Folks: “Ask and you shall receive” was the old adage at work on this one…..
I received a fair amount of feedback from folks throughout New England. Too many to cite names but much appreciation to all that responded!
The feedback was mostly from municipal GIS folks that were in the loop as to the asset management software their community was using. Approximately 70% of the feedback simply described the program used, and maybe a program that came in 2nd during the selection process. Additionally, the feedback provided snippets as to whether expectations had been met, what was working well, and not so well. And as no surprise given the target audience, how asset program was “playing with existing GIS systems” (or not).
Rather than re-posting all that was provided, below are what struck me as some of the core elements, in a somewhat paraphrased format. And for those that are interested in some of the sausage making, Neil Curri provided a really interesting product comparison report. It is a little dated (2012), but it does a good job of flushing out the key items that you should be thinking about when comparing the various asset management software programs, with the caveat it had a heavy utility water slant. And…for those whom are curious as to the result - Cityworks is king! The document can be provided if requested.
Core elements:
- Cityworks, Cartegraph, and Vueworks appear to be the most commonly cited programs…
- Advice when the GISer is feeling like he is telling the emperor he has no clothes on: “It was always a struggle to get each department working with compatible software. Each had their own requirements and issues. Often what was good for one department was not for the other. The best option was let them select what they will use, so it’s successful but put the issues back on them. The City was an Esri shop with SDE, running SQL-Server, the code enforcement office wanted a openLayers solution with an MySQL database. We knew there would be data import/Export issues and reconciliation. So we push the vendor for solution options. This drove up the cost a little but it was never us telling the department that it wasn’t a feasible solution. It forced them to own the problem/solution.”
- Perhaps a bottom line take away: “As far as "integration with GIS goes", none of us are overwhelmed by any of them and they all have their limitations and quirks.” “Plus it really depends on what your expectation is when you think of GIS integration. Your goal for that is likely different from the next person's since most have unique circumstances and set-ups. We generally just have to deal with whichever choice the municipality ends up making, and they typically make it based on how well the permit or asset management/work order functions serve their needs, and GIS comes after the fact....but then they wonder why it has to be so complicated or take so long to make them work together, when they ask us to integrate later”
- And a good reminder of likely what I would consider perhaps THE most important step: “The next most important thing would be to do a full needs assessment/requirements assessment of what you need the software to do, the types of information that are most important to collect (compliance and financial etc.) and how you will need to get that information out of the system. It is also imperative that you identify the key players along with roles and responsibilities and plan for continual ongoing training and improvements and maintenance of the CMSS. Make sure that you identify the type of staff that you will need to both implement and continue the program” ** For us in Lebanon, I got a taste of how the GIS integration could become a disproportionally weighted variable in the selection, i.e. bigger fish to fry in making sure that a 15-30k plus investment does not become an unused “paper weight”.
-Mark
Mark Goodwin, GISP
Lebanon Planning Offfice
51 N. Park St. Lebanon, NH 03766
