DWP00000136
DWP00000136
Mr Wylie SSA (NI) From: Pat Dugdale BA/POCL
Mr Austin ICL Pathway Date: 19 July 1996
Mr Bennett ICL Pathway ce: Mr Johnson
Mr McCorkell CAPS Mrs Kelsey
Ms Rego POCL Mr King
Mr stott PDA Mr McNiven
Mr Riley
Mr Robinson
Mr Stocker
Notes of PDA Board Meeting 10.7.96
1. Please find enclosed a copy of the notes of the PDA Board
meeting on 10.7.96.
2. A summary of action points is included as the final page.
For actions assigned to Mr Stott, I have nominated PDA
colleagues to take forward.
3. The next Board meeting is on 13 August starting at 1. oO0pm
in Terminal House.
4. Please call if you have any queries.
Pat Dugdale
BA/POCL Programme
3rd Floor Terminal House
DWP00000136
DWwP00000136
BA/POCL PROGRAMME DELIVERY AUTHORITY BOARD
Note of Meeting on 10 July 1996 at ICL Pathway
Present: Mr A Wylie SSA(NI) (Chairman)
Mr T Austin ICL Pathway
Mr J Bennett ICL Pathway
Mr G McCorkell BA CAPS
Ms M Rego POCL
Mr A Stott PDA
Mrs P Dugdale PDA (Secretary)
Matters arising from meeting 11.6.96
It was reported that ICL Pathway had not received the copy
of the Programme Initiation Document (PID) promised at the
last meeting. Agreed that the current draft, minus any
commercial sensitivities, would be sent to Mr Bennett.
Action 1 - Mr Stott to arrange for PID to be sent to
ICL Pathway.
The June meeting note should have referred to the need for
liaison on change control. It was confirmed that liaison
was ongoing in relation to changes in contractual and
requirements areas and that Mr Godeseth from PDA was
working on ICL Pathway proposals for the overall change
control process.
It was confirmed that PDA and ICL Pathway had exchanged
organisation charts as agreed at last meeting. Mr Wylie
asked for copies.
Action 2 - Mr Stott to arrange for PDA and ICL Pathway
organisation charts to be sent to Mr Wylie.
Progress Reports
Mr Stott reported the following main developments:
2.1.1 He and Mr Bennett now meet at approximately
weekly intervals to discuss issues and progress,
a process that was working well.
DWP00000136
DWP00000136
- 2
2.1.2 The legal review had led to some
additions/amendments to Requirements. Various
additional dates were being considered for
reasons of contractual certainty but were not
considered a problem. Some other significant
changes were being "parked" until progress, eg in
roll out plans, allowed them to be addressed. In
some cases it was unclear whether a new
Requirement had emerged or simply proper
articulation of something already implied. It
had been agreed that the Functional Specification
(FS) would act as the touchstone and change
control process applied to anything confirmed as
new. The target was to clear issues from the
procurement arena to the strands which would
progress the work by early w/c 15/7.
2.1.3 PDA and ICL Pathway were working together to
develop change control process. Developing a
template and a more partnership orientated
approach to impact assessment were necessary next
steps. It was confirmed in discussion that there
was a need to review the number of change control
boards and the role of the joint board, to avoid
a "chicken and egg" situation.
2.1.4 On testing, a workshop had agreed a timetable and
follow-up actions by the end of next week. There
would probably be formal change control
thereafter.
2.1.5 Other issues were to be dealt with under
subsequent agenda items and it was confirmed that
otherwise there were no major issues for the
Board to address or refer to the Programme
Steering Group (PSG).
Mr Bennett confirmed the progress described and raised the
following issues.
2.2.1 It had become evident that the work required on
contracts during the 90 day drop down period was
not going te be achieved to time. The task
should be approached in a different way, using
project work such as the FS to progress
contractual matters. It was confirmed that the
contract provides for an extension of the 90 day
period and that none of the parties intended to
allow delay in this area to impact on progress
elsewhere. The PDA were seeking to streamline
the task by cross referencing to other
documentation and by reducing, for example, the
number of schedules.
DWP00000136
DWwP00000136
2.2.2 There was evidence of tensions between the
various parties and it seemed clear that a good
teamworking position had not yet been reached.
Two of the causes of this which could be worked
on were discussed, viz:-
2.2.3 The parties were still negotiating on three major
change requests (IGL, early 97 plans and national
roll out) which were a distraction and meant the
absence of a shared baseline. [It was agreed that
IGL decisions should be made as soon as possible
and the early 97 position agreed by the end of
July. it was confirmed that the early 97
analysis should contain sufficient of a national
roll out impact assessment to enable business
benefits to be judged. .
Action 3 - Mr Stott to arrange for IGL and early '97
issues to be pursued to resolution.
2.2.4 Change control discipline was needed. A
conclusive meeting did not necessarily mean that
a change had been agreed and due process, ie
impact assessment and formal change control,
should subsequently be followed. The need for
careful control, especially in an aggressive
timetable situation, was accepted but it was also
recognised that activities were progressing in
parallel rather than sequence.
Action 4 - Mr Stott to arrange for the agreed change
control process to be deployed.
Mr McCorkell confirmed that CAPS remained confident of
achieving delivery but they were concerned about
uncertainty as to the baseline and synchronisation of
releases.
2.3.1 It was reported that availability of benefit
systems for weekend testing was a potential issue
because of competing demands in BA. Approval of
a baseline plan of requirements was to be sought
from the BA Management Team and any change to
that baseline could create difficulty.
2.3.2 A number of business issues (eg alternative
payees, foreign encashment and temporary tokens)
needed urgent resolution for IGL and beyond and
there appeared to be some uncertainty as to where
responsibility for making decisions rested. It
was confirmed that PDA is the decision making
authority and that such topics should be raised
in the IGL issues log where they would be
assigned an owner and resolved.
DWP00000136
DWwP00000136
Action 5 - Mr Stott to ensure issues resolution process
in place and operating effectively.
Ms Rego reported that POCL efforts were currently
concentrated on Authorities! Responsibilities and
confirming deliverables and their due dates. A key
coordinator had been appointed to manage the various POCL
projects and Counters were just beginning consultation with
ether clients as a first step in the process of
establishing their potential requirements.
2.4.1 EPOSS was the main outstanding issue for POCL and
work is currently underway with PDA and ICL
Pathway to resolve.
2.4.2 It was reported that a separate Reference Data
Project (previously integral to TIP) had been set
up. it was noted that it would be helpful to
know as soon as possible what data (ie format,
data definitions etc) ICL Pathway would need.
Action 6 - Mr Bennett to arrange for ICL Pathway data
needs to be advised.
Functional Specification (Paper 2/96)
Mr Johnson presented this report of progress, lessons
learned and next steps.
It was confirmed that there were about 100 FS issues to be
cleared. Other issues relevant to SLAs, CARS etc were
being taken forward separately.
The Board noted the report and expressed their appreciation
to the responsible team for a job well done. It was a good
example and lessons learned should be taken forward.
Project Initiation Document (Paper 3/96)
Mr Pereira presented this report, explaining the PID
context and the PRINCE implementation process, which the
Board noted. A final version would be available after the
end of July and would be presented to the PDA Board for
sign off at its next meeting.
Action 7 - Mr Stott to arrange for revised PID to be
tabled at next Board Meeting.
DWP00000136
DWwP00000136
-5-
PDA Mobilisation and Resourcing
Mr Pereira present this report, summarising the background,
current structure and next steps. It was reported that the
usual difficulty was being experienced in recruiting good
quality staff and that Board members’ help may be needed.
It was also reported that accommodation was a problem being
addressed because Terminal House premises were
insufficient.
Te was confirmed that a POCL budget had been allocated and
spending was probably slightly above profile. No BA budget
allocation had yet been made. The chairman ,asked for
quarterly reports of spend against profile. It was also
agreed that the sponsors needed to decide how to apportion
costs between them.
Action 8 - Mr Stott to submit proposals for the
apportionment of costs to sponsor members of
the committee (for clearance by
correspondence) and arrange for quarterly
finance reports.
Integrated Master Plan (Papers 4/96 and 5/96)
The Board noted the progress reported in paper 4/96 on the
development of early 1997 plans.
Mr Evans presented the master plan report which explained
the process so far followed and planned for next steps and
sought the Board's agreement to the Plan format.
It was confirmed that the Board's role was to monitor
progress on key milestones and only to see more detailed
plans in areas where they were steering action. They would
however want to be assured that there was a system and
process in place which enabled the PDA to monitor fully.
It was confirmed that a future version of the plan would
include tasks, time taken and resources (but not the latter
for sub contractors) and that handshake milestones were
used to monitor inter relationships between sponsor
strategic milestones. Dependencies should be flagged.
The Board neted the process, agreed the structure and
format and endorsed the process for completion and sign-off
of the plan.
Action 9 ~- Mr Stott to arrange submission of the plan
to PSC 23/7 and a further version to the
next Board for sign off.
we
DWP00000136
DWwP00000136
-6~
National Roli Out Strategy (Paper 6/96)
The Board noted this paper which reflected work in hand to
rationalise roll out plans. IcL Pathway were to provide a
revised outline plan by end w/c 15/7 and there should be an
agreed approach available by the end of the month which
sponsors and ICL Pathway could develop into a detailed
plan. The SSA(NI) position would be picked up during this
process. Pilot planning would need to progress rather more
rapidly.
POCL were concerned to ensure that there was a fall back
plan for use in the event that full funetionality
(specifically EPOSS) was not available. There was also
concern about the impact of tight timescales, for example
on user acceptance testing.
Step 1 Plan (Paper 7/96)
Mr Stocker described the plan, progress to date, current
actions and the organisation in place to support this.
This plan needed urgent sign-off. Both CAPS and ICL
Pathway had comments to feed in, there were business issues
unresolved and differences in products eg the CAPS
interface. It was intended to progress all these in the
coming 2.5 weeks.
POCL had indicated that they wanted the foreign encashment
facility (for 2 payments in 26) available during IGL at
every post office, not just the 1500 main POs, because of
their concern about quality of service and the views of the
Federation. They recognised that this would have a
training and communication cost. BA would insist on POCL
bearing the fraud risk in this circumstance.
Action 10 - Ms Rego to confirm POCL's position on
foreign encashments during IGh.
The suggestion that there be a second tranche during IGL to
take the number of POs up to 30 had received no supporters.
ICL Pathway had concerns about customer/transaction volumes
and their disaster resilience as numbers increased. There
was no project gain but there would be a diversion of
effort and focus. There was also increased risk of adverse
publicity and thus customer resistance.
In order to ensure that all outstanding issues were cleared
timeously, Mr Stott was empowered to secure all party
agreement . It should be made clear that sign-up was to
solutions/work rounds for IGL only. It was however
essential that in reaching agreement it was recognised
that:
DWP00000136
DWwP00000136
~7-
i) security was vital to protect Public Expenditure
ii) doors should not be opened which it could later prove
impossible to close eg with a generous policy option
iii) given the stage at which the Programme stood in
relation to IGL, it would be preferable to avoid
solutions that required too much of the computers
iv) if a clerical solution is sought, it should build on
existing standard processes and not invent exceptions
to the exceptions.
Mr Stott was authorised to approach any dissenting party's
Board member in an attempt to broker a solution. Reference
to the full Board was not expected and should only be done
in the last resort. .
Action 11 - Mr Stocker to report progress to Board
members on 26 July.
Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be on Tuesday 13 August starting at
lpm in Terminal House.
ACTION POINTS
(Mr Robinson)
(Mr Robinson)
Action 3 -
{Mx Stocker/
Mr McNiven)
(Mr Robinson)
Action 5
(Mr Stocker)
Action 6 ~
Action 7
(Mx Robinson)
Action 8
(Mr Riley)
(Mr Robinson)
Action 10 -
DWP00000136
DWwP00000136
Mr Stott to arrange for PID to be sent to ICL
Pathway.
Mr Stott to arrange for PDA and ICL Pathway
organisation charts to be sent to Mr Wylie.
Mr Stott to arrange for IGL and early '97 issues
to be pursued to resolution.
Mr Stott to arrange for the agreed change control
process to be deployed. ‘
Mr Stott to ensure issues resolution process in
place and operating effectively.
Mr Bennett to arrange for ICL Pathway data needs
to be advised.
Mr Stott to arrange for revised PID to be tabled
at next Board Meeting.
Mr Stott to submit proposals for the
apportionment of costs to sponsor members of the
committee (for clearance by correspondence) and
arrange for quarterly finance reports.
Mr Stott to arrange submission of the plan to PSC
23/7 and a further version to the next Board for
sign off.
Ms Rego to confirm POCL's position on foreign
encashments during IGL.
Mr Stocker to report progress to Board members on
26 July.