Software for tracking permits through their lifecycle

[ClaxtonRR]

What type of software do your municipalities use for tracking building permits through their life cycle? As more and more inspectors use tablets in the field, we need to find something that works well on portable devices.

 

[Permitting]

We have been using Accela in building for a while and now we have gone full on with it for all departments.

 

[Locke]

If anybody ever suggests anything by Tyler - Energov, you are encouraged to punch that individual right in the throat.

 

[alishna]

Many cities and towns across the U.S. use software like Accela, Cityworks, Tyler EnerGov, OpenGov, and Cloudpermit to manage building permits from start to finish. These cloud-based platforms work smoothly on tablets, so inspectors can access permit details, upload reports, and update records on the go.

 

[Jeff]

We use Accela. My inspectors use an Accela app in the field on their tablets.

 

[ladyinspector]

We use Municity. It's not the greatest in the world but it's mostly user friendly and gets the job done. We had a presentation from Cloud Permit which I was impressed with, especially because it makes it easier to tie in Planning and Zoning, but the cost was prohibitive for my muni.

 

[Permit Tech 16]

Our small city currently uses CivicGov. I think the focus should be on how the system conveys information to contractors and the public. Pretty much every system that is web-based can be utilized by inspectors via an iPad in the field, provided they have a signal. Even if the system is not the best for the inspector, they will eventually learn how to use it and deal with its quirks through repetitive use.

On the other hand, for someone from the public applying for a permit for the first and only time, that experience should be trouble-free with no learning curve. I wish our permitting software did a better job of this, and I would be interested to hear about systems that do a good job of this.

 

[slbeeman]

We really like PermitTrax by Bitco Software. It is flexible enough that we use it for building permits, zoning & land use, code enforcement cases, public works and civil permits. It is pretty simple to navigate, and more intuitive than many of the more well-known systems.

PermitTrax uses an online portal to allow online applications & plan uploads, and an app for field inspections. As a bonus, it puts permit information out there where citizens may access it without having to create a formal records request. And PermitTrax integrates with a plan review & markup software, ePlanSoft.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

Some are better than others. Smartgov and Acella I was never impressed with. I do like citizenseve, but I also custom built our application with their team and made it an industry leader. Tyler products tend to be very expensive and flashy, with lots of little bugs on the back end. Smartgov lacks serious customer support and has some very glitchy issues. Talk to your local jurisdiction about what works and make sure whatever you use can port the data out to the other departments, as well as your county assessor's office for taxation purposes.

 

[dollyachie]

If anybody ever suggests anything by Tyler - Energov, you are encouraged to punch that individual right in the throat.

we use energov and it's basically the worst.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

we use energov and it's basically the worst.

The problem with why som many governments like Energov and Tyler is that the software acquisition is driven by the finance departments. So they know Tyler and that it will integrate. That is it. They don't know the functionality beyond that, so most jurisdictions are left with inferior permitting systems for HUGE cost all because of name recognition. They could get something cheaper and better (make the accountants happy) AND have it integrate into their financial software if they just knew what they were doing.

 

[Eric]

The problem with why som many governments like Energov and Tyler is that the software acquisition is driven by the finance departments. So they know Tyler and that it will integrate. That is it. They don't know the functionality beyond that, so most jurisdictions are left with inferior permitting systems for HUGE cost all because of name recognition. They could get something cheaper and better (make the accountants happy) AND have it integrate into their financial software if they just knew what they were doing.

Good insight. USACE Regulatory introduced its Regulatory Request System last year but district's haven't exactly embraced it (from my perspective, at least). It was developed based mainly on the perspectives of one east coast district and HQ's desire to more closely monitor application status at a national level. But since there aren't strict rules requiring its adoption, we've mostly just kept accepting PDF email submittals w/o going too far out of our way to direct applicants to RRS. Bottom line: 100% stakeholder engagement really is critical if you want permitting software to succeed. In RRS' case, a "less is more" approach to content/data input fields would have benefitted the platform too.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

Good insight. USACE Regulatory introduced its Regulatory Request System last year but district's haven't exactly embraced it (from my perspective, at least). It was developed based mainly on the perspectives of one east coast district and HQ's desire to more closely monitor application status at a national level. But since there aren't strict rules requiring its adoption, we've mostly just kept accepting PDF email submittals w/o going too far out of our way to direct applicants to RRS. Bottom line: 100% stakeholder engagement really is critical if you want permitting software to succeed. In RRS' case, a "less is more" approach to content/data input fields would have benefitted the platform too.

Stakeholder engagement is 100% critical to the success of any software adoption. When I brought in citizenserve, I mandated that all of the employees would take an active part in its design and implementation. If they didn't do that, they didn't get the right to complain. At the end, we had a system based on end user input that worked amazingly!