Implementing AM/FM/GIS at an RUS Electric Cooperative
Compare Existing System Models
AEC felt that it could use the expertise of a national consulting firm to compare its requirements as outlined in the IFRD and IDDD with the standard data model and functionality offered from the major AM/FM/GIS vendors. AEC also believed that it was imperative that as little customization as possible be required from the selected system. (Highly customized systems are very hard to maintain, even for a long term dedicated staff. Upgrades are much more challenging and costly, and developed interfaces sometimes require modifications to function properly.) AEC utilized a consulting firm to aid the search for appropriate systems for consideration and to gather the latest, and often unpublished, details of importance for the comparisons. AEC discovered that it had more knowledge about the existence of co-op oriented software and worked with the consultant to ensure inclusion of major and minor systems within this project phase.
Included here is a short list of the questions and issues addressed during system comparisons.
How well does the base product fit AEC’S requirements?
What is the amount of modification required to meet those requirements?
Are CASE tools available for rule base modifications?
What optional packages are currently available? (Field maps and design, electrical analysis, outage analysis, customer and work order interface tools)
Are the vendors incorporating new technologies as they emerge from the core SW providers?
What are the DBMS and coordinate data storage requirements? (HW and SW)
What are the HW and SW requirements for various types of clients?
What are plotting and reporting capabilities?
AEC did not ask for a selection from the consultant, only a pro/con analysis from a short list of candidates. It also requested the option of utilizing the consultant to create an RFP for the application vendor and modifying the core model to meet additional requirements, but eventually elected not to use the consultant for those options.
The actual system selection may have been the most challenging part of the project. Three finalists were brought to AEC for a system review. A review of the vendor’s core functionality was covered with the same front line personnel noted above. Additional suggestions and functionality that arose during these sessions were noted and included in the IDDD and IFRD. AEC was also migrating to a new customer information, work order, and accounting system and merged the timing of the GIS system selection with that decision. AEC was unwilling to create a blind selection matrix, and so, after entering the numbers let the matrix decided the future. The belief was that there was a “right” system for Aiken and atler many hours of discussion and meditation (tea leaves optional) the selection was made. Essentially, the choice was for a system with better core technology or a system that functionally matched AEC’S needs. AEC came to the conclusion that the more co-op friendly system was the better choice.
|
