ICL PATHWAY ACTIONS FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE INCIDENTS RESOLUTION WORKSHOP 27/28 JULY 1999
Incident Category
Description
PWY/POCL Agree Severity = medium
POCL agree severity = low
To be considered at TIP meeting
Closed and to be monitored
Closed
Closed pen
ding PWY action
Closed pending POCL action
Closed pending joint action
Further review (T2)
SI oI02I~Jo}er]sIesIno] +
Dispute
Incident No
Incident
Category
POCL Description
Action Required
By Whom
Date Completed
\220
IThe acceptance criterion requires states that"If for any reason it is not
possible to - or it is decided by POCL not to - make EPOSS funetionalit
immediately available on commencement of Roll Out the Servic
Infrastructure, BES/APT functionality shall be available and operational wit
Ino adverse system or operational impacts. In effect it shall be
Iequirement to isolate EPOSS functionality so that it cannot inadvertently b
lused/misused to the detriment of Customer service and POCL accountin;
heeds." The documentation provided for Acceptance Review demonstrate
hat the EPOSS funetionality can be removed, but it does not explain how,
this can be done with no adverse system or operational impacts. Specifi
fquestions which must be addressed are: how will administration, balancing)
and reporting operate in isolation of EPOSS transactions? What
procedures must be adopted by counter staff to operate BES/APT only inl
this way? Can such procedures be implemented without adverse system of
perational impact?
WY to submit a new Al analysis form
uote new soln and the ability to supress!
POSS.
Pope
224
lof 2 hours without any response.
[Responses from Help Desk are slow. Post Masters are waiting in excess/Al form to revised by PWY covering changes!
introduced to the HD service.
iP Curley
2240
fensuring that a contingency plan is in place to cater with any Help Des!
incidents. Contingency arrangements have not been demonstrated
esults to PWY (PC) by Friday midday. PC]
[The requirement / criterion specifies that the contractor is responsible fofPOCL to review PWY docs and reportP Curley
(0 consider POCL input.
FUJ00079154
FUJ00079154
288
he Authorities felt that this did not address how data integrity is maintain
In failure scenarios or subsequent remedial action that may be required to
Imaintain integrity.
[Clarity is sought on how data integrity is maintained in a failure situation.
[This has been discussed to include coverage of marker based accountin;
and application rules regarding what functions are available and th
underlying design guidelines.
WY will work with POCL to give whatever
ssurance is necessary and will deal with
pecific incidents as they arise. Analysi
form to be submitted to POCL by week end.
iD Cooke
294
[Criteria [467/3] requires that it shall be possible to identify whether data
rom OPS has been received by TMS or not and criteria [472/3] requires
that an audit trail of interactions with OPS shall be maintained.
IThe data acknowledgement specification (TSC/AGT/065) only details 4
possible design of what may be implemented. It does not give a definitive
description of implemented system features that would satisfy POCL
business imperative of knowing whether data has moved between an outlet
land data centre. Therefore itis not currently possible to agree the criteria.
[DC to review draft of words supplied by BB.
ID Cooke
2297
foletk and eventually requiring the terminal to be re-started.The erroi
Imessages received by clerks include: "Out of Virtual Memory", - "Virtual
Memory Low - Please close down some applications” - "Mutex Failure"
Heap Failure". "Doctor Windows....."The immediate effect of this problem)
Is in terms of the reliability of the Service Infrastructure's input devices.
However, once the underlying reasons for the problem are identified, this
‘ould change the perception.At least 13 such occurrences have been
identified on the LTSC log between the start of the Core Observation
[Period on 31st May and the 28th June. However, as such problems shoul
be reported directly to the HSH, it is ikely that this number represents oni
2 small proportion of the total in which case, this problem would bel
Is likely t
[Evidence from the Live Trial offices shows that the counter system isPWY to provide analysis form by week end]
lunstable, presenting inappropriate or unintelligible error messages to thejncluding comment on frequency (reductionI
fexplanation as to why etc.
idespread. Consequently, POCL's initial assessment is that this incident
(D Cooke
FUJ00079154
FUJ00079154
298
[Evidence from the Live Trial shows that the counter system is subject
lockups" and "screen freezes", where the system halts in mid-processing
hiving the user no opportunity to take any corrective action. This is eitherexplanation as to why etc. To be provided b
lexhibited by the system hanging or presenting a blank blue screen. The\
luser is forced to ring the HSH and is advised to reboot the system. The
immediate effect of this problem is in terms of the reliability of the ServiceI
Iinfrastructure’s input devices. However, once the underlying reasons for the
problem are identified, this could change the perception At least 25 such
ccurrences have been identified on the LTSC log between the start of thel
[Core Observation Period on 31st May and the 28th June. However, ai
‘such problems should be reported directly to the HSH, it is likely that this}
humber represents only a small proportion of the total in which case, this
problem would be widespread. Consequently, POCL's initial assessment is
hat this incident is likely to be more than low severity.
PWY to provide analysis form, including}
omment on frequency —_ (reduction
week end.
]D Cooke
300
[Evidence from the Live Trial indicates that should the printer fail duringAnalysis to be completed by Richard B, sentR Brunskill
foperation, the system may lock up rather than handling the error normally
[This has been observed even when the printer has only run out of
paper. The immediate effect of this problem is in terms of the reliability o
the Service Infrastructure’s peripheral and input devices. However, oncel
the underlying reasons for the problem are identified, this could change thel
perception.Several occurrences have been identified on the LTSC log
between the start of the Core Observation Period on 31st May and the 28th
june. As such problems should be reported directly to the HSH, it is likel
hat this represents only a small fraction of the total, in which case this}
problem would be widespread. Consequently, POCL's initial assessment is
hat the severity of this incident is likely to be greater than low severity.
(0 POCL and will be reconsidered at nex
jeeks meeting.
301
[Evidence from the Live Trail indicates that if a process fails due to a printe
failure, the accounting data within the office may suffer a loss of
Integrity. The principal effect is a loss of accounting data integrity. Othe
effects include:: considerable extra work by the counter (and potential
support staff) to resolve problem; loss of confidence in the system; I
lundermining of evidential quality of system outputs.Several occurrence:
have been identified on the LTSC log between the start of the Corel
[Observation Period on 31st May and the 28th June, As such problem:
{should be reported directly to the HSH, it is likely that this represents only
‘small fraction of the total, in which case this problem would be widespread.
Consequently, POCL’s initial assessment is that the severity of this incident
Is likely to be greater than low severity.
PWY to revise analysis form and send
JPOCL.
1D Cooke
803
JAt the review meeting, Pathway undertook to provide details of contingency
farrangements specifically for Migration. The requirement is about during}
land after roll-out. No such details were provided. Therefore no evidence\
has been provided that contingency arrangements are available for all
JA\ form to be revised with adjusted wording t.
read for example: if a system when delivered
fas unserviceable, if migration has not
[J Pope
ommenced then migration is delayed, i
FUJ00079154
FUJ00079154
IOutlets during Roll Out of EPOSS to such Outlets.
Fnigration has commenced then the system]
\would be replaced in accordance with service,
Jevels in 710.
314
[The above criteria refer to the requirement for Pathway to supply detalled
‘echnical documentation which will allow POCL to procure applications
rom a third party supplier.
JAt the time the POCL Infrastructure Acceptance Specification was being
lagreed it was recognised that the technical documentation to support it did
Inot exist. Therefore POCL agreed that Pathway could provide the
documentation at a later date. Furthermore it was understood that Pathway
ere allowed to put forward their proposal as to how this criteria would be
Inet in the future,
[The main document cited was the ‘ICL Pathway External Applications.
[Procurement Policy’ which detailed an approach as to how they would work
ith a third party supplier. However this document still does not meet the
riteria as they stand today.
Furthermore the other cited references, ‘Counter Hardware DesignI
Specification’, ‘OPS Architecture Document’ and ‘TMS Architecture
Document’ do not meet the criteria as being clearly defined technical
POCL to consider PWY analysis andD Cooke
business impact. PWY requested specifics,
Iequirements from POCL by Friday noon
[Pathway to review specifics when received
\documentatio
FUJ00079154
FUJ00079154
340
‘Method of Payment” as specified in the token technology specifications
(see below), has not been implemented at a ‘token level’ (service level)
ithin the Pathway System, but is structured at an item level (product level).
IThe Token technology specifications clearly request ‘method of Payment’ toI
bbe operating at the token level, such that, one or more ‘methods of payment’
jean be associated with individual tokens. This is only possible within the
jourrent pathway system if a non-acceptable artificial 1 to 1 relationship
jalways exists between the ‘item’ and the ‘token’, effectively setting up the
tem’ and ‘Token’ to be synonymous.
[The Token technology specifications clearly request the association of
Imultiple ‘Method of Payment’, Currently regarding authorised methods of
payment Pathway only supports ‘Cash’ and ‘Other’, with no means of sub
leategorising ‘Other’.
lin terms of the contractual requirement that has not been met we cite the
following documents:
Ja POCL TOKEN TECHNOLOGY SPECIFICATION APS MAGNET
OCL to consider PWY analysis, business
impact and report back to PWY with specifi
Kdetails prior to T2. PWY to review when
received
1D Cooke
Bat
ew is that the invoice is at summary level with no apparent means of easil
[charges is not agreed and is understood to be the subject of commercial
negotiations between POCL and Pathway.
The ARM comments re. the new POCL invoice were - “no informationPOCL awaiting for docs and when received
provided on how integrity is assured and how audit trails are provided. Thelwill be able to sign-off and close incident.
{Ongoing discussion to occur between ATM's,
falidating the information it contains". The reconciliation of services with(Dave & Liz) to resolve how quickly doc can
pe delivered.
iD Hollingsworth
342, 359, 361]
363, 376, 377}
378, 379
rious TIP incidents
PWY staff to attend meeting with POCL.
Mdiscuss incidents.
D__ Hollingsworth
bothers
343
INo evidence provided which ensures that this criterion has been fully met
[For example, mapping transaction data from counter to counter
ummaries/cash account is not covered by any of the documentation
[There is no definitive "list" showing the different levels of holding,
Imaintaining or transferring items and how these activities are controlled to
fensure the two levels match.
[Test condition met, additional info supplied.
POCL accept that the test was successful
between POCL and PWY to discuss ongoing,
{concerns in detail. Meeting to be setup asapI
ia Bob Booth & JD.
(Close incident and meeting to take placeI
U Dicks
FUJ00079154
FUJ00079154
aa
[Pathway (John Dicks) stated at the ARM that data acknowledgement fo
changes e.g. product price changes will be resolved through th
cknowledgement agent to be released afD Hollingsworth
SR+. Al to be resubmitted advising detailsI
introduction of the ‘Acknowledgement Agent’. There has been insufficientof AA etc
{detail provided of how this is planned to work and as the solution is not
be introduced until CSR+ then it must be assumed that the current desig
is deficient. Additionally there is still no clear evidence as to how Pathway
[control the dissemination of data to specific outlets only - ie. where has this
been tested and precisely how does the process.
366
\T2
but prior to Live Trial 2. These included a fix to prevent unmatched
reversed transactions PinICL 26260 and a
ICL Pathway failed to inform POCL via Business Service Management of aPWY analysis to be submitted before weel
number of software fixes which were sent down to the live outlets in NR2end,
ID Cooke
(368
\T2
[Tivoli operation, is not physically secure. In particular, the air conditioning
fatrangements for the room are based on leaving the window open, and even)
hen closed, the window offers inadequate security for the nature of the
fcontents.
INote: We understand that steps are now being taken to rectify this defect]
ith the installation of security mesh over the window, however we are told
hat this work will not be completed until after the end of the Corel
[Observation Period."
[The computer room at Lytham St Annes, supporting the ICL Outsourcing [PWY to confirm that windows secured.
ID Jones
rious KPR entries IPWY to print all KPR entries and supply
IPOCL asap.
N Dicks
FUJ00079154
FUJ00079154