DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
Flot /fle US
Distribution - see list attached From: Clare Williamson
Date: 9 May 1995
a hey
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING LfaePREE 1995
1. I attach a note of the Programme Management Board Meeting held on Monday.
2. The next meeting will be held on 12 June at 1 pm in Terminal House. Andrew
Stott will chair.
Clare Williamson
BA BDB
Room 504
Golden Cross House
DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
DISTRIBUTION - PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETINGS
Andrew Stott
Pat Dugdale
Pat Kelsey
Tony Johnson
Jan Challis
Robin Niblock
Kevin Lawrence
Peter Hull
Bob King
David Miller
Derek Selwood
COPY: PSO TEAM LEADERS
Bob Burkin
Liz Blackburn
Gillian Clelland
Joan Robinson
David Anders
Clare Williamson
FLOAT, FILE 045
DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
NOTE OF PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON 9 MAY
1995 AT 1 PM IN TERMINAL HOUSE
Present:
Pat Dugdale .........-- 0 eee eeeee BA/POCL
Pat Kelsey ..... Gas saeenseereese BA/POCL
Jan Challis ......... teeeeeeeeeee BA/POCL
Tony Johnson ........0. 2-0 eeeee BA/POCL
Robin Niblock ..........-eeeeeee CAPS (ITSA)
Peter Hull ....... 0.00 eee ee ee eee BSB (CAPS)
Bob King ....... 66.0 eee eeeenee BA/POCL
Dave Miller .........0 eee eeeeeee BA/POCL
Derek Selwood ........+.ese0000. PA
Clare Williamson .........-+00006 BA/POCL (minutes)
Apologies received from Andrew Stott and Kevin Lawrence - CAPS (ITSA)
1. Matters Arising
1.1 There were no matters arising
2. Planning progress report [ paper 5/95]
21 Bob Burkin and Tony Hodgeson presented this report. Its purpose was to outline
progress made in April, seek agreement of the format for the risk report,and for
what parts of the report would go forward to the PSC. The plan had not yet been
baselined.
2.2 Tony Hodgeson had been working for the planning team by liaising with CAPS in
Preston. He had identified the following four main areas of concern:
2.3 i) definition of the functional requirements of BA and ITSA was needed.
The FSR for the payment repository had not been signed off and
requirements for the payment data repository had not been specified.
ii) lack of a confirmation of the order of benefit rollout, leading to a
number of lower level risks including implementation and resource issues.
iii) integration of rollout of BA benefits with the PFI supplier and POCL
needs
iv) co-ordination on BA/ITSA side. There were a number of separate
programmes, some integration, but no overall programme of activity.
2.4 Peter Hull emphasised regarding i) that the user assurance committee had refused
to give sign off to the FSR as there was a lack of clarity of the user requiremnet
since the end users had not been fully or timeously consulted and there was a
question as to whether the functionality proposed would meet the need. That is, the
2.5
2.6
2.7
DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
existing user requirement in the CAPS FSR did not contain any proposals which
should not be included, but it might not be sufficient. He expressed the view
however that this was not a ‘showstopper’ and Robin Niblock confirmed that ITSA
were continuing work on a modular basis.
The proposed Payment Data Repository was a separate issue and had no user
requirement. Jan Stewart had proposed that CAPS should press ahead, but that no
major decisions should be made in the interim. Ian had commissioned some work
from PA consultancy to study the wider BA programme, and this had resulted in
the commissioning of two further pieces of work, on the project structure and on
the achieveable timescale for the programme.
David Miller was concerned that this would result in a delay to the programme.
The senior BA position was that as much as necessary of CAPS for plastic card
payments to be made would be delivered by Spring 1996. Delay related to the
sign off of the FSR was unlikely to impact this.
Another possible source of delay to the programme was that HMT would want all
elements of CAPS taken forward as a PFI. If that happened CAPS would be
delayed. It was however possible that a short term alternative could be used,
putting one benefit onto plastic payment but bypassing CAPS. This would also
mean that objectives such as the accountancy ones would be delayed. This PFI
decision was outwith the programme's control. In the meantime, progress on CAPS
had not been impeded but contingency options would need to be considered when
the PFI position was clearer.
AP 1. PD to investigate progress of meeting with HMT on PFI for CAPS
2.8
It was agreed that the report to the PSC should reflect all four of Tony Hodgeson’s
areas of concern and any information then available about the PFI position as risks.
AP2. BB to reflect these areas in PSC report
2.9
Regarding points ii) and iii) Robin Niblock raised the concern that CAPS still
lacked information as to functionality required, but particularly on the order of
rollout. Tony Johnson was in charge of implementation pro tem, but action was
needed to pull together the outstanding questions and constraints from the various
strands of the programme. David Miller had staff coming in to these areas shortly.
AP 3. DM and TJ to meet and match up requirements and take forward.
2.10
It was noted that a revised work breakdown structure was needed, and a new
organisation chart. This should be produced rapidly without regard to how soon
various strands might alter.
AP 4. BB to gather information for revised organisation chart (to be produced by
GC) and work breakdown structure to be produced by 15/5
2.11
Pat Kelsey pointed out some drafting changes needed to the Executive summary of
DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
the report:
Only ‘some’ not all of the suppliers wanted an early award of contract.
The use of the name ‘POWERBASE' had not been firmly agreed pending legal
advice.
The procurement dates would be reviewed once the supplier proposals ‘had been
received and evaluated.
2.12 Robin Niblock also wanted redrafting of paragraph 3.5, as decisions had not been
reached with DITA - rather a range of options had been settled on.
2.13 It became evident in discussion that there was a lack of clarity about the terms of
reference of the PMB and about the purpose of PMB meetings. There was also
some uncertainty as to the actions which the PSC were expected to take. If drafting
in committee were to be avoided, a mechanism was needed to take on drafting
points but his could not impact in the timetable for reports and meetings.
AP 5. BB to consider introduction of a mechanism to include or consider drafting
points to the planning paper before the PMB meets.
AP 6. JC to continue work to consider terms of reference of PMB, purpose of PMB
meetings, communications and management mechanism for next PMB
2.14 There was some discussion of the proposed date for Award of Contract, which was
currently taken to be still December 1995. Intervening events such as the delay to
the issue of the SSR had meant there was some compression of other activities
such as the demonstrator and negotiation phase. The procurement board would be
discussing this issue on 15 May. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, and the
consequences for change control procedures, it was agreed that the plan tabled
should be baselined.
AP 7. BB to baseline plan using existing AoC date
AP 8. BB to rework presentation of Gantt chart and redraft executive summary
AP 9. BB to edit risks analysis so as not to identify particular groups within
programme as responsible for areas of risk where this had not yet been decided but
was provisional.
AP 10. BB to pursue correction of milestone dates with PK
AP 11. BB to prepare a draft PSC paper by 15 May comprising executive summary,
milestones and gantt chart, and highlighted risks analysis for AS.
3. Finance [paper 6/95]
3.1 Liz Blackburn presented this paper. The BA budget allocation for 95/6 had not yet
been made, so the split made for this report had been based on budget bids. Once
the allocation was made, budgets would be devolved to team leaders, and these
DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
would be explained individually. The POCL budget had been allocated and
profiled, but globally, without splitting out the joint cost areas.
3.2 Staffing resources in finance team for this work were scarce. The team presently
consisted of Liz Blackburn and Lindsay Armstrong.
AP 12. BK to pursue early release dates for provision of POCL staff, in the
meantime Clare Howling to be made available as soon as she rejoined the
programme.
3.3 There was already a forecast overspend, mainly related to Terminal House costs.
POCL alone could be overspent by up to £1m within the financial year.
3.4 It was agreed that a recovery plan might be needed, but that the first step would be
to correct and check the current figures to assess the size of the problem. The costs
for Terminal House could not now be reduced, but should not be further increased.
The work needed a change control process.
AP 13. Finance team to work to get checked and revised figures to next meeting ,
pending availability of resources
AP 14. CW to copy financial reporting proposals paper from last PMB meeting to
TJ, DS and DM .
3.5 Liz reported that the proposals for monitoring consultancy were being reworked
after discussion with procurement experts and would be available to MT members
around 15/5 for review.
4. Any other business
4.1. The next meeting would be held on 12 June at lpm in Terminal House. Andrew
Stott would chair the meeting, and the agenda should be timed to allow around 24%
to 3 hours discussion time.
AP 15. CW to copy timetable for future PMB meetings to TJ and DS
5. Communications
5.1 It was agreed that the issue of a projected overspend, and the tight but fixed end
date for the procurement process (ie still December 1995) should be communicated
to programme members.
AP 16. GC to incorporate these two points in the programme newsletter.
AP 17. GC to discuss with BB section 3 of the progress report as a potential source
for information in the newsletter.
6. Meeting Review
+ -
action in hand to establish purpose timescales
good at chairing ? purpose of meeting
more needed on progress
poor preparation / ? documentation
Improvement opportunities:
1. Proper meeting process, what's going in , how reviewed first and action
needed with it.
2. Up to date attendance list and responsibilities needed\
DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
DWP00000006
DwpPo0000006
SUMMARY OF ACTION POINTS
1. PD to investigate progress of meeting with HMT on PFI for CAPS
2. BB to reflect areas of concern in PSC report
3. DM and TJ to meet and match up requirements and take forward.
4. BB to gather information for revised organisation chart (to be produced by GC)
and work breakdown structure to be produced by 15/5
5. BB to consider introduction of a mechanism to include or consider drafting points
to the planning paper before the PMB meets.
6. JC to continue work to consider terms of reference of PMB, purpose of PMB
meetings, communications and management mechanism for next PMB
7. BB to baseline plan using existing AoC date
8. BB to rework presentation of Gantt chart and redraft executive summary
9. BB to edit risks analysis so as not to identify particular groups within programme
as responsible for areas of risk where this had not yet been decided but was
provisional.
10. BB to pursue correction of milestone dates with PK
11. BB to prepare a draft PSC paper by 15 May comprising executive summary,
milestones and gantt chart, and highlighted risks analysis for AS.
12. BK to pursue carly release dates for provision of POCL staff, in the meantime
Clare Howling to be made available as soon as she rejoined the programme.
13. Finance team to work to get checked and revised figures to next meeting ,
pending availability of resources
14. CW to copy financial reporting proposals paper from last PMB meeting to TJ,
DS and DM
15. CW to copy timetable for future PMB mectings to TJ and DS
16. GC to incorporate these two points in the programme newsletter.
17. GC to discuss with BB section 3 of the progress report as a potential source for
information in the newsletter.