Public Power - November 2008 - (Page 23)

SWOT Analysis of Migration to New GIS Strengths Decrease maintenance costs Long term cost of ownership decreases significantly Reduced time in posting work orders, resulting in less worker-hours Reduced time to update new facilities into outage management system Increased support from vendors Standard user interfaces Open architecture of system Better plotting JEA has a seasoned GIS community Opportunities In-house development of unique JEA needs Implement better processes for getting field information into system Reduced full-time equivalent staff Decision support enhanced through better data availability Wider use of GIS within JEA Weaknesses Learning curve for employees might delay implementation User buy-in/resistance to change Use of multiple products during transition, i.e., mobile GIS Normal production work will temporarily decrease during implementation Short-term cost of ownership (capital expenditures) will increase, possibly affecting cash flows and fiveyear financial plans Threats Establishing new vendor relationship Stability of vendor Impact of production on testing could negatively impact the system implementation Availability of IT resources Failure to adapt processes to new capabilities will delay benefits More Oracle-dependent pact nearly any utility, large or small – such as learning curves, user resistance and establishing a new vendor relationship – we realized migration was the better decision for our utility. The GIS project team dove into an intense investigation and evaluation of the considered vendors in the market space today, their products as well as their services. After initial vendor demonstrations in November and December 2006, the team quickly narrowed the vendor list to two candidates. Requirements from all JEA functional areas and from each specific utility were collected, combined, categorized and weighted for evaluation. We sent a comprehensive requirements document to each of the prospective vendors, requesting an on-site demonstration of product functionality and technology addressing 97 requirements. We also asked each vendor to provide a manned, hands-on experience www.APPAnet.org in addition to a three-day benchmark demonstration. We invited multiple staff members from each JEA unit – electric, gas, water, wastewater, and telecommunications – to attend the demonstrations. After the benchmarks, all JEA participants summed up their evaluations in a consistent scoring manner with a singlenumber score. The project team then reviewed evaluations and asked for a definitive selection from each JEA participant: Vendor A or Vendor B? Why this one, and why not the other one? We also phoned three customer references provided by each vendor candidate with questions. Because JEA is, itself, a broad user community, our questions focused on primary users, system architecture and flexibility and the ability of resident information technology resources to support the installed system. Understanding that different customers have different GIS needs, we also asked each user group about its relationship with its GIS vendor, the vendor’s responsiveness, the upgrades and costs experienced, and availability of offthe-shelf software. In March 2007, several members of the GIS project team attended the Geospatial Information Technology Association User Conference in San Antonio. Here, the team mined for further information about and insight into each of the vendors and its products, visited with customers, and extracted first-hand knowledge of vendor relationships. Immediately following the vendor demonstrations in February, JEA asked each vendor to present a formal written proposal including software cost, services cost, maintenance cost, and a scope of work. The team calculated the return on investment of the preferred proposal over the legacy GIS to yield a positive net present value of $240,000 over eight years at an anticipated cost of capital of 4.0 perNOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2008 23 http://www.APPAnet.org

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Public Power - November 2008

Public Power - November 2008 Contents Perspective 10 Questions Capturing Knowledge Before It Retires Jackson’s GIS Search Keeping a Job Journal Japan Tackles the Kyoto Protocol Getting to 20 by 10 Damless Hydro Power Earthquake: The Hidden Disaster For Engineers Safety For Governing Boards DEED Hometown Connections Parting Shot

Public Power - November 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.