Gis generic requirements

From OSGeo
Revision as of 07:00, 24 October 2019 by Gfleming (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Generic Terms of Reference for GIS in government

Four Recent (late 2019) GIS tender examples from South Africa show three examples of how NOT to write a tender and one that is at least acceptable and actually competitive.

I’m aware of several instances where this has been occurring - Ekurhuleni, Joburg Metro, Drakenstein, DRDLR and most likely across the board.

the early stages of a FOSS contract should include a managed migration process, of systems and users, from whatever systems existed before. If the previous systems were designed properly (service-based, interoperable, etc.) this should not be a problem. 

ask for the cost of the solution, done't ask for licences

A GIS vendor is just interested in selling licences, not solutions. In most cases, the software itself is not the solution, but a tool with which the solution is built.

A proper GIS service provider who supplies proprietary licences (e.g. an ESRI business partner) will charge for their services PLUS the licence fees. One who supplies FOSS software will charge just for their services. Which one will be cheaper?

With FOSS, there is no need to procure off-the-shelf software! There are no software costs or privative licences! Instead, you can procure the development and implementation of a solution or a service and maintenance agreement, that meet specific functional requirements. Part of that might be software development, but you are buying a service, not the software. Any custom software that is developed into a solution must be done as FOSS itself, so anyone else can use it or contribute to it.

Change your procurement mindset! You do not need to buy software at all!