Wednesday, 11 July 2012

Summer School


Assignment for lazy bones ....not. 

RE: Work and Asset Management System (WAMS) Update
Memo 05-12
This memo is provided as an update report on the above project to address some recent questions.
Schedule
The WAMS project is proceeding on budget. There has been a schedule delay primarily related to hardware delivery caused by production issues in Asia. This has only resulted in a minor overall project delay as other activities where advanced where possible. The following is a summary of key milestone end dates:
Task
Milestone
Status
Phase 1- Vendor Selection


  • Review current practice and asset requirements
Dec 2010
Complete
  • Vender RFP Process and selection
Oct 2011
Complete
  • Council Approval for Software Vendor
Nov 11, 2011
Complete
Phase 2- Work Flow Mapping


  • Practices and Process Design
April 2012
Complete
  • Data structure development
June 2012
Complete
Phase 3- Software Implementation


  • Maximo Software Purchase
Dec 2011
Complete
  • Order Hardware
Feb 2012
Complete
  • Hardware Install and configuration
May 2012
Complete
  • Maximo software Installation
May 2012
Complete
  • Core team overview training
June 2012
Complete
  • Software requirements review workshop
June 2012
Complete
  • Maximo configuration to design requirements
Sept 2012
In progress
  • Data load and testing
Oct 2012
Not Started
  • Development of interfaces with other software systems
Oct 2012
Not Started
  • Acceptance testing
Dec 2012
Not Started
  • End-user training
Dec 2012
Not Started
  • Go-Live
Jan 2012
Not Started
  • Go-Live support
Feb 2012
Not Started
  • Follow-up training, support and skills development
Jan 2014
Not Started
Financial Summary

The following table outlines the approved budget and confirmed commitments. There is $16,551 remaining uncommitted and is available should unforeseen issues arise as part of the contingency allowance.
Budget Item
Approval Date
Funding Commitment
Balance
Approved Budget (31047)
2009, 2010, 2011

$750,000
2012 budget increase for hardware
Feb 14, 2012

$38,000
Total Budget


$788,000




GHD- Requirements and Vendor Selection
Aug 17, 2010
$78,620
$709,380
GHD- Business mapping and data standards
Jan 18, 2011
$152,825
$556,555
Createch- Maximo software and implementation
Nov 1, 2011
$444,611
$111,944
City Wide- Sub-ledger and forecasting system
Dec, 2011
$49,585
$62,359
IT Department- Server Requirements
Mar 2012
$32,465
$29,894
Total Project Commitments

$758,106

Net taxes (1.76%)13,555

$13,343
$16,551

The following table provides an earned value summary. GHD has completed their assignment and we are waiting receipt of the final invoice. The server hardware has been installed and paid. The remaining work is related to Createch and City Wide, being the two primary software venders. Createch is responsible for the overall implementation and integration activities and will be completing the bulk of their work between June and December. City Wide is a minor component to the system but integral to the financial reporting requirements that will be supported by the asset databases developed through Maximo.

Vendor
Commitment
Approved Payments
Percent Complete
GHD
$231,445
$216,925
94%
Createch (Maximo)
$444,611
$149,034
34%
City Wide
$49,585
$43,622
88%
Server Hardware
$32,465
$32,465
100%

Council Approvals (Reports attached)
Staff Report IES10-037- Aug 17, 2010
Award of initial RFP to GHD for $78,620
Staff Report IES11-005- January 18, 2011
Increase GHD Assignment by $152,825
Staff Report IES11-058- November 1, 2011
Award Software Supply and Implementation to Createch for $444,611
Memo to Budget Committee Jan 11, 2012
IT Department Server Requirements $38,000

Please contact me if you have any questions on the activities to date.
at

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous11 July 2012 at 19:46

    Can't Aurora sue the company or the Region? So far all there is to see is a bunch of paperwork and babble-goof.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12 July 2012 at 15:19

    Anonymous 7/11 - 7:46pm is clearly someone who has no concept of large scale IT projects. What is there to sue over? The company has installed hardware and software that they were contracted to do. It is not their fault that the Region does not use it as designed.

    I managed a software solution for a client that cost them in excess of $50K about 10 years ago. When it was ready to use, the person that would use it refused to because he felt it did not do the job properly. The reality was it did the job exactly like he did and if someone else used it, he would have been out of a job. It's not my fault he had job-security issues. Management needed to intervene but they let him get away with it.

    ReplyDelete

If you've got a comment, this is the place to leave it for me. Please feel free to leave your name, or even just an email address if you'd like a response. You can also email me directly.