Laserfiche WebLink
L lain (c <br />® MEMORANDUM <br />I� _ i✓ <br />Memo To : Mayor and City Council Members <br />..f D"I'lir Wnrkc /1 <br />From : Ric Minetor. uitect-- / y <br />Date : January 12, 1989 L <br />Subject : Public Works Scheduling and Job Costing Software <br />During the past few .months we have been reviewing software <br />packages for Public Works Maintenance act`_vities, our dasire�ork <br />to fird software that would assist in better job scheduling, <br />order processing, and job costing. This software should help us <br />improve timely completion of projects, manage necessary overtime, <br />and determine reeds for outside contracting. It should also <br />Provide monthly reports of accomplishments and labor utilization. <br />I discussed our needs with vendors at the national Public Works <br />Congress this past fall and with local software vendors. of the 6 <br />software packages I initially reviewed, 3 were selected for <br />further review and in -office demonstrations. The 3 I did not <br />select for further review were a) GTE Intoch's Work Management <br />System, b)American Management Systems' Mainsaver, and c) <br />BSI Consultants' AIM. These packages were in the $10,000 + price <br />range and are not geared toward a smaller city. They usually <br />require a great deal of operator input on a continuing basis and <br />generally overate efficiently only where a secretary or similar <br />position is dedicated to Public Works Maintenance operations. <br />Mike Ulrich and I reviewed the 3 remaining packages demonstrated <br />in the office were a) Hansen software's Street Maintenance <br />System, b) Facility Management Technologies' MIS, and Software <br />First's Municipal leInformation <br />2Syste. are Hansen <br />acompans a California <br />based company <br />The Hansen package at first appeared most economical. The <br />software cost $1450, but also had a yearly license fee of $250. <br />In reviewing the software it became apparent that the package was <br />designed primarily for street maintenance and would be somewhat <br />clumsy when used for utility or parks maintenance. The scheduling <br />features were very rudimentary and did not fulfill our needs. <br />Finally, it would be necessary to purchase a second software <br />package to accomplish job costing. This would raise the price to <br />over $3000 and the license fee would similarly increase. For <br />these reasons we rejected this package. <br />The Facility Management Software was more complete and inclusive <br />and at first appeared to satisfy our needs. During our <br />demonstration period we found data entry to be somewhat time <br />consuming and complex. As we further studied the packageit <br />became apparent that this software was designed for equip <br />