As more PSAPs and regions assess their technology and plan to upgrade their systems, many want to better understand the available solutions to identify which options best meet their needs. The current architecture of Enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) can’t support the advances that are being made within the communications industry. Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) systems will allow stakeholders to incorporate new technologies and information sharing methods into their architecture, but it’s important to understand that not all NG9-1-1 systems are equal. Before agencies or regions draft their proposals to implement NG9-1-1, it’s important to keep the technology cart behind the horse. The core principles of project management will help avoid this dilemma.

What Are Your System’s Short- & Long-Range Requirements?
Public safety stakeholders must assess why they’re considering a technology upgrade. Are the systems currently in use outdated or unsupportable? Are there opportunities for funding that may not be available if they aren’t secured immediately? Is consolidation of services driving the need? In some cases, the primary impetus for migrating to a new 9-1-1 system may simply be the desire to modernize.

There are many valid reasons to pursue system changes, and the primary reason often plays a key role in how the system requirements are drafted. Agencies that feel rushed due to such issues as time-sensitive funding or failing equipment may find it more difficult to draft accurate system design requirements with the necessary granular detail.

Whatever the motivation, project managers must be able to clearly articulate their agency’s goals and the technological requirements needed to meet those goals.

IP-Based 9-1-1 Systems
Many agencies are considering the implementation of Internet protocol (IP) networks as the backbone for their 9-1-1 systems. Project managers should review the architecture of the network that currently delivers calls to their system. Are calls delivered over the existing public switched telephone network (PSTN), or is an adequate IP network already in place? If the desire is to migrate from legacy trunking to an IP backbone or to implement NG9-1-1, several long-term considerations are warranted. Currently, two different implementation strategies exist: The NENA i3 architecture for NG9-1-1 and the ATIS RFAI model for IP Selective Routing. Both solutions require a secure IP network as the architectural backbone, but there are significant technical differences.

The NENA i3 specification for NG9-1-1 will replace the current functions of selective routing, ALI and MSAG with IP-based software functions and databases. It will use a specific design for an emergency services IP network (ESInet) and employ new functional elements for dynamic call routing and location validation. GIS databases and geospatial policy-based call routing are key elements in the NENA i3 architecture. As originating networks evolve, it will be possible for the caller’s location to be determined before the call is delivered to a PSAP.

An alternate path has been developed wherein the legacy phone company selective router is replaced by an IP selective router (IPSR). The IPSR solution employs the current functionality of static call routing, using location routing keys (e.g., phone number, ESRK, ESQK) to allow a PSAP to query for MSAG-compliant ALI. It provides a SIP-based interface between the IPSR and a PSAP user agent or other authorized agency.

As a jurisdiction evaluates what changes are necessary to improve its current 9-1-1 system, it may decide to implement one of these next-generation models. Jurisdictions must decide what implementation strategy is in their best interest. The decision can be difficult unless a solid project management process is established to clearly define the enhanced operational capabilities desired in a next generation solution. The following questions should be asked when drafting requirements for either solution:

1. Who currently owns and manages the network, including trunks, that delivers 9-1-1 calls to your jurisdiction/PSAP?
2. What are the costs associated with the current architecture for 9-1-1 call delivery?
3. Who will provision, own and manage the new system?
4.  Will elements of the legacy call delivery network need to be retained?
5. Will network provisioning differ by solution?
6. What costs/savings will be realized in one to five years? What are the long-term costs/savings?
7. Who owns and manages the ALI and MSAG data now being used? Who will own/manage it, or its equivalent, going forward?
8. If migrating from an RFAI to an i3 solution, how will the transition be managed?
9. What is each solution’s technical impact on existing equipment (e.g., computer telephony, CAD, GIS, logging)?

Adhering to a solid project management strategy, performing proper impact analysis and drafting detailed requirements will help ensure that stakeholders implement the best technical solutions for their agency or region. It’s critical that agencies be able to clearly articulate what they wish to do with a new system and what enhanced operational functionality is desired.

About the Author
Kathy McMahon is APCO technical service manager. Contact her via e-mail at [email protected].

Originally published in Public Safety Communications, Vol. 76(11), November 2010.