1982-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1313, Minutes Page 4 August 16, 1982 the staff who was computer-literate; however, he would not extend that to hiring a programmer, which he felt would not be cost-effective. He thought the City should continue to monitor the DNOS system, since it may be a viable system for the City at some future time. However, he felt the administration's position of wanting the dual system for the backup capabilities was valid, because of the difficulties be- ing experienced at the present time by those departments using the system. Mr. Adams concluded, somewhat reluctantly, that the most expedient thing to do was to accept the recommendation of the administration for the dual system. Mrs. Metcalfe said it narrowed down to whether or not another opinion on the recom- mendation should be solicited versus the DNOS alternative or waiting to see if something more conclusive about DNOS emerged. She asked Mr. Levy if he had reason to think that in the next two or three months there would be information available about DNOS which was not available now. Mr. Levy said he would like to find someone at TI who could give the City more com- prehensive information concerning what DNOS was equipped to do. Based on his un- derstanding of DNOS, he thought there was a strong possibility that the City would eventually be using it. If that's correct, and there were some way of going to DNOS now, it would eliminate the necessity of having a duplicate system for what may be a relatively short period of time. He called attention to another possibi- lity--the report Council received stated that Alternative 1 would provide what was needed by the City for at least one year. If that alternative were chosen, for about $25,000, at the end of the year there would undoubtedly be some definitive information on DNOS. If the City then had assurance DNOS would do everything it was supposed to do, the system could be installed without the City having gone to the expense of the duplicate mini-computer. Mr. Ollendorff said that Alternative 1 would provide the needed disk space, but would not solve the more severe problems. He said Mr. Levy may be correct in his assessment that DNOS will be a viable solu- tion for the City eventually, but the City needed something immediately that worked and was proven. In response to questioning from Mrs. Metcalfe, Mr. Ollendorff said DNOS was soft- wear, not hardware. Mrs. Metcalfe said she thought one of the reasons the recom- mendation was made to go to a second system was because more hardware was needed. Mr. Ollendorff said that was correct, but the DNOS system apparently made the cen- tral processing unit work more efficiently. Mr. Ollendorff said it cost $30,000 to buy, with an estimate of $15,000 for installation. He noted Mr. Levy believed it could be installed for less than that. Mrs. Metcalfe asked if Mr. Arizala could evaluate the DNOS system in depth. Mr. Ollendorff said Mr. Arizala maintained that no one outside of TI could analyze the system until it was operational, and say whether it would solve the City's problems. TI people in a different region said they would not recommend it to any of their clients because it's not yet a proven system. In addition, because of its newness, local technicians were not available who could service it. Mr. Ollendorff said the administration was afraid of getting into a system like that when there was one available which it knows will work. Mr. Adams said he understood the reluctance of the administration to go into a sys- tem which was essentially untried. He moved that the recommendation (Alternative 3) of the administration be accepted. Mrs. Metcalfe seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman said he admired Mr. Levy's expertise and the research he did, but