nearly $1,000,000 to meet the project budget of $815,000. In doing so, the scope of work was changed to eliminate several FoxPro applications that can be replaced more cost effectively with other products, such as Microsoft Excel. Additionally, the number of licensed software users was reduced to more accurately reflect true program usage, and the number of custom development days included in the project was decreased. EnerGov has also offered to include two important features—Citizen Access Web Portal and one license of MobileGov—free of charge. Products The program presented by EnerGov is a GIS-centric Land and Asset Management software system. The goal of the product is to enhance and streamline the provision of land and development-related services to improve cost effectiveness and efficiencies while providing the requisite capability of integrating with existing software systems currently in operation. B / - Lt �J FoxPro Application Replacement Page 5 The following products have been offered to fulfill the City's business, functional and technical requirements: • EnerGov .NET Land Management Suite— manages process automation of land use planning and project review,permitting, enforcement cases, and inspections. • EnerGov .NET Asset Management Suite — automates the management. of infrastructure assets, inventory control, maintenance, work orders, inspections and condition investigations. • EnerGov GIS (ArcGIS Server Technology) — Enterprise GIS integration that allows the user to utilize GIS data within the EnerGov software, providing visualization and analysis capabilities. • EnerGov .NET Citizen Access Web Portal - provides constituents with 24-hour access to community development and regulatory services, allowing for agency transparency and increased efficiency. • MobileGov (one license) — allows user the ability to manage any type of inspection process and access real-time data from the field. Future Feature Options EnerGov offers other software features that would increase efficiency and improve customer service. They include: • eReviews — electronic plan review workflow management system allowing collaboration via a seamless, electronic regulatory review environment. • MobileGov—additional licenses to allow more users the ability to access data in the field. These additional features are not included in the scope of work at this time because the focus of this project is on purchasing a solution that replaces the current functionality of the City's FoxPro applications, rather than on enhancing it with new features. However, because EnerGov does offer these features, the City will be able to work with the provider in the future to fully realize the efficiency, workflow and customer service benefits. Applications Not Included in Project Scope Staff determined that several of the current FoxPro applications could be replaced more cost effectively via alternatives other than the EnerGov solution. Therefore, the following applications will not be replaced through this contract: • Fixed Assets • Fire Hose Tracking • Bid Lists • Keytrack • Unreinforced Masonry • Traffic Model TAZ • Plan File Management • Planning Library 0 Planning Job Tickets FoxPro Application Replacement Page 6 These applications were identified by EnerGov as the most expensive to replace; therefore, pursuing alternative replacement strategies for them helped to decrease the project cost. Some applications, including Fixed Assets and Fire Hose Tracking, are simply inventory databases and will be replaced with other solutions, such as Microsoft Excel. It was determined that others, such as the Unreinforced Masonry application, will not be needed in the future and so will not be replaced. Included in this recommendation is the conversion of the data in the above three planning applications into a new document management system. Document Management System The IT Strategic Plan completed in 2000 detailed the City's short and long-term information technology needs. Document management was listed as a high priority for the City due to the lack of an existing comprehensive system. However, the effort to purchase such a system was delayed due to independent departmental initiatives. The current document management environment is one of several unrelated systems with limited user access. Currently, there is no budget to replace these individual systems with an enterprise-wide system. The Public Works and Community Development departments utilize several FoxPro applications as a type of document management system. These applications are: Plan File Management, Planning Library, and Planning Job Tickets. All finalist software vendors at a minimum recommended an enterprise-wide document management system as the best solution to replace the functionality of these programs that are used for plan file tracking, indexing and retrieval. Such a system would enable staff to: • Implement a unified and cost-effective enterprise records management plan. • Build integrated workflows to simplify tasks. • Track and find every City document, plan, permit, picture and record associated with a particular parcel or project. • Easily share and document City records. • Reduce paper storage and make it easier to back up information. • Easily create permissions to restrict access to certain documents. • Tie records with GIS information. • Increase efficiency and reduce overhead costs without creating extra work for IT staff. • Easily backup critical information to ensure continuity in the event of a disaster. Laserfiche Laserfiche is a leading manufacturer of enterprise content management solutions and is the industry standard in the municipal government market. It distributes its software through a network of resellers that tailor solutions to meet clients' needs. Staff recommends sole source purchasing from a Laserfiche vendor for the following reasons: • The system will meet the City's current and future document management needs. • EnerGov is a Laserfiche development partner which means the integration will continue to be supported as the systems are upgraded. � 1 ' JO C FoxPro Application Replacement Page 7 • The County DA's office and all surrounding public safety agencies, including the City's own Police Department, utilize this system to ensure easy and secure transfer of records among agencies. Purchasing the Laserfiche product would enable the City to create a streamlined, consistent document management system between departments. • Many other leading document management systems are from hardware vendors and designed to work with their hardware (e.g. Canon, Ricoh, HP and Xerox). The City currently has a mix of machines from these vendors so it would not be in our best interest to purchase a system from one of the vendors. In an effort to reduce costs, staff identified an existing contract between the Santa Barbara Court System and a Laserfiche vendor, AMI. Through a cooperative purchasing agreement, the City can receive the same terms and conditions of that contract. CONCURRENCES The GIS/Pennitting/Work Orders Committee concurs with this recommendation. Additionally, all City departments have been extensively involved in the FoxPro application inventory, IT needs assessment, RFQ and RFP procedures, vendor demonstrations, and selection process. FISCAL IMPACT The approved overall project budget is $1,150,000, and includes both the GIS/Permitting/Work Orders and Timecards/Scheduling components. The Timecards/Scheduling component represents $142,034 of the project budget. Accounting for a contingency of $101,966, this leaves a remainder of$892,966. Approximately $91,000 will be used for IT infrastructure needs, such as additional servers and storage, leaving a budget of $815,000 for the replacement of the GIS, permitting and work order applications. Therefore, sufficient funding exists in the project budget to cover the cost of the EnerGov contract. The annual maintenance and licensing fees total $98,884 and will be paid from the IT Division operating budget. Item Cost Timecards/Scheduling $142,034 GIS/Permitting/Work Orders $815,000 IT Equipment $91,000 Contingency $101,966 TOTAL $1,150,000 There is no established budget for the document management project. Since the City is able to "piggyback" on an existing government contract with a Laserfiche vendor, it will receive the same terms and conditions of that agreement. The contract with AMI is for $100,125. Additional funds will be necessary to train City staff on the usage of the system so this portion of the project will require a budget of$120,000 to be allocated by Council from the General Fund undesignated fund balance. This will reduce the General Fund reserve, however, it is anticipated that this action will not reduce the reserve below policy levels. 81 - 7 FoxPro Application Replacement Page 8 ALTERNATIVES 1. Select a different vendor. This is not recommended because the committee made the selection based on extensive research and background checks of all vendors. Additionally, the committee was nearly unanimous in its selection of EnerGov, and those who choose a different vendor as a first choice expressed satisfaction with the EnerGov solution as a close runner-up. The committee was also unable to reach an agreement on a second choice. 2. Defer or re-phase the project. Given the lack of viable alternatives, it will not be possible to support and maintain these applications if the project is deferred. The City cannot wait several years to address these applications due to the lack of support and maintenance resources. 3. Do not replace these applications. Given the importance of these FoxPro applications in supporting a wide range of mission-critical applications throughout the organization, the lack of viable alternatives to replacing them with a packaged system and the ability of the new programs to increase productivity and improve customer service and this option is not recommended. ATTACHMENTS FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan T:\FoxPro Application Replacement\Council Meetings\2010,9-21\CAR 9-21-10.doc attachment L Project Pian FOXPRO APPLICATION s • • s October 1, 2009 PURPOSE Respond to the lack of reliable, continuing support for the City's customized Visual FoxPro applications by replacing them with one or more packaged systems that will meet a variety of user needs, allow integration among programs and retain historical data. OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES By March 31, 2010 1. Complete application inventory, identify replacement priorities and determine application groups ("clusters") as appropriate. 2. Select vendor(s) and begin replacing existing Visual FoxPro applications with appropriate packaged systems in accordance with the City's Information Technology(IT) Acquisition and Support Policy. 3. Allocate appropriate resources to acquire and support the replacement applications. 4. Develop training strategy for all City staff who use these applications. In the Interim Given the lack of vendor resources, it will be very difficult to support and maintain these applications in the interim (which is one of the reasons why it is so important to complete their replacement quickly). In-house IT staff has some ability to make minor programming changes. For this reason, any changes to these programs until they are replaced will need to be limited to those that are essential for mission- critical functions and within the capacity of existing staff. BACKGROUND The City currently uses 35 applications written and customized in Microsoft Visual FoxPro. These applications were created over the past 20 years by an outside, one-person consulting firm (Bonnie McKee), who maintained and modified them as necessary. These applications are the user interface software for a wide range of mission-critical applications throughout the organization, including land use inventory, geographic information system (GIS), payroll timecards, and work orders. The applications automate City business processes and are accessed by all departments. Most of the applications are front ends/user portals to Microsoft Structured Query Language (SQL) databases. There are two distinct challenges facing the City in supporting these applications: 1. Obsolescent Software. Microsoft has stated that it will no longer support Visual FoxPro nor will it release any further versions. The City has very limited ability to support and maintain these custom Visual FoxPro applications since this is a disappearing programming language and the code libraries that power the City's applications have been customized by Ms. McKee, who recently passed away. Support for both Visual FoxPro and ESRI's Map Objects (which powers the maps in the City's applications) is scheduled to end within the next few years. The specific version of Map Objects currently used by the City has been end-of-life for several years. For this reason, the four-year B I ' ? FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Attac lment..L� Page 2 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in the 2009-11 Financial Plan showed converting these applications to Microsoft's current".NET" framework in 2011-13 at an estimated cost of$370,000. 2. No liable Support for Existing Visual FoxPro Applications. The obsolescence of the software language has been compounded by the recent and sudden death of Ms. McKee. In our efforts to find replacement contract programmers, it has become clear that due to the outdated software and lack of programming documentation, it will not be possible to contract with programmers both willing and capable of maintaining the City's current applications. In short, the challenge facing the City has shifted from converting these applications to more current software to the more difficult and resource-intensive task of replacing them entirely. IT Acquisition and Support Policy In 2001, the City contracted with the Gartner Group for a five-year IT Strategic Plan. At that time, Gartner advised against using locally-developed, customized software for mission-critical applications; and the recommendations of the IT Strategic Plan regarding system acquisition and support were subsequently adopted as part of the City's IT Acquisition and Support Policy. However, for many years prior to the IT Strategic Plan, the City was already contracting with Ms. McKee for design, development and maintenance of customized Visual FoxPro applications. While this approach was not consistent with the IT Acquisitions and Support Policy, the City was well-served for many years by these custom, integrated applications provided at a low cost that did an excellent job of meeting City needs. However, because the consultant is no longer available, and successors have been unable to support these applications, we now recommend using the packaged system approach in accordance with the IT Acquisition and Support Policy. This policy outlines three perspectives when acquiring IT systems: 1. Risk assessment 2. Locally-developed versus packaged systems features: advantages and disadvantages 3. Decision-making strategies: decentralized versus centralized Strate ,Selection:Risk Assessment Low Risk High Risk Not Mission-Critical C Mission Ciidcality Highly Mission-Critical Familiar Technology C Technical Complexity Z New Technology Single Department C Organizational Complexity Z Organization-Wide Small, Simple Data Base C Application Size ' Extremely Large and Complex Local Development Package System Acquisition All of the factors except for technical complexity place most of the City's Visual FoxPro applications in the"packaged system" category. B ( --�o 0 ww��}} pp� A'96 GI .ame W 9$6 I FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 3 Ae uisifion and DevElo,2mentStraLeIttes Development7 Local . • System Acquisition ■ Application fully customized to meet local ■ Package provides pre-defined functionality: requirements. changes should be Limited to formatting issues. ■ Relatively lower cost. s Relatively higher cost. • Ability to meet Citi programming and data base ■ Selection criteria can include its ability to meet requirements. City data base standards. ■ Design limited to local knowledge. ■ Design reflects thinking of a number of agencies. • Support limited to small, local organizations— ■ Support provided by the vendor as part of the often a single person. package,with assistance by user groups. ■ Changes in requirements can be identified and ■ User groups and vendor can jointly develop implemented locally. modifications over time as needed to meet changing requirements. ■ There are inherent risks in new development ■ Ability to select system that is already efforts: operational, and conduct reference and • Incorrect or incomplete design. background checks before acquiring. • Faulty programming. • Incomplete or faulty testing. ■ Tendency to 'pave the cow path"by ■ Tendency to re-look at business policies, programming to current City business policies, practices and procedures for improvement as part practices and procedures. of the acquisition and implementation process. Again, each of these features supports using packaged systems in replacing our existing Visual FoxPro applications. Decision-Mmkin .Srrale , • . . • Application is not pan of:strategic system • Application is part of a strategic system initiative. initiative. • Application can be supported on current City- • Application requires introduction of new standard computers, operating systems and technology; or requires system upgrades to networks without upgrades or deterioration in support the new application or maintain system system performance. performance. • All application suers are in one department. • Application users are in more than one department. • All information is generated and entered by one • Information is generated and entered by more department. than one department. • The application is not required for the operation • The application is required for the operation of of other applications, systems or work outside of other applications, systems or work outside of the the department. department. • Interfaces to existing or proposed applications • Application may need to integrate with and systems are well defined and requirements applications in other departments beyond well- can be met. defined standards. AftacnmenL FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 4 Based on the factors above, it makes sense to replace these applications with one or more packaged systems rather than continuing to use individual customized programs; and for the selection process and subsequent implementation to be highly coordinated, with oversight by the IT Steering Committee (ITSC). CURRENT SITUATION The following chart lists each Visual FoxPro application currently in use by all City departments. It identifies the department responsible for managing the application as well as other departments that use and depend on the application to do business: Departments That Use the Application Managing Public CommParks& City Human Finance Application Department Police Fire Works Utilities Dev Rec Admin Arty Res &IT Planning Applications Comm Dev x x x x Unreinforced Comm Dev x x x Masonry Planning Comm Dev x Library Building Comm Dev x x x x x Permits Plan Review Comm Dev x x x x x x x Violation Comm Dev x x x x x x Tracking Land Use Comm Dev x x x x x x x x x x Land Use Comm Dev x x x Maintenance Planning Job Comm Dev x x Tickets Building Damage Comm Dev x x x x x X Assessment Fixed Assets Finance&IT x Timecard Finance&IT x x x x x x x x x x Fire Calendar Fire x Fire Fire x Prevention Weed Fire x Abatement Fire Hose Fire x Tracking(?) Overtime& Fire x Staffing � l -l � Acts,_4ment FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 5 Departments That Use the Application Managing Public Comm Parks& City Human Finance Application Department Police Fire Works Utilities Dev Rec Adinin Any Res &IT Plan File Public Works x x x x Management Bid Lists Public Works x Encroachment Public Works x x x x GIS Service Public Works x x x x x x x x x x Requests Parks Service Public Works x Requests Streets Service Public Works x Requests Building Maint Service Public Works x Requests General Service Public Works x x x x x x x x x x Requests Traffic Model TAZ Output Public Works x Processor Payment Vouchers/Pur Public Works x - x x x x chase Orders GeoData Public Works x x x x x x x x x x Overtime Public Works x CIP Project Public Works x Management Trees Service Public Works x Request Keytrack Public Works x Industrial Waste Permit Utilities x Tracking Utilities Work Utilities/ Order Comm Dev x x x x Water Utilitiesx x x Conservation *Excludes FoxPro applications no longer in use or not in need of replacement FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 6 PROJECT STRATEGY AND SCOPE Project Strategy 1. Complete inventory of all usual FoxPro applications. Meet with representatives from each department to determine which applications are managed and used by them and for what purpose. Also determine departments' application needs and desired functionality. Identify application groups and replacement priorities. 2. Complete high-level assessment of other IT needs. Gather information from department contacts on three other areas: a. Processes automated with software other than Visual FoxPro that work well. b. Processes automated with software other than Visual FoxPro that don't work well. c. Processes not currently automated that should be. While these other unmet needs may not be addressed in this process, they are important to consider in evaluating vendors.. 3. Select vendors. Prepare and issue Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to identified vendors in order to assess their qualifications in meeting City application needs. Based on responses, prepare and issue Request for Proposals (RFP) to most qualified vendors based on application groups. Proposals will be evaluated by appropriate review teams using several criteria in assessing which systems best meet the City's needs, including responsiveness to the RFP; results of demonstrations and reference checks; implementation strategies and schedule; system cost for both acquisition and ongoing support; and ongoing system support needs by in-house staff. There will be one RFQ issued to identified vendors. However, based on the vendor responses to the RFQ, as well as the designation of application groups, it may be necessary to develop multiple RFPs to meet the wide variety of application needs and functionality. 4. Develop maintenance plan. Determine the amount of staffing and financial resources necessary to maintain and support the new applications. 5. Implement system. Develop and implement replacement systems based on identified priorities and application groups. 6. Train users Develop and implement comprehensive strategy to coordinate the training of all City employees on the replacement applications. Project Scope The City currently uses 35 custom applications written in Visual FoxPro. Many of these are mission- critical applications that affect every department and must be replaced with systems that will meet our short-term needs as well as address long-term functionality and integration issues. Under the City's IT Acquisitions and Support Policy, packaged systems should be used in making this replacement. It would be preferable to move to an organization-wide, over-arching software application solution. ' I 141 AttaC. FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 7 However, given the market place, it is more likely that existing applications will be replaced by several vendors, with applications clustered by similar groupings (such as permits, land-based/GIS applications and work orders). Many of the Visual FoxPro applications, such as work orders and building permits, are mission-critical to departmental operations. Other applications, such as land use inventory and timecards, are also mission-critical and affect organization-wide operations. As noted above, initial replacement plans focused solely on converting these applications to a more current software program, such as ".NET." Accordingly, as part of the four-year CIP, the 2009-11 Financial Plan showed converting these applications in 2011-13 at an estimated cost of$370,000. However, the City can no longer wait several years to address these applications due to the lack of support and maintenance resources. In the present situation, three broader concerns emerge: 1. How do we support these applications in the near-term? 2. What should be our longer-term strategy? 3. How do we get there from here? KEY PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 1. We will be able to adequately support these applications with in-house resources until they are replaced. 2. We will be able to quickly select a packaged system for each application group at a reasonable cost. 3. These solutions will meet our short and long-term needs; maintain the current level of operational efficiency; allow program integration; and retain historical data. PROJECT CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS Project Constraints 1. Urgency to replace applications within a short time frame while keeping long-term needs in mind. 2. Commitment of significant financial and staffing resources in a challenging fiscal environment. 3. Need for stakeholder support and buy-in for the project. 4. Standardization of custom applications. 5. Integration of applications and prevention of overlap. 6. Highly unlikely that there will be one vendor with an acceptable universal solution. 7. Training users on new applications. 8. Ongoing support and maintenance of new programs. Project Limitations 1. Under the proposed packaged system approach, replacement applications will not be customized. However, City staff have become accustomed to using applications customized exactly to their specifications and that can be quickly modified at a low cost. It is highly unlikely that any packaged program will be able to deliver the exact functionality that users have become accustomed to. On the other hand, the benefit of the packaged systems is the greater assurance of their viability as ongoing application support is not dependent on one individual. Affam Ment FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 8 2. It will be difficult to balance the need to make good long-term decisions with the need to also act quickly in selecting and implemeting replacement applications. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND TEAM Sponsor: Director of Finance & Information Technology Oversight: IT Steering Committee(ITSC) Project Manager: IT Manager Team: Department Heads (from departments managing applications); Application Administrators; Finance& IT Administrative Analyst; IT staff STAKEHOLDERS Stakeholders include all City employees and the community at large that benefits from the cost-effective services performed and information provided by these applications. PROJECT TASKS AND SCHEDULE A.Initial Project Planning 1. Identify department contacts for all applications. Admin Analyst 8/28/09 2. Complete application inventory and identify"what and Application Administrators 9/24/09 why" for each. 3. Determine application groups, assess priorities, identify top Application Administrators; 9/28/09 vendors for each application and review project plan. ITSC 4. Present project plan to Council. Director of Finance& IT; IT 10/20/09 Manager; Admin Analyst B. Vendor Identification and Qualifications 1. Prepare draft RFQ. IT Manager; Admin Analyst 9/28/09 2. Review and approve RFQ. ITSC; Application 10/5/09 Administrators; IT Staff 3. Send RFQ to selected vendors. Admin Analyst 10/12/09 4. Conduct pre-qualification teleconference(s). ITSC; Application 10/20/09 Administrators; IT Staff, Admin Analyst 5. Submit qualifications package. Vendors 11/2/09 6. Evaluate submittals; conduct finalist interviews as needed; ITSC; Application 11/23/09 participate in vendor demonstrations and/or city visits as Administrators; IT Staff, necessary; finalize application groups and selected vendors. Admin Analyst C.Vendor Selection 1. Prepare draft RFP(s) for selected vendors. Admin Analyst; IT Manager 12/8/09 2. Review draft RFP(s). ITSC; Application 12/18/09 Administrators; IT Staff 3. Approve RFP(s)and appropriate funds. Council 1/5/10 4. Send RFP(s) to selected vendors. Admin Analyst 1/6/10 5. Submit proposals. Vendors 2/8/10 8 / _/f Attacht.-,nt FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 9 6. Evaluate proposals and conduct interviews as necessary; TTSC; Application 3/26/10 prepare recommendation to City Manager. Administrators; IT Staff; Admin Analyst 7. Award contract(s). City Manager 3/31/10 D. Implementation* 1. Prepare detailed project implementation schedule. IT Manager; Admin Analyst 4/15/10 Application Administrators; Vendor(s) 2. Convert databases, complete installation and modify Application Administrators; IT 8/15/10 departmental procedures as needed to implement Staff;Vendor(s) applications. E.Training* 1. Identify training needs and develop strategy. Application Administrators; IT 4/15/10 Staff; Admin Analyst Vendor(s) 2. Finality training schedule and delivery. Application Administrators;IT 5/15/10 Staff Admin Analyst Vendor(s) 3. Conduct staff training. Vendor(s) 8/15/10 F.Project Wrap.-Up 1. Troubleshoot and complete all aspects of project Application Administrators; IT 9/30/10 implementation. Staff 2. Present report on lessons learned to ITSC. IT Manager; Application 10/30/10 Administrators; IT Staff; Admin Analyst * Each identified application group may have its own implementation and training time schedule. However, they will all follow the same process. PROJECT RESOURCES It is too early to identify the,financial resources necessary for this project; however, significant staff resources will be required. As reflected in the 2011-13 CIP, simply upgrading to a ".NET" system was estimated to cost approximately $370,000. Accordingly, replacing all Visual FoxPro applications is likely to cost significantly more. Based on the experiences of other organizations, rough estimates range from $500,000 to $1.5 million. However, we will not have a clearer idea of likely costs until completion of the RFQ process. 3l -1�- CD 0 �+ w ° o n Cy. o ao 0 c ° w o a a n. ': iD m wryry; �: o �. CD c � � K � � c � ooa ❑ � � �. O O CL E3 O G O O O y O O O n �. (D (D O CL C ••� .» '. CL C Ct .y R° CD 0 m '» O CD (D � 7 V CD a iD F V CCD o ° ro a ❑ o mUQ w n+ CA ., CD mCD n d Dr O < v' CD ° O O LL O O O ° 0 w O O Rp � W � ° H CD Ei m t"o3PIT. uQ CD 70 P7 R ° 00w CD .O w A R° p o `� ° -� o R o o w CD vin ° °' 8 f D w C, ° a CD DQ IR CD Ro 10 » c CD °° 0 3 ° y CD w CD° o. CD do �. ° DQfD as CD DD 7' as fA w 0 xxx x x x xxxxx xxxxx x k x x xxy n n eD w y xx x x x CD x x f CD C) fD CD CD x x x CL 00 a C CD r_ r_ r_ bpb� bio 5 ?7Cntnt�7CnC� �� C� C� G1G7 ; rorty <p ^w"' M ? n O.. 7 7 v, w gyp Q q (OD n G. .' �0 C• �; y O. CD ^'. �7i. n S n' n' n ".11 w O O A a' CD UQ O CD w �,,, O C3. O. C_. O•. N wCD w „�,� CDD 0 0 � O .,S CD ��p �• O �O.y �a-1 C 0 7D 0 r'Ot� �..," �' y �q UOQ UQ O C CD (n 9O w �.. CD. O OR �». r? CL O w G,�Q O O R,o (D .» `� v(9i 'n•. O C^'D CSD O CD w CD Z n CD q CD CA rA ' o w p: w w o a .w+• .O^. w O �' Cp CD w w ?ul� UQ . .O. '� w0. ,3 Cp Cp ' O < CA CD ~ O CD O CL 't CD 'N n O O w O H O O CrQ w wCD CD w x- m to w yUQeb riQ DO DQw Q wy O CD O w wfA h CD Do CD Mo CD CD Mi EI = Cb Co .O. CD � .. OQ w w y CSD w R° O u pO, fD y cD o w CD c y CD w a arQ cD 00 cD w 0 OS'Q w e+ �w G w CD CD >e � x xxy n m w GA X X X X k X CD ° CD k ks CD CD < CD k X k o a I 0 \ T f k � �r • E ■ tz § � - , ° ■ � ft / � o � k2 7� rA @ m o � � ■ m � , _ a � R � eDFA » ■ § ■ � a2 b ODmod � 2 - � ■ � � ■ ■ 7 ■ ' ; ; _ o � ■ m77 �_ ■ � eD to ` to 7 § ) cs � RI { ® ^ � _ _ , # ƒ � \ k o ■ • a a e � g 2 rr e 12 § ■ � � E E C � i % ■ , e � n � § n E 2 � eD m et ■ . . E b § ) 7 k a k m / ■ 7k ' a � a� 7n z ° ebrA � ƒ � E ■ � A E ■ k © _ § e § ; ° } - s ■ © � � 2 « toI § 2 E ° ok c � f f q k ZA n K c E 02 to) W isg 0 � tea - » ■ § ■ � � m 2 7 an - � � 2 eb § ' J 2 � f cr E 77 �_ ■ CL - SPC 2 § E & 7 2 2 # m ƒ ® ^ wee 0EIr - �g - — ° o § • CLCS e = E 2 rr omaeb rp © o e cl to Q 2 © � » ■ � � & § Ww M 2 30 O e � e § e E § ■ � � Joe ■ $ $ 1 $ o � E ■ A � ■ � ■ � � o « � E ■ ! � � § rr E o � 0 J ƒ f k [ / � $ % ■ 7 cr k o \ goo � � ; ; � W ' gig 8 \ ' E & A S ■ � / 2 ° - � � � � � 2 § § � ° 2 m �_ 2 CL � § / socr § 2 fb c 713 o § m ' co� C oil ;A i m K F § ® fb f 4— � g ■ No CL § § §eb R % ■ �, 2 CL kNo cs k e � • � 7e ■ LL4p ■ 5 ;2 1%.2 N - o �