ccim.on.ca Page 1 of 10
Common Assessment Project (CAP)
Choosing a Vendor Strategy and Software Model
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS
PARTICIPATING IN THE COMMON ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION. THE DECISION TO USE THIS DOCUMENT IS AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE PARTICIPATING
ORGANIZATION. ANY DECISIONS MADE BY ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF ORGANIZATION POLICIES AND SUPPORTING PROVINCIAL GUIDELINES AND LAWS, WHERE APPLICABLE. THE TRANSFER PAYMENT AGENCY REPRESENTING THE PROJECT TEAM HOLDS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LEGAL LIABILITY FOR THE ITEMS AND WORDING CONTAINED WITHIN IT IN WHOLE OR IN PART.
CCIM is vendor-neutral and does not suggest nor recommend any vendor specific hardware, software, services or vendors. CCIM does, however, support Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs), Health Service Providers (HSPs) and vendors by clarifying software requirements and specifications, providing tools aimed at providing guidance to LHINs and HSPs, identifying considerations around technology and working with vendors. The purpose of this document is to identify some of the vendor strategy options and the advantages and disadvantages of each of the options. This document also identifies additional considerations when choosing a vendor strategy and software model.
Choosing a Vendor Strategy
One of the first things a LHIN needs to determine is its vendor strategy. The reasons for this are:
• If a new vendor(s) needs to be engaged, the time to procure the required products from a vendor needs consideration in the context of implementation timelines • If a vendor is new to the interRAI CHA or Ontario Common Assessment of Need
(OCAN), it will require time to develop a solution
• Vendors that already have interRAI CHA or OCAN solutions may require time to meet the software requirements specifications documented by CCIM.
• Having a vendor strategy identified early also facilitates the answering of questions HSPs may have about the vendor strategy.
Each LHIN will determine its own vendor strategy. Depending on the chosen strategy, the LHIN/HSP will be responsible for managing a vendor and the development of a solution. Three possible vendor strategy options are:
ccim.on.ca
Page 2 of 10 2. HSP-based approach – a LHIN may choose a LHIN-based approach to
implementing the interRAI CHA or OCAN, but allow HSPs to engage vendors independently to develop a software solution for their HSP.
3. Hybrid approach - this is primarily a LHIN-based approach where the majority of HSPs would be engaged with the same vendor and some HSPs would engage with vendors independently. These HSPs may engage a different vendor to develop their own solutions or engage the same vendor to develop a custom solution for the HSP.
There are general advantages and disadvantages to each of the given strategies. There may be additional advantages or disadvantages specific to a LHIN or HSP.
1. LHIN-based, single vendor approach
Strategy Potential Advantages Potential Disadvantages
General • Depending on the software model, a consistent cross-LHIN solution supports more
controlled and rapid
development across the sector • Cost savings in the sector
associated with the
development and support of a single solution
• Enables inter-HSP partnering and collaboration
• May introduce new software to HSPs with a steeper learning curve - one more thing to learn
• Some HSPs may have commitments and
investments in other vendors • Vendor capacity to meet all
ccim.on.ca
Page 3 of 10 Procurement • Consolidated procurement
process versus multiple HSPs undertaking their own procurement processes may save time, effort and costs • Volume pricing breaks
• Reduced overall effort across the LHIN to manage vendor agreements and relationships • Ability to negotiate long-term pricing upfront provides LHIN-wide cost-certainty
• An agreement with a single vendor may put the LHIN/HSP at risk of future imposed price increases
• Depending on the
procurement experience and capacity of the HSPs, the LHIN may be asked by the HSPs to support their procurement processes
• More generic or lowest common-denominator solution most likely to be procured
• Vendor management and contract management on a larger scale becomes the responsibility of the LHIN Implementation • Easier to manage the delivery
of a single vendor solution in alignment with project
timelines. This has a potentially bigger impact for aggressive implementation timelines. • Consistent materials and
delivery of vendor training and supports
• If the vendor solution is delayed, all dependent deliverables are delayed • Issues or delays impact all
HSPs
• Vendor training capacity must be adequate to meet tight timelines
Testing and Validation
• More streamlined testing activities because the same solution is being used by all HSPs
• Less burden on HSPs because only a single solution needs to be tested
• Lower costs associated with testing a single solution
• Less burden on HSPs to validate implementation because only a single solution needs to be validated
ccim.on.ca
Page 4 of 10 Sustainability
and Support
• Less burden to manage and implement changes and releases for a single software solution
• Streamlining vendor management activities
ccim.on.ca
Page 5 of 10 2. HSP-based, multiple vendor approach
Strategy Potential Advantages Potential Disadvantages
General • Opportunity for greater flexibility in the requirements of the solution (e.g., HSP could request additional requirements beyond those of Community Support Services (CSS) CAP or Community Mental Health (CMH) CAP, such as
integration with existing client management system CMS*)
• More of an opportunity for organizations to work with existing vendors
• Inconsistency in adherence to requirements across vendor solutions
Procurement • Opportunity for organizations to define their specific
requirements and purchase a solution tailored to their specific needs
• Overall increased burden on HSPs (e.g., time, effort, cost) to procure their own solution
Implementation • Possibility some HSPs can move forward even though others may experience issues or delays
• Overall increased burden (e.g., time, effort, cost) as each HSP would be accountable for its solution and adherence to CCIM requirements
• Inconsistency in quality and delivery of vendor training across vendor solutions Testing and
Validation
• Issues or bugs effecting one vendor solution do not necessarily impact all HSPs
• Added burden (e.g., time, effort, cost) for HSPs as multiple solutions will require separate testing for each unique
Vendor/HSP solution Sustainability
and Support
• Overall increased burden on HSPs to manage vendor relationships
ccim.on.ca
Page 6 of 10 3. Hybrid, primarily LHIN-based approach
In general, the same advantages and disadvantages apply to the hybrid strategy. The closer the strategy is to a LHIN-based approach, the more its advantages and
disadvantages apply. As additional vendor solutions are added, the more the advantages and disadvantages of the HSP-based approach apply.
By limiting the number of possible vendor solutions (e.g., one LHIN solution with one or two other vendor solutions for specific HSPs) the greater the flexibility of options while reducing some of the risks (e.g., mass delay).
*integration with an existing CMS is not in scope. However, this may happen organically if the chosen vendor happens to be the CMS vendor.
After an overall vendor strategy is determined, LHINs and/or HSPs, depending on the strategy chosen, will investigate vendors and their proposed solution(s). This document also presents some additional considerations in choosing a preferred software model.
Choosing a Software Model
Software solutions can be provided in two different models: One is an “Application Service Provider” (ASP) model and the other is a “Local Client Server” (LCS) model. Some vendors will support one, or the other, or both. Some vendors may provide hybrid solutions.
An ASP provides computer-based services to customers over a network (e.g., private, public Internet). Software offered using an ASP model is sometimes called on-demand software or software as a service (SaaS). With an ASP model the application software and your data reside on a central server (either at your site, or on a remote site) and may be accessed by users through a web browser (e.g., Firefox, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer). For the purposes of this project an ASP refers to a software solution located somewhere other than at the HSP.
In a LCS model the application and data reside on a server that is managed by the HSP. The main differences between the models are:
• the amount of IT resources (e.g. hardware, software, Service Desk) required within a LHIN/HSP to support a solution,
ccim.on.ca
ccim.on.ca
Page 8 of 10 The following table provides a comparison between the two models.
ASP Local Server
Key Strengths
• Transparent, professional IT management
• System security and safeguards are managed by vendor
• Reduced or no requirement for on-site IT staff
• Monthly payment model
• Additional resources required to manage
• Data on site
• Not dependant on Internet connectivity
• More control over IT management
Reliability • Vendors typically house robust and reliable hardware to support their solutions with costs that are generally shared by multiple clients. This usually includes built-in redundancy built-in servers,
processors, and storage (hard drives) and power (e.g., uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and backup generators).
• Servers with redundant
processors and disk storage are more expensive, but
recommended • Purchase of a costly
uninterrupted power supply hardware (UPS) for servers is a best practice to protect data in power outage
• System is available when there is no Internet connectivity Hardware • Does not require a server at HSP
to house the solution • May require a low-end, local
server to support simple network functions such as printing
• Can be accessed by less powerful computers since they only need to support web browser software
• Requires reliable server at LHIN/HSP
• May require more powerful computers to achieve acceptable response times
Pricing • Usually priced as a monthly service
• Usually priced as a purchase of software, followed by annual maintenance fees
Upgrades • Applications are managed by Vendor’s IT staff
• Applications are managed by LHIN/HSP staff
ccim.on.ca
Page 9 of 10
ASP Local Server
Backups • Vendor is responsible for backing up all data. Often, vendors are able to back up data every few hours, minimizing the potential for data loss
• Backups are managed by professionals who are aware of any problems with backups • Backup media are usually stored
offsite on a scheduled basis
• LHIN/HSP is responsible for managing backups
• Vendors can supply and
configure backup software and hardware that is highly reliable • LHIN/HSP must arrange for
backups to be moved to offsite storage facility
Support • Support levels, performance, and availability are usually agreed to in a “Service Level Agreement” (SLA) (e.g. applications will return data within 3 seconds; system will be available 7 x 24, 365 days a year, 99.99% of the time), which is part of the overall contract for services with a vendor
• The SLA specifies penalties to the vendor if they do not adhere to the terms of the agreement • Potential to leverage synergies
gained through common release and change management
processes
• IT support for additional technology infrastructure may have to be arranged with a local IT Service Provider, corporate resources, internal staff, or any combination thereof.
• Services provided by external providers should have a Service Level Agreement
• Services provided internally may require an Operational Level Agreement
Security and Privacy
• Requires a secure Internet connection
• Vendors may have access to your data to provide support
• Vendors can be held to industry standards
• Terms of access should be defined through a Service Level
Agreement (SLA) and/or Data Sharing Agreement (DSA)
• Data is stored on-site
• Vendors may require access to data to provide support • LHIN/HSP can control access
(i.e. turn it on and off) as required
• Data stored on-site is as secure as the premises itself
• Relies on LHIN/HSP
understanding and being able to implement industry
standards
ccim.on.ca
