Colorado Digital Government Summit Shared Services September 18, 2007 Clark Johnson President, Colorado Wireless Communities City Manager’s Office, City

Colorado Digital Government Summit

Shared ServicesSeptember 18, 2007

Clark JohnsonPresident, Colorado Wireless Communities

City Manager’s Office, City of Arvada

Colorado Wireless Communities

Overview

Why am I here and why should you care? Shared Services and Multi-jurisdiction

initiatives are the future of local government.

It’s not about IT, but IT can lead the way

It’s the model and structure, not the technology

Open Discussion and Debate


Overview

Colorado Wireless Communities Lessons Learned (still learning!) Shared Infrastructure for a la carte

services Models for Success

Creating Structure to Manage Shared Resources and Shared Services

Future of Shared Service


Overview

Definition of Shared Services? Within a government/corporate

structure

Single service – Organization to Organization

Multi-jurisdiction/Multi-Service


Colorado Wireless Communities – What is it?

Regional Wireless Broadband Community Initiative

600K+ Population

240,000 HHs

137 Square miles of coverage area

Arvada Boulder Broomfield Golden Lakewood Louisville Northglenn Superior Thornton Wheat Ridge



Colorado Wireless Communities – What is it?

History, Process, Structure Began as informal exploration Summer 2006 – 5 cities completed community

feasibility studies Fall 2006 – Other communities joined, all

signed a Memorandum of Understanding RFP process completed summer 2007 Intergovernmental Agreement signed by all

cities spring/summer 2007 CWC now negotiating agreement


What is Wi-Fi?


Node Antenna and Backhaul


Why are cities going Wireless?

Recognition of the connection between broadband infrastructure and community well-being Economic Development

Small, medium-sized businesses Mobile workers

Efficient and Effective Government Field workers, public safety, remote data,

phone/radio service Social Issues: Digital Inclusion Changing lifestyle and work style expectations



Barriers to entry have lowered Unlicensed spectrum Maturation of technology (Mesh and

802.11a,b,g,n, etc. WiMax backhaul) Wi-Fi client devices are commonplace,

reducing subscriber acquisition costs and streamlining the provisioning process



Cities have ownership and/or access to assets

Attraction of increased competition, more consumer choices, and changing use patterns

Expectation of Technological Infrastructure Local Govt’s need to face this issue


What Will the CWC Do?

Lead the negotiation, admin, and monitoring of an agreement with a private provider

Facilitate relationship between individual communities and provider (example – single permitting process)

Share resources and information to address issues, concerns, and common objectives (example – Digital Inclusion)


CWC RFP Overview

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Model Private provider funds, owns, and operates

network enabled by CWC cooperation City partners to enable access to Right-of-Way,

Mounting Assets (Traffic signals, buildings, other vertical assets) – a leasing relationship

Creates parameters for policy issues based on community need and desire

Competitive RFP process results in qualified service provider

Within local government constraints from SB-152


Benefits of a Multi-Jurisdiction Approach (City Perspective)

Critical mass for best proposals from best vendors (CWC: 600,000 pop., 137 sq. miles) Improves business case Increases likelihood for long-term relationship Increases likelihood for financially strong and

stable provider or self-sustaining model Strengthens overall position of communities

and users of network


Benefits of a Multi-Jurisdiction Approach (Vendor Perspective)

One clear, consistent process for entering a regional market

Simplification of Process and Project Implementation (CWC: Single Right-of-way permitting process for all ten jurisdictions)

Facilitation and decrease of barriers to entry (CWC: Access to City Assets)

Potential for expansion and scaling Creates structure and framework moving

forward


CWC Shared Services

How is CWC applying a Shared Services Model? No Shared Services, yet. Shared Infrastructure A la carte services Everybody sees value for different reasons at

different times AMR, Mobile Phone, Field Worker Data,

Device-Device, Video, Remote Data CWC Structure: Intergovernmental

Agreement


Models for Shared Service

Creating Structure to Manage Shared Resources and Services

Where on the Spectrum do you want to be? Informal

“Handshake Deal” Non-binding/Limited Agreement

A hug, maybe a few dates Binding Agreement

Serious, taking it to the alter



Policy Considerations: The most important decisions may have nothing to do with the services to be shared. Informal Collaboration vs. Formal Authority

Whose authority are you playing with? Do you really want authority? Fears of “giving up power” Be careful what you ask for. Budget Impact? Friends, Partners, Competitors, Size Elected Officials, Politics, Public Perception



Informal Structure A few IT Directors meet for lunch, come

up with idea: Start Implementing

Is it really cheaper, faster, easier? Maybe – but at what cost? Common for internal and two entity

shared services Flirting with collapse for the sake of time

or comfort level



Non-binding or Limited Agreement A few IT Directors meet for lunch, come up

with idea, invite rep from Mayor/CM/City Council office:

Slow down, everybody signs Agreement to “play nice”

What’s the point? Is it really a commitment? Political and policy “cover” Legitimization – at least for a while Signing on the dotted line



Intergovernmental Agreement A few IT Directors meet for lunch, come up with

idea, invite attorney: New governmental entity created!

Do we really need to do all this (bylaws, board, public meetings, etc.)?

Yes – if you want a legally binding, long-sustained structure

Maybe not for every project (umbrella structure) Can alleviate political suspicions Can draw unnecessary attention Much higher standard


CWC Structure(s)

All of the above Informal evolved to non-binding which

evolved to Intergovernmental Agreement

CWC IGA Creates single entity and framework for

ten communities to manage the CWC Creates single entity and framework for

private provider to deploy a regional network


Intergovernmental Agreement

Similar to several existing IGA’s creating single purpose entities Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium

and Rocky Flats Stewardship Council 10 voting member communities Staff Driven Organization with dues and

budget Don’t kid yourself – the minutia is hard work


Future Growth of the CWC

The CWC is designed to allow additional communities Growth of the CWC can make network

stronger for citizen and government users and provider

CWC is becoming a model around the country for a regional approach to competitive, ubiquitous, affordable wireless broadband


Future of Shared Services

How does local government respond to a changing world? The world is mobile, but communities

are not – how do we create sustainable models?

30,000 foot fallback Excellent Personal Service Allocating Resources to the “right stuff” Partnerships



What Does the Partnership Look Like? Specialized Regional and/or Statewide

efforts to share specific services Do we have to keep reinventing the wheel?

Overarching entities (already existing or created) to share multiple services How much is too much?

Random ad hoc model Just keep figuring it out as we go?



What other structural models are out there? CWC GMTC 311 CGAIT Shared Services Group Other?


For More Information

www.coloradowirelesscommunities.com More information available

Documents

Colorado Digital Government Summit Shared Services September 18, 2007 Clark Johnson President, Colorado Wireless Communities City Manager’s Office, City