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:
-
TaskMilestoneStatusPhase 1- Vendor Selection
- Review current practice and asset requirements
Dec 2010Complete- Vender RFP Process and selection
Oct 2011Complete- Council Approval for Software Vendor
Nov 11, 2011CompletePhase 2- Work Flow Mapping
- Practices and Process Design
April 2012Complete- Data structure development
June 2012CompletePhase 3- Software Implementation
- Maximo Software Purchase
Dec 2011Complete- Order Hardware
Feb 2012Complete- Hardware Install and configuration
May 2012Complete- Maximo software Installation
May 2012Complete- Core team overview training
June 2012Complete- Software requirements review workshop
June 2012Complete- Maximo configuration to design requirements
Sept 2012In progress- Data load and testing
Oct 2012Not Started- Development of interfaces with other software systems
Oct 2012Not Started- Acceptance testing
Dec 2012Not Started- End-user training
Dec 2012Not Started- Go-Live
Jan 2012Not Started- Go-Live support
Feb 2012Not Started- Follow-up training, support and skills development
Jan 2014Not 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.
2 comments:
Can't Aurora sue the company or the Region? So far all there is to see is a bunch of paperwork and babble-goof.
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.
Post a Comment