Application and Software Report: Citizens' Commission On Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation

Cities of Lewiston and Auburn
Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation
Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations

(Analysis and Development for Common Applications in the IT Infrastructure)
October 23, 2008
Report prepared by:
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker

Certified Public Accountants Management Consultants
2008 Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker. All rights reserved.
Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations

Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 2 1.0

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
Project Background ..................................................................................................................................5 Project Approach .....................................................................................................................................5 Project Assumptions ................................................................................................................................7 Analysis Process .......................................................................................................................................8 Report Format..........................................................................................................................................9
2.0
2.1 2.2
Analysis and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 10

Revised Consolidation Priorities ............................................................................................................10 Consolidation Analysis and Recommendations .....................................................................................12 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.2.9 2.2.10 2.2.11 2.2.12 2.3 Help Desk ......................................................................................................................................12 GIS (Geographic Information Systems) .........................................................................................13 Email & Calendars .........................................................................................................................14 Office Productivity ........................................................................................................................15 Permitting and Inspections ...........................................................................................................16 ERP - (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax) .....................................17 Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory .....................................19 Motor Vehicle Registration ...........................................................................................................21 CAMA (Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal) .................................................................................22 Document Management ...............................................................................................................23 Building Environmental Control ....................................................................................................24 Fuel Management .........................................................................................................................25
Recommendation Summary ..................................................................................................................26
3.0
Other Considerations for Consolidation ........................................................................... 27
Appendix A: Data Collection Questions ........................................................................................ 30 Appendix B: Recommendation Summary ..................................................................................... 33 Appendix C: Estimated Consolidation Costs ................................................................................. 36
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Executive Summary
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 1 Function Helpdesk BDMP Recommendation Issue an RFP for a new software application Summary of Reason 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. 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). The City of Lewiston is planning to migrate from Novell GroupWise to Microsoft Exchange/Outlook. Lewiston has made a strategic decision to support Microsoft Office Productivity Software (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc.). 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. 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 (Pentamation and Keystone). 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).
GIS
Continue existing collaboration activities Consolidate to Auburns Application (MS Exchange) Consolidate to Auburns Application (Office 2007) Issue an RFP for a new software application
Email and Calendaring Office Productivity Permitting and Inspections ERP (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax) Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management,
Consolidate to Auburns Application (MUNIS)
Consolidate to Auburns Application (gbaMS)
Table 1: Summary of Recommendations

Final Ranking Function and Inventory BDMP Recommendation Summary of Reason
Motor Vehicle Registration
CAMA
Consolidate to Lewistons Application (CLT IAS)
10
Document Management
Issue RFP for a new software application
11
Building Environmental Control
12
Fuel Management
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. 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. 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. 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 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.
Based on our experience working on IT system migration/implementation/and consolidation projects, it is our view that the Cities will find it difficult to simultaneously undertake the twelve recommended IT consolidation projects identified above with currently available resources. As part of our project work, we conducted a joint meeting with representatives from each City to prioritize the functions that should be consolidated. We then discussed the resulting priority rankings and made adjustments based on subjective factors such as timing, dependencies, and other ongoing projects. The above list presents the order in which we recommend that Cities pursue recommended consolidation efforts. The remainder of this report provides: Section 1, an introduction and description of the project approach; Section 2, Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Executive Summary 3
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.
1.0 Introduction
This 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 Background

The cities of Lewiston and Auburn (the Cities) are in the process of merging certain areas of their municipal 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

Summary of Evaluation Process To conduct this analysis, BDMP worked closely with the IT Departments from each City to complete various activities including data collection and collaborative brainstorming. We then conducted our own independent analysis based on this information. The specific tasks completed for this analysis included: 1. Prepared and agreed upon information request documentation. In order to help facilitate this effort and ensure there was a common understanding of the information we wanted to collect, BDMP developed a formalized information request sheet and software application inventory template. Additionally, we provided these documents to the IT leads from each City for review and feedback before requesting that they be used. When approved, these documents were provided to the project lead from both Cities with adequate time for completion prior to our onsite work. Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Introduction 5
Deliverable D1: Information Request Sheet and Software Application Inventory Template(s). 2. Reviewed existing documentation, develop application inventory, and prepared an onsite meeting 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-finding work. Deliverable D2: Application Inventory and On-site Meeting Schedule. 3. Facilitated on-site meetings. We conducted interviews with personnel from the IT departments at 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 from each 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, Opportunity, and Practicality. We then discussed the resulting priority rankings and made minor adjustments based on various subjective factors such as timing and other ongoing projects. We then requested concurrence from both Cities prior to providing our recommendations. We received confirmation from both Cities on the prioritization of consolidation opportunities on September 30, 2008. Deliverable D3: Prioritized List of Application Consolidation Opportunities.
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Introduction
5. Develop Application Consolidation Recommendations Report. Once we had City approval on the prioritized list of application consolidation opportunities, we assessed the current applications 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 Assumptions

City management directed BDMP to proceed under the following assumptions: 1. City IT Departments will merge in the future. City Management indicated that when conducting our analysis we should assume that the Cities IT Departments will be merged into one IT Department. 2. Organizational buy-in and consensus should be assumed. City management indicated that BDMP should conduct its analysis independent of issues related to organizational buy-in or consensus building. City managers have a long history of working together on complex issues and are committed to making decisions that will serve the interests of both communities. 3. This is not a cost/benefit study. City Management indicated that the primary purpose of this project was to help determine which application we would recommend be consolidated upon. In order to provide this recommendation it was necessary to consider costs and benefits of the alternatives, however, a formal cost-benefit study was not part of the scope of work of this project. 4. School department applications were not considered. Our analysis did not include or consider the separate activities, or software systems being used by each Citys school department. Throughout our analysis, we were required to make certain assumptions in order to reach our final recommendations. Our assumptions and recommendations have been based upon industry research, Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Introduction 7
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: initial software 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, or a 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 licensing cost component of the total implementation cost. Although the Cities may benefit from utilizing existing or shared hardware to support multiple applications, 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 related efficiencies that might be gained by consolidating applications.
1.4 Analysis Process

We 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. 1. Technology viability: We evaluated the specific technologies upon which the current applications are based in order to determine those that are most current and viable for the longterm needs of each City. We also researched the viability of the software companies that support each identified software application. 2. Level of Technology Integration: We considered the ability of each application to integrate with external applications (whether this is direct application-to-application or via the internet). 3. Business Needs: We considered each Citys high level business needs and the level of user satisfaction and dedication to the existing applications. Business needs is also where we considered each Citys long-term technology strategy as a key guide when choosing between two technology options. Business needs became an important consideration when evaluating the opportunities. This analysis, however, did not include a detailed business requirements analysis. As part of any future system migration effort, we recommend that a requirements gap Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Introduction 8
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 applications including 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 Format

Our 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.
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Introduction
2.0 Analysis and Recommendations

This 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 Priorities

In 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 Priorities
Final Ranking
1 2 3 4
Business Function
Helpdesk GIS Email and Calendars Office Productivity (word processing, spreadsheet, etc) Permitting and Inspections
City of Lewiston Current

None ESRI GroupWise
(Novell)
City of Auburn Current

None ESRI Exchange Server
(Microsoft)
Office 2003, WordPerfect, & others

(Microsoft, Corel)
Office 2007
(Microsoft)
GeoTMS
(DesLauriers Municipal Solutions Inc.)
PermitTrack
(Custom MS Access)
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. RTA: Fleet and Inventory Management
(Ron Turley Associates)
MUNIS
(Tyler Technologies)
Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory Motor Vehicle Registration
gbaMS eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility Management

(E-Govlink.com) (GBA Master Series, Inc.)
Trio Software
(Harris Computer Systems)
MUNIS (Tyler Technologies)
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations
10
Table 2: Current City Applications and Business Process Priorities

Final Ranking
9 10
Business Function
CAMA Document Management

CLT IAS

AssessPro
(Patriot Properties, Inc.)
Fortis SE
(Westbrook Technologies, inc.)
GemWarehouse
(Knowledge Tree)
11
Tracer Summit (Trane): Controls HVAC at City Hall & Violations Bureau Bldg Metasys Building Automation System (Johnson Controls): Public Works and Police Department Buildings. Sentry
(Trak Engineering, Inc)
Insight (Siemens)
12
Fuel Management
Fuelmaster
(Syn-Tech Systems, Inc.)
11
2.2 Consolidation Analysis and Recommendations

2.2.1 Help Desk
Lewiston Application None Auburn Application None BDMP Recommendation 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 customized spreadsheets 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 through process 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, automatic assignment of issues for resolution to groups or individuals, ability to track and report on different service categories, and improved reporting on service support activities. All of these capabilities may help the current IT Departments and a future, merged IT Department communicate with its various stakeholders, improve the quality of its budget estimates, and generally perform more efficiently and with better, more consistent service quality. This project also represents a good opportunity for the IT Departments to build cooperative relationships that will be critical for future projects.
12
2.2.2 GIS (Geographic Information Systems)

Lewiston Application ESRI Auburn Application ESRI BDMP Recommendation 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 more closely 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.
13
2.2.3 Email & Calendars

Lewiston Application GroupWise
(Novell)
Auburn Application Exchange Server

(Microsoft)
BDMP Recommendation Consolidate to Auburns Application (Microsoft Exchange Server)
Definition: Emailing and Calendar applications are the foundation for group collaboration and communication. 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 helpdesk responsibilities, 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 contact database for both Cities, creating and assigning project tasks within the system, and numerous other, built-in collaboration technologies.
14
2.2.4 Office Productivity

Lewiston Application Office 2003, WordPerfect, etc
(Microsoft, Corel)
Auburn Application Office 2007

(Microsoft)
BDMP Recommendation Consolidate to Auburns Application (MS Office 2007)
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 this category 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 Cities work 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.
15
2.2.5 Permitting and Inspections

Lewiston Application GeoTMS
(Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions Inc.)
Auburn Application PermitTrack

(Custom MS Access)
BDMP Recommendation RFP for new application
Definition: Applications related to permitting and inspection functions are used by city engineers and inspectors for activities related to real estate parcels such as inspections, permits, complaints, and corrective 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 application, GeoTMS should be allowed to bid on the project. Benefits: We believe the Cities will benefit by identifying and implementing an application that serves the highest and best needs for both communities. By consolidating to the same application, the Cities may then explore opportunities to improve constituent services and share expertise. Consolidating to a more functional, user friendly permitting and inspections application will create efficiencies for both Cities and reduce hardware costs. Users will benefit from simplified scheduling, automated work flow, and greater reporting functionality. Customer service may be improved with real time, web-based integration with applicants. Together, these benefits can help the Cities collaborate to improve service quality, time utilization, accountability, and overall process efficiency.
16
2.2.6 ERP - (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax)
Lewiston Application
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
Auburn Application
BDMP Recommendation
MUNIS
(Tyler Technologies, Inc.)
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. For our evaluation, we determined that ERP encompasses the business functions of accounts receivable, accounts payable, budgeting, general ledger, human resources, purchasing, and revenue collection (tax). Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated submitted information and spoke with users from both Cities to determine that Lewiston and Auburn should, in the short term, continue using their current applications and not consolidate. However, in the long term, the Cities should work toward the eventual consolidation of their key business functions (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection tax) to Tyler Technologies MUNIS application. However, due to the substantial cost and complexities involved in ERP implementations, we believe this consolidation should not be considered until one or both Cities reach a point where it makes sense to consider either upgrading the current systems or selecting a new system. It is possible this circumstance may not occur for several years since each Citys solution is current, meets their business needs, and has strong user support. Our recommendation is based on both short and long-term factors. In the short term, both Cities are utilizing ERP applications that are familiar, current, and meet their business needs. Lewiston uses the Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations 17
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 long term, 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 believe it will be easier for the Cities to investigate other areas for process improvements through performance metrics, if they are using the same ERP application. It is important to note again that ERP systems are expensive and complex endeavors to undertake and it is likely that a future consolidation will not yield immediate cost savings or service improvements. However, as we have suggested, a consolidated ERP system would be a foundational technology investment with the long-term objective being that both Cities would leverage this into other areas to save money and improve service.
18
2.2.7 Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory

Lewiston Application RTA: Fleet and Inventory Management
Auburn Application gbaMS

(GBA Master Series, Inc.)
BDMP Recommendation Consolidate to Auburns Application (gbaMS)
eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility

Management (E-Govlink.com)
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 systems would 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 Management, and Inventory). Alternatively, Lewiston is using multiple applications (primarily RTA and eGovLink) to meet the needs of the same four public works functions. These applications are not integrated and do not communicate with Lewistons accounting application (Pentamation). Thus, significant manual effort is required to manage data and get to the information needed to monitor and report on the consolidated public works operations. Given Lewistons environment, we believe there is an opportunity to improve efficiency and service by consolidating on an application that can improve this integration and allow for improved management visibility and control. This project would be a major undertaking and involve a significant change management component given Lewistons public works personnel familiarity and comfort with their existing applications. RTA has been used for many years and manual procedures have evolved over time to compensate for system limitations. Additionally, Lewiston recently implemented and has received positive feedback on its new eGovLink application for tracking public service requests online. However, our review of eGovLink indicates that while the service provides an interface with the City for its citizens, it is not a full-fledged Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations 19
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 toward merging 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.
20
2.2.8 Motor Vehicle Registration

Lewiston Application Trio Software
Auburn Application MUNIS

(Tyler Technologies, Inc.)
BDMP Recommendation Consolidate to Auburns Application (MUNIS)
Definition: Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) software is the software used by City admin personnel to receive 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 Citys 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.
21
2.2.9 CAMA (Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal)

Lewiston Application CLT IAS
Auburn Application AssessPro

(Patriot Properties, Inc.)
BDMP Recommendation 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 and accounts 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 both municipalities 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 support environment, reducing the costs of supporting multiple vendor products (including data integration and service), and benefitting from the tighter integration of the system with other Tyler Technology products (i.e. MUNIS ERP system).
22
2.2.10 Document Management

Lewiston Application Fortis SE
Auburn Application GemWarehouse

(Knowledge Tree)
BDMP Recommendation 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 to these 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 Management Plan 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 based on a refinement of business needs that facilitates and supports consolidated City operations. Benefits: The primary benefit of consolidating to a common document management system will be the potential to gain improved efficiencies from shared City services and decrease the complexity and cost of the IT environment.
23
2.2.11 Building Environmental Control

Lewiston Application
Tracer Summit (Trane) Metasys Building Automation System (Johnson Controls)
Auburn Application Insight

(Siemens)
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 be the potential to gain improved efficiencies from shared City services and decrease the complexity and cost of the IT environment. This would also allow the future consolidated application vendor to offer one-look system capabilities at equipment and HVAC infrastructure used across both Cities.
24
2.2.12 Fuel Management

Lewiston Application Sentry
Auburn Application Fuelmaster

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 application such 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 potential to gain improved efficiencies from shared City services and decrease the complexity and cost of the IT environment.
25
2.3 Recommendation Summary

As 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
1 2 3 4 5 6
Business Function
Helpdesk GIS Email and Calendars Office Productivity (word processing, spreadsheet, etc) Permitting and Inspections ERP (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax) Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory Motor Vehicle Registration CAMA Document Management
Combined Cities
New System ESRI Exchange Server
(Microsoft)
City of Lewiston Only

NA NA NA NA NA NA
City of Auburn Only

NA NA NA NA NA NA
Office 2007
(Microsoft)
New System MUNIS

gbaMS
NA
NA
8 9 10
MUNIS
NA NA Fortis SE
NA NA GemWarehouse
(Knowledge Tree)
CLT IAS
To be determined (TBD)
11
TBD
Tracer Summit (Trane) Metasys Building Automation System (Johnson Controls) Sentry
Insight (Siemens)
Fuelmaster
12
Fuel Management
TBD
We believe these recommendations provide a framework that the Cities may use to create a joint IT strategic plan that will formally approve and assign resources and responsibilities. However, we also recognize that circumstances and priorities may change. Our recommendations assume that the Cities will collaborate to undertake projects that will maximize the potential benefits for each City while taking into consideration each Citys unique business needs and organizational culture. Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations 26
3.0 Other Considerations for Consolidation

During 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 IT Department 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 in common. 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 how they 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 five year goals and objectives. Such a plan might be used to formally declare technology philosophies and standards that may then become the framework by which major IT decisions are made. For instance, the Cities may decide to pursue the development of a shared server environment based on Microsoft Windows Server technology which will then drive future application decisions. 3. Implement Centralized IT Controls & Standards: We noted through our discussions that Auburn appears to have a well structured IT organization that utilizes centralized oversight and control to establish and maintain common standards throughout the City. With its recent hiring of a new IT Director, Lewiston is similarly working toward having a more centralized IT function. We believe that a centralized IT Department structure and common IT standards are necessary for ensuring efficient utilization of scarce IT resources across multiple municipal departments. We recommend that both Cities continue to work toward centralizing their IT functions and establishing/enforcing common IT
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Other Considerations for Consolidation
27
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 support various 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 Cities will 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 address necessary procurement, contracting, and vendor product licensing requirements. 6. Alternative Application Access Models: As the Cities evolve toward an IT environment that is more closely 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 that the Cities may consider as their IT environment evolves and gives them more flexibility. 7. Migration Plan: Related to issue number 2 above, the Cities should plan to develop a detailed migration plan after it determines which of the recommendations in this report will be adopted. This plan is more tactical in nature and should be developed in concert with a Joint IT Strategic Plan for the Cities. The Migration Plan will be used to develop specific timelines, project activities, budgets, and resources needed to carry out the recommendations. For each planned system migration, the Cities should plan to conduct a requirements gap analysis be conducted to determine if existing business or technical functionality may be lost from migrating from one system to the other. 8. Project Management and Oversight: Undertaking the recommendations in this report will be a significant effort for the Cities. Undertaking large IT projects exposes the Cities to risks associated with potential project delays and cost overruns. The migration activities will require significant project management resources. The resources needed for this effort will depend on many factors, Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Other Considerations for Consolidation 28
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.
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Other Considerations for Consolidation
29
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 lifecycle costs; We developed and reviewed with IT personnel the following set of questions (below) related to help 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:
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Questions What is the name of the software vendor? What is the initial installation date of the software? What software version being used by the City today? What is the latest software version available on the market today for this application? What is the application server operating system? Please describe the application hardware (make, model, amount of memory, amount of disk space). Application hardware acquisition date What is the database application used (if applicable)? What is the database application version used (if applicable)? Does this application have a web-based interface? (Yes or No) Relative Selection Criteria 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform 1. Viability of the Technology Platform
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix A: Data Collection Questions
30
# 11
Questions 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.) 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)? List the other applications this software integrates with. Describe the satisfaction level with the existing level of integration with other City systems. Indicate other external applications that this application does not integrate with in the current environment, but should. Does the application meet the business needs of most system users? (Yes or No, if No please describe the most significant areas of non-satisfaction.) Are users of the application satisfied with the application? (Yes or No, if No please describe the most significant areas of non-satisfaction.) 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 nonsatisfaction.) Identify the key personnel who utilize this application (name, role, and email). Indicate the average number of technical support calls made related to this application on a monthly basis; for both "in-house" support calls made to City support staff and external support calls made to the software vendor. Would this application be a good choice for consolidation? (Yes or No, if No please describe why not.) On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how feasible is it for this application to serve both the City of Lewiston and Auburn. Does this application align with the Cities technology vision for the future? (Yes or No, please describe)
Relative Selection Criteria 1. Viability of the Technology Platform
12
1. Viability of the Technology Platform
13 14 15
2. Ability to Integrate with Other Applications 2. Ability to Integrate with Other Applications 2. Ability to Integrate with Other Applications
16
3. Ability to meet existing business needs
17
18
19 20
3. Ability to meet existing business needs 3. Ability to meet existing business needs
21
22
23
31
# 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Questions How many users need access to this system from your City? How many licensed application "seats" are owned by the City? Of these how many are currently used? What was the initial software purchase cost? What was the initial hardware purchase cost? What was the initial implementation service(s) cost? What is the ongoing annual software license maintenance cost? What is the ongoing annual hardware support cost? Are there additional ongoing support costs besides software license maintenance and hardware support? (Yes/No, and if Yes, please describe these costs) How many internal support staff are required to support this application annually? (Express in Full Time Equivalent) Is this application supported by staff outside of the IT department? (Yes or No, if Yes, please provide name, title and department)
Relative Selection Criteria 3. Ability to meet existing business needs 4. Application Costs 4. Application Costs 4. Application Costs 4. Application Costs 4. Application Costs 4. Application Costs 4. Application Costs
32
4. Application Costs
33
4. Application Costs
32
Appendix B: Recommendation Summary

Final Ranking Business Function City of Lewiston Current City of Auburn Current BDMP Recommendation
Issue an RFP for a new software application
Summary of Reason
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. 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). The City of Lewiston is planning to migrate from Novell GroupWise to Microsoft Exchange/Outlook. Lewiston has made a strategic decision to support Microsoft Office Productivity Software (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc.). 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. 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 (Pentamation and Keystone).
Helpdesk
None
None
GIS
ESRI
ESRI
Continue current efforts Consolidate to Auburns Application (MS Exchange) Consolidate to Auburns Application (Office 2007) Issue an RFP for a new software application
Email and Calendars Office Productivity (word processing, spreadsheet, etc) Permitting and Inspections
GroupWise
(Novell)
Exchange Server
(Microsoft)
Office 2003, WordPerfect, & others

(Microsoft, Corel)
Office 2007
(Microsoft)
GeoTMS
(DesLauriers Municipal Solutions Inc.)
PermitTrack
(Custom MS Access)
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
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix B: Recommendation Summary
33
Final Ranking
Business Function

RTA: Fleet and Inventory Management
BDMP Recommendation
Summary of Reason
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). 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. 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. 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
Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory
gbaMS
eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility Management

(E-Govlink.com)
Consolidate to Auburns Application (gbaMS)
Motor Vehicle Registration
Trio Software
MUNIS (Tyler Technologies)
CAMA
CLT IAS
AssessPro
(Patriot Properties)
Consolidate to Lewistons Application (CLT-IAS)
10
Document Management
Fortis SE
(Westbrook Technologies, Inc.)
GemWarehouse
(Knowledge Tree)
34
Final Ranking
Business Function
BDMP Recommendation
Summary of Reason
(through a structured RFP process) based on refined document management needs.
11
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)
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 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.
12
Fuel Management
Sentry
Fuelmaster
35
Appendix C: Estimated Consolidation Costs

Final Function Ranking 1 2 BDMP Recommendation Estimated Software Cost (35%) Estimated Estimated Service Estimated One Recurring Annual Hardware Cost Cost time Consolidation Maintenance (10%) (55%) Cost Cost
Helpdesk GIS Email and Calendars
Issue RFP for a new software application Continue current efforts Consolidate to Auburns Application (MS Exchange) Consolidate to Auburns Application (Office 2007) Issue RFP for a new software application Consolidate to Auburns Application (MUNIS) Consolidate to Auburns Application (gbaMS) Consolidate to Auburns Application (MUNIS) Consolidate to Lewiston's Application (CLT-MUNIS) Issue RFP for a new software application Issue RFP for a new software application Issue RFP for a new software application
25,000 Not applicable 45,000
7,143
39,286
71,429
5,000
12,857
70,714
128,571
9,000
Office Productivity Permitting and Inspections ERP (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax) Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory Motor Vehicle Registration CAMA Document Management (Note 1) Building Environmental Control (Note 2) Fuel Management (Note 2)
30,000 90,000 140,000 25,714 40,000 141,429 220,000
30,000 257,143 400,000 18,000 28,000
55,000
15,714
86,429
157,143
11,000
20,000 30,000 40,000 20,000 20,000
5,714 8,571 11,429 TBD TBD
31,429 47,143 62,857 TBD TBD
57,143 85,714 114,286 TBD TBD
4,000 6,000 8,000 TBD TBD
10 11 12
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.
Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix C: Estimated Consolidation Costs
36

Application and Software Report: Citizens' Commission On Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Application and Software Report: Citizens' Commission On Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cities of Lewiston and Auburn

Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation

Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations

October 23, 2008

Report prepared by:

Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker

2008 Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker. All rights reserved.

Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 2 1.0

Analysis and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 10

Recommendation Summary ..................................................................................................................26

Other Considerations for Consolidation ........................................................................... 27

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Executive Summary

Consolidate to Auburns Application (MUNIS)

Consolidate to Auburns Application (gbaMS)

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Executive Summary

Table 1: Summary of Recommendations

Motor Vehicle Registration

Consolidate to Auburns Application (MUNIS)

Consolidate to Lewistons Application (CLT IAS)

Issue RFP for a new software application

Building Environmental Control

Issue RFP for a new software application

Issue RFP for a new software application

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Executive Summary

1.1 Project Background

1.2 Project Approach

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Introduction

1.3 Project Assumptions

1.4 Analysis Process

1.5 Report Format

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Introduction

2.0 Analysis and Recommendations

2.1 Revised Consolidation Priorities

City of Lewiston Current

City of Auburn Current

Office 2003, WordPerfect, & others

gbaMS eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility Management

MUNIS (Tyler Technologies)

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations

Table 2: Current City Applications and Business Process Priorities

City of Lewiston Current

City of Auburn Current

Building Environmental Control

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations

2.2 Consolidation Analysis and Recommendations

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations

2.2.2 GIS (Geographic Information Systems)

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations

2.2.3 Email & Calendars

Auburn Application Exchange Server

BDMP Recommendation Consolidate to Auburns Application (Microsoft Exchange Server)

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations

2.2.4 Office Productivity

Auburn Application Office 2007

BDMP Recommendation Consolidate to Auburns Application (MS Office 2007)

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations

2.2.5 Permitting and Inspections

Auburn Application PermitTrack

BDMP Recommendation RFP for new application

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations

Consolidate to Auburns Application (MUNIS)

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Analysis and Recommendations