WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES: REASSESSING THE CIMS PROJECT Professor Deborah Compeau and Jane Movold prepared this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to Mustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmittal without its written permission. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Management Services, c'o Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7, phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882, e-mail cases @ivey.two.ca. Copyright @ 2007, Ivey Management Services Version: (A) 2007-04-11 Larry Gravill, chief of the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS), reflected on the last eight years and the attempts to build an integrated information system. The Common Information Management Systems (CIMS)' project had begun in 1997, as a joint effort between WRPS and seven other police organizations. The project had been troubled since the beginning, and by now considerable resources had been invested into the CIMS project by all stakeholders involved. By September 2005, the relationship with the current vendor, Integrated Technologies Group (ITG), had become less productive. In addition, WRPS needed to install a suitable computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management system (RMS), both key CIMS components, prior to December 31, 2005, since 2006 was the federally mandated deadline for implementation of this functionality within police agencies (i.e. Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, interface deadline). Moreover, there were new vendors in the marketplace that had not existed when the original vendor selection was made, and Gravill wondered if one of them might be a better choice. However, he knew that WRPS resources would be heavily tasked to meet the December 31, 2005 deadline, even if a vendor were chosen immediately. Gravill knew that this was a critical moment. He had to determine the best way forward for WRPS to begin to achieve the benefits of an integrated and automated information system within the police service. WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (WRPS) The WRPS employed 889 police service members in 2005: 652 police officers and 237 civilians, including support staff. This staff served a total population of 497,900 located in the Waterloo Region, which covered an area of 1,382 square kilometers. Waterloo, a prosperous region, had been ranked in the Top 7 "Exhibit 1 contains a listing of all abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.Smart Global Communities for the last two years by the Intelligent Community Forum (ICF) of New York City. Waterloo was also recognized internationally as a home to a leading computer science-oriented university (Waterloo University) and as a hub for many new and well-established high-tech organizations (as many as 130 computer science-oriented research firms). To serve this growing community, the WRPS comprised three major divisions that employed 430 police officers and 13 civilians, each division covering a different geographical area. In addition, a Community and Corporate Services group had a staff of 33 police officers and 15 civilians, and Support Services was staffed by 29 police officers and 149 civilians. The Information Technology Department, part of Support Services, consisted of two police officers and 17 civilians, while Investigative Services had 125 police officers and 17 civilians. Headquarters employed 33 police officers and 11 civilians. Finance and Administration had four civilians, and Supplies, Purchasing and Facilities had 11 civilians. In 2005, the WRPS gross operating budget was $87,435,381, with $74,506,287 allotted for salary and benefits; $5,764,344 for fleet, facilities; $2,683,445 for materials, supplies, uniforms, training maintenance; $2,218,159 for services, fees and rentals; $1,317,812 for financial expenses and $945,334 allotted for equipment. In 2005, WRPS received the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Community Policing Award, in recognition of the accomplishments of the Waterloo Working Group, a group of police, residents, business owners, elected representatives, social services and agencies that had worked together to develop long-term strategies for a safe and vital community. POLICE CHIEF LARRY GRAVILL Chief Gravill had been with the Waterloo Regional Police Service since 1973. He started his career performing patrol duties, and then was assigned to the Police Traffic Branch - Motorcycle Patrol. He was seconded to the Ontario Police Commission for two years, from 1977 to 1979. Many assignments followed, including project leader of the PRIDE" computer system; executive officer to the chief of police divisional commander - Waterloo division; superintendent of field operations and deputy chief of administration. He was also the recipient of the Police Exemplary Service Medal. On October 1, 1992, Gravill was appointed chief of police of Waterloo Regional Police Service. He had also served as president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police from 1997 to 1998, and accepted the major responsibility of service as president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police from 1999 to 2001. In addition, he was a member of the National Executive Institute Associates, a 400-plus-member foundation, affiliated with the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations. Chief Gravill had a long history of involvement with information systems. In 1981, he managed the implementation of the first police network to extend beyond the police services political and geographical boundaries (ie. PRIDE). At that time, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) had a network, but it did not cross the organization's boundaries. His appreciation for the value of effective management information systems in implementing strategies for operational success continued throughout his career.CIMS PROJECT HISTORY In 1997, the Common Information Management Systems (CIMS) co-operative was formed to create a common information-sharing platform for a group of Ontario police services consisting of PRIDE, Durham Regional Police Service, Peel Regional Police Service, Halton Regional Police Service, Hamilton Police Service, York Regional Police Service and Niagara Regional Police Service. The PRIDE Group last upgraded its computer aided dispatch system (CAD) in 1989 and its records management system (RMS) in 1994. CIMS was a complicated software solution, with five integrated modules: CAD, RMS, mapping, mobile workstation environments and the CPIC module. Computer aided dispatch (CAD) was used to record calls and assign work to officers. The records management system (RMS) was the primary system for maintaining information on crimes and offenders. Mapping was the software that could generate maps for dispatchers to identify addresses quickly to officers. The mobile workstation environment referred to the systems in the patrol cars. CPIC was the module that was to provide integration with the Canadian Police Information Centre - a federally operated, computer-based information system that provided national information on crime. Standardized information (following the Universal Crime Reporting guidelines) was shared between police forces through CPIC on a regular basis. The complexity of the CIMS project resulted in a number of challenges in software development, implementation and project management. Adding to the complexity of the project was the disparity between the different police agencies involved, in terms of information needs and technical capability. Some agencies, such as Hamilton Police Service, had few information technology resources and desperately needed to replace key computer hardware and systems as soon as possible to avoid functional breakdown. Others agencies, such as WRPS, had information systems professionals on staff with reasonably reliable legacy systems, but recognized the need for updated information systems to meet growing needs, federally mandated functionality and multi- agency information sharing needs. The initial request for proposal (RFP) for the CIMS project took two years for the project team to develop. No vendors were able to comply with the terms of the RFP, resulting in zero vendor responses. CIMS project staff took another year to rework the RFP, which resulted in one vendor response - from ITG. In August 1999, the CIMS group signed a contract with ITG to install a new CAD and RMS. The relationship with this vendor was rough for quite some time, due to contract and software functionality requirement misunderstandings, though some software functionality and integration was successfully implemented. The ongoing software functionality requirement and implementation difficulties led to a lack of trust in the ITG vendor / CIMS project group relationship. Changes to the Project Scope Since 1999, when the original CIMS contract was signed, additional functionality for the RMS system had been federally mandated, and these changes were outside of the scope of the original ITG contract. To maintain Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) query capabilities, the new federally mandated requirements for the RMS included replacement of the software interface currently used for the CPIC reporting. The software within RMS that tracked information for Statistics Canada, based on Universal Crime Reporting (UCR) guidelines, also needed to be updated in accordance with government requirements.The federal government had planned to offer funding, by means of grants available to police services, to offset the cost of the federally mandated requirements for the RMS enhancements. However, this funding was unilaterally rescinded before any municipal police agency in Ontario received grants for this functionality. Therefore, the cost for ITG to provide this federally mandated functionality was becoming financially prohibitive for WRPS and the other police agencies. The projected cost for full implementation of the software was now more than $8.5 million (see Exhibit 2). Changes in the CPIC requirements also affected the ITG CAD system, since the ITG interface solution for CAD enhancements was becoming very labor intensive and costly. In addition, staff were not convinced that the ITG CAD solution, as a design-build system, could be successfully implemented and delivered as a working system with the required enhancements within the federally mandated timelines. Chief Gravill commented: We have serious doubts that ITG can deliver the results we need in time for this project. We do not think they can develop a system as complex as we have specified. We have multi-partners involved from the police side. ITG tried to incorporate all of our business practices into the system. They wanted to build a system for other police agencies to use. ITG was beginning to realize that considering the complexity of the software specifications, the financial payback on the project would not be great. ITG's ability and our ability to satisfy this varied group's needs is limited. Overall, I think it is very doubtful that ITG can deliver any significant portion of the required software solution within any reasonable timeframe. It took a lot of discussion for our folks to realize that rather than changing the system to suit our business practices we could change our business processes to suit a software package that is designed for a typical police agency. Do we want to spend a huge amount of money to change the package or develop software on our own . . . no. We do not likely need to as we are not really that different from other police agencies in Canada. This took quite a bit of internal education and selling to get the staff on board with this idea of changing our processes rather than changing the software. This was primarily the problem from the get-go of the CIMS project. The people at the middle level within our organization were saying that if we can get the vendor to make the changes to the software then we will not need to change our business practices. We found out the hard way that this is not the right way to go in the long run. I think it's not worth it overall to customize software too much. That caused us a lot of problems with the CIMS project in the beginning. Now we have the opportunity to get the functionality that we want with the CIMS project through over-the-counter software products that were written for police agencies needs rather than through customized software altered for our needs specifically. That's a much better deal. ITG is a good vendor, but in my mind software customization should only be done if absolutely necessary. ITG is not likely able to deliver the customized solution in time, so now it is time to re-assess the project and evaluate the products on the market that have a good chance of meeting our needs. The difficulty is that we have invested a lot of time and money into the current software solution and we need to determine if we are willing, or able, to cut our losses and basically start fresh. Some members may not like the idea of cutting our losses with ITG so we'll need to think of some alternative solutions that may be viable for us.With the new products available on the market we now have more opportunities to choose from, and we can change our business practices to fit a software package if it is written for agencies like us as, again, we are not that different from other police agencies. This is so long as the software is well written and has good functionality and most of our business and operational needs are met. I think we have some good options like this available to us now. Quite some time ago we recognized the importance of implementing software technology to help us better access and share information within our organization and between agencies. Now these information-gathering and -sharing needs have been recognized by various software vendors who have developed software product solutions used by other police agencies that reportedly seem to work OK. We need to investigate this further, but with the information I have reviewed regarding currently available software products for police agencies like us, I am reasonably confident there is a solution out there that would be workable for us and would allow us to meet our federally mandated deadlines. It's just a matter of picking the best solution (vendor and product) to suit our current and ongoing information sharing needs. This is a long-term and, likely, evolving project as we've found out. We need a software partner flexible enough to change with us but also knowledgeable enough to guide us along the way. It's important to pick the right partner for us as a growing police agency keen on sharing information with other agencies because a poor vendor relationship results in us spending the bulk of our organization's energy toward managing the vendor relationship itself, rather than toward implementing the required system. We couldn't afford to do that if we want to achieve the information sharing goals set out in the CIMS project in any reasonable timeframe. We need to re- evaluate this situation and set ourselves on the right course for success now and in the future. VENDORS UNDER CONSIDERATION Since the signing of the contract with ITG, two RMS solution providers had developed and matured in Canada. Both these "canned" solutions were estimated to cost less than half the cost of the fully implemented ITG solution. Niche Technology, Inc. Niche Technology, Inc. (Niche) was a private Canadian corporation based in Winnipeg Manitoba, with branch offices in Calgary, Alberta, and Victoria, British Columbia. Niche was founded in 1992, and was wholly owned by its senior management. Since 1995, Niche had focused entirely on developing and selling commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) law-enforcement software. Installations of Niche law-enforcement software began in 1995. Niche software was now in use in approximately 80 police departments across Canada and the United States. Additionally, Niche had installations in Europe, the Caribbean, Africa and Australia. Niche offered an RMS that had additional modules covering digital mug shot and custody functionality.Niche had been chosen as the RMS solution by the OPP for its Ontario Police Technology Information Cooperative (OPTIC) as well as by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). There were 30,000 authorized users of the RMS in Canada and an additional 22,000 users of the software worldwide Strengths A proven Canadian installation base. Intuitive Windows-based product allowing for attachment of multiple file types within occurrence reports, such as wave (sound), jpeg (photo) and Microsoft Word files. No additional costs for CPIC or future CPIC interface changes due to provincial or federal mandated requirements Ease of interface to external reporting systems. Ability to share information with a large number of police agencies, including the OPP and the RCMP. Easier for users to adapt to the new application since it had functionality similar to existing Windows- based software used in the WRPS organization. Seamless integration with the existing Niche mug shot system. Ease of installation and training since the format for Niche mug shot was identical to the RMS application. Strong querying characteristics. Weaknesses Niche was a small company and had taken on several large installations recently; hence, the organization's resources may be overly burdened. Would it have the staff to allocate to the WRPS project? Field reporting components were newly developed and were not operationally proven in the field. Pilot stage only. Versaterm Versaterm had been marketing police-oriented CAD and RMS software since 1991, and had a good reputation in the industry. Versaterm was a privately held company based in Ottawa, Ontario, with a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Within Ontario, Versaterm successfully supplied and supported CAD and RMS to the London, Ottawa and Windsor police services. CIO Canada awarded the London Police Service the Technology Excellence ITX Award 2000, based on the examination of four main elements of technology, two of which (CAD and RMS) were based upon the Versaterm software. There were 8,600 users of the Versaterm software in Canada. Versaterm had completed its CPIC interface, which was included in the product price. Versaterm recommended its CAD and RMS software be installed as a combined integrated solution. The company had experienced great success with the two systems functioning together and recommended this combination to provide a well-supported, reliable, easily implemented solution - especially given the tight timelines involved. Versaterm had no installations in Canada using its CAD product with a different RMS. Strengths A solid existing user group structure with established enhancement selection process.The only Canadian integrated alternative to ITG. If installed as an integrated product, there would be seamless communication between CAD and RMS with a bi-directional interface, meaning both CAD and RMS could be queried from the CAD environment. Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) law-enforcement software. Well-established customer service reputation. Product enhancement flexibility would maximize user group input. The user group participation process was established and functioned well. Allowed greater ability to have a "customized-like" end- product. Web based inter-service query ability with Versaterm customers. Weaknesses Did not interface with WRPS's current Aveltech mobile work station environment and would require the purchase of the Versaterm mobile module at an additional cost. WRPS had $830,600 already invested in Aveltech MobiCad software. Since Versaterm recommended an integrated installation, this factor needed be considered when choosing the RMS solution. Non-Windows environment, reducing ability to multi-task (e.g. the inability to open multiple incident entry screens) Used proprietary mapping. Would need to be converted to ESRI standard" with a loss of map quality when compared to the existing system. Only one multi-agency installation in Canada. E-comm, in British Columbia, had a hybrid installation with another CAD vendor and had experienced issues with multi-agency separation of data. Could attach only PDF and TIFF files to occurrence reports, greatly reducing functionality when compared to Niche. Did not have a mug shot system - needed to integrate to Niche, which caused increased draw on infrastructure resources, duplicated effort and increased opportunity for error. The vendor comparison provides further information regarding the two vendors under consideration (see Exhibit 3). CONCLUSION It was time to reassess the CIMS project, given the problems with the current ITG vendor and lack of system development progress to date. Two key components of the CIMS project, the CAD and RMS solutions, needed to be chosen and installed as soon as possible to meet the federally mandated timelines. Other CIMS agencies were faced with the same challenges regarding compliance with the new standards and were independently seeking CAD and RMS solutions from the limited selection of vendors that could provide a viable CAD and RMS installation in a Canadian police agency environment. Which was the best vendor for WRPS at this time, and how should WRPS proceed to meet timelines and ensure project success? Would selecting the same vendor and software as other CIMS agencies benefit WRPS or complicate the system implementation process? These were important questions that Chief Gravill needed to consider before presenting the WPRS plan for system implementation to the board.Exhibit 1 LISTING OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAD Computer Aided Dispatch (not to be confused with Computer Aided Design or Drafting) CIMS Common Information Management Systems project CPIC Canadian Police Information Centre - also the module of CIMS that links with the center in Ottawa COTS Commercial-Off-the-Shelf- a standard technology product that is non-customized ITG Integrated Technologies Group - the current vendor OPP Ontario Provincial Police PRIDE Police Regionalized Information Data Entry System - a precursor to CIMS, built by five agencies in the Waterloo area - Larry Gravill was the leader of this project RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RFP Request for Proposal RMS Records Management System - a component of CIMS UCR Universal Crime Reporting WRPS Waterloo Regional Police ServicesExhibit 2 REVISED PROJECTIONS OF CIMS COSTS - ITG ESTIMATES Description Cost Software and Training expenditure to date $1,679,952 Projected Cost - Required Updates/extras: Product Enhancement 210,000 CPIC Integration 960,000 CPIC Functionality 1,200,000 Integration with Niche Mug Shot Software 150,000 Universal Crime Reporting Functionality 800,000 Oracle Software Costs 450,000 Functionality for Data Purge Requirements 150,000 Retraining 75,000 Support Issues 150,000 Field Reporting 1,800,000 Bar Coding Functionality 150,000 External Training 150,000 Subtotal $7,924,952 Taxes 633,996 TOTAL $8,558,948Exhibit 3 VENDOR COMPARISON Overview Legacy ITG Niche Versaterm Number of Agencies in Ontario 6 0 Number of Agencies in Canada 43 4 6 0 Number of Agencies in Canada (predicted 2006) 54 16 2 0-1 54-59 Meets PRIDE requirements in Next 2 Years 16-20 Multi-agency Capable No No Yes Yes Yes System Stable No Yes Unknown No Sharing of Information with Common Vendor No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Functionality Comparison Multi-agency Needs Yes Ease of Use / Ease of Training No Yes Unknown Yes Yes Integration with Existing Mobile Software System Yes Yes No No Yes CPIC Access - Current Requirements (incl. in costs) Yes No No CPIC Access - Requirement in 18 Months (incl. in costs Yes Yes No CPIC Roll Over No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Functionality for Data Purge Requirements Yes Yes No Yes Connection to CAD System Yes Yes Yes Universal Crime Reporting Functionality Yes Yes No Case Management No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bar Code Tracking Yes No No Property Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Field Reporting Entry - Mobile Yes No No Field Reporting Query Capability - Mobile Yes - Pilot Yes No No Access to External Application Yes - Pilot Yes No CAD Integrated Interface to RMS - Bidirectional No Yes Yes Connection to Mobile No No Yes Yes Yes Audit of Information Changes Yes Yes - Pilot Yes Yes Security / Passwords / Authentication Yes Yes Yes No Full-Text Search No Yes ies One-Time Data Entry No No Yes Yes No No Federal Tracking Software Integration Yes Yes No Workflow No Yes Yes Yes Attachments to External Files No Yes Yes No - PDF No Yes Yes No - TIFF No Yes Yes No - MS Office Files No Yes Yes No - All Other File Types No Yes No No No Yes Link to Jail Information Systems No No Intranet Links No Yes Yes No No Creating External Documents (Crown Brief) Yes No No Ticket Entry Functionality No Yes Yes No No No Yes