When justice and public safety agencies embark on the journey to replace legacy systems—such as Court, CAD, RMS, JMS, or Mobile CAD systems—the road to implementation is often paved with complexity. One of the most overlooked yet critical aspects of a successful system replacement is the planning and documentation of interfaces and integrations. Without a clear understanding of how systems communicate and share data, agencies risk costly delays, change orders, and unmet expectations.
As a Senior Consultant at BerryDunn, I’ve worked with municipal and county governments across the US to evaluate legacy systems, conduct SWOT analyses, and guide stakeholders through current- and future-state planning. This article focuses on one of the most pivotal elements of that process: ensuring interface and integration requirements are clearly defined and validated before issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Understanding justice and public safety system interfaces vs. integrations
Before diving into planning, it’s important to distinguish between two commonly confused terms: interfaces and integrations.
- An Application Programming Interface (API) is a tool that allows two applications to communicate. It defines how data is exchanged.
- Integration, on the other hand, is the broader process of connecting systems to work together seamlessly. It may involve APIs, but also includes workflows, data synchronization, and user experience considerations.
In short, APIs are the “how,” and integrations are the “what” and “why.”
Step 1: Demonstrate existing interfaces and integrations
One of the most effective ways to validate interface and integration requirements is through live demonstrations. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from each department should walk through how current systems interact. This helps confirm whether a connection is truly an interface or integration—or if it’s simply a workaround.
These demos often reveal discrepancies between what stakeholders believe exists and what actually does. By observing real-time usage, consultants and clients can avoid assumptions that lead to costly change orders later.
Update and validate requirements
- After demonstrations, update the requirements list and circulate it among all stakeholders. Everyone should sign off on the final version before the RFP is issued. This ensures alignment and accountability.
- Also, consider future-state needs. Are there new systems being introduced that will require additional interfaces? Are multiple jurisdictions involved that may need to share data? These questions must be answered early.
Step 2: Require full cost disclosure in RFP responses
When vendors respond to an RFP, they must include all interface and integration costs, even if they consider them optional. These should be listed as fixed costs, not estimates or “to be determined.” This prevents budget surprises and ensures the project scope is fully understood.
Lock in interface development commitments
- If a vendor proposes to develop a new interface, the cost and timeline must be clearly defined in the contract. Interface vendors should be involved in pre-contract meetings to confirm their ability and willingness to deliver.
Secure stakeholder approval
- Every department involved must review and approve the list of interfaces in the RFP response. This step is crucial for transparency and buy-in.
Step 3: Reassess requirements after delays
In some cases, there may be a significant delay—sometimes up to two years—between requirements gathering and vendor selection. Given how quickly technology evolves, these delays can render original requirements obsolete.
Before finalizing a contract, revisit the list of interfaces and integrations. Have any systems changed? Are previously compatible vendors still viable? Has the agency adopted new software that requires additional connections?
Consider reissuing the RFP
- If the changes are substantial, it may be necessary to revise and reissue the RFP. While this can be time-consuming and may impact the project timeline, it’s often a better alternative than proceeding with outdated or incomplete requirements.
Reevaluate costs
- Delays can also affect pricing. Vendors may have updated their pricing models, or new integration methods may offer cost savings or improved functionality. A thorough review ensures the project remains both relevant and cost-effective.
Clarity is the key to success in justice and public safety IT projects
Replacing legacy systems is a major undertaking, and the success of such projects often hinges on the clarity and accuracy of interface and integration planning. By following a structured approach—validating current functionality, ensuring all costs are accounted for, and reassessing requirements when delays occur—agencies can avoid common pitfalls and set themselves up for a smoother implementation.
About BerryDunn
BerryDunn’s Justice and Public Safety consulting team partners with agencies nationwide to guide successful technology modernization efforts—from defining requirements and developing RFPs to system selection and implementation. With deep experience across courts, law enforcement, fire, corrections, and more, BerryDunn brings objective, vendor-neutral expertise to help clients identify the right solutions for their needs. Their approach combines stakeholder engagement, in-depth needs analysis, and a balance of business and technical insight to ensure systems are optimized for performance and adoption. By not partnering with hardware or software vendors, BerryDunn ensures recommendations are always in the client’s best interest. Learn more about our services and team.