DOCUMENT TITLE:
VERSION:
AUTHOR:
AUTHORITY:
REFERENCE:
DISTRIBUTION:
17 September 1997
PINICL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEAM (PIAT)
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
PIAT Process Description
Version 1
Colin Oudot
John Meagher
piatpd.vo1
John Dicks Pathway
John Meagher PDA - Development
Janet Leach PDA - Testing
Gareth Lewis PDA - Security
Wayne Stephens BA
Colin Galloway CAPS
Ruth Holleran POCL
FUJ00078989
FUJ00078989
Ref: SU/PRD/013
Version 1
FUJ00078989
FUJ00078989
PINICL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEAM (PIAT)
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The high level process for the resolution of PINICLs has been described in “PinICL
Issue Resolution Process” and the aims and objectives of the various groupings involved
in the process are similarly described in “PINICL Forums - Aims and Objectives”. Both of
these documents are attached to this paper as annex A and B respectively.
1.2 The purpose of this document is to describe the process that will be followed by the
PINICL Impact Assessment Team in discharging its responsibilities and in interfacing with
the other forums.
2. MEMBERSHIP OF PIAT
Colin Oudot - PDA Product Management
Gareth Lewis - PDA Security
Janet Leach - PDA Testing
Other Non-Core members will be consulted as and when required.
3. PURPOSE
3.1. To assess and document the business impact of outstanding faults in the Pathway
solution that are referred to it by Pathway for consideration of a deferral of the appropriate
fix.
3.2 Develop and document a workaround to the known problem where this is required to
maintain a viable release.
3.3. To obtain sponsor approval for known problem, and any proposed workaround, to be
entered on the Known Problem Register (KPR) when necessary.
3.4 Advise Pathway of any problems which they have submitted to the PIAT which are
not accepted for entry to the KPR and therefore must be resolved.
3.5 To agree the target time for subsequent introduction of a problem resolution to the
operational environment.
17 September 1997 2 Version 1
FUJ00078989
FUJ00078989
PINICL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEAM (PIAT)
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
4. METHOD
4.1 All PINICLs which Pathway wish to propose for entry to the KPR will be sent by E-Mail
to each of the PIAT Members.
4.2 PIAT members will make an initial response to Colin Oudot by the end of the working
day following receipt.
4.3 If there are contradictory comments then CO will be responsible for resolving either by
telephone or arranging a meeting.
4.4 \f acceptance is recommended then CO will be responsible for obtaining written
Sponsor approval from;
0 Colin Galloway - CAPS
1 Ruth Holleran - POCL
2 Wayne Stephens - BA
4.5 If PIAT, or Sponsors, are rejecting the proposal then CO will inform John Dicks
(Pathway) in writing.
5. KNOWN PROBLEM REGISTER (KPR)
5.1 If a known fault is accepted for deferral by the Sponsors then it will be entered on to
the KPR. This will have the effect of extending the functionality excluded from this release
as defined in the Release Contents Description and will form part of the evidence
submitted to the Release Authorisation Board.
17 September 1997 3 Version 1
FUJ00078989
FUJ00078989
PINICL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEAM (PIAT)
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
PinICL Issue Resolution Process
A c
. Pathway E IWorkaround I F
Testing Incident VA Ie yeoman KPR
8 I Management LP I
G
A - Uncleared PinICLs D - Instructions to fix or close
- Disagreements on Priority - Resolutions on priority or closure
B - Instruction to fix or close 8 - Agreed workarounds for known faults
- Resolution on Priority or Closure disputed
F - Entries to KPR
c - Proposals for entry to KPR
- Disagreements on priority or closure that G - Notification of Revised Scope
need to be escalated
17 September 1997 4 Version 1
FUJ00078989
FUJ00078989
PINICL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEAM (PIAT)
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
ANNEX B
TESTING - Aims
To ensure that there is a common understanding on the status and priority of all
PINICLs
Objectives
a) To agree which PINICLs are faults
b) Monitor fixes and retests
c) Agree closures
d) Agree a priority classification for PinICLs
e) refer to PIM any items under a, c or d that cannot be agreed
f) refer to PIM any PINICLs that it believes cannot be cleared in release timescales
Methods
1) Joint review of each new PINICL raised to agree priority and that itis a fault.
2) daily review of all PINICLs closed previous day
U
=
Aims
To ensure that urgent decisions are made on any PINICLs that have become potential
issues
Objectives
a) Consider all items referred to it under e or f above
b) for items referred under e either resolve or refer on to PIAT
c) for items referred under f either return for fix or pass to PIAT for consideration of entry to
KPR
Methods
1) Consideration by individual officer of all issues referred to it
2) Referral to PIAT by E-mail
Ay
ha
Aims
To provide PDA/sponsor assurance on PINICL issue resolution
Objectives
a) Make decision on items referred to it under b above
b) For items referred to it under c above assess business impact, potential workaround and
obtain sponsor approval or rejection.
Methods
1) E-mail responses to officer with lead responsibility (normally member of Prod. Man but
may be assigned to Testing or Security.
2) By exception all parties may be required to meet.
~
Oo
va)
Once an item is included on the KPR with sponsor approval it becomes a contractual
extension to the Release Contents Description.
17 September 1997 5 Version 1