From: To: Subject: Date: Mattmiller, Michael Tillotson, Kara; Noble, Ben RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:25:31 PM Totally agree. The fact heat last week's mtg put the budget between 1.1m-2m and unclear if the planned implementation actually addresses the overtime issue means we're not close to a defined project. We will not allow them to proceed further until they clear the Initiation phase of project intake, which requires charter, approved budget, tco. Derin is working with Jolene to firm up the budget ask, scope, and potential benefits realization. I'm meeting w them on Thurs to review. Kara you are welcome to join us, it will be a working HH. Get Outlook for iOS _____________________________ From: Noble, Ben Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:58 AM Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review To: Mattmiller, Michael , Tillotson, Kara From: Mattmiller, Michael Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 6:17 PM To: Noble, Ben Tillotson, Kara Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Sorry for missing this email. Ryan Meeks is working with the SPD PM, Jolene Luck, to make sure we get the start of Kronos right. I?m hearing widely varying budget amounts that need to get sorted out. Did we already report a budget number for Kronos to Council? On the engagement, here is the DRAFT Project Charter. Not my dayjob writing these, I?m sure our PQA team will have lots of edits when they review tomorrow: mattmiller seattle lavouts/lS/WopiFrameaspx? A ?4 B2-From: Noble, Ben Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:42 AM To: Tillotson, Kara Mattmiller, Michael Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Regarding Kronos, any thoughts (from either of you) about how best to begin an intervention? I don?t to get too worked up too early, but their track record is obviously terrible. On Michael are you OK with MOU arrangement, where we get Maxey as the SPD signee? From: Tillotson, Kara Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:58 AM To: Noble, Ben; Mattmiller, Michael Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Yes, the high-level memo says Kronos is already over budget by S4OK and it hasn?t even started yet. Maxey said they are also having issues with procurement, they thought they could contract directly but now are being told it needsto go out to bid for Comm Center and the whole department. This would push the timeline out to later this year which might be best in terms of available resources. Ryan and I talked about it and he thinks they underestimated how much support the implementationwould need and I think that SeattlelT and CBO will need to get involved with Kronos sooner than later. I know we gave them S125k in C115, but now I?m wondering if we should require that they hold on implementation until 2017 (carryforward funds) which gives time and also gives SPD time to come up with an actual robust implementationplan and budget that we can plan for in 2017 budget? They will not like this suggestion. My preference would be to keep the DAP budget separate for transparency reasons but understand if that doesn?t work for timing. I don?t want to have to report that its over budget if that is not accurate and does it set a precedentthat we don?t want to get into? There may well be room in the DAP budget depending on visualization software, but I?ve also learned that the needs of the DAP are pretty fluid and SPD seems to lean towards ?needing? the most expensive thing. Kara Tillotson City Budget Office kara.tillotson@ sea?leggv From: Noble, Ben Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:38 AM To: Mattmiller, Michael Tillotson, Kara Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Kronos is trouble already. . . ugh, aargh, With respect to we may prefer to have this funded from SPD via an MOU, and to keep the DAP budget clean for DAP. Thoughts Kara? From: Mattmiller, Michael Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:28 AM To: Noble, Ben; Tillotson, Kara Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Hi Kara and Ben, contract is being run out of Seattle IT using DAP project funds. It would be preferable to have separate funding stream. Depending on BI tool selection by the DAP project there may be sufficient funding in DAP for the work. Ben, will call you about contracting approach. Totally agree pushing back on SPD projects hard to believe we?re already in a tough spot on Kronos. One of the notes in my memo that prompted the work is no new projects until the roadmap is completed and then we will livewith the timelines and sequencing in the roadmap. I?m all for this. On the Slalom RMS work, I do expect it to document requirements/show there is not a solution that can better meet our needs than Versaterm right now and, if anything, would recommend revisiting after Mark 43 is farther down theirproduct roadmap. It?s why I keep stressing in RMS meetings SPD needs to be open to the outcome that a replacement project should not proceed at this time. From: Noble, Ben Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:41 PM To: Tillotson, Kara Mattmiller, Michael Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review for the update. Michael, happy to talk further about best contracting/management approach. And just to echo the Kara?s comments, we really need to be ready to push back on SPD and their endless hunger for IT projects and force them to recognize their own capacity constraints. From: Tillotson, Kara Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:11 PM To: Mattmiller, Michael Noble, Ben Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Hi Ben and Michael, As we discussed, the scope of work that Michael has been working on for was originally discussed as being a part of the DAP CIP funds but we were hesitant to discuss with SPD at the time, so it was not included in the DAPbudget. I think we all agree that it probably makes sense to separate this work from the DAP budget and expenditures because this would be necessary and valuable with or without the DAP. Michael- what is the contracting method for Will it be run through SPD or SeattleIT? Ben indicated that the funding would likely have to come out of budget but that SeattleIT involvement and ownership is needed. Jolene Luck is the PM for the Kronos implementation at the comm center and will be the PM for the department?wide rollout which I believe is going to be a bigger lift than SPD has comprehended yet. We provided S125K of funding forthe system in the C11 supplemental. As an aside, Ryan and I compared lists of upcoming SPD IT projects and it is a staggering amount of work, I remain concerned about capacity from an IT standpoint and from an operational perspective (how much change can we reallyroll out successfully at once to ?1300 officers?) Kara Tillotson City Budget Office kara.tillotson@ seat?eggv From: Mattmiller, Michael Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 12:33 PM To: Noble, Ben n.N . v> Cc: Tillotson, Kara Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Maxey had the talk with Bill on Friday. starts 4/18 (contract issues resolved), goal is for Bill to ramp down over several weeks so there is some transition. The IT Directorjob description is drafted and in Maxey?s hands forreview. Want to get this posted ASAP. The business owner for the RMS work is Chris Fisher, the incoming SPD Director of Innovation (Virginia Gleason?s pocket), the IT owner is Derin Bluhm from in place of the permanent SPD IT Director. The actual PM is still not clearto me and needs to be resolved. In my mind, the answer really needs to be Jolene Luck, but that has been my fallback on most of their projects and this may require reprioritizing other work. Something Derin will be helping with. From: Noble, Ben Sent: Sunday, April 10,2016 12:28 PM To: Mattmiller, Michael Cc: Tillotson, Kara Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review What is Bill?s status? And who do we think is actually going to manage this work? I realize these are really questions for Maxey, but I am curious to get any info you might have before I ask him the same. Thx, ben. From: Mattmiller, Michael Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 4:38 PM To: Tillotson, Kara; Meeks, Ryan; Duckworth, Tara; Gappert, Beth; Noble, Ben; Schrier, William Cc: Devore, Jennifer Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Hi Kara, Forwarded questions on to the SPD team to review and respond. From: Tillotson, Kara Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 2:13 PM To: Mattmiller, Michael Meeks, Ryan Tara Gappert, Beth Noble,Ben Cc: seattle. ov> Subject: RE: RMS Slalom Contract for Review Hi Michael, Attaching the document for Ben/Jennifer?s reference, I have not made any changes. Do you know if this contract has been executed yet? I have a few comments (if they are still relevant). - This isjust format, but the document appears to have been written by Slalom and often uses possessive pronouns. Thisjust seems odd to me in an official contracting document. 0 The agreement has an NTE of but the budget and schedule do not include the latter parts of Phases 4 and 5, which are described as ?if needed.? Do we have an idea of how much those phases will cost? Is it OK to sign a contract for witha written scope of work that will certainly exceed the NTE without knowing that full cost? 0 In the sections of Phase 3 where they are recommending to SPD the management activities and risk mitigation strategies that will be needed? it would be helpful to know how much of a commitment each strategy is, in terms of hours, time and funding estimates.ls that something that would typically be included in such an assessment? << File: Slalom CAD RMS Fit Gap 03-30-16.docx >> << File: Slalom CAD RMS Fit Gap 03-30-16.docx >> -bill Bill Schrier Chief Information Officer Seattle Police william.schrier@seattle.gov SPD Mobile: 206-379?0791 Personal/State of WA Mobile: 206-255?2156 Original Appointment?-?-- From: Brown, LaTonya On Behalf Of Mattmiller, Michael Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 3:53 PM To: Maxey, Brian; Gleason, Virginia; Schrier, William; Baird, Mark Tucker, Latonya Cc: Camarda, Michelle Subject: Brian Maxey, Mark Baird, Virginia Gleason, William Schrier When: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:30 PM (UTC-08200) Pacific Time (US Canada). Where: Michael's office From: Maxey, Brian Sent: Wednesday, March 16,2016 10:33 AM To: Baird, Mark Gleason, Virginia; Schrier, William; Mattmiller, Michael Subject: RMS All, My understanding is that we have a business case, have a plan to have requirements vetted by slalom, and a strategy for an RFP. We need to address the funding issues?I believe this is a project that should be run in parallel to the DAP development. We need to bring CBO on board and move this forward. Should we meet internally orjust have a big get-together? Brian Maxey Seattle Police Department 206-714-1903 Sent from my mobile; apologies for any typos.