RAPID/Best Practices/Online Permitting Systems

Jump to: navigation, search

RAPID

Regulatory and Permitting Information Desktop Toolkit

Best Practice: Online Permitting Systems

One of the priorities of the federal agency Implementation Plan for permitting is to reduce paper permitting. Additionally, one of the largest identifiable barriers to geothermal development is delays within the permitting process. Online permit application systems may have the potential to address both these issues. This best practice broadly reviews online permit submission systems currently in place or under development in terms of the ease of development, the ease of use, and the ease of access to this information. Secondly, it provides examples of the development costs and overall value of moving geothermal permitting processes to online systems, particularly focusing on the potential for improved efficiency in the workflow.

Key Strategies

  • Greater transparency into the permitting workflow (and parties) that are causing delays
  • Flexibility in development (i.e. improvements can be added with limited effort)
  • Replace the transfer or creation of paper copies with secure digital versions

Best Practice Actions

  • Digitally capture of commonly reported or complex information (i.e. reducing transcription errors from printed documents)
  • Create the ability to view permit progress or status in real time
  • Create a centralized communication process with agencies to receive/respond to comments
  • Create clear submission requirements (i.e. checklists, digitized forms, and/or restriction to proceed without sufficient information)
  • Create notification of process expectations, i.e. assignment of responsibility
  • Develop the ability to transfer project responsibility access


Challenges

If poorly designed, software solutions for workflow management has the following challenges:

  • Overly costly and time-consuming to develop:
Effective systems often use agile development – implementing useful features one at a time so that the tool is immediately useful.
  • Overly complicated processes:
Effective systems reduce work effort, be intuitive, and need minimal (if any) training. Implementing too many features may create unnecessary steps in the workflow, adding time and/or confusion rather than increasing efficiency.
  • Distractions by unnecessary volumes of alerts:
Effective systems allow for users to control what and when they receive alert messages
  • Unjustifiable deployment and maintenance costs:
Effective systems are designed to reduce overall company costs – so costs for the software are offset by realized savings.

Examples

Four systems in particular are reviewed below to highlight different approaches to online form submission and process management,

Two focusing on the collection of data:,

  1. BLM’s Well Information System (WIS)
  2. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)

Two focusing on workflow process tracking:

  1. SimplyCivic Online Permitting Dashboard
  2. ProcessMaker

    
    

General Online Permitting Systems Information

1. Overview

End-to-end workflow management software has been used in many fields – from processing and tracking medical records, to tracking travel and expense reports – to capture a task from submission through auditing, approval, billing, and payment. However, the complexity and benefits of these systems vary significantly, depending on the end uses.

1.1 Workflow Management Advantages and Challenges


In a strategic review of workflow management software, we noted common advantages of implementing software solutions:[1]

  • Ticket submissions: Itemizes incoming documents/info and creates “queues” for each personnel
  • Collaborate with team members quickly: issues can be discussed in real time, keeping all members up-to-date, and making sure that issues are dealt with in a timely manner.
  • Share documents and control versions: Users generally have centralized access to documents involved in the process.
  • Manage process time/costs: Managers can often quickly identify how time is being spent by team members (through time-tracking features, or simply through action timestamps), allowing faster adjustments to spending.
  • Manage process risks and create forecasts: Features often include graphs, charts, or calendars that help managers to forecast the timeline of the process. For example, Gantt charts help to identify potential bottlenecks in task and person hand-offs.
  • Create reports: Options to quickly create status reports, or track process-related data, help to more quickly identify acceptable timeframes for processes, thereby both identifying and quantifying pinch-points and inefficiencies when processes are exceedingly complex. .
  • Easy to use: Dashboard-based software applications typically require minimal training for new users, and allow for members to quickly get up to speed on all aspects of the process for which they are responsible. Ideally, such solutions would have a quick ramp-up development time, as well.

If poorly designed, software solutions for workflow management has the following risks

  • Overly costly and time-consuming to develop: Effective systems often use agile development – implementing useful features one at a time so that the tool is immediately useful.
  • Overly complicated processes: Effective systems reduce work effort, be intuitive, and need minimal (if any) training. Implementing too many features may create unnecessary steps in the workflow, adding time and/or confusion rather than increasing efficiency.
  • Distractions by unnecessary volumes of alerts: Effective systems allow for users to control what and when they receive alert messages
  • Unjustifiable deployment and maintenance costs: Effective systems are designed to reduce overall company costs – so costs for the software are offset by realized savings.

In a study of end-to-end workflow management tools that assist a user from the beginning to end of a process, such as Concur Travel and Expense, survey respondents indicated costs to process a single expense report without project management software typically run $18 per report, while end-to-end software costs $11 per report – over 37% less. Additionally, compliance to business policies was 13% greater – companies with no expense software typically saw compliance to policies 59% of the time, while end-to-end software shows compliance 72% of the time – a 44% improvement.[2] In another example, the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch noted that the number of days credit card charges remained in company accounts decreased 15 days per month after instituting Concur Expense.[3]

1.2 Common System Features


Different systems offer different combinations of features at a range of costs. In permitting, selecting a suitable system depends on the complexity of the process and the frequency that the process is initiated and completed (e.g. number of permits processed per year). Some agencies have chosen to develop their own internal permit application tools and/or spend money (and/or customization time) to customize rigid, out-of-the-box programs (e.g. BLM’s WIS) while other agencies have chosen to purchase more generic applications that provide faster customization time (e.g. SimplyCivic). We briefly describe features common to the most effective workflow applications:

Submission ticketing
In application processes with significant volume, the ability to uniquely identify a permit with an automatically generated ID or ticket number helps to monitor the application throughout the process. A ticketing system that sorts and sends permits to the appropriate personnel eliminates the interim screening process, which could include: reviewing the application, finding the appropriate agency office, sending the permit to that location, and then having that office review the application to identify the responsible permitting specialist.
Status tracking
Permit processing may have several steps. Having an electronic record of status helps to ensure that a permit:
  • is always visible to the parties responsible (and thus won’t be lost or buried on someone’s desk),
  • is traceable to the employee responsible (and thus can be transferred instead of forgotten or delayed when someone is out of the office or leaves the company), and
  • is processed in a timely manner.
Applicants receive significant transparency into the status of the permit, pre-empting questions or calls to the agency. And, team members within the agency benefit from the increased transparency in being able to identify the person responsible for the application at any given time.
Comment/Discussion Centralization
Some systems allow only for one-way comments (e.g. agency to developer), while others allow for commenting from all parties – all within the system. This feature allows for communication exchanges to be tracked and stored with the permit, rather than separately via emails. All conversations are kept as part of the permit record. If personnel changes during the application process, the new personnel can review project history, along with all comments, and understand the project status.
Process accountability
In complex processes, tracking the responsibility of multiple individuals for specific stages, and understanding when to expect hand-offs between stages, are critical to meeting project deadlines. Process tracking can help to monitor project timelines, helping managers understand critical business metrics such as:
  • How many permits does my agency (and each field office) process per year?
  • How long does it typically take to process each permit? What is the breakdown of time for each step?
  • Are there bottlenecks in the process that could be addressed (e.g. establishing out-of-office back-up delegates).
Depending on the software permissioning, accountability can be assigned to allow application reviews in parallel (i.e. more than one party reviewing the same document simultaneously) or in series (i.e. each party must hand off the documents to others only after all individual reviews are completed)
Data capture
Sometimes tracking specific data fields are important (e.g. in the case of EPA tracking of chemicals), while other times, (such as in one-time applications) the complexity of the data to capture may not be worth the additional software customization cost.
User support
An effective system will provide user support in the event that a user encounters problems or needs help understanding how to use the system. Access to technical support specialists can help to identify issues and alleviate delays.

1.3 Associated Development and Maintenance Expenses


The needs of the agency must be considered in developing software. Initially, expenses will be associated with the development of the tool (or the customization of any off-the-shelf solutions), along with the personnel costs associated with moving to the system (e.g. training). Items to consider in these areas include:

  • How much will it cost to develop/customize the software tool?
  • How much time will it take to ramp up, and can ramp up be staged (e.g. will it be two years before we can start using it, or can we launch segments every 3 months, and start seeing impact more immediately?)
  • How much training will be involved for my staff?

Once a solution is implemented, there will be associated expenses with maintaining the functionality of the features (i.e. addressing bugs, providing IT support), as well as making minor modifications. Items to consider include:

  • How much will it cost to maintain the tool?
  • Does the software developer provide support?
  • How often will updates be needed?
  • How complicated will it be to implement changes to permit application forms and other processes within the tool?
  • Will updates require hiring a developer? Or does the system have the flexibility to allow agency staff (with the right permissions) to modify the permit or process?

The ease and cost to add new features (above and beyond small modifications) should also be considered, particularly for agencies looking to develop in stages. Items to consider include:

  • How easy is it to add a new permit or process to the system?
  • How easy is it to add new capabilities to the system?

2. Examples of Online Applications for Form Submissions and Project Management

Electronic permitting systems in use today often use online form applications to collect information and payments. For example, the California Film Commission issues transportation shut-down permits and the City of Chicago issues buildings permits via tailored web forms and electronic payment options.[4][5] However, the complexities of these forms vary significantly.

Four systems in particular are reviewed below to highlight different approaches to online form submission and process management,

Two focusing on the collection of data:,

  1. BLM’s Well Information System (WIS)
  2. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)

Two focusing on workflow process tracking:

  1. SimplyCivic Online Permitting Dashboard
  2. ProcessMaker

Most commonly, permitting systems today are seen as simple web-based forms: users create an account/login, fill in a web-based form, and submit the application. The applicant may then receive an automatic notice that the application was received by the agency’s server. Some states, such as New York and Massachusetts, allow limited driver’s permit and vehicle registration renewals through these systems.[6][7] This best practice reviews examples of more complex end-to-end workflow management applications that could potentially be used to track the NEPA process. This is not a comprehensive review of all possible systems, and we do not endorse any one system. Before implementing a system for tracking NEPA, it is important to conduct an analysis of a broad spectrum of options for tracking end-to-end workflow management.

For each system, we reviewed the features below, keeping in mind the evaluation of how (or if) the system reduces duplication of effort or workflow process time:

Submission ticketing
how the applicant submits information, and how the agency receives notice of the application;
Status tracking
how the applicant is informed of status changes in the process (if at all), and how frequently status is assessed by the agency;
Comment/Discussion Centralization
how the applicant and agency/parties receives and addresses comments;
Process accountability
who can access the application (i.e. ability for coordination), whether the application is assigned to a person specifically, and who can see that assignment;
Data capture
the types of permitting documentation applicable to the system, and how (or if) data are stored;
User Support
do the agencies have to provide user support or do the software companies provide initial support, sending only agency-related questions to the agency?

We also reviewed the associated system development (i.e. ramp-up) timeframe and costs, the costs and time required for application maintenance, and the time and effort involved in adding new forms.

2.1 Data Collection Example 1: Well Information System (WIS) – Modified off-the-shelf software


The Bureau of Land Management designed its Well Information System (WIS)[8] to track oil and gas permit applications and reports. Although originally designed in house, in 2007 BLM contracted with Probaris Technologies to update WIS via the Probaris SP eForms application. The agency digitized the field entries for four individual, independent forms:

  1. Notice of Staking (BLM Form # NOS),
  2. Application for Permit to Drill or Reenter (BLM Form #3160-3),
  3. Sundry Notice (BLM Form #3160-5), and
  4. Well Completion Report (BLM Form #3160-4)

2.1.1 Workflow process management

Although this system was developed primarily to collect well permit data, there is minimal workflow process management included in the software. The permit approval process is not complicated (only 5 steps); therefore, the permitting workflow is a secondary focus of the software. The system does not track the associated NEPA process. Applicants enter the system, create a folder, select form(s) from the application menu, and fill out all data entries electronically. Additional information (such as diagrams or pictures) can be uploaded as attachments to these forms. Both BLM employees and applicants have a list of all of the permits they are working on, and the associated status, from their launch pages.

One limitation of the system is that the user submitting the form is the only authorized non-agency person who can see project progress – in other words, others users at the same company cannot access/view anyone else’s applications. However, a single user can see all projects initiated by him or her, just as each BLM user is individually permissioned to only see the list of permits applicable to his or her position.

The applicant has the ability to enter the WIS after submission and see the status of the forms in the approval process and receive comments; in addition, the system notifies the user of status changes via an email. The applicant is immediately able to see whether submissions are considered complete, and receive feedback to correct any information gaps, rather than receive feedback via written, mailed notices. However, the applicant is not able to answer any comments through the WIS system; any clarifications to BLM must be emailed outside of WIS, and any documentation to support changes needed must be submitted with an additional form (Sundry Notice).

Once completed, the forms are signed electronically by applicants and are automatically added to the internal BLM queue. Each step in the review process is tracked in the system with the date, time, and reviewer’s name.

We noted that although this system has been available to BLM agency personnel to use for at least 10 years, its use is not mandated and therefore has not been widely used among BLM field office personnel. One potential hurdle may be the initial learning curve to understand the system – especially for smaller offices that process few permits.

2.1.2 Costs and Added Value

Level of Development Effort
Since WIS evolved from multiple previous database versions over the course of 15 years, the exact development time for the components of WIS is not readily known. Every form is uniquely developed such that the fields are mapped into a back-end database for data collection – meaning new forms cannot be readily added to the system due to the coordination required to store the data. New form development underway (such as the addition of geothermal permits) has taken approximately 6 months per form to code, test, and implement.
System Expenses
Total implementation costs for the database and 4 forms were greater than $750,000. Maintenance costs for processing approximately 1,000-2,000 documents per month over 32 offices nationally requires ongoing costs of approximately $300,000-$500,000 annually.[9]
Benefits and Cost Savings
Since all fields are digitized, this system provides access to data electronically and reduces paper filing errors, and eliminates lag time in sending and receiving forms. Note that this system tracks only the submission of the application forms and does not track any of the associated processing of these forms (i.e. none of the often-required NEPA process is tracked by this tool, which takes up a majority of time between application submission and approval). The processing timeframe, therefore, is not impacted by this tool, and the BLM notes “if your permit application or report requires formal approvals from the BLM, it will still take the same amount of time to go through the approval processes.”
Cost savings are largely related to the increased efficiency of access to well information entered into the well database from this system. Another large cost saving is the ability for BLM to issue concurrent reviews of the same form – rather than passing one copy along, interdisciplinary team members review content simultaneously, thus possibly reducing the approval time within BLM (not including the NEPA process).

2.2 Data Collection Example 2: Central Data Exchange (CDX) – In-house tool


The Central Data Exchange serves as EPA’s central hub for data collection and access between state and local governments, industry, and tribes and EPA program offices. Each program using CDX has its own application/interface name (i.e. eNOI, eNEPA, TRIme web) and individual forms, but every user (EPA and applicants) first logs in to a central warehouse, CDX. The major focus of CDX for the sixty-four EPA applications that use the system is to report compliance-related data (such as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)). While the system collects permitting documents, it was not specifically set up as a workflow management tool. Some examples of system capabilities include:

  • The eNOI interfaces allows users to submit selected NPDES permits which have been digitized (i.e. some permits are not yet digitized and must continue to be mailed).
  • All federal agencies required to file EISs (per CEQ Regulations) must now use the CDX system via the e-NEPA interface to upload completed reports.
  • A RCRA permit application system is currently in development (based on best practices from state electronic permitting systems existing in New York, Mississippi, and Texas).


2.2.1 Workflow process management

The applicant’s workflow varies greatly depending on the program, which in turn determines the complexity of the forms and processes in CDX. As an example:

  • For the TRI form, preparers are asked a series of multiple-choice questions on their chemical use, generation, and disposal. Each chemical requires a set of data, including fields such as chemical name and numerical entry of the chemical quantity, among others.
  • For the eNOI application, preparers are asked a series of multiple-choice questions on endangered species and historic preservation, must enter reference to any issued TMDLs, and must individually select and add each water body receiving discharge from a populated list.

In all cases, users must go through a one-time registration certification process, and for each form completed, the user must sign the document through an electronic signature system before submission. Users are notified of (minimal) document processing status (e.g. the permit has been received) in real time within the CDX system, and can view comments, but cannot respond internally within CDX.

2.2.2 Costs and Added Value

Level of Development Effort
Each “portal” within CDX for EPA program rules was estimated to require a 2-year development period; however, the actual developer effort that was incurred to build and design forms for CDX is not available. Further research with individual programs would be required to obtain these timeframes.
System Expenses
Multiple economic cost-benefit analyses have been issued by EPA assessing the impacts of requiring CDX for program reporting, namely the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). In this report, EPA compares the costs of a scenario allowing both electronic and paper submissions to the costs associated with mandating submissions through CDX.
The first scenario assumes both the creation of an individual electronic portal for each program’s data collection and the option to continue to submit paper forms. For all of its 68 individual programs, EPA estimated that portal development would cost $6.2 million USD with $2.1 million annual maintenance costs. Each web form associated with a report to submit is then estimated to cost an additional $200,000 to develop. This scenario does not include a centralized database that collects data from multiple EPA programs – for example, if a user had permits with RCRA and NPDES, the user would have two different login sites that would not share information, i.e. two separate registrations. In the second scenario assuming the use of CDX, a centralized warehouse for each program’s individual portals, costs to develop the majority of the system for 68 portals was expected to be range from $3.8 to $11.2 million per year over 12 years.
Maintenance costs were expected to range from $0.4 to $3.9 million per year, and a constant $3.9 million annually going forward. Additional development costs associated with processes for routing, records processing, and records management were expected to add an additional $1.6 million total over the 12 year period. Furthermore, costs to convert forms to electronic formats within CDX were estimated to add an additional $200,000 per form to develop. Overall, cumulative costs to implement CDX between 2000 to 2012 were expected to be approximately $34 million greater than only implementing independent, individual web portal systems for all 68 program applications. However, this difference is primarily attributed to the greater stringency of electronic signature agreements for local and state agencies in comparison to the option to mail forms. Overall, EPA justified this difference largely based on the unquantifiable costs of process improvements, the environmental benefits of less paper, and the significant improvements to data quality and enforceability.
Benefits and Cost Savings
EPA believes the primary benefit to a fully digital system would be better data accuracy, including the elimination of duplicate data entry from paper submissions, reduced time required for remediation due to data errors, and reduced enforcement action costs based on inaccurate data submissions. These benefits are in line with a data collection-focused (rather than workflow process-focused) system. Additionally, EPA notes the significant qualitative benefits of faster processing (from creation to verification and correction). For the applicant, the system offers the option to immediately view submission status and view comments from EPA. Finally, for EPA’s purposes of enforcement and compliance, CDX’s electronic signature process offers the significant administrative benefit of having certified records for legal authentication of all documents submitted.

2.3 Workflow Management Example 1: SimplyCivic – Customizable platform


Originally designed to meet county permitting process needs for small or municipal solar installations, SimplyCivic is a flexible platform to share project documents and track permit processing.

Agencies can set up a permit application process in the system with minimal effort (<1 week to code; 1 month to launch with testing), uploading the permit application in its current format (printable or electronic entry form), and any supporting documents it chooses (e.g. application instructions, maps). The agency then indicates the documents required for a complete permit application (e.g. permit, site plan, engineering drawings). All documents are stored in the system for use by all applicant and agency personnel with appropriate access to system.

2.3.1 Workflow process management

The applicant, after entering basic applicant information (e.g. name, project, location) into an online form, downloads the permit application supplied by the agencies, fills it out (on paper or electronically), and then uploads the completed application into the Simply Civic portal, along with any additional requirements required by the agency. Once these documents are submitted, multiple agencies (as needed) have the ability to access the document files in real time, converse with others on the project, request additional information, submit comments visible to multiple participants, and track approvals – all within the portal.

Both agencies and applicants have a list of all of the permits they are working on, and the associated status, from their dashboards.

2.3.2 Costs and Added Value

Level of Development Effort
Issuing a new template for a project-type takes approximately a week of developer time (to write a new permit application process), with an additional three weeks typically required for testing.
System Expenses
Costs for any custom version would vary by individual agency requirements. For agencies using the software to process NEPA transactions, costs vary by the numbers of different project types tracked and by the volume of requests processed through the system. Simply Civic is planning to offer a hosted version of the product that could run less than $7,500 per form in setup costs and monthly fees starting in the hundreds of dollars per project type. Simply Civic is also considering offering a customized version to larger agencies wanting to explore a solution to manage projects across offices or those wanting more features above the hosted version.
Benefits and Cost Savings
The electronic submission of completed forms allows for the permitting process to proceed faster than the time to receive all mailed documents. Due to the number of possible rounds of revision and resubmission to receive complete document packets, the ability to receive comments immediately and resubmit attachments electronically to all participants is likely to be a significant time savings to the current process of mailed revisions. Additionally, because all processes, communication, and documents are tracked within the system (similar to Concur), we would expect to see results similar to Concur, as noted above – lower processing timelines, lower processing costs, and higher compliance to business policies.

2.4 Workflow Management Example 2: ProcessMaker – web-based workflow management


ProcessMaker is an example of open-source subscription service with software that connects to other databases (Oracle, MySQL, SQL) and systems (DMS, BI, CMS, ERP) to create adaptive business process management solutions with minimal to no additional programming. In other words, users and process managers can design and run workflows with no programming experience through a drag-and-drop interface model that links into customizable forms, metrics for which can be aggregated and analyzed through report options.

2.4.1 Workflow process management

The applicant first selects the type of process relevant to their needs (i.e. travel expense, or permit tracking) in an online interface. Once selected, the applicant is taken through a set of electronic forms that follow each step in the application process and capture basic information through both fields and radio buttons. Documents can be uploaded and attached, as necessary, to the forms. Once the applicant submits the forms, the agency receives notice of the form and an item is generated in their queue. Items associated to agency personnel can be reassigned to other personnel, if needed. Multiple personnel (as needed) can be assigned access to the document files, upload new versions, and/or see all others in the Document Manager. All personnel can see and respond to case notes from all parties, and all recipients have the option to receive automatic notices when new comments are posted, or when the application moves to another process step (i.e. approved).

2.4.2 Costs and Added Value

Level of Development Effort
Since the process map, form builder, and output document builder are all customizable features of ProcessMaker, minimal to no additional development effort is required. However, the time to develop the workflow and forms is highly dependent on the familiarity of the current managers with the concept of workflows and the decision logic behind their applications. Thus, simple processes could take less than 1 day to develop, while more complex processes could take 1 month or more to fully design.
System Expenses
Enterprise-wide subscriptions, which allow an unlimited number of users, begin at $9,995 per year. Higher cost options include additional, advanced features and greater levels of technical support. All options include unlimited support tickets, and at least 1 technical point of contact.
Benefits and Cost Savings
Since the project manager has the opportunity to control the workflow process – and modify it at any time – ProcessMaker’s agility provides options to modify and add new forms as needed, removing costs of external software development. Due to the number of possible rounds of revision and resubmission to receive complete document packets, the ability to receive comments immediately and resubmit attachments electronically to all participants is likely to be a significant time savings to the current process of mailed revisions. Additionally, because all processes, communication, and documents are tracked within the system (similar to Concur), we would expect to see results similar to Concur, as noted above – lower processing timelines, lower processing costs, and higher compliance to business policies.
Through ProcessMaker’s time-stamped actions and report builder, managers can perform data analytics to better understand pinchpoints within the processes, both saving time by identifying inefficiencies and saving the costs of collecting this data separately from the system.

2.4.3 Comparison of Applications Reviewed

While the online systems reviewed offer multiple process efficiency improvements, the major hurdle to developing complete data management systems, such as CDX, is the high development cost and significant time required to coordinate programmatic data needs. As shown in the Table below, agile systems, such as Simply Civic and ProcessMaker, offer the significant benefits of workflow management efficiencies with a relative sacrifice of data collection; however, forprocesses where workflow improvements (rather than data) are the focus, these types of systems could provide a cost-effective solution. Although secure signature certifications (such as in WIS and CDX) allow for improved confidence in the applicants, having only one user assigned to permits has been shown to create an additional hurdle to moving permitting forward during periods of turnover or other personnel delays (i.e. while not impossible, new user permissions must be issued and documents reassigned, creating the potential for document loss in the transfer). While not available today, future software developments for process permitting include a trend toward process-oriented, workflow approaches that will allow users the additional clarity of step-wise coordination for multiple parties, potentially improving both bottlenecks and submission completeness. The efficiency benefits of workflow tools not only would take less time to develop, but also may provide a greater impact on project timelines.

Bulk Transmission Specific Information

no description available

Geothermal Specific Information

no description available


Solar Specific Information

no description available

References

  1. J. Hooks. Project Management Software Advantages and Disadvantages [Internet]. [cited 2014/09/15]. Available from: https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/project-management-software-advantages-disadvantages-144914106.html
  2. Aberdeen Group. 2013. End to End Visibility into T&E Expense Management: Mobile Comes to the Table. N/A. N/A. (N/A)p.
  3. Concur. 2012. Global Control Has Never Been Trendier – or More Efficient!. N/A. Concur. Case Study; N/Ap.
  4. California Film Permit Application(2004).
  5. City of Chicago Building E-Permits(2014).
  6. New York Department of Motor Vehicles. 2014. Get a learner permit. New York Department of Motor Vehicles. N/Ap. Guide/Handbook sent to
  7. Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles. Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles Online Services [Internet]. [cited 2014/09/15]. Available from: http://www.massrmv.com/OnlineServices.aspx
  8. BLM. 2006. The Bureau of Land Management’s Well Information System (WIS) How-To Guide. BLM. N/AAp. Guide/Handbook sent to
  9. Paul Brown. 09/18/2014. Conversation with Paul Brown. Personal Communication sent to Anna Wall.
Print PDF