A New CAD Vendor Pushes a Proprietary Data Format
A PSAP is replacing its CAD system. The selected vendor proposes to transmit incident data to the county's regional interoperability platform using a proprietary XML schema rather than the nationally recognized standard the region adopted two years ago. The vendor argues the proprietary format is "faster and more reliable" and that only two of the region's nine agencies currently use the standard. The PSAP's project manager is under schedule pressure: the go-live date is 90 days out, and reworking the interface could add 6–8 weeks. The regional platform's governance body has asked the PSAP to confirm compliance with the adopted standard before cutover. The PSAP director asks whether the proprietary format is acceptable "since it works."
1. Is "it works" a sufficient basis for accepting the proprietary format? What governance and interoperability considerations apply?
Read the worked answer
No. "It works" addresses only the two endpoints in this project; it does not address the system the PSAP is joining.
Considerations:
- Regional governance commitment. The region adopted a standard through a governance process. A single agency unilaterally departing from it undermines the shared agreement and sets a precedent for others.
- Interoperability is a network property. Nine agencies exchanging data means N×(N-1) interfaces. A proprietary format forces every other agency and the platform to build and maintain a custom adapter, shifting cost and fragility onto the region.
- Vendor lock-in and lifecycle cost. Proprietary schemas make future replacement, competition, and integration more expensive. The 6–8 week savings now may be dwarfed by integration and change costs later.
- Standards are the mechanism for multi-agency trust. The value is not the file format itself but the shared, testable contract that lets agencies exchange data without bilateral negotiation.
Recommendation: require the standard interface, negotiate the timeline, and if the vendor genuinely cannot comply by go-live, seek a documented, time-limited exception from the regional governance body with a binding remediation plan - not a unilateral decision by the PSAP.
2. How should the director handle the schedule pressure and the vendor's claim?
Read the worked answer
Separate the technical claim from the commercial pressure:
- Test the claim. Ask the vendor to substantiate "faster and more reliable" with benchmark data against the standard interface under realistic load. If they cannot, the claim is marketing.
- Price the exception. If a temporary exception is sought, require the vendor to bear the cost of the adapter and the later migration, with dates and acceptance criteria in the contract.
- Manage the schedule honestly. A 6–8 week interface delay is a project risk to be surfaced to governance, not hidden by a shortcut that externalizes cost onto eight other agencies.
- Engage the governance body early. Bring the tradeoff to them with options and costs rather than presenting a fait accompli at cutover.
The director's judgment question is: whose problem is this? The vendor's implementation difficulty is the vendor's problem; the region's interoperability is the director's problem. Resolve it in that order.