~,3 Dfiago~l.3 COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND TEN (10) COPIES OF_THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT MADE BY: Judge Tinley OFFICE: County Ju °'~~ "~ MEETING DATE: July 28, 2008 TIME PREFERRED: 9:15 AM SUBJECT: Presentation from Marc Hamlin regarding the development of a county controlled and owned softwaxe system for courts and beyond. EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Marc Hamlin ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE: Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows: Meeting scheduled for Mondays: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: THIS RQUEST RECEIVED ON: 5:00 PM previous Tuesday @ .M. All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court. Page 1 of 2 '~dy Grinstead From: Jody Grinstead [jgrinstead@co.kerr.tx.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:13 AM To: 'Pat Tinley'; 'bbaldwin@co.kerr.tx.us'; 'Bill Williams'; 'boehler@co.kerr.tx.us'; 'Jonathan Letz' Subject: FW: Marc Hamlin's visit to Commissioners' Court on July 28th importance: High Attachments: Software Project Status Report070308.doc; Feasibility Study Report Summary.pdf; Software Project Overview and Resolution.pdf Commissioner's and Judge Tinley: Please see the attached information. This refers to an item that was on the June 9, 2008 agenda regarding a request to help fund the development of "software standards and a statement of work for a county controlled and owned software system for courts". At that meeting you decided you wanted more information regarding the program prior to committing to help fund it, and wanted me to set up a presentation regarding the program. Your main concerns at that time were: 1. What is the benefit to Kerr County for the initial commitment of .001 % of the General Fund revenue? 2. What is expected for future commitments? I have made arrangements for Mr. Marc Hamiln to be at the July 28th meeting for that presentation. Thank you! Jody Grinstead KP•~- County C~~.._~iissioners' Court Coordinator 70~Nlain Street, Ste. 101 Kerrville, TX 78028 {830) 792-2211 From: Gayle Latham [mailto:GayleL@county.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:10 AM To: Jody Grinstead Cc: Bethany Eckstrom; mhamlin@co.brazos.tx.us Subject: Marc Hamlin's visit to Commissioners' Court on July 28th Importance: High Jody, Mr. Hamlin has asked if I would send you his contact information so that you can send him pertinent information about the time/location, etc. of the meeting on the 28th. If you would copy anything to him to Bethany Eckstrom at ~eckstronlC~co.brazosax.us, that will be helpful as she assists with his scheduling. I am attaching documentation for the commissioners. I will update the status sheet with the latest one before the meeting. When will you be posting the meeting and preparing the commissioners' packets? His Mr. Hamlin's contact info: 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 2 Marc Hamlin F os County District Clerk 30~ E. 26th Street, Ste. 216 Bryan, TX 77803 979-361-4240 979-361-0197/Fax mhamlinC co.brazos.tx.us __ __ Thank you, Gayle Gayle Latham, Director County Information Resources Agency Texas Association of Counties P. O. Box 213:1, Austin, Texas 78768 Phone: (312) X78-8753 I (800) 45b-5974 gaylelC~~county.org I gayle.latham~!?cirastate.tx.us wivVV.county.org I ~v~vw.cira.state.tx.us 'I'he~%lissiert of the Texas Association of Counties is to provide services to Texas ~ountir-.s and assistzzrtcc> to all countt~ officials. err 07/08/2008 ~EXAS ASSOCIATION 1210 San Antonio • Austin, TX 78701 ~ Karen Ann Norris, Executive Director May 15, 2008 Hon. Pat Tinley 700 Main Street Kerrville, TX 78028-5323 Dear Judge Tinley, iNe need to hear fi•um you. You are aware from previous correspondence that our CIRA Board has agreed to move to develop software standards and a statement of work for a county controlled and owned software system for courts and beyond. Our recently appointed CIRA Software Advisory Committee feels that if each participating county will commit a tenth of one percent (.001%) of their General Fund revenue, this will provide the needed funding. This is a one time fee with all funds needed as soon as 2009 funding is available in order for work to begin. If you county wishes to be among the supporters of the project, we are asking that you approve and return the resolution to CIRA before the end of June. Should you need further information or assistance, please contact Gayle Latham, CIRA Director, at 800-456-5974 x3654 or by e-mail to gaylel@county.org. Even though the path for the follow-on phases may not be clear at this point, the best way to progress in subsequent phases will become apparent as eve go through this exercise. We need counties with a progressive vision and clear foresight to step forward, put together their resources and get this done. Thank you for your interest in the future of county government. Sincerely, ;' ~ Woodrow W. Gossom, Jr. Wichita County Judge & CIRA Board Chairman Of COUNTIES ~ P.O. Box 2131 • Austin, TX 78768-2131 r i ~~ a7s:_Q^, ~~ ~ ~nn_~,r,_ :07 t ~ r i ~> ,i ~u nr,i ca ~~ v ,.,,...., , ~.,,~... ,..-., County Software Project Progress Report County Population Contribution Date Approved $$ To Go 1 Sterling 1,245 $ 2,500.00 5/12/08 $ 797,500.00 2 Limestone 22,421 $ 11,000.00 5/27/08 $ 786,500.00 3 Brazos 170,954 $ 65,604.45 5/27/08 $ 720,895.55 4 Nacogdoches 62,435 $ 12,383.67 5/27/08 $ 708,511.88 5 Colorado 20,666 $ 7,760.00 5/27/08 $ 700,751.88 6 Lee 16,356 $ 6,000.00 5/27/08 $ 694,751.88 7 McCulloch 7,862 $ 2,057.51 5/27/08 $ 692,694.37 8 Howard 32,295 $ 7,851.00 5/27/08 $ 684,843.37 9 Haskell 5,249 $ 1,748.91 5/27/08 $ 683,094.46 10 Fannin 33,067 $ 8,000.00 5/27/08 $ 675,094.46 11 Wichita 128,025 $ 26,235.92 6/2/08 $ 648,858.54 12 Rusk 48,568 $ 13,651.29 6/5/08 $ 635,207.25 13 Milam 24,855 $ 10,000.00 6/9/08 $ 625,207.25 14 Gaines 14,925 $ 10,250.00 6/9/08 $ 614,957.25 15 Ector 129,570 $ 25,000.00 6/9/08 $ 589,957.25 16 Burleson 16,598 $ 5,120.00 6/9/08 $ 584,837.25 17 Coryell 72,156 $ 9,003.00 6/9/08 $ 575,834.25 18 Shelby 26,512 $ 5,774.00 6/9/08 $ 570,060.25 19 Harrison 63,504 $ 13,536.00 6/9/08 $ 556,524.25 20 Armstrong 2,071 $ 400.00 6/9/08 $ 556,124.25 21 Dallam 6,125 $ 2,500.00 6/9/08 $ 553,624.25 22 Baylor 3,836 $ 827.00 6/9/08 $ 552,797.25 23 Zapata 13,605 $ 18,000.00 6/10/08 $ 534,797.25 24 Polk 46,332 $ 15,000.00 6/10/OS $ 519,797.25 25 Falls 17,149 $ 5,350.00 6/11/08 $ 514,447.25 26 Matagorda 37,024 $ 9,676.00 6/16/08 $ 504,771.25 27 Reeves 11,183 $ 8,983.00 6/16/08 $ 495,788.25 28 Wharton 40,897 $ 12,696.00 6/23/08 $ 483,092.25 29 Grimes 25,603 6/23/08 $ 483,092.25 amount unconfirmed 30 Robertson 15,819 $ 12,000.00 6/23/08 $ 471,092.25 31 Washington 32,034 $ 10,959.00 6/24/08 $ 460,133.25 32 Houston 22,769 $ 4,452.53 6/24/08 $ 455,680.72 33 Bandera 19,524 7/10/08 $ 455,680.72 amount unconfirmed 34 Madison 13,525 $ 3,000.00 7/14/08 $ 452,680.72 Pop. Total 1,204,759 TOTAL $ 347,319.28 - - ~- - - P ct G l =$800 000 _- roje oa , i $500,000.00 -- ---.--.__. '' $700,000.00 _. ..___ _._._. ~. . ~ _ _..... __._.. _. ,... __ .. $600,000.00 - ~ ~ _.. _.... $500,000.00 - . 5347 3i'+,.Z. . ~ ~ $400,000.00 - _ _ - ' , _.. . - - _ . - s .. 00,000.00 - _.. $. 0 , ~ a.: _. $200,000. 0 -... _ ............ _.. 00 $100 000 . . , $_ I 7122/2008 TEXAS ASSOCIATION ~ l 110 San .~ntonio • .\cLtirin. "f~ 7~`~i(.)] }iaren :1nn Morris. I?seculire [director MEMO From: CIRA Board of Directors Re: Proposed County Owned Software Project Of COUNTIES ?~ P.C). Bo!: `1:91 • :ltistin, T~ 78i(i8-ll;ll in July 2007, the Texas Association of Counties' CIRA Board of IJirectors received a proposal from the CIRA IT Advisory Committee to conduct a study to determine interest in and feasibility of an integrated county owned softwaze system to include comprehensive integrated criminal justice and financial systems. Such a system would: • Ultimately provide a completely integrated software package that would allow information to flow smoothly among aIl the various departments in the county. • Enable counties to more easily relocate operations to another county in the event of a disaster. Allow counties to have direct input as to the features and functionality of the software program. • Standardize information management across the state, thereby allowing free information err' exchange among counties and between counties and other levels of government. • Potentially reduce cost to procure county software and, in the long term, reduce annual maintenance costs. • Reduce county hardware costs by using aweb-based, hosted solution. • Allow any new legislative mandates affecting the system to be implemented for all counties using the system uniformly. The initial feasibility study was concluded in January 2008. After receiving the report at their January 30, 2008 meeting, the C1RA Board of 1?irectors approved moving forward with the next phase of the project, the creation of a Framework or Scope of Work for the proposed project should a substantial number of counties provide funding. The creation of a Framework is best described as the amalgamation of a Best Practices Business Process Model and a Data Standards Model that will provide a uniform and consistent approach to how counties communicate information between departments, agencies and other counties- It should be noted that a Framework is not a software program, but instead a roadmap for developing a software solution. The development of this Framework is a "rst ste in a long term approach to solving the complex problem of justice management software. 512--171-X;~i:~ • 5(1(1--1~~6-:i97-1 • ~~1`_>--lili-6`?:~11~~A\ ti~~c~c.coun~}.oi;~ Whu develop this Framework, rst? Inefficient software solutions and soaring software budgets are a consequence of each county acting independently to solve their unique software issues. This correlates to counties utilizing different vendors and business processes in day to day operations. The challenges to both the existing software vendors and counties are complex and can best be characterized as the result of a software vendor designing a 'standard' software solution for 'non-standard' business processes that differ between counties. Therefore, the first step in a strategic plan to address these issues will be to create a Framework Model that will impact the business processes involved in the justice management system. Developing this standard Framework and making it publicly available will create the following opportunities for counties: • Existing vendors will have the opportunity to 'standardize' their solution around county business practices. • New software vendors will be encouraged to create software solutions to meet the needs of counties, thus creating more competition and more choices for counties. • This standard Framework may provide the opportunity for counties to partner to develop a Comprehensive Integrated Justice Management Software Package for counties by counties. We recognize that the success of this program will be contingent upon the strong commitment from a substantial number of counties and county officials from many county offices. Developing a Framework or Scope of Work for a CIJMS solution will include a comprehensive business process analysis as well as a detailed system design. Preliminary cost estimates are between $600,000 - $800,000, and the process will take 9-12 months. Once this Framework is complete, various options become available including the development of a CIJMS hosted software solution. Preliminary estimates for developing software are $lOM - $12M over an 18 month period; however these are clearly good faith estimates and the cost could be substantially higher contingent upon the final Framework and Scope of Work. Timing is critical and counties committed to participating must plan to commit funding to meet their budget cycle requirements for 2009. Our recently appointed CIRA Software Advisory Committee feels that if each participating county will make a minimum commitment of a tenth of one percent (.001) of their General Fund revenue, this will provide the needed funding to develop the Framework/Scope of Work. This is a one time fee with all funds needed as soon as 2009 funding is available in order for work to begin. If you county wishes to be among the supporters of the project, we are asking that you approve and return the resolution to CIRA before the end of September. Your county will benefit by investing in the development of this Framework to influence the development of common business practices to improve efficiencies and control costs. There is a sense of urgency in moving this project forward, in addition to a long term benefit from this program that will be shared by all counties. For more information, please contact Gayle Latham, CIRA Director, at 1-800-456-5974 x 3654, or by e-mail to gaylelCcounty.org. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT TO PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPING A SCOPE OF WORK THAT CAN BE USED TO DEVELOP JUSTICE SYSTEM SOFTWARE WHEREAS, the County Information Resources Agency (CIRA) was created by Texas counties for the purpose of working together in using technology to make county government more efficient and effective; and WHEREAS, the delivery of governmental services can be improved through the utilization of standardized integrated software; WHEREAS, as the first phase of a project to define, and potentially develop, a standardized integrated software system for county government, the CIRA Board has agreed to work with its Members to define the work flow and processes of the various offices that make up the justice system and, based on these processes, prepare a uniform Scope of Work that can serve as a basis for integrated justice system software to meet the needs of any county, regardless of size or location; and WHEREAS, development of the Scope of Work will cost approximately $800,000; and WHEREAS, Member is interested in obtaining effective integrated justice system software and understands that system requirements and business processes must be defined and the Scope of Work prepared to effectively provide for the county's needs; and WHEREAS, to achieve its aims, Member sees substantial advantages in joining with other counties to fund the development of the Scope of Work; and WHEREAS, both CIRA and Member understand and agree that this resolution is non- binding, and that no commitment of Member will be binding and valid until Member has: 1) executed an interlocal agreement to participate in the Statement of Work project; and 2) appropriated the necessary funds in the county budget; BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, as follows: The Commissioners Court of County supports the development of the Scope of Work and intends to contribute amount of by October 2008. COUNTY JUDGE ATTEST: COUNTY CLERK DATE Feasibility Study Report Summary Version A COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATED JUSTICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL STUDY DATE: 2/15/2008 Distribution is subject to copyright. Disclaimers CIRA considers the information contained in this document to be the proprietary and exclusive property of CIRA except as otherwise indicated. Unless required by law, no part of this document, in whole or in part, may be reproduced, stored, transmitted, or used for design purposes without the prior written permission of CIRA. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. The information in this document is provided for informational purposes only. CIRA makes no warranties, express or implied and this document does not constitute legal, financial or general business advice. All pricing information included in this document and assumptions are estimates and for budgetary purposes only. This document is not intended to be your sole source of information on this subject, and you are encouraged to rely on your own experience, investigation and analysis. Privacy Information This document may contain information of a confidential or proprietary nature. Unless required by law, this information should not be given to persons other than those who are involved in the Comprehensive Integrated Justice Management System project or who will become involved during the lifecycle. ~Ar+ Feasibility Study Report SUMMARY VERSION A COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATED JUSTICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL STUDY 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to define the executive requirements and general specifications for the development of a Comprehensive Integrated Justice Information System (CIJIMS) administered by the County Information Resources Agency (CIRA) of the Texas Association of Counties (TAC). This document is a summary of the completed Feasibility Study available through CIRA. The audience for this Summary of the Feasibility Study is all interested participant counties to the program. The lifecycle of this proposed solution contained in this document and in the Advisory Committee Proposal includes an analysis of the development, implementation and maintenance of this software solution and is analyzed from all aspects of Product Development and Business Planning Phases to determine the viability of a County Owned Software Solution for both large and small counties throughout Texas. This document is not intended to serve as a Scope of Work (SOW) for Software Design. The Feasibility Study is the culmination of a proposal presented to the County Information Resources Agency by the CIRA IT Advisory Committee on June of 2007. The information contained in the proposal will serve as a comprehensive guide in the development of this Feasibility Study and is the primary point of reference throughout this study. 1.1 METHODOLOGY The methodology for this report was to understand the existing marketplace including contacting and interviewing current vendors, meeting with county officials and others to identify key challenges that they face and to understand the functional business processes included in scope of this program. ~ 1.2 SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS The Proposal for a Comprehensive Integrated Justice Information Management System by the CIRA IT Advisory Committee specified various options for software solutions including both Build (Building the Application) and Buy (Buying the Application) from a qualified software provider or a combination of the two. After completing initial market research it was determined by the IT Advisory Committee and general research that the scope of the project should be narrowed to Building a Hosted Application Suite Only. This decision was made in consideration of current vendor technologies and software solutions available in scope of the requirements of the proposal. Though the scope of the study has been narrowed to a Build Option, it does not preclude a Buy option with an existing software vendor in the marketplace as the program progresses through the various phases of development. The Hosted Application may reside onsite at larger counties, at the CIRA Data Center, offsite at a remote Application Service Provider (ASP) location or regionally in a central county serving other surrounding counties. In addition, the scope of the proposal covers only the Justice Information Management Components including but not limited to Law ~.-r Enforcement and Jail Management, Probation, Prosecutor, Jury Management, Criminal Case Management, Court Administration, Civil Case Management, Justice of the Peace and others. It is the intent of this proposal that other applications such as Financial and Tax may be added to the solution at a future time. The Software Solution proposed by the CIJMS Project includes many benefits to the User, the IT Administrator and the county officials. Users will be presented a graphical interface with the ability to multitask onscreen. The current process for many counties is to access a single screen and copy down information on paper to transfer to another screen due to legacy application technology. This creates a more efficient staff and results in increased data accuracy. With new platform technology available today, the user will experience a faster response when keying information into the database and the system will not require proprietary hardware infrastructure (i.e. AS400) to operate. Over the next 5 years advances in user hardware technology will continue to obsolete desktop infrastructure. New Tablet PCs, Advanced Cell Phones, LCD screens, PDAs, cost effective laptops and others will continue to be introduced moving the applications closer to the user. Defining a software platform today that embraces the changes in technology over the next 10 years will enhance the investment in this program. In the future, employees will have ubiquitous access to their applications that are not specifically "tethered" to the device that they are using. Portable and personalized applications can be designed for both small and large counties utilizing new software platforms that are affordable. In summary, CIRA has a unique opportunity to address and respond to the key challenges of Texas Counties described in the Advisory Committee Proposal. An integrated software solution developed by the Counties in partnership with CIRA is intended to provide an efficient and cost effective alternative to existing marketplace solutions. 2.0 BUSINESS NEED AND FIT The Mission, Strategy and Goal of CIRA is to provide value-add solutions to Texas counties in response to their corporate and individual needs. The diversity of counties throughout Texas can best described with the fact that 80% of the population is represented by only 37 of the 254 Texas Counties according to the Conference on Urban Counties (CUC) website. Less populated counties have limited resources, budgets, staff and technology in comparison to larger urban counties however they all have the same requirements for maintaining information, processing data and responding to the needs of the community. Individual counties have historically worked with software vendors to create solutions for their specific needs. Because the business processes are similar between diverse counties, these counties would benefit from a collective software collaboration effort. A portable hosted application provides the ubiquitous access necessary to meet the needs of both the small and larger counties. A hosted application also takes into consideration newer technologies for future applications. 3.0 INDUSTRY AND MARKET ASSESSMENT In order to understand the viability of the proposed software development project, a current analysis of the existing County Software Technology found in counties throughout Texas was assessed through both survey provided by CIRA and direct contact with County Officials. CIRA provided for a Request For Information in the form of a survey forwarded to err member Counties in response to the Advisory Committee Proposal. The survey requested information about their current software vendor(s), cost, interest level and other pertinent information. 3.1 CIRA Survey Analysis There were 77 Counties who responded to this Request For Information Survey. Of the 77 respondent counties, 6 counties were in current contractual and software upgrade transitions and would not be able to participate in a Software Program or transition over a 3- 5year period. 23 of the remaining counties in the survey indicated that they would not be interested in participating in this program at this time, leaving 48 counties who were interested in participating with some level of interest. An estimated $880,000 of potential funding was indicated from the survey respondents, however this budget is for the 2009 budget year. Of the Respondents to the survey in favor of an Integrated Justice Management System, approximately $2.3M is allocated on current annual recurring maintenance fees with their criminal justice software systems. 3.2 General Vendor Assessments The software industry has many competitors however the vertical market serving Texas counties has limited competition. Wth minimal competition and long term obligations, counties "lock in" with their respective software vendors and are typically reluctant to change providers. However, if CIRA can develop software based on a scope of work that is well- tailored to counties' actual operations and uses state of the art system architecture, it may compete well with the established vendors. 4.0 Market Analysis The Comprehensive Integrated Justice Management System is targeted for counties outside of the Urban County infrastructure that may or may not have a current integrated software system. Of the 254 Counties in Texas, approximately 35% of these counties are less than 10,000 in population while 42% are in a population range of 10,000 - 15,000. Counties in the latter range may spend approximately $5 - $20K each for Software Maintenance and Services according to the survey trend. Extrapolating data using the survey trend analysis indicates that the market size for "maintenance fees" alone for counties under 500,000 in population will range from $7-10M in total annual maintenance. This is certainly a very conservative estimate and the maintenance could be as much as twice the amount given. County population size is typically a valid indicator of technology-equivalency between counties. The following indicates county by population size grouping: Population Size # of Counties ^ Less than 10,000 92 ^ 10,000 - 50,000 107 ^ 50,000 - 100,000 21 ^ 100,000 - 500,000 26 The target market for the CIJMS project would be counties less than 100,000 in population. who would specifically benefit from a remotely hosted application. Larger counties in population will benefit as well from new services and new technology to streamline operations and create efficiencies between departments and agencies. Larger counties will also be instrumental in the success of this program providing technical guidance. CIRA can offer leadership in the development of a Best Practices Business Process Standardization effort between counties to encourage counties to work more efficiently and create a platform for future Best Practices efforts. This will result in a shorter development cycle for the Comprehensive Integrated Justice Management System and will create a framework for all software vendors to adhere to in the future. 5.0 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION The complexity of developing a Comprehensive Integrated Justice Management Information System can be represented in the Brazos County Data Flow Model which was reviewed in the Feasibility Study. Each module in this data flow may operate independently or in concert to provide a flow through solution for sharing information between departments. Depending on the size of the county, the process of recording and sharing information may be different based upon staff and requirements. The proposed solution includes a Hosted ASP or Software as a Service (Baas) application based upon new platform technologies such as Microsoft.Net. This application may be hosted at the CIRA Data Center, remotely at an Application Service Provider (ASP) Data Center, regionally collocated with another county or onsite for larger counties. The system should be interoperable with current standard hardware platforms in the marketplace such as Microsoft Servers and Desktops and operate in environments with minimal Internet Bandwidth access to serve small rural counties. The application must have a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that describes and supports business process functions relative to both small and large counties. In addition, the application must be available for access by counties for some levels of customization including custom reports and interfaces. The system Framework must be completed, however the development and rollout of the product may be either in complete state or sequential modules. If the application is fully developed and distributed, then the lead time for development and rollout will be greater than for that of a single module. In contrast, for a single module rollout, the subsequent interoperability integration of the single module into the existing Justice Management System will be required. The advantage of a single module development program is to "Phase" the solution into a new environment instead of a "forklift" upgrade. The application must be modularized in order to compete in the current marketplace. In consultation with the Technology Advisory Committee, the approach for developing a software solution would include the following: Complete a Business Process Review and Standardization Process and develop a Framework 2. Complete a Detailed Scope of Work to design the system architecture to include a System Design Document 3. Execute the Development of the System As stated in the Proposal for a Comprehensive Integrated Justice Information Management System, there are a number of technology and platform design options to meet the requirements of the proposal. It is beyond the scope of this Study to identify the "best" options based upon proposal requirements and the actual design of the Software Program will rely upon the selection of the developer as most developers are proficient in a couple of technologies. The Key to developing a well integrated justice application is to verify that the development team understands all of the various requirements (functional and non-functional) on the technical architecture and the respective county business processes are well defined before the software development begins. 6.0 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS In response to various development processes in the marketplace and the need to assess the cost of this project, the following is a summary strategy cost estimate and Good Faith Estimate Only for the development of an Integrated Justice System: 7.0 PROJECT PROPOSAL In consultation with the IT Advisory Committee, the proposed model for the delivery of a Comprehensive Integrated Justice Management System is as follows: • CIRA will provide for the management of the development of the software as well as operational requirements to support the program • A Third Party Developer will be selected to provide for both Software Development and Ongoing Maintenance on the software • Counties will work with CIRA to identify requirements for Software Changes as well as receive tier 1 and 2 technical support from CIRA. • The Integrated Justice Management Application may be hosted offsite initially and will be managed by CIRA. ~rr° _ ..1~,L~,.y ~, it ~ ,r,q?n; ~ ` ` ~~ ~" ' s, r ~,U=n» i A hcation PR ~ _ r~~n, ur„ i ~ ~ < Service __ - .. _ ~ ~.-- ~ Provider ~T_ County 2' County' 7.1 PROGRAM GOVERNANCE The ongoing management of the development project should be administered by CIRA in conjunction with representation from Key Stakeholders including County Elected Officials and Management. Decisions on changes to the core software system must be gated by CIRA in order to maintain the integrity of the application for all counties. Changes or modifications should be managed through a formalized engineering design change process and all changes must be documented and published for participant counties. Ownership of the software would be with CIRA. A process will be identified for counties to cooperatively provide and share changes to the application that will benefit all counties. 7.2 HOSTING REQUIREMENTS The Application Service Provider or Hosting Entity will be responsible for maintaining the server, application and data at a remote site. A 99.9% availability should be achieved through redundancy in power, network and facilities. Disaster recovery measures should be adequately provided in order to maintain data availability and to meet mandated data ,; storage requirements. Service Level Agreements regarding Internet Connectivity and power to server must be included in the solution from the ASP. Customer Service and Tech Support must be available 24X7. Firewalls, load balancing, maintenance networks, VPN termination and Point to Point circuit termination should be supported. Preliminary estimates indicate that a base private rack solution for hosting a County Software Application is approximately $800 per month for a dedicated rack system including servers and support. There are additional costs for disaster recovery options, backup and security. 7.3 DATA MIGRATION Installation of an integrated application into a legacy county software environment requires proper data migration planning. Data migration is a complex, consultative process and may require additional funding by the county. It is imperative that Counties continue to operate and have access to their data while this transition is occurring. It is estimated that an average county may take 3-6 months for a complete transition to a new system and this can be substantially longer depending upon the condition of the data to be migrated. Field support would be required onsite to initially assist counties in collecting their data and indices. This study recommends a parallel field support team providing support for 2 simultaneous software conversions per month for a total of 24 per year or 48 - 50 counties over a 2 year period. Consideration must be given to solutions that can provide support for bridging the information between different platforms during the software conversion period. 8.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The following financial analysis is a summary of the detailed information provided in the Feasibility Study to support the project based upon a successful conversion of 50 counties over a 2 year period. In addition, the Scope of Work also includes all Business Process Planning requirements for enabling the System Design. Assumptions are based upon the current Surveys provided by CIRA for commitment and maintenance fees. Estimated Transition support costs are loaded into the operations costs for maintenance. 8.1 Summary Financials Estimate Fixed Costs Recurring Annual Costs Develop the Scope of Work .............800,000 Develop Software -Year 1 ..............12,000,000 Software Release -Year 2 Staff & Operations .............. . ...................................................1,716,126 General Software Release -Year 3 through 10 Staff &Operations ...................................................................2,208,335 *Annual Debt Retirement Payment for Development (10 yrs)...........1,554,054 * 5% Interest on 12, 000, 000 over 10 years An initial forecast in Year 1 of the rollout of 25 counties brought online would be required in this model which will include an aggressive sales and marketing strategy. Counties must be prepared to continue maintenance of their legacy application during the 2 year transition process for all 50 counties. County funding would be required to be secured in the 2008 budget cycle for 2009. 9.0 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE This section focuses on the operational requirements of the CIJIMS application. Consideration must be made for the continued maintenance and support of the application after initial release (GA -Generally Available). Considerations for support of BETA customers (pre-release test customers) and continued software development must also be explored. MONTHS DESCRIPTION 0 - 3 .............Secure Funding Commitments for Scope of Work/Business Process Planning 9 - 12............ Develop Scope of Work and Business Process Planning ...........Initiate Sales & Marketing Plan ........... Develop a Sales Forecast 13 - 24..........Software Development ......... Staffing, Hosting, Facilities in place to support Year 1 Forecast 25 - 30......... Pre-Release (BETA) ......... Sale and contract new opportunities 31+ ...............Generally Available (GA) 10.0 RISKS As with any Software Development Project, there are inherent risks and rewards to participating in such a project. It should be noted that with proper business planning that risks can be mitigated and this project represents no more risk than a typical startup software company. • Underfunding of the praject • 3 Year Rollout Schedule allows the competition to make changes or provide solutions to stall software sales • County Term Limits and Lobbying efforts by vendors will require continued selling to secure the customer opportunity. • Underestimating the Time Required for Development • Business Processes are not clearly defined which will result in a continual Re- Engineering Effort • Legal Challenges by current vendors on the program • Competitor creates a similar solution during the development of the CIRA project. • Established vendors use economies of scale to amortize support costs over multiple projects. What if our price is too high? • What if the Counties are not motivated to transition to a new software vendor? • CIRA is not a current software provider with credibility in this marketplace. 11.0 SALES AND MARKETING PLAN An aggressive Sales and Marketing Plan should be developed to support an accelerated rollout schedule for the application. The solution must be affordable to both small and larger counties while maintaining the software's efficiency and robust feature set. The value of the program to county officials and employees must be clearly stated. 12.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, the Comprehensive, Integrated Justice Information System can be delivered on time and in budget with the proper planning. Because the market will continue to change over time, the success of the program is dependent upon a rapid time to market for the program. In order to mitigate the overall cost of the development of the software a Best Practices, Comprehensive Business Process Framework should be developed in conjunction with the Scope of Work. By correcting Functional Process issues up front, the counties will benefit not only from an efficient software system but also from a business process perspective. Mandating this framework for all vendors will provide for a uniform data structure and informational flow between counties and agencies. Commitment for funding for developing the Scope of Work should be completed by June 1~ in order to ensure that the project is initiated in a timely manner. It is imperative that any software development effort maintain a rapid time to market for the software in order to provide for minimal risk to the program. The development of a software solution will benefit from having participants within the counties that understand the business processes and can articulate those processes to the developer. There should be a focus on attracting support from the larger counties that have more disposable funding for this project and counties that are motivated to change.