Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, July 13, 2010,
Item 12
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the travis county commissioners court. And item number 12 is to consider and take appropriate action for interlocal agreement between travis county and the city of manor for development and deployment of a travis county travis labs pilot program. Irksz good afternoon. My name is joe harley, the i.f. Director. And i'm going to turn this over to tanya acevedo and her staff, who has been working on this project. She can give you guys a briefing.
>> okay.
>> good afternoon, judge and commissioners. My name is tanya acevedo and i'm here with marilyn klein and susan verhoof. On january 19th, representatives from the city of manor presented manor labs to this court, a public input and recommendation system that allows their constituents to input ideas and solutions on how the city of manor can do things better. Their site is arranged to solicit ideas into topics such as public works, information technology, municipal court and policing. During the demonstration, they offer to allow county i.t.s. The ability to test the system and get a better feel for the functionality. During the demonstration -- since then county attorney's office drafted an interlocal agreement to allow i.t.s. Access to configure a trial site. Today marilyn will demonstrate the travis county trial site since we only have the trial for a limited period of time, i.t.s. Recommends focusing the submissions on one subject such as information technology and solicit from our internal client department. This will allow travis county departments to become familiar with the functionality as well as solicit ideas for travis county technology innovation. We're having some -- the county attorney also assisted with the interlocal agreement. And susan verhoof and her team designed the landing page that marilyn is about to demonstrate. And the site we're about to show you is actually sitting on our staging environment today. With a link to manor labs, which is now called travis labs.
>> who do we blame for our inability to get the demonstration to work?
>> [ laughter ] the lawyers?
>> it's a legal problem.
>> [ laughter ]
>> (indiscernible).
>> we'll have to go to a commercial break.
>> don't eelectric true cute yourself on your birthday.
>> we had a dry run yesterday and it worked.
And before convening in executive session we brought up item 12, the interlocal agreement between travis and the city of manor and we were trying to get a demonstration which we could not access at that time. Can we access it now?
>> yes.
>> then let's go.
>> there it is. Okay. The
>> [inaudible] on our travis county home page. The announcement also includes instructions on employees how to access the page to travis labs community. You can either click on this link or this picture and we'll direct you to a registration link that will allow employees to register for the site. We'll obtain that registration once we get final agreement from the
>> [inaudible]. Employees will log into the travis lab community, this home page will appear. Users will be able to click on either view all ideas here, and this will show all the current ideas we've posted from i.t.s. They will be able to post an idea here, click on this link here, and they will be able to type in information regarding the idea or suggestion that they may have. This category right now we just have i.t.s. Feedback. We will are have other categories for each department. They can put in the title for their idea, let's put in test idea. Put in additional information for your idea. This is a test idea. And they will be able to publish the idea. And your idea will be published and once the idea is published and approved by us, people can go in and view the idea and rate it and add additional comments. And that concludes my demo of this. Any questions?
>> after -- go ahead. You were about to ask a question.
>> well, i just want to make sure that the viewing public understands since we made that last presentation that passed under the bridge, and i guess my question would be to you is -- is what is this and how it will be used, what -- you know, i understand it's a tool as far as communicating, but any other pilot-type program, but for the viewing public that may not be apprised of what's going on here, and in fact we had to take a little commercial break with the executive session, what is this about and just maybe just hit on a couple of high points as far as what this pilot program -- project that we're looking at today, travis labs, what it entails. If you would just briefly do that.
>> well, the pilot program would be specifically directed for internal users so internal departments can get an idea of how we could potentially take it over to the public side. So how i.t.s. Would use it internally is seek ideas of innovation within the county. So departments can say, okay, we can automate the agenda process and we can -- then people can vote on that and give feedback and ideas on better ways to do that. That's where internally information technology can get used as product. Externally we could start asking constituents to give us feedback on what we could use technology in tract in general. I foresee this tool to be used as manor lab uses the tool for its constituents to find better ideas on how the city government can better service their members. But again, how manor labs has it divided up, i potentially see out that would work in travis county too. You would divide it up by the function and the department and then you would have departments actually getting -- getting these ideas back and interacting directly with the constituents.
>> okay.
>> we would try to do the pallet, get a good understanding of how the product worked and then come back to you with a white paper that described maybe what the next steps might be and where we need to take it from here and what are the things that we need to watch out for. If we opened it wide up and it turned into a 311, we would be deluged with calls. Or if we wanted to zero in on a specific topic like the downtown planning committee and ask for feedback on those things. So we would plan to put that in a white paper once we concluded the pilot.
>> so -- and i guess, well, in fact, commissioner eckhardt brought this to my attention with the manor lab situation, of course, we've kind of gone forward with her bringing -- bringing this up and bringing it to our attention as far as with manor, city of manor was doing. And, of course, this is what we may be leaning toward under a pilot program. And there's probably other questions i know that's going to come from me, but there may be others that may want to say something at this time. Commissioner, i think you were getting ready to say something.
>> i'm so happy to see this moving forward. I see great promise in the manor lab, in utilizing manor labs or something like it implemented in travis county. It's more than just an electronic suggestion box. What manor labs is absolutely cutting edge. It's not just a suggestion box, as tanya described. Not only do you put the suggestion in, there's categories of input and after that suggestion goes in it gives an opportunity for everyone participating internally or externally to rate that idea, and then once it gets enough attention, enough votes, essentially, it goes to a relevant personnel for evaluation and then that relevant personnel has to respond either by promoting or rejecting the idea and letting the participants know why it was rejected or why it was promoted. This is cutting edge with regard to responsive and transparent government that is open to outside innovation. Really amazing stuff. I have some questions about this particular pilot. This is a two-month pilot?
>> we haven't finalized the impact agreement, but we're foreseeing two month, 60 day. Sorry, the contract we've made an eight-month pilot term. That didn't come from me. I don't know if it was something that the city of manor folks requested. I think they thought that was a good period for revaluating.
>> interlocal agreement, the spigot is the software underneath --
>> the actual software, the underlying software application program that we're waiting approval of from that company, spigot, that's correct, that's a 60-day thing. With the city is eight months.
>> but manor is suggesting -- they are suggesting an eight-month pilot would be what was need to do adequately kick the tires?
>> yes, i think to get -- to assist us with developing and actually deploying the site. Was my understanding, yes.
>> but spigot is only offering two months of that eight months -- only offering two months of that eight months for the software without any kind of fee for license agreement.
>> that's correct. It's under an evaluation agreement, so obviously before -- at some point in between there you would have to go back and determine whether the decision is to proceed and to issue a solicitation document to see what companies offer this type of open innovation, web platform, and then, you know, allocate the appropriate resources.
>> okay.
>> to the appropriate departments.
>> okay. And the next question i have, i noticed from the backup, one question i had was to what issues are we going to ask our labor force to give input on, and i notice that at least from the demonstration it just says i.t.s. Feedback. Do you all have specific ideas with regard to what specific project we are going to ask people to give feedback two in this two-month trial?
>> we would like to receive ideas from at least 75% of our departments. So we will actively solicit ideas and we will post leaders, for example, certain updates to various -- you know, the internet, intranet, we'll post leader ideas for feedback.
>> so ideas from at least 75 -- at least 75% of our departments, so that's to say -- it won't be to a specific i.t.s., it would be --
>> that could ultimately lead into projects.
>> okay. How many people do we need or expect to participate in order to make the two months worth -- in order to make us able to make a value judgment after the two months whether we want to continue?
>> we would like to see at least 100, potentially more.
>> how are -- how is the pilot designed to go out and recruit that type of participation?
>> well, with your -- commissioners' approval, we would like to place it on our intranet splash page and then potentially do an additional marketing campaign potentially in the elevators, table drops, current announcements.
>> and that will be designed -- because according to the backup we're looking to deploy this by july 16th, three days from now. So when will we -- when will we design the recruiting effort?
>> it would be very similar to our splash page that we currently have here. We had the -- chris, our graphic designer, i like to call him, so we would use that design and then create the fliers from there.
>> but we don't yet have the splash page design?
>> yes, we do.
>> that was the first frame that you showed us? Okay. How many ideas do we need or expect to vet during this trial?
>> i -- 100, 100 ideas with -- that would lead to potentially 25 that people voted on. And then of the ones that were voted on, five could potentially lead to projects. It doesn't mean that the 100 wouldn't be good ideas or potentially easy fixes or easy updates. We foresee the five being larger projects. That the community would vote on or departments would vote on.
>> i'm assuming this would be inside i.t.s. Who would manage the funnel of ideas moving them to the appropriate personnel for evaluation?
>> well, the group here today would decide if it's the appropriate division within i.t.s. To distribute to.
>> and then the turn-around time for evaluation and response as to whether the idea was promoted or rejected?
>> the tool actually will do a lot of that, but will require interaction, we'll try to do within a reasonable amount of time, within three to five days.
>> my understanding was the tool only did that for us with regard to the popular voting, but once it was voted to the next level it had to be evaluated by personnel for a make or break decision before it went to the final level of the funnel to determine whether or not it was going to be moved forward for implementation.
>> yes, i'm sorry, that's what i meant. After it was voted on during the period of time, i would say three to five days we would be in contact with the person. The individual submitting. If that sounds reasonable or -- we're open for direction, feedback.
>> okay. I have some concerns because this is a two-month free trial tore the software but after that there's a cost associated with the software for $5,000 $5a month. So my concern is we really need to make this trial as fruitful as possible and i'm concerned we haven't fully cooked the pilot in order to maximize the information we get out of the pilot before facing a decision point as to whether to move forward with it on a -- with a cost associated with it. Is there any issue with holding this off for a couple of weeks while we get a firmer grasp on what the pilot looks like, how it will operate and what we expect to see from it in order to appropriately evaluate whether we move forward after that two-month period? And moving forward.
>> right. One legal possibility is also trying to negotiate a longer evaluation period, which we haven't done, but we don't have a signed agreement with spigot, so i could try to do that.
>> because i would suggest that rather than just leaving it i.t.s. General, and this is the suggestion i could be argued off this, but it appears for the purposes of a two-month period, which is a very short period, that it would probably serve our purposes for a pilot much better to identify a specific project that we know there are specific stakeholders for which we need input and innovation from. The agenda is possibly one project where we have had stumbling blocks with regard to having appropriate participation from the department and a fuller understanding of what they go through and what kind of innovations could be utilized. So i would suggest that a specific project for which there is already a need for input be selected rather than just a general i.t.s. Suggestion becomes.
>> are you suggesting two weeks?
>> i'm suggesting two weeks or whatever you all feel would be necessary to put a good tight plan for the pilot together as well as the exploration of possibly a longer time frame so that we really know what we are expecting to see and can evaluate what we do see. Because right now if we get five good ideas, but what's the definition of good idea and who decides what the good idea is and i'm feeling like perhaps we need some more definition.
>> we can certainly do that. I think we can negotiate a start date later on if they don't want to do an extension of 60 days. We can certainly do that.
>> those are my questions.
>> i think we need to see a written outline of the different steps. I heard what was said today. I'm not sure that squares with the backup. Not that it's necessarily different, but there's been a fuller discussion today. The other thing is the demonstration was too small for me to see. I am the senior on the court, but my question is if one of my assistants wanted to take a look at this, could we just come get it and put it on my computer in my office, i guess, and look at it?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> i'm going to need another week courtesy extension anyway, but if -- i mean if i can -- if i can get an outline of the different steps and looks like we can land on the different terms and conditions, i'd be ready next week. Ultimately the question is do we get 5,000 a month out of the exercise. Manor has roughly 5,000 residents in the city. We've got 4500 employees any day and more than that budgeted. And we have employees who have fun doing e-mails because i get copied all the time.
>> [laughter] i don't know that all of them are worth a financial investment for the county. But if we start out with i.t.s. Then you expand to different county departments, all of a sudden you go to 50 or 60 more. I think we ought to give some thought to who would do the evaluating of different recommendations and suggestions, et cetera. This idea of voting makes sense, but then it does not. And if i recall from the manor presentation, they had a person dedicated to doing this, right? To pulling down recommendations, sort of looking through them, going to a committee, trying to figure out what the committee's take on it was. So who would do that at travis county? And we don't have to answer today, but i think we ought to know that. And if there is a small pilot that involves one department, when we take it to scale, it would be countywide. And even if you just leave it to our employees, you're talking about several times manor's group. And if you open it up to travis county residents, i mean you really are looking at a much larger pool of -- potential pool of participants. And you hate to -- if it's a good deal, i would hate to just limit it to county employees at some point. Taxpayers should wonder if public money is used for this, you know, why don't i have an opportunity to have my say so. And when i get e-mails, often it's not about a positive idea, it's really a complaint about something, and you can't really say we want constructive ideas, not complaints, but most of the people complaining, they figure for me the constructive idea is somebody working on my complaint. I think we ought to think through that. The biggest piece would be, okay, when we get all these ideas, recommendations coming in, what happens to them. And if i take 15 minutes to articulate a concern and recommendation or just a recommendation, i wanted to know somebody at some point will take a good look at it and if it makes sense it will go on the next step. If it doesn't, i might just let them know thanks but no thanks. So there's closure i would think employees would want to get, right? And i don't think all 4500 will send an e-mail, but i think those who do will invest time putting it together and want to be left with the thought that somebody will seriously consider my input because they asked for it.
>> right.
>> and if we start paying for it, then i think we do want a structure in place that at least gives us an opportunity to fairly evaluate input that's given. I think it's good to solicit input, at the same time, show, after we receive it, whoever submitted it would want to think that it was treated seriously, gone through some evaluation process and they will be given some feedback even if the feedback is thanks for this idea, we put it on our 10-year plan.
>> and judge, you and commissioner eckhardt have brought up some real good points along with staff. And i guess i need to just maybe see if staff can accommodate the things that have been suggested. We know it is a tool, and, of course, we're looking on the inside, but eventually hope to go to the outside to our constituents or residents of travis county who would maybe like to have a say into what we do here. I guess, though, we need -- and since the time frame is so short, we said 60 days, as far as free software, is there a specific -- and i guess commissioner eckhardt hit it off, is there a specific subject matter we can agree on here today if we're going to come back in two weeks, of course you will have time to look for that specific topic. The agenda i think commissioner eckhardt brought up, but a specific topic that you can focus on where it won't be general like we just saw here today. It will give you some time to focus on that specific and what that specific is, i don't know if it should be general or whatever it is. But need to tie to it some specific and i think that's a real good point as far as subject matter is concerned.
>> i think one thing that will be helpful for news evaluating the pilot as well as the -- you know, the possibility of moving forward is if it was a project that could be identified for which the commissioners court itself had some skin in the game. I think e-agenda and possibly the i.t.s. Presence in the courtroom, particularly as we contemplate moving over to 700 lavaca next year, that would be a good discreet project to work on. E-agenda and for instance as we saw here today doing a presentation up here on those monitors is not particularly useful to those of us on the dais. It's i couldn't useful for those watching in the t.v. Land, but the monitors are virtually useless to us on the dais because we don't have this on this, and that's what the agenda is supposed to do for us. I have my backup that i received pdf as of friday, but if it was a project that was discreet and specific and relevant not only to our workforce but also to those of us sitting on the dais, we probably stand a better chance of being optimally prepared to evaluate the successor failure of the pilot.
>> something you all can maybe do and bring that back? Like this the time frame that's been suggested.
>> we'll get feedback and get some more time in the contract and come back.
>> so a week or two?
>> two weeks.
>> two weeks. Now, i guess why is our agreement with the city of manor rather than just with whoever the vendor is?
>> well, the city of manor is the first governmental entity that we're aware of that uses this, as commissioner eckhardt brought this to travis county's attention, they have offered to assist us and working with i.t.s. And the commissioners' office to develop a program specifically for travis county. So it's really a voluntary thing they offered to do for us.
>> well, manor is offering to host it on their server.
>> right. When you -- for right now -- i can't remember what you call it --
>> spigot is just the software.
>> spigot is just the software application. But when you click on even in the pilot program it will be hosted on the city of manor's site.
>> and i don't have any problem with the city of manor, but i'm thinking of their budget and thinking of ours, normally you wouldn't think that. I mean so i'm not turning down their free assistance, but i am wondering, okay, if we are serious about this, why wouldn't we contact the vendor and get a travis county deal, accept manor's help to get this rolling.
>> that would be the plan.
>> and the pilot --
>> you would think that we would be more of a burden to the city of manor than a benefit, but if our goal is let's do this 60 days and decide where to go from there, can you see what i'm saying? Then we ought to know that.
>> and let me -- to that point is what we're in conversation about with regard to the pilot, manor is -- it sounds like manor is game to host us on their server for up to eight months, but spigot is only willing to allow us to utilize their software on manor's server for free for two months. Presumably if we were to negotiate a deal with spigot separately for their services, the software would go on our server.
>> that's correct.
>> but for right now it's free through manor so that it can be free.
>> manor's server is larger than ours?
>> i would not think so.
>> well, i wouldn't either. I can live -- whatever it is i can live wit, but i think we ought to think through it and we don't want to be a burden to manor, right? And when i think of our resources as a county, an urban county, and manor's resources as a small city, i'm not -- i'm thinking we're many, many, many, many times theirs in financial resources, got to be computer capability too, but they have hit on something here that we find very attractive. So i'm not suggesting that we turn down their help, but i am suggesting why wouldn't it be better for us to go ahead and get with the people that own spigot or whatever it is and, hey, y'all want us to do a pilot here, give us two months of free service, we'll evaluate it and figure out where to go from there. Long-term, we may be a financial benefit for you.
>> i think that's --
>> i can wait two weeks. Let us know if we can help between now and then.
>> will do.
>> otherwise we'll stay out of the way. Speaking of helping, we'll stay out of the way. Is that our last item today? It's been a fun day.
>> move adjourn.
>> commissioner eckhardt seconds. All in favor? That carries unanimously.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM
