TSIC Discussion page
As a first step, here is a conversation starter group of ideas that would contribute to an “ideal” OH communications suite. Please add your comments and thoughts.
Type in your idea below where it says “add your listing here!” Then click “Post Comment”. You can also comment on a comment, by using the “reply” arrow. “Voice” approval or disagreement without typing by simply clicking the smiley or sad face.
Icon will allow you to delete your posts
what is required is a document that lists all the “musts” & wants”. Numerically rank all the wants. Then rank each alternative as to how well it meets that particular want. Then add up the numerical score for each alternative. This will at minimum provide an objective view of the solution. Of course, management and staff should have a role in the process at some point. Without some objective view what we are left is a lot of opinions.
Our objective is to select a resident engagement software that is user-friendly, allows for resident-led content management, and consolidates communication channels for Oak Hammock. In your opinion, is there any in the marketplace that can fulfill this objective?
I think Chris did a good job summarizing the options to replace Infoh, but has anyone done a deep dive from Oak Hammocks side? Bob had asked us to look at K4, but has there been sufficient exploration from management side? Whoever makes updates from OH should also get their hands dirty and participate in the evaluation. Right now I feel that it is one sided. My suggestion would be to have everyone on board, prior to a final recommendation so that everyone owns the decision.
Our charter is to speak to RC and MGT about the alternatives. Once we, as a committee make a suggestion, then of course the folks that will make the decision will have to see if they like what’s offered up. Bob and Katherine have been very much part of the demo process so far. But this is simply an RC suggestion that we’re making. The question Bill has posed above is simply do we now feel there IS a solution we’ve seen that might work.
David, sorry if i was jumping to the next step. I thought the charter was to work together on a solution that would meet everyone’s needs. I’m just impatient. I got it, one step at a time,
It is outstanding to have you as a built-in audit team. One misstep, and wham. That is a good thing.
Yes. We have narrowed the field to two candidates. Their strengths and weaknesses vary from each other and further experimentation and evaluation are needed before our decision.
Bill, I believe that we are closing in on a very useful recommendation, so the answer is yes. I do. We are still getting questions and answers from our two remaining candidates, and both are cooperating and apparently interested in our business. I will get us together and hash it out as we finish our questions and work thru it with the group. I don’t think we’ll be prepared to do make a proposal by our next RC committee meeting. I would be interested in group members also responding to our chair with their own opinion, (about the above question) so please chime in.
First, as it has been a few weeks, I will recap my impressions of all 4: InTouchLink; Cubigo; Icon and K4Connect.
InTouchLink was the least appealing. It did not seem to have any ability to customize to our needs and the company did not seem to want to engage.
Cubigo was the most like TouchTown. It had no ability to customize (changing the icon’s color doesn’t count) and, like InTouchLink, did not seem to want to engage with us.
K4Connect had the best integration with our management apps and certainly the best search functions. However, if it really has only one security level, I do not think it will work in our environment. Plus, the majority of its ability to be configured requires staff time, the one thing we are trying to reduce.
ICON looks like the last person standing. It seems to have multiple security levels, based on personnel roles. They seem to want to engage and respond to our needs (old joke: we’re a prospective, not a client – this could change). They also let us have a resident-level sandbox and an admin-level sandbox.
I think my vote would be to continuing with ICON and make sure that their integrations solve management’s needs while allowing residents to configure the information shown.
Those are my impressions. Looking forward to seeing others.
I think Chris has summed up the situation well. Barring any amazing revelations yet to come about either platform, I am inclined toward IKON.
Not quite ready to rule out K4 yet. Infoh has been running for a decade with multiple admin privileged folks who are not techies and have never trashed the site to my knowledge. Yes, I was appalled when I found that, but from that experience security granularity will only be an issue if we make it one ..
Dave’s 99% correct. Once every few years, one of the Admins will have clicked someplace and we crashed. But since our host does nightly backups, we were able to instantly recover.
We had our meet-n-greet with K4Connect this morning. K4Connect recorded the Google Meet video conference and will forward a link to the recording. I will post the link when it comes in.
First Impression: Interesting: does a lot of integration with other vendors; has Alexa integration; has SMART house integration. Lacking in customization: the phone app has three views – List (think Windows File Manager), Social (think Facebook) and Shortcuts (similar to TT, just square rather than round). Probably too superficial, but the session only lasted 50 minutes.
More later.
For anyone wanting more Cubigo Info and who might be using them, you might want to look at their post on LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/cubigo/posts/?feedView=all
First impression of an Administrator login for ICON: This is a complicated and sophisticate piece of software.
Keith has place our new logo for OH that includes the shield for our 20th anniversary. It’s not yet on our public website but it’s on our test login for Icon.
First thing the login did was require a password change (I have sent an email with the new password).
There are a lot of pieces and parts. Training (and a lot of it) will be needed to fully explore this. But, very flexible.
Initial login was with Firefox and I will also test with Edge and Chrome. Limiting myself to using a Windows desktop as I don’t think many will want to make these kinds of changes on a tablet nor a phone.
More to come.
I love the customizability of ICON and the fact that one can jump from one category to another without having to click “Back” so often. ITL seems to be clunkier, what with having to click “Back” to move from one area to another. It also has limited customizability–no adding categories, only rearranging their preconceived notions.
ICON-Demo: I felt myself a bit overwhelmed with amount of data flying. I will ask for some clarification to share, and for the power-point handouts discussed. Again, a lot of customization available apparently. I guess, for me, I’d just like to get the look and feel by logging in to a system and poke around that way. That apparently is not easily accomplished.
Another useful presentation today. One more and I’d say we’ll have covered the waterfront! Next step: finalize our wish-list and then contact a few users to see who out there most closely matches our wish-list and cull their platform experience?
Are there any more entries that need to go into the spreadsheet like list of desired functionality ?
For ITL, we were emailed a list of available functions , so that can be listed on our scope spreadsheet, when we get to providing the findings to OH as a recommendation.
And just a preliminary idea, is that we provide our mini-RFP to OH to send out to our recommended vendors.
My thought is that we simply try to absorb the look and feel of the package, and not try to get to the detail level from a marketing demo. We are just doing market research part of the process. I have asked for references and a “sandbox” demo that we can log in to and play around. (ITL – Leo). I have simply checked the boxes in the spreadsheet that I threw together. But using what was thrown at us as definitive seems a bit premature ?
I don’t suggest that we quiz the person line by line of those requirements yet ? But I could be wrong… Let’s let them show off what they feel are selling points ?
I’m all for your approach David…
Just recommending before we pass on a recommendation to OH Mgmt, we have something objective to present…more than a gut feel. For now just getting the highlights is very useful.
agreed.
I also thought it was a very good call…
I particularly liked he had an independent 3rd party name who is very familiar with TT and can detail the comparison to InTouch (Todd Carling, GM of Fellowship Square). If we wait until after all our demo’s to contact, he may also be able to provide comments on the other products we are evaluating. This guy does NOT work for InTouch, so it is worth a try.
He did mention they go to Leading Age conferences…as does OH and sometimes OH residents. They are advertising their leadership summit April 15-17, in DC.
Has anyone thought about how to capture the comparisons of these products? Pro’s and Con’s. Perhaps a list of desired features, prioritized by “must haves, like to have, etc). Then capture how each product meets the desired needs.
Bonnie, in an earlier post or email I outlined a format and process we used at FPL that ranked features and then ranked proposed systems against each feature so you ended up with a numerical value for each system
I went back and found your post…sorry I missed it. Looks like a good plan to me.
Just adding my thumbs-up to this morning’s InTouchLink introduction. I was impressed by what I heard and especially by the company’s (apparent) willingness to put us in touch with actual users. At the very least, we now have a better yardstick to judge the competitors.
But, as always, the devil (and the accountants) hide in the details, so we should collect all the questions and doubts we can for further exploration with the company(s) AND actual users.
For instance, I’d like to nail down just how much useful-for-us data would be provided by ITL’s in their off-the-shelf program and how much we’d need/want to have added as an extra,
And although it’s not directly part of our remit, we do need to evaluate the value and usefulness these programs might offer admin & marketing. Perhaps get some input from some contact-people there so we can pose the queries to ITL and other CCRC’s using it?
A “lot” of useful functionality in this product. Good find. I wonder what requirements are for an individual user?? Does it require a specified version of OS for user devices (mobile phones, computers, etc)
In his email to Dave, Leo Rubini stated, “… we’ve migrated quite a few clients to our platform, who swear by our ease of use for admin teams, and the simplicity of our portal from any device for residents and their families, with our NEW IOS and Android app.”
ICON demo 10am Thursday
Interesting demo from “InTouchLink” software. References promised, portal landing screen was much more useful than TT, and customizable locally to include desired URLs and/or videos. Menus available with single click. Includes roles for resident help populating the portal pages. Overall, positive first look for me.
Good demo – Leo Rubini spent a full 2 hours going over the points. The calendar seems to be as good as we need, although there are still some questions. The menu displays seem workable.
If we proceed with InTouchLink, we might want to have Chrissy Smoak, Katherine Osman and Bob Stott connect with Leo for their perspective. Chrissy, for one, will probably have questions on the printing of the calendar and Bob will probably want to quiz Leo on levels of security.
Their Portal page seems to allow for customization and for a daily “newsletter”, which is a big plus.
Proceeding further, I would also like to quiz them on video conference (Zoom) links. Being able to click on a link to directly launch Zoom from inside the calendar might eliminate the need for multiple emails on TownHall and RC meetings. With touch screen support, it would be even easier.
Overall, seems like a decent “fit” for us. Now, if the PRICE is within reason . . .
Good points, Chris. The price, naturally, will depend upon which options we choose to implement. But if I heard him correctly on an estimate or two, it would be much less than TT. That’s another big plus!
I was very favorably impressed with InTouchLink. Many of their customers had been TT users–a good sign! Love the customization possibilities and allowance for “Resident Ambassadors” to assist with posting. Should be more up to date than TT.
Has anyone asked FLiCRA if they might know which CCRCs are using what vendors to communicate with their residents?
Here is a little bit more than just marketing: ITL 5 Min Demo Video_1820 (wistia.com) well, a little bit more anyway. Vendor called Intouchlink….
Interesting! And I suggest we contact the vendors who look like possibilities and ask them for the CCRC’s they currently have contracts with. They have an obvious get-out by claiming “client privacy” concerns but I would regard any reluctance as a warning sign.
I cannot speak to Cubigo, but having dealt with and contracted with all the larger software/hardware providers (IBM, Microsoft, SAP, AT&T, Cisco, Oracle, etc), I know these companies simply will not customize software for individual clients. It causes too many support headaches for these vendors. Every time a software patch is issued, it would have to be tested for every client configuration.
No software program is likely to fulfill all our “wants”. We will need to do the best we can to evaluate and rank the products against our “wish list” and check with other users as to how well the vendor reacts to problems.
john
Even if we can’t add completely separate modules to programs like Cubigo but — if I have interpreted its sales pitch correctly — their existing modules could be tailored to most of our requirements. Such Cubigo as Dining and Maintenance and Activities and Concierge are clearly examples of ones we could easily tailor — or so their video sales pitch indicates.
I suggest we evaluate Cubigo (and, hopefully, at least one other competitor) and define precisely what areas or items WE think essential that AREN’T capable of being covered by it. And then ask how/if we could perhaps use our portal page to link to that essential outside of Cubigo.
For anyone interested, there are several Video’s posted to YouTube on Cubigo. Here is just one emphasizing Senior Living Communities.
https://youtu.be/h8OAMUMx6fE?si=WpTZi8rXvCWeBqGr
Here is a link to a 44 minute training session that give some good views of the screens.
https://youtu.be/6SoCBiTDm8Y?si=NVYcy3xFEEtQcSBL
Very useful, Bonnie! I think we now need to ferret out some competitor programs to measure Cubigo against. Jump high or jump low, we’re talking $$$ here so we need to look at these gift horses as critically as possible…
Thanks Bonnie !!!
“Good Morning Oak Hammock! It’s Monday the 15th and we’re facing a wet day in the lower sixties. Sorry, pickleballers, but check out this afternoon’s movie in the Oak Room. Remember the elevators in Building Two are out of service today — but also that it’s steak special day in the Dining Room & Meal Service.
And here’s an event to consider. It’s at 11am in the Acorn Room by Hector Whoever of NASA (ret’d):
How you can to watch an Entire Moon Flyby.
And, please remember, you’ve got just two day’s left to register for remote voting, Here’s all you need to know”
6. Creating a dynamic daily page naturally requires a person/team willing to do so. Do we have the volunteers?
7. Equally essential is a census to determine community use and response to this digital initiative, We HAVE to identify where it’s working. Where it’s not. Only by this can we hope to tailor and refine the portal we need to guide people on into CUBIGO (or similar.)
Do you have a sense that Cubigo would allow that level of customization ? All that stuff on the portal landing page ? I have not managed to get a look at that program package yet, but am hopeful to do so if the sales person ever calls back.
There have been TT/Infoh usage studies. That’s how we know that many people don’t bother with TT, but rather prefer Infoh. And yes, there is duplication and missing information. That’s why we’re doing this exercise, is it not ?
The one factor that we likely haven’t touched on is that additional “engagement” features on a software suite require someone on the other end to man the chat, or come up with the morning greeting page (at 7AM?), and so on. More engagement is not a simple “get more residents to participate”. It means more features and things to offer them to make that happen. That takes work and person hours.
I couldn’t locate a portal page for Cubigo either, but I’m pretty sure it exists. Even if it didn’t, an OH portal page could (and should) be the launching pad for entry (along the hopeful lines I’ve outlined.)
As for customization, again, I’d bet that a good deal is possible with this (or similar) platforms. The model they tout on their sales pitch seems pretty useful as it stands and I’d be surprised if the platform didn’t let us weave a lot of our own needs to it.
Is an alternative approach a better INFOH? Or TouchTown? I think not.
INFOH is much the better platform, and TouchTown content could be (fairly) easily folded into it. But I don’t think that would solve our mission-goals. I’d predict that regular and daily viewership — which is a prime goal here — wouldn’t increase that much. The main problems even a new INFOH-cum-Touchtown would face are:
1. A generally static page where new information stands shoulder-to-shoulder with a lot of static and age-old information. INFOH depends on the work of really dedicated members who do a commendable job, but it isn’t edited into a cohesive whole. (The key word being: “editor” — the element in your magazine that brings together a lot of different elements.)
2. And of course the sizable group of us who can’t or won’t check into it daily. Apart from the downright techno-haters many might be saying, hey, I get all this from those notices in the commons and word-of-mouth, so why?
Contrast what INFOH/Touchtown now offers versus what an out-of-the-box like Cubigo does: really useful and easy member contact with food services, maintenance, transportation, and activities — to name only a few.
You put your finger on our main problem: who’ll be the all-important point of contact who puts out the portal’s brief but vital “Good Morning!” Message. Robin Williams has had to decline for health reasons — so who?
Let’s approach this by recognizing that even Robin would have to be “fed” by other sources with info to distribute. His job would be to edit it for the purposes of the daily message. Some of the feed would be easy — the weather, for example — but the rest would have to come from inputs by management and involved members.
Here are my preliminary thoughts: we might break this into two halves. The first would be a rotating editor, OH members who would volunteer for a length of time (a month?) to collating and writing the daily message.
The second would be … a point person(s) on OH staff. He, she, or they would ensure the rotating editor gets all the current info they consider useful by, say, 3PM so as to get the Good Morning message onto the portal in good time for the following day.
When you consider the value a Cubigo-type site offers marketing and management, I finds it hard to believe that even the beadiest of bean-counters wouldn’t appreciate the opportunities this site would offer for the collection of data and enticing new inmates.
Keep in mind that we are all bean counters in a sense, since it’s our nickels and dimes that will pay for the new software. So there is that….
And I have yet to be overwhelmed by group members volunteering to fulfil the additional role you are suggesting. I think one of our themes is to simplify ? The other theme is to conflate the many sources into one, where one could find out need to know in one place.
Bean counting is fine and necessary, our job is to recommend the edible ones to OH.
I agree finding volunteers for a rotating editorship won’t be easy, but (for this specific matter) we have yet to try, And a hopeful sign is the volunteer-support already evidenced for INFOH and our other publications.
And is it entirely impossible that OH management might think such a tool would offer not just value to the inmate-membership but the prospective customers as to add such a task to management functions?
Not that I think this likely — or even desirable. I can see greater benefits to keeping these reins in member-hands. (Gotta stop using “inmates” — sorry!!)
Here is an early stab at the phase 3 “Scope of project” listing, that will get a bit more granular for vendors to see and respond to our RFP. Please comment with adds, questions and any other discussion. Note that I’m anticipating more input from Chris, who has discussed needs/wants with Crissy Smoak for AL inclusions into the process
——————— 1/3/2024 ————————–
Project-scope
very good. high level, concise and to the point.
—-first draft—– Project Goals ——-12/20/2023———-
—–1/1/2024— changed order of goals.
——1/5/2024— incorporated resident populating/updating into goal 1…
Bob can correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, OH does not have a centralized Data Base Management System (DBMS). The various applications can still exchange data which is then incorporated into each application data base in a format suitable for processing functions of that application.
In larger organizations a DBMS like SAP/Oracle is used to store data from multiple applications. There are “plug-ins” available that can translate data from apps and make them compatible with the DBMS structure. In this way, multiple apps can share the data.
But touchtown does do some of those functions: for activities -> calendaring and the menus for example. It is a rudimentary collection of “stuff”, but it comprises the data that members most want to see. Other industry vendors will include maintenance work orders. We need to keep that functionality
I believe some definitions surrounding applications vs platforms may help us in defining our requirements. . This will help make evaluations and decisions easier down the line.
First, applications are software programs designed to accomplish specific tasks (eg, word processing, spreadsheets, dining, maintenance work orders, etc) Office 365 is a suite of such applications offered by Microsoft.
Platform implies infrastructure including (Operating Systems (eg, IBM-MVS, Apple-IOS, etc), communications (IEEE 802.3 ethernet, IEEE802.2 bluetooth, Database Management systems, DB2/Oracle/SAP.
Software application vendors generally develop applications to run best on their own platforms (assuming they have a platform) ….with the ability to run on multiple platforms.
Platform Vendors will always push their version of their underlying infrastructure, however, most applications can be made to run on multiple platforms. For example, icloud for windows allows IBM Office 365 applications on a computer to work with Apple IOS to share contacts, calendars, etc., on an iPhone.
RFP strategy: Describe what we would like the application to do and describe our existing infrastructure and request vendor propose a solution.
John Paul
Excellent ! Thanks. However, using the above distinction, does not the CMS (Database) functions (calendaring, activities, menus, maintenance work orders, etc.) of TT that we are asking to replicate in a proposed integrated solution take us past calling it an application ?
Should we call it an “integrated software application suite“, then, to include CMS, while excluding hardware proposals ? What if they have a really cool kiosk that is an optional offering, but comes bundled ? (they’d probably throw it in anyway)..
Or even this: “Integrated data storage and software applications suite” ?
What other information platforms does Oak Hammock have?
Let’s get to the nitty gritty as we descend into the weeds from 30K feet ? But, to mention a few, One call, constant contact, email blasts from management about covid, etc. “in the Hammock, Oak Leaf, and so on.
Bonnie reminds us: email.tels.net to track maintenance.
The challenge we’re facing is we have two platforms managed by two different groups: one by volunteer residents who keep their platform up-to-date but cannot guarantee being so devoted in future years; the other maintained by paid staff who do not have enough time to keep their somewhat inflexible platform up-to-date. How can we create a unified platform?
The key here would seem to be to create a unified platform that is easy to use, flexible, and doesn’t require a significant time commitment to maintain.
The first step is to select a unified platform that can accommodate the needs of both groups. This platform should be user-friendly and flexible, allowing for easy updates and modifications. It should also have robust support and training resources to help both the volunteers and the paid staff learn how to use it effectively.
Once we’ve selected a platform,we can implement a shared responsibility model. This involves dividing the responsibilities for maintaining the platform between the volunteers and the paid staff. For example, the volunteers could be responsible for updating certain sections of the platform, while the paid staff could be responsible for others. This would ensure that all areas of the platform are covered, without placing too much burden on any one group.
Both the volunteers and the paid staff will need training and support to effectively manage the platform. This could involve providing training on how to use the platform, as well as ongoing support to address any issues or challenges that arise.
It looks nice but, it’s hard to see the long-term motivation for volunteers to become unpaid staff.
If it is the idea to have a usable OH information platform, then we have a group of unpaid staff doing that now, in addition to paying for the yearly plugin subscriptions, and so on. I have time, I enjoy it, and I’d (for one) be happy to continue as an unpaid contributor and not own the durn thing….
Right now, what I’m assembling is a document to help with your para #3 above, one step at a time. (probably also an unpaid but staff type function ?).
Here is a third draft of the “Problem statement”: Please comment, I would appreciate it !
——-12-18-2023—–12-20-2023(platform vs. application suite)——
—-4th draft—12/25/2023 — Castine edits incorporated —-
Oak Hammock is a CCRC with 460 residents, and 402 Independent, assisted, and skilled nursing residences.
We are facing a two faceted issue:
1. We are suffering from communications overload in some ways, and underload in others. We have many sources and types of communications from OH staff to residents, and resident to residents, that have popped up over the years.
Yet it seems that some of the information is not getting through successfully. It is a hodge-podge of data competing for attention. The results can be hit and miss.
2. The other aspect of our dilemma is that Oak Hammock’s staff supported applications suite, TouchTown, is found by at least half of the residents to be less satisfactory than a member designed, developed and run web site that has evolved and strengthened to fill the perceived useability shortfall: Infoh.us, see appendix 1 for screen shot.
We have decided to try to consolidate engagement messaging to a single applications suite that all residents and staff can (and will) use successfully.
The client facing applications suite, to be considered, must at least duplicate the Content Management features of TouchTown, while incorporating the concise, navigable, customizable and quick response capabilities of the resident designed web site.
And, of course, it should incorporate or replace as many of the other various communications processes we currently employ as possible into a manageable, multi-modal system, to enable cooperative effort of all OH residents and staff in its use and support.
Better, but I still strongly object to the term “members” rather than the more up-to-date term “residents.” TT is not “our” current platform; rather, it is Management’s.
updates in italics. Thanks Bill and Chris. “all” refers to make sure of the “one OH” idea, and Bill some time line corrections for Infoh.us..
(This is my understanding, as a newer resident)
It might also be added that, when OH was first having residents occupy the Assisted Living apartments, there was little/no internet connection. Because of that, there was little interconnection between the AL residents and TT. That has improved with infoh but it would be hoped that it would improve further with a more expanded resident communication platform.
My understanding is that Bob and crew have increased WIFI connectivity in AL markedly, he has reported progress to the committee along those lines.
What is percolating here is the 30K foot level overview statement to the vendors of the issues we want resolved. My vast experience in RFP writing (and the below guide ) indicates that this statement is purposefully left to pose problems, and not suggest fixes. That way they can put forth ways to do things that we are not aware of. Local WIFI availability would be our problem, not the platform vendors worry. We have more steps to go, with increasing granularity as we proceed.
OK, I was attempting to add to the general purpose and obviously did not explain myself clearly. Second attempt.
Preamble: As a newer resident, I do not know the historical details of how these system developed. My understanding is that TT rather “came with” the beginning of OH and, at that time, there was no internet connectivity in AL. TT proved lacking in some areas and the residents design, implemented and continue to enhance infoh. In the last year or so, IT has pulled into AL a good internet connection, meaning that AL now has good wifi. However, that does not solve issues with TT, the reliance upon residents to keep the (better than TT) infoh functioning, allow for future improvements nor include our AL residents as completely as we would like under the One Oak Hammock directive.
Question: Should the design of the TT/infoh replacement included any unique or exhanced facilities for AL
-or-
should the TT/infoh replace focus on IL and then enhance the resulting system for AL at a later date?
If the later, the statements outlined above are good and sufficient to outline the scope of the replacement system. If the former, a third object could be added to indicate that we wish the replacement system to also satisfy the AL residents.
Chris, here’s a bit of history for you. Touchtown may have been adopted by OH early on for some uses (such as creating the calendar & keeping track of events) but CommunityApps, the resident-facing portal, was added in 2014 because OH had no resident-oriented communication vehicle. Separately and because of this gap a group of residents developed ihfoh.us. Both platforms were presented to the Communications Committee. Management strongly preferred and recommended TT, whereas residents were more appreciative of infoh.us.
There was Internet connectivity via Ethernet cable in both IL and AL from the outset. WiFi was added in IL several years later but much more recently in AL (2015, I believe). As you pointed out, IT has much improved the WiFi in AL and has expanded it into SN.
I believe that the TT/infoh replacement should be constructed/adopted for IL and AL together, rather than one then the other. Anything “unique for use by AL residents” most likely would benefit IL residents also (some of whom might be better served if they were in AL already). Let’s start by going for One Oak Hammock rather than two separate waves of enhancement.
Thanks for the history. As a newer resident, it is sometimes difficult to separate what we now have from that with which we started.
On starting with a OneOakHammock mindset, I completely agree. AL may need some extras but it is, I think, easier to begin with “all of the above” then to try on add it on afterwards.
I think we can all agree that we are looking for a system that serves all OH residents. I, for one, have very little sense of what AL residents and Chrissy Smoak would regard as useful communication tool(s). Anybody willing to ask her, maybe even a few AL’ers what would be useful ?
All OH residents will need to be covered in our deliberation and selection of a deliverable. edited as such. Thanks !
Bill has stated the progress so far in the minutes. We are progressed beyond hoping that we could put some lipstick on TT and get an acceptable result. So my methodology thoughts are progressing as well. Here is what I propose we do going forward:
Completing those steps, will create a draft RFP, that can then be used by OH for the purpose of soliciting vendor bids.
Here is a helpful document that I’m using to get ideas: gpl_rfp_guidebook_2021.pdf (harvard.edu)
Of course, It will be up to OH to proceed, but it’s a lot easier to get things moving if much of the work is already done.
I’ve been working for the last week with an Echo Show 8, 3rd generation. The full details will come soon, after I finish running through some more tests, with the goal of having a demonstration for the next tech committee meeting.
However, the first full stop moment came when I tried to launch Zoom. The response was “that video service is not yet available on this device”.
Finally got to the point of contacting Amazon support today in a 1-hour+ chat session. Upshot, they are sending me a new Echo Show. Should arrive in a week (order off the web site, next day; try to get it fixed, next week). Then, re-test the commands.
Update: Zoom is no longer supported by Amazon on the Show 8 3rd generation, only on the 1st and 2nd generation. Prior manuals SAY that Skype is supported and I will try to test that.
Given Kevin’s generous offer to spend our money on a major update, I think we suggest that once all parties have signed off on a master wish list that we engage a professional who can develop some visual demos of alternative approaches and implementations, Then, once all signoffs are in hand, create a turnkey product that both staff and residents can thereafter manage on a day-to-day basis.
Irrespective of the amount (if any) and source of funds to support changes, if we do invest time in creating a single website that will serve the needs of both management and residents, do we have any assurance that residents will be permitted to participate in the day-to-day operation of such a site? TT is strictly hands-off to residents and management heretofore has been disinterested in infoh. I don’t want us to work our tails off only to be told we have no further input beyond conception & design of the site.
They can’t do it without member participation. Your point is well taken, and is a “deal-breaker” no question. (continued involvement and update access). My sense is that Kevin was tacitly agreeing to that, and asking for a cooperative effort.
Michael, the minutes won’t support an offer to spend big bucks. He said that OH would support a different package (not TT), if one that is more attractive and useful can be identified. So let’s don’t get ahead of ourselves.
Really glad to have you in the discussion !
I agree about not getting ahead of ourselves, but everyone should remember (or know for the first time) that Infoh began with the founders forking over the startup fees, but most of that was reimbursed by Recycled Riches and the ongoing expenses thereafter have mostly been covered by a fundraiser that Doris organized about 8 years ago.
Michael
Here’s a platform that looks like it might meet many of our needs going forward:
https://www.buddyboss.com/online-community-software/
Michael
In considering what features should be included, it would be useful to have traffic data on what is already offered on the two sites. Presumably, those most used at present would continue to be most used, so should definitely be included. It would also be useful to know those features that are not used or are least often used.
Agreed. Bob, if you’re lurking, do we have that data for TT ?
There is no analytics data for TT.
suggest an evaluation methodology (K-T Analysis) used in numerous IT organizations to document the decision making process.
create two lists of desirable system features:
perhaps we can just get folks to chime in and then refine in this manner ?
The wants and needs list will be incorporated in the “Scope of Work” section.
Dave, since you have completed the exercise of comparing feature sets of OH and Touchtown in the past can you share that initial analysis?
Bill C. did the comparison, and is updating for inclusion in the analysis.
Interface: One more idea starter area:
Delivery: How do residents get information ? Needs multi-mode access. Here are Bill’s suggestions:
1. Smartphones
2. Smart Speakers/Voice Assistants: AI-powered virtual assistants like Siri (Apple), Google Assistant (Android), or Alexa (Amazon).
3. Smart TVs
4. Computers and Laptops: Access through dedicated applications on computers and laptops.
5. Tablets: Similar to smartphones and computers.
6. Chatbot: Integrate a chatbots into the Oak Hammock website(s). Users can type or speak their questions into a chat interface, and the AI-powered chatbot will respond.
7. Interactive Displays: Touchtown has potential to support interactive displays in common areas with virtual assistants. Users can interact with the display by touching or speaking to ask questions and get responses.
8. Wearable Devices: Smartwatches or other wearable devices with voice recognition capabilities can be a channel similar to a smartphone.
I would add the caution that we prioritize off-the-shelf and not proprietary hardware.
Functionality: at least a combination of the functions offered in Infoh.us + TouchTown
This probably falls under the “tie breaker” area, meaning it’s an idea that is not required but may help decide between packages.
Prior to moving to OH, we lived in a DelWebb community. They utilized a portal software for their communications to residents but that portal also had a section for each club. The club could post photos, notifications and had control over a web page. Also, email listing for group messages and a blogging area. All of this meant that management did not have to do anything; the club did all of it. If they didn’t wish to, nothing got updated.
On the negative side, it required a Portal Administrator to run each club’s portal area and that admin had to have training (even with training, someone trashed the site on a fairly regular basis).
I checked with a friend still at the community and DelWebb shut down the portal about 2 years ago. No explanation, just gone. Probably, the sever-side software could no longer be updated (it was quite cludgy) and DelWebb didn’t want to spend the money (developer mentality).
If it would come WITH another platform, this might be a useful addition. It would offload some work from management, although it would require someone to watch over the system. The main question would be if anyone would use it. At DelWebb, it was very well used.
TT has something called “web extensions” advertised. I’ll see if I can find out what that is.
TT support meeting representative was not aware of the uniguest function called “web extensions”