ROI Factors: Getting the Most for Voting System Dollars

Transcription

1 ROI Factors: Getting the Most for Voting System Dollars Many election leaders face the unfunded necessity of buying new voting systems. A holistic look at cost helps decision makers get the most value for dollars invested.

2 2

3 Election officials at all levels of government are feeling the pressures of an aging voting system infrastructure. Voting systems purchased with federal HAVA money between 2002 and 2007 are nearing the end of their reliable usefulness. An increased need for costly repairs, difficulty finding replacement parts, a sense of unease about the system performing without a hitch during Absentee Voting, Early Voting and on Election Day all are indicators that the time has come for a complete system refresh. 3

4 Total Cost of Ownership = Initial Expenditure + (Ongoing Costs x 10) This white paper presents cost factors that make up the overall price tag for a new voting system. The paper also includes value factors that contribute to a higher return on investment. By gaining a holistic view of system cost, decision-makers can get the most value for their voting system dollars on behalf of the jurisdictions they serve. 4

5 Whereas HAVA was a funded mandate, many jurisdictions now face an unfunded necessity. According to What Legislators Need to Know about Voting Equipment 1, a handout the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) prepared for its 2014 Summit, There is no expectation that a second injection of federal money can be expected in the foreseeable future. Some state budgets include funding for the purchase of voting equipment or provide revolving funds or grant programs to assist local jurisdictions with purchases. Most often, though, local jurisdictions must fund their own equipment. As election officials squeeze appropriations out of tight budgets to replace outmoded voting systems, it is critical to their stewardship of public funds that they consider not just the purchase price for the system, but its total cost of ownership. While the one-time capital expenditure for purchasing a new system is integral to the equation, additional considerations play a significant role in the impact the system has on the jurisdiction s budget over time. The formula to calculate voting system total cost of ownership begins with the initial expenditure for the system and implementation. Since most jurisdictions plan on a 10-year system lifespan, the formula multiplies ongoing costs by 10 and adds this total to the initial sum. 1 National Conference of State Legislatures (2014, August) What Legislators Need to Know about Voting Equipment Retrieved from 5

6 As election officials squeeze appropriations out of tight budgets to replace outmoded voting systems, it is critical to their stewardship of public funds that they consider not just the purchase price for the system, but its total cost of ownership. 6

7 Initial Expenditure Voting system cost. The number of voting system components needed is the first multiplier in the purchase price equation. The number of registered voters, precincts, polling places in the last Presidential General Election, elections conducted per year, the desired percentage of spares and similar factors feed into the number of various components needed. Locale-specific legislation and jurisdiction preferences can affect quantities as well. For example, in Texas, jurisdictions are required to conduct Election Day voting on separate equipment from that used for in-person Early Voting. In states such as Colorado that permit vote centers, jurisdictions may require less equipment, assuming the system they select can provide all ballot styles needed on a single device. Accurately assessing a voting system s purchase price requires a comprehensive understanding of how the system s components will be configured to support or improve the jurisdiction s workflow. This way, the purchaser can be sure that all needed components, including peripherals and initial consumables, are rolled into the offer price. Voting system value factors. An integrated system built with current technology delivers more lasting value than a system that is cobbled together from parts that were designed years ago. A system that is scalable and adaptable can accommodate the changes that are inevitable in the dynamic elections environment, saving its owner the expense of premature system replacement. A system designed for ease of use can reduce training and consulting costs. For example, if custom reports are easy to produce, the jurisdiction avoids paying extra for the Election Night reports it needs. 7

8 Implementation cost. Implementation services are typically part of the initial purchase price. However, not all service packages are created equal. Ideally, services include a thorough analysis of existing business processes and a comprehensive plan for transitioning to the new system and adopting any process changes. Ample on-site support and an established training program tailored to the jurisdiction s specific needs should be part of the plan. Documentation provided in an electronic format enables the jurisdiction to provide up-to-date system instructions to as many staff members as needed at a minimal cost. Implementation value factors. The most significant value factors for implementation success are the qualifications and quality of the people delivering the services, the depth of experience of the voting system vendor and the vendor s customer service culture and customer satisfaction rating. Additionally, implementation services that foster customer independence, while ensuring support is available as needed, can save money. A more do-it-yourself approach can apply to poll worker training, ballot production, election setup, vote tallying and other activities. 8

9 Ongoing Costs Licensing and support fees. Ongoing costs to operate the voting system start with licensing and support. A favorable licensing structure is essential to the cost-effectiveness of system use over time. What are the annual fees and the increase schedule? What is and is not covered? What is the approach to third-party licenses? After implementation, system support typically transitions to a help desk or similarly structured support team. This may be included in a license and support package. While election offices support needs surge immediately before, during and after Election Day, expert technical support should be available 24/7 every day. It is important to understand what is covered under the support umbrella. Does the plan include warranties? Does the vendor charge extra in circumstances such as run-off elections? What annual preventive maintenance is recommended or required? How much of this maintenance can the jurisdiction handle itself, and how much must be performed through costlier means? Licensing and support value factors. Vendor responsiveness can make the difference between a successful election and a problematic one. It can also affect voting system cost of ownership. A vendor that consumes election staff s time by failing to address issues promptly is costing that election office money. Conversely, a vendor who is a trusted partner increases the value of the voting system purchase while working with the jurisdiction to keep costs low. 9

10 For voting system components that are housed in a storage facility and transported to the voting site, lightweight, modular, stackable polling place components such as ballot boxes and voting booths yield storage and transportation savings 10

11 Storage, transport and setup expenses. When it comes to stacking, storing, transporting and setting up polling place equipment, smaller is better. The cubic-foot volume of various vendors voting system components differs widely. For central scanning and tabulation components, this difference does not typically have a cost impact, since these units are not usually deployed from a central warehouse. For precinct-based scanners, ballot marking devices and other polling place equipment, though, a more compact unit means less warehouse space is needed. Transport cost is reduced, and less manpower and muscle are required for setup. A complex system or one that requires calibration each time it is set up will incur extra staffing or vendor support outlays. The problem is made worse if such a system lacks sufficient setup instructions and training. Storage, transport and setup value factors. For voting system units that are housed in a storage facility and transported to the voting site, lightweight, modular, stackable polling place components such as ballot boxes and voting booths yield storage and transportation savings. If setting up these components is intuitive and well-documented, the savings increase. 11

12 Procurement of a voting system is a costly process. Capitalizing on system longevity protects that investment. 12

13 System Lifespan The purchase of a new voting system is an investment in the future of elections for the jurisdiction. The choice made by those who select the system is a legacy of their public service. The measure of the success of the investment and the value of the legacy is how well and how long the voting system supports the reliable delivery of lawful, fair, accessible and accurate elections. A system that is early in its lifecycle an integrated system that uses only current technology offers greater longevity than one that was initially designed years ago. A recently developed system may incorporate security, accessibility and usability features that were not available when earlier systems were conceived. Such a system is likely to have a robust supply chain that is wellpositioned for years of service and support. A system built to accommodate change is a hedge against legislative shifts, election process revisions and other alterations that are bound to occur over its lifetime. Procurement of a voting system is a costly process. Capitalizing on system longevity protects that investment. The vendor may assist in comparing cost factors and overall pricing for the various systems available in the marketplace. Flexible financing options such as lease, purchase, lease/purchase, or the use of bonds, tax notes, certificates of obligation and other approaches can open the door for a voting system purchase. Calculating total cost of ownership is a complex but worthwhile effort. The longer jurisdictions postpone assessing their voting system expenses, the longer they risk paying more than necessary. 13

14 By gaining a holistic view of system cost, decision-makers can get the most value for their voting system dollars on behalf of the jurisdictions they serve. 14

15 ROI Checklist A voting system purchase is a substantial investment. By considering the costof-ownership factors Purchase price includes all needed components (including peripherals and Initial Expenditure (Voting System and Implementation) provided in the following initial consumables) checklist, election officials System supports the jurisdiction s workflow can optimize the return Scalable and adaptable system on investment of their Easy to use jurisdictions voting Highly experienced project team with solid track record of implementation system dollars. success Provider with excellent customer satisfaction and customer loyalty ratings Thorough business process analysis and comprehensive transition plan Ample on-site support Established training program, tailored to the jurisdiction s needs Documentation in shareable, easily updated electronic format Ongoing Costs (Licensing, Support, Storage, Transport and Setup) Favorable, transparent licensing and support structure Expert 24/7 technical support Minimal preventive maintenance required Effective, prompt vendor response to issues Compact, lightweight, modular, stackable polling place components Intuitive, easy setup Complete, accessible, user-friendly setup instructions X 10 (Typical System Lifespan) System early in its lifecycle Integrated system that uses only current technology Robust supply chain Built to accommodate change 15

16 Hart InterCivic is a full service election solutions innovator, partnering with state and local governments to consistently deliver secure, accurate and reliable elections. Advancing Democracy Wells Port Drive Austin, TX www. hartintercivic.com info@hartic.com HART 2015 Hart InterCivic, Inc. All rights reserved.