The vendors' responses to these questions will indicate
how well each vendor understands the degree of change that
the utility is attempting to make from its current system
and practices, the utility's perception of integrity of
its data, the number and complexities of the utility's interfaces
and modifications, and the amount of staff involvement the
utility wishes, or is able, to have in the overall project.
Change is by far one of the largest variables. Granted,
it is not always easy to convey in the RFP the desire or
willingness that you may have for change. If the primary
reason you are looking to implement a new system is to get
off the old technology, or to have a system that is more
reliable or easier to support or integrate with other enterprise
systems, business process re-engineering and change management
may not be significant activities in your installation plan.
However, if you recognize that you could and should be doing
things more effectively and are looking for an impetus for
that change, implementing a new CIS can be a very effective
change agent. But, that involves time and an extension of
the project timeframe.
Data conversion is another area that drastically affects
the length of a CIS implementation. Usually we see that
data conversion is on the critical path, and runs the entire
length of the implementation project. Many utilities are
coming off of old legacy systems with data in flat files.
While there is nothing wrong with this, and in itself not
that much more difficult, if the system has been at capacity
for some time, chances are that data is now in incorrect
fields or is not standardized. There are even some methods
and even specialty vendors who address these issues and
can radically shorten the time to convert the data. How
well the vendor understands the utility's data issues and
how they approach conversion can be a big factor in the
total timeframe of the project.
Many vendors are offering products that allow the utility
to configure the system to work the way that best fits the
utility's business practices. And, most utilities are opting
for minimal product modifications. But, both approaches
take time. If the utility selects a solution that can be
configured and not modified, it can take an extensive amount
of time for the utility's implementation team to become
familiar enough with the system to understand how each configuration
decision will affect the way the system will work, and also
how each decision will affect future configuration decisions.
If the utility seeks to modify the product or customize
it to work in a specific way, those product engineering
changes take the vendor time to make and test, and they
also add time in the project for the utility to test those
changes.
The number and extent of the interfaces and integration
points can also change the length of the project timeframe.
Usually, both sides of the interface have to be rewritten.
Whether this is done entirely by the product vendor or the
utility, or if the utility will bring in other vendors for
their side of the interfaces, there can be an extensive
amount of work associated with these interfaces. The simple
question around staff involvement is will the staff be from
the utility or will the people necessary to do the work
come from the vendor? As Greg Galluzzi pointed out, vendors
approach this in substantially different ways. Some vendors
assume that the utility desires and will take the lead in
the project management role. Other vendors feel that, in
order to meet set deadlines, they should assume the lead
in the project management role, or at least have a co-project
manager sharing the responsibility with the utility. But
if the utility's expectation is different than that of the
vendor's, the project timeframe will be affected. The same
is true of technical support. The vendor may assume that
the utility's IT staff will handle the entire data cleanup
and populate data extract tables. The vendor may also assume
that the utility's IT staff or the utility's current enterprise
system vendors will complete their side of all of the interfaces.
But, if the utility does not have experienced staff available
to do this and is expecting the vendor to supply these resources,
a change to the project timeframe is the likely outcome.
There are many reasons why the length of the implementation
project is important. The primary reason usually involves
cost. Since every project has basic overhead, including
project management, dedicated core team and other resources,
the longer the project takes the more it costs. Project
timeframes may also affect other practical issues. The legacy
system may be failing, and the longer the timeframe, the
higher the risk of failure. There may be economic reasons
that the project should be completed more quickly, or extended.
And, there may be political implications if the project
takes longer than originally planned.
The Bottom Line
The bottom line is that utilities need to clearly communicate
their current conditions, their driving forces for moving
to a new CIS, and their future requirements. Vendors need
to understand these considerations, and develop project
plans and timeframes that address each utility's unique
conditions. Vendors should not plug in standard plans that
reflect a short installation period just to keep the estimated
cost lower. Finally, the vendor's implementation approach,
assumptions and plan should be allotted sufficient time
to be discussed during vendor presentations and discussions.
The vendor's Statement of Work should include a detailed
project plan and timeline, and this document, along with
all of the contract documents, should be thoroughly discussed,
modified and agreed to by both parties.
Gary Weseloh is a Vice President of Five
Point Partners with over 30 years of experience with CIS
solutions for the utility industry. He has over 30 years
of utility experience, including the management of customer
systems (CIS, meter reading, remittance processing, complex
billing) at a large combination utility, consulting on mobile
computing/field work automation, and extensive selection,
evaluation and installation oversight projects.
