Information Technology Sub-Committee Sous-comité de la
technologie de l’information Minutes 5 / Procès-verbal 5 Monday, 1 March 2010, 1:30 p.m. le
lundi 1 mars 2010, 13 h 30 Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest |
Present / Présent : Councillors / Conseillers M. Wilkinson (Chair /
Présidente), S. Desroches (Vice-Chair / Vice-président), R. Chiarelli,
E. El-Chantiry J. Legendre
Others present: Steve
Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, City Operations; Guy Michaud, Director, IT
Services & Chief Information Officer; David Johnston, Manager Business Technology
Architecture; Rob Collins, Technology
Advisor; Jeff Byrne, Manager, Supply, Finance; Chris Day, Chief,
Corporate Communications
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
There
were no declarations of interest.
Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX
Minutes 4 and Confidential Minutes 1 of Friday, 18
December 2009 were confirmed.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
No communications were
received.
CITY OPERATIONS PORTFOLIO
Portefeuille Opérations Municipales
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
Services de technologie de l’information
1.
TRANSIT SERVICES TECHNOLOGY REVIEW: STATUS REPORT
RAPPORT D’ÉTAPE : EXAMEN DE LA
TECHNOLOGIE DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
Guy Michaud, Director of IT Services &
Chief Information Officer introduced David Johnston, Manager of Business Technology Architecture, who provided a PowerPoint
presentation. He explained that Transit and Information Technology Services (ITS) are conducting a
structured review of Transit technology, and creating a multi-year “roadmap”
that will show Council how technology will be used by Transit to meet its
service objectives. The initial focus has been on those
technology projects that are Council’s priority, including Next Stop
Announcement (NSA) and preparing for the introduction
of SmartCards for transit users in 2011. He outlined the two-phase approach
(Governance and Roadmap), preliminary findings, governance model, and next
steps. The first phase review identified
45+ technology projects (idea, planned or in progress), seven of which were
identified as priorities. The various
separate, but dependent projects (including SmartCard
and NSA) have been consolidated under an umbrella
program called SmartBus Next Generation (NG). Combined with the governance and project
management changes, this is expected to strengthen project execution and
management oversight. Phase 1 work is
nearly complete; the necessary changes have been put in place, and will be
monitored and adjusted as required. The
development of the Roadmap is ongoing, and is currently anticipated for
completion in Q2 of 2010. It will be integrated with the Corporate
Technology Roadmap that was approved by Council in conjunction with the 2010
budget. A copy of the
presentation is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor’s
branch pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition Bylaw.
Chair Wilkinson inquired whether the Transit
technology roadmap would be presented to the IT
Sub-committee for review once it is ready.
Mr. Johnston confirmed, verifying that May is the target date.
The Chair asked for confirmation that, in the
meantime, the seven projects underway within the 2010 budget envelope will move
forward under the normal procurement process, which Mr. Johnston confirmed.
Vice-chair Desroches expected that a business
case would accompany any significant project and a report would
be provided on the demonstrated and anticipated achievements of each
project in terms of improving service to clients and offering
efficiencies. He questioned where that kind
of feedback mechanism fits into the roadmap.
Mr. Johnston replied that the Five-Year Technology Roadmap approved by
Council provided some detail on each of the initiatives, expected costs over a
three to five year timeframe, as well as the anticipated benefits to be realized from the investment. He added that efficiencies and savings generated
by a project will be clearly identified, and in the
case of service improvements, staff will find some way to identify them within
the business case. He noted IT staff
would work very closely with Transit on this because service improvements or efficiencies
are the result of leveraging the technology to put in place.
Vice-Chair Desroches inquired whether, as part
of the next steps, the goal of the exercise to confirm the health of remaining
45 projects (not identified as priorities) is to put a full-core press on them and
challenge whether they’re actually needed. Mr. Johnston confirmed, adding that the
initial focus has been on the seven priorities identified by Transit. He said the goal of the exercise will be to ensure they are aligned with the Transit business
priorities and business strategy and, if there are dependencies, to identify over
what timeframe they might be implemented.
He remarked it would all be looked at from a
multi-year perspective.
That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
2.
IT VENDOR INFORMATION SESSION –
FIVE-YEAR TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
SÉANCE
D’INFORMATION AUX VENDEURS DE TI – FEUILLE DE ROUTE TECHNOLOGIQUE QUINQUENNALE
ACS2010-COS-ITS-0004 City Wide/À l’échelle de la ville
Guy Michaud, Director, IT Services & Chief
Information Officer provided a PowerPoint presentation, briefing members on the
above-noted event that occurred on February 5, 2010. The objective of the session was to share the
City’s Service Excellence Plan and the Five Year IT Roadmap, its priorities and
objectives with current and potential suppliers in the technology &
business community. The City collaborated
with the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI)
to host and manage the event, which was attended by
370 individuals (representing 260 potential suppliers). In addition to IT and Finance staff, and OCRI, Councillors Wilkinson and Desroches participated in
the event on behalf of the IT Sub-committee.
Mr. Michaud shared feedback from a survey conducted with attendees, which demonstrated that although there was some negative
feedback it was an overall successful event and there was general appreciation
of the open and transparent approach. It
is intended that it become an annual event. A copy of Mr. Michaud’s presentation is held on
file.
Chair Wilkinson commended staff and remarked
it is critical to continue with the event on an annual basis in order to
maintain good relations and provide a comfort factor for local, smaller
companies.
Referring to the slide about negative
feedback, Councillor Legendre asked for clarification on the comment that the
City’s process would be ‘low cost
compliant, which usually means junior resources trying to get the work done’. Mr. Michaud suggested the comment pertains to
the fact that when the City issues a Request For
Proposals (RFP), one of the elements of the evaluation is the cost, and some
companies submit lower bids than others for a service simply by basing the
project cost on the use of their junior resources, which are lower. He suggested that staff must ensure the right
resources to suit each project are obtained at the right cost.
The Councillor referred to another comment on the slide that asked the
City to give companies the opportunity to pitch products and services that
might not be on staff’s radar yet but could be of great benefit to the City. He thought that, as one of the largest
Corporations in the area, the City should be willing to be a test bed for new
ways of doing things. He questioned
whether that is, in fact, an element of the Five-Year Technology Roadmap. Mr. Michaud confirmed it is a component,
adding that staff are very open to talking to any
potential technology suppliers. He noted
that companies have approached staff in the past to promote their products and
services, whereupon staff have conducted a preliminary
screening and engaged the proper branch to review the technology. He added that the information session has
generated a lot of interest and staff are currently flooded
with such requests from potential suppliers, but he acknowledged that is part
of the process of trying to identify the best technology to accommodate the
Service Excellence program.
Councillor Legendre
inquired whether the event attendees were local business people. Mr. Michaud indicated that most were local
firms that ranged in size.
Councillor
El-Chantiry noted that one of the survey comments indicated satisfaction with ‘learning that managers can be decision makers for
small amounts of work’ and he questioned whether there is a policy that
defines what a ‘small amount’ is. Mr.
Michaud responded that staff follow the rules of the
City’s Procurement Bylaw, noting there is a threshold that helps to determine
the potential supplier for a project. He
stated that, for example, if the cost of a project is
below $100 K, the City would request three bids from within its approved list
of outstanding offers and choose the supplier from those three. The decision is made by the
manager. For projects over $100
K, a competitive process is used.
The Councillor
inquired whether that is a Best Practice used by other municipalities. Mr. Michaud replied that the threshold
of $100 K is somewhat low for certain expertise and ITS is
working with Procurement staff to see whether that can be changed. Raising the threshold would allow for greater
flexibility to find suppliers that could be used for
the duration of those lengthy projects that benefit from a certain expertise
and continuity.
Councillor
El-Chantiry questioned if it is possible to review Best Practices of other
municipalities and create a policy based on those that would give clear rules
on the process to be followed for projects in
specified price ranges, which would eliminate or decrease ‘red tape’ and make
the City a business-friendly entity. Mr.
Michaud explained the City has a policy of that nature but
has been using the competitive process as much as possible to ensure fairness
and equal access. He added that
details have been published annually about the number
of RFPs issued, responses to RFPs
and so on.
Jeff Byrne, Manager,
Supply, Finance explained that the thresholds referred to by Mr. Michaud
are those stipulated within the City’s Purchasing Bylaw, which was established
by the Transition Board. It delegates
most of the contract authority to staff, often bypassing the requirement for
reporting through Committee and Council.
That Bylaw was established on Best Practices
and is monitored by staff regularly to ensure it continues in that vein. He stated the Bylaw is actually a leader for
municipalities in Ontario.
The Councillor noted
that many changes have occurred since the Bylaw was set up by the Transition
Board more than 10 years ago and asked for assurance that the Bylaw is reviewed periodically to ensure it is still based on
current Best Practices. Mr. Byrne
confirmed that staff monitors procurement trends and legal decisions. He acknowledged the thresholds are somewhat
dated and conceded it may be time for a review of those.
Vice-chair Desroches
commended staff for the successful event, commenting that its purpose was to
eliminate the perception that procurement is a black box at the City in that
potential suppliers don’t know what the City’s goals
and objectives are for technology procurement.
He felt the session provided some transparency and food
for thought for the attendees, noting the test will be to sustain that
engagement. He recalled that there have
been times in the past where relations with certain suppliers (potential or
otherwise) have been temperamental and he felt that has sent the wrong signal
to new potential suppliers that might be willing to do business with the City
within its parameters. He suggested the
City should be open and willing to consider new and innovative ideas that tech
firms want to bring forward.
Chair Wilkinson
remarked that is part of the show-casing approach that
Council approved for the sub-committee, adding that people are beginning to
come forward with such requests.
Councillor Legendre remarked
that, to his knowledge, the only mechanism for piloting new technologies is
through the Ottawa Option because any other option would equate to sole-sourcing. Mr.
Michaud suggested that if a company approaches the City with
an innovative technology that is in line with the City’s Service Excellence
initiatives, it would be staff’s duty to find the money from the department that
would benefit from its use.
Alternately, staff could present the technology to this sub-committee,
who would in turn help find a way to acquire it.
The Councillor noted
that the Five-Year Technology Roadmap had been attached
to the information on this agenda item and he asked the Chair whether that
document was open for discussion at this meeting. After some discussion and clarification from
the Chair and from Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, City Operations,
Councillor Legendre recalled that the Roadmap had been
discussed and received by the IT Sub-committee prior to its approval by Council
during the budget consideration.
Chair Wilkinson also noted the document would move forward based on
annual budgets and would be considered by the
sub-committee for refresh each year.
Vice-chair Desroches
reiterated a previous inquiry he had put forward as to whether information about
awarded contracts can be placed on the City’s website, noting this would
provide an additional layer of transparency and information for the
industry. Such reports, he noted, are generated for the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee but are not easily accessible. Mr. Byrne replied that staff are about to
undertake training to assist them with that project and he expected the
information would be posted within a week or so.
Following on Councillor Legendre’s earlier
comments about piloting innovations, Chair Wilkinson reminded members that
Council approved the show-casing process, which would
incur no cost to the City.
That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
3.
City
of Ottawa Open data POLICY
DONNÉES OUVERTES
DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA
ACS2010-COS-ITS-0002 City Wide/À l’échelle de la ville
Chris Day, Chief, Corporate Communications provided a
PowerPoint presentation, noting that staff see the Open Data Policy as a
Corporate Communications issue as opposed to a strictly IT issue. His presentation, a copy of which is held on file, touched on the following points: definition
of Open Data; background and trends; drivers to move to Open Data; City of
Ottawa Open Data Strategy; and next steps.
He explained that Open
Data is a philosophy and practice requiring that certain data created or
managed by governments be freely available to everyone, in machine-readable
format, without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control. It shares data that is already available to
the public but in a way that can be adapted by users
for various applications. He cited and
illustrated examples of other Cities that have adopted the practice or are
moving in that direction, including Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton and
referenced some of their initiatives, such as DC’s ‘Apps For Democracy’
contests. He noted that in Canada, no
singular coordinated effort exists federally, although some departments, such
as StatsCan and NRCan, are
using some form of Open Data principle, either internally or externally. He explained that common drivers of the Open
Data movement are improved transparency, economic development, the introduction
of new technologies making data easier to use, and the push to increase client
satisfaction. Local drivers include public
requests, the recommendations of the eGovernment Task
Force Report, and a motion put forward by Councillor Desroches about potential
amendments to the City’s Data Dissemination Policy to allow for Open Access to
Public Data (this to be dealt with by the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee on April 6th).
Detailing actions to
date, he advised that staff have engaged the public for input; developed a test
Beta site (to be demonstrated to Councillors shortly);
and are establishing a governance structure.
The focus of these actions has been on value creation. As for next steps, he noted the Data Dissemination review report is scheduled for consideration by
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC)
on April 6th and by Council on April 14th.
Vice-chair Desroches
asked if it would be possible to demonstrate the Beta site at the IT
Sub-committee before it goes to the CSEDC and
Council. Mr. Day had no concern with
that request. Chair Wilkinson suggested
a special meeting of the sub-committee should be set up in March, prior to the CSEDC meeting, so as not to change the already proposed
schedule. Mr. Day remarked that staff were intending to post the Beta site into the
Councillors’ internal shared drive for viewing prior to CSEDC. The Chair proposed to set up a Special
Meeting to consider this item during the last week of March and advised she
would report back when the date has been determined. The committee agreed with that approach.
The Vice-chair
expressed support for moving to Open Data but referenced the information
provided by Statistics Canada, noting there are costs involved with the
provision of data at some point. For
example, he suggested fees might be charged for data
sets and information that have commercial purposes. He questioned whether the pending report
would deal these types of issues. Mr.
Day confirmed, adding that staff are aware of the economic potential involved.
Councillor Legendre
was surprised to learn that adopting an Open Data policy was still at the
‘consideration’ stage for the City, being under the impression that it was
already underway. Mr. Day indicated that
certain Cities have made declarations or directives with respect to being
‘open’ in terms of data, which Ottawa has not.
Rob Collins, Technology Advisor, explained that the Mayor’s Task Force
on eGovernment looked at the issue but the City has
no actual policy with respect to open data.
He said there was an assumption, generally, to secure data, for fear of
privacy issues. He noted that Councillor
Desroches’ motion, which generated the Data Dissemination review, was the first
instance of discussion about policy for Open Data. He further noted that very little data is currently provided on the City’s web site in a
user-friendly and adaptable format.
The Councillor
questioned the nature of intended discussion on this item at the proposed
Special Meeting. Chair Wilkinson
explained it would be an advanced viewing and presentation of the report to CSEDC and a demonstration of the Beta site. Councillor Legendre agreed with that
approach.
The committee heard the following delegations.
Edward Ocampo-Gooding explained that he is a program developer. He advised that he is organizing an event to
bring together 70+ developers and designers in April to make web
applications. He was enthusiastic about
the potential of this project. For
clarification, he noted that Open Data would mean that he would not have to
physically visit City Hall to access desired information or have to ‘scrape’
the City’s website for it. It means the
information would be available for use online, not restricted by copyright
licenses, as most of the City’s applications currently are, and not restricted
by fees. With Open Data, he (and other developers)
can write ‘mash-ups’; for example, given usable access to such things as liquor
license permits and the City’s EatSafe database, he
could match that information up with local restaurant reviews and create an
application that provides interested users with a list of safe and recommended
places to eat, complete with local reviews.
Similarly, with adequate access to data, applications could
be created to show locations of local daycare facilities, grocery
stores, schools, hospitals, and so on.
He explained that while the contests for apps in New York and DC are
great, he is not seeking any sort of remuneration from the City of Ottawa to
create such apps; he just wants free access to the City’s data. His personal gain in this would be creating
applications that would be of benefit to other residents and be
well used, and in return, it would him publicity. He asked to be informed as soon as possible
when the City would be providing that Open Data so he could prepare for the
April event.
Chair Wilkinson asked if Mr. Ocampo-Gooding
would be interested in seeing the City have an applications contest with a
winning monetary prize, as other municipalities have done. Mr. Ocampo-Gooding reiterated that he is not
interested in gaining money from the City; he simply wants its support and
data. He added that he hoped to be given access to City Hall for the April event, along with
media coverage to demonstrate the applications.
Vice-chair Desroches asked whether these
applications would generally be created by local
entrepreneurs or by developers outside of Ottawa. He expressed interest in improving local
service but noted he would be more sympathetic to helping local
entrepreneurs. Mr. Ocampo-Gooding
replied that he has started a website called opendataottawa.ca, which has links
to many of these resources. He noted
that most of the people following the Twitter stream are locals, although he
has also received expressions of interest from Brazil and Japan. He also noted they are collaborating with
developers in Vancouver and that developers from Toronto are lending their
software to run the site that maintains requests for data sets. He said as long as the data is open and the
code is open-sourced, everybody wins, especially locals.
The Councillor inquired how the process would
work - whether there would be a link on the City’s site to the
applications. Mr. Ocampo-Gooding replied
the City’s site would simply list the data sets it creates and authorizes for
use, and developers would maintain their own sites.
Vice-Chair Desroches questioned how residents
and tourists would know to visit these potential new sites. Mr. Ocampo-Gooding explained that the data to
be provided by the City in the format he is requesting
would not be very useful in itself – it needs to be presented through an
application to be of most benefit to the end-user. He pointed out that people usually search out
these types of websites and applications for themselves through search engines
such as Google. He noted that the City
of Portland maintains a list of third-party applications for its area.
Councillor Legendre remarked on the poor
quality of the City’s search engine, noting that it is easier to use Google to
find information listed on the City’s site.
He stated that he is in favour of moving to Open Data and letting the
developers figure out the best way to present the information.
Mr. Michaud suggested that good applications
that are in line with the City’s Service Excellence initiatives and improve
information delivery to residents should be made
accessible through the City’s web site.
John Whelan demonstrated to members a GPS receiver, which he explained is the sort of thing used by Parks staff to mark out
locations of street benches, waste bins and so on. He said there is something called OpenStreetMap, developed in Europe, which was able to map
Haiti in two days (with 2,000 people creating the map). He suggested it could be of use to the City
because there are limitations on what it can do with the GIS maps it currently uses. He said OpenStreetMap
has maps that are copyright free that City staff could use, and conversely, the
City has considerable GIS information that OpenStreetMap
would like to have, such as bus stop locations.
He referenced an application created in Frankfurt that works out and
provides information on routes for wheelchair users (curb heights, locations of
accessible washrooms, etc.). In closing. he advised the GPS
receiver costs about $200 or less and could be of significant benefit.
Tracey Lauriault, Geomatics
and Cartographic Research Centre, Carleton University advised she is one of the founding members of a
group called CivicAccess.ca, which advocates for access to public data by the
public. She noted she is also co-author
of a blog called DataLibre.ca, where accessible data initiatives from around
the world are discussed. She was encouraged to learn of this
discussion by the City, as it produces significant public data that is paid via taxation and should be available to the
public. She noted there are some
Canadian federal institutions that do just that. One example is GeoGratis,
which makes thousands of data sets publicly available and free on its data
portal (run by Natural Resources Canada).
It’s under a user unrestricted licence, which means anybody can use it
for commerce or not, because the idea is that managing royalties, copyright,
sales, marketing and restrictions is actually more expensive than just giving
the data away. She said the decision to
do that has also stimulated innovation because if the private sector is using
interesting and good local geomatics data to create
more businesses in the city or the country, it benefits everyone through the
creation of more jobs and more business. She also spoke on the topic of informed
decision-making, noting that social policy groups could use maps to help them
address and make plans with respect to social policy issues, as well as help
the public better understand and participate in civic issues. She said that Open Data is not only a way to
create interesting applications, it is also part of
government transparency, or Open Government, a movement that is increasing
worldwide to enhance public deliberations.
In response to Vice-chair Desroches’ earlier comments about StatsCan, she remarked there is currently a huge public
debate on whether or not the government should be in the business of selling
citizens their own data. She suggested
that StatsCan’s selling of data has actually impeded
innovation because data is required to make a business plan, to understand
demographics and niche markets.
Likewise, she said that good social and health policy requires data and
requires a civic sector that can access data in order to participate on par
with elected public officials. She said
cost recovery is a very contentious topic that is heavily
debated. She noted another
federal program called GeoBase is sharing all of its
framework geographic data with citizens for free,
which she proposed is just part of good governing.
Councillor Chiarelli asked Ms. Lauriault’s thoughts on the differences between the three
levels of government. He noted
provincial and federal governments are far less open than municipal,
referencing examples such as the way budgets are handled
by each in terms of public consultation, and disclosure of office
expenses. He asked how much she thought
the City should be spending to widen that gap even further, especially given
that every dollar the City spends on something like that is a dollar it cannot
spend on increasing direct service elements (e.g. the City’s website). Ms. Lauriault replied that both GeoGratis and GeoBase (both of
which are run by Natural Resources Canada) have found it cheaper to give away Canada’s mapping data than sell it. She pointed out it is not inexpensive to
survey and map all of Canada, but they still have found it easier and more
cost-effective to give it away as opposed to managing royalties and copyright. She also pointed out that server and storage
space is now inexpensive. She agreed
that provincial government is less accommodating, but felt the City should
compare itself with the best and strive to improve where possible. She suggested that the cost of doing so is
quite small compared to time spent communicating and negotiating information.
Councillor Chiarelli pointed out that there are
multiple steps involved with making information accessible on the City’s site,
including having it translated and tested through various lenses and policies
for conformity, which means that financial resources have to taken from
elsewhere. Ms. Lauriault recalled the
cost-savings associated with the apps contest in DC (a return of $2.3 M on a
$50 K investment), and suggested potential cost-savings from the reduced amount
of staff time that would be required to respond to public inquiries for data
and such. In terms of licensing, she
said the Terms of Use licensing being proposed is fair and removes the City
from numerous liabilities, much the same as the licensing used by GeoGratis and GeoBase. She appreciated the Councillor’s concerns
with respect to liability issues but remarked that the legal community has been
investigating and addressing the matter for a long time. She added it is as easy as sharing what the
City has already created and produced, and would not
include private and sensitive data. This could be used by citizens in numerous exciting applications. She said the cost of impeding public
deliberation and consultation is unknown, but it is a loss.
Councillor Legendre questioned Ms. Lauriault’s thoughts on the City’s concerns with respect to
security, liability and freedom of information, asking how Carleton University
deals with these issues in terms of its public data provision. Ms. Lauriault explained that Carleton’s
research lab receives public funding to do public research, develop atlases,
and so on, and since their activities are publicly funded,
the lab holds that all of its information should be public. All of their site’s source code is open and
accessible, meaning others can adapt the information for their own use or add
to the information. She noted the lab
group shares all of the data it produces with the public, and they advocate
nationally and internationally for the preservation and sharing of data.
Councillor Legendre requested clarification
about the ability for anyone to add information to the data produced by the
lab, citing integrity concerns. Ms.
Lauriault explained there is some vetting of information before it can be posted, but she noted the Centre is investigating a
Wikipedia type approach.
Vice-chair Desroches was open to the initiative
and to making data available free of charge, but he was mindful of the City’s financial
constraints and pressures. He noted the
City currently charges fees for maps pertaining to development data and such,
and suggested residents might not be pleased at the
idea of the City providing such information free to developers. He thought fees might have to be charged for certain data in the interest of public
good. Ms. Lauriault agreed that is a
sensitive situation because it almost frames business as not being a public
good, but she thought there is something to say for a small business person
trying to start up a business who needs access to data for a business
plan. Further, she suggested there could
be small business owners wanting to add value to the data, perhaps something
that is beyond the City’s priority list, which could be a public good. She questioned whether the City would want to
be in the position of distinguishing between small, medium and large business
owners, or of determining an individual’s financial standing, in terms of
setting fee schedules for data. She
added that businesses are a public good in that they are local revenue
generators.
Chair Wilkinson followed that businesses
sometimes go bankrupt but if they had better access to information that might
not happen, and they might continue to benefit the community through those job
provisions. She suggested, however, that
developers making applications to the City would continue to pay a fee. Ms. Lauriault suggested that when negotiating
with businesses, if they use the City’s data, the City could negotiate value
added back. She added it means changing
the culture of procurement, and selling and sharing, and that becoming more
open in terms of information sharing is a healthy direction for the City to
take.
Chair Wilkinson noted that the Multiple Listing
Service for real estate is now being forced to become
Open; she proposed there is an increasing drive to move in that direction,
which she saw as positive. She suggested
that making City information easier to access would likely lead to cost savings
in the 3-1-1 system and in staff resources to respond to requests for information.
The Chair reiterated that she would consult
with staff and advise members of the date for the
Special Meeting on this topic.
That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
4. Service Excellence: 3-1-1/CRM Procurement strategy
EXCELLENCE
DU SERVICE : STRATÉGIE D’ACHAT D’UNE SOLUTION 3-1-1 / GRC
ACS2010-COS-ITS-0001 City Wide/À l’échelle de la ville
Guy Michaud, Director of IT Services &
Chief Information Officer provided a PowerPoint presentation explaining the
rationale for implementing a new 3-1-1/Client Relationship
Management (CRM) solution, which will form the core technology around which the
City would improve citizen satisfaction and achieve operational efficiencies,
and outlining the steps required prior to issuing the Request For Proposals
(RFP) for this software. These complex
steps include: identifying the
services and business processes that will be within the scope of the project; conducting
a business process modeling; and procurement of the solution / services. He also provided a status update on the
project. A copy of the PowerPoint is held on file.
Chair Wilkinson inquired about the timeline for
the various steps. Mr. Michaud replied
that adverse alternatives are currently being considered
and he anticipated the biggest RFP issuance would be at the end of Q2 or beginning of Q3. Staff are also
trying to ensure that certain activities can get underway using the City’s
outstanding offers list, so as to expedite the process. The successful supplier at the conclusion of
the RFP process can then use any work done in this way. He further confirmed for Chair Wilkinson that
the RFP process could take a few months, noting that given this significant
investment a Fairness Commissioner will be engaged to ensure an impartial and
adequate process.
Chair Wilkinson inquired whether an information
report would come forward to the sub-committee within the next few months to
lay out the anticipated timing of the various steps and provide a progress
report. Mr. Michaud confirmed.
Vice-chair Desroches was pleased to hear that a
Fairness Commissioner would be involved.
He inquired what is being done to ensure that
the right people are helping with the scoping, since they will have the
critical role of helping to define the project and ensuring that what goes into
the RFP is fair and unbiased. Mr.
Michaud explained that a Fairness Commissioner would be
engaged from the beginning of the process, if possible. Further, when any firm is hired to help with
writing the RFP, staff will conduct due diligence to determine if they have
business relationships with suppliers who might be submitting proposals in this
process, and will also ensure they are aware that they will not be able to bid
on the project if they are involved with writing the RFP. This will help avoid potential conflicts and
misperceptions.
That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS DE MOTIONS (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Councillor Chiarelli submitted the following Notice
of Motion:
WHEREAS the City
has been investigating the implementation of a multi- function smart card for a
spectrum of City services for over a decade;
AND WHEREAS the
Smartcard fare payment system is being implemented by Transit Services in 2011;
and
WHEREAS the City
should adopt the development of a multi-application Smartcard for other City
services as a long-term goal, with Transit Services as the first step, and
WHEREAS an “O
Card” multi-use smart card usable across a spectrum of municipal services will
require I.T. focused policy coordination;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT the I.T. sub-committee assume the
policy coordination role of this effort,
AND THAT
Information Technology Services be directed to investigate options for a City
multi-service application Smartcard and report back to the IT sub-committee by
year end, with a progress report by the sub- committee’s last meeting in May
2010.
INQUIRIES
Councillor Legendre submitted the following written
Inquiry:
To what extent are you able to implement the
Five-Year Technological Roadmap, even in this first year, as a result of this
year’s IT related budget cut?
Chair Wilkinson submitted the following written
Inquiry:
Last week there was a failure
with OC Transpo’s IT Network. What is being done to ensure an immediate back-up is available to ensure this does not recur?
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The
Committee adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
M. Duffenais Councillor
M. Wilkinson
Committee
Coordinator Chair