FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
ceeptonce Resolutio La. Ref: CR/ACD/412
tC A R P Version: 0.2
Pothway A Inci 412 Date: 10/09/99
Document Title: I Acceptance Resolution Plan for Acceptance Incident 412
Document Type: Resolution Plan
Abstract: This document contains ICL Pathway’s Resolution Plan in respect
of Acceptance Incident 412.
Document Issued
Status:
Author & Dept: Dave Cooke - ICL Pathway Customer Requirements
Reviewed By: John Dicks - Director Customer Requirements
Stephen Muchow - Director Customer Service
Distribution: ICL Pathway POCL Expert
ICL Reviewers John Meagher Peter Copping
Tony Oppenheim Keith Baines
ICL Pathway Library
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 1 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
. Ref: CR/ACD/412
ICL Acceptance Resolution Plaw Version: oe
Pothway A Inci 412 Date: 10/09/99
O Document controt
0.1 Document history
Version Date Reason
Ou 08/09/99 _ First Issue
0.2 10/09/99 __ Revised as Resolution Plan following Acceptance
Workshop of 09/09/99
0.2 Approvol authoritiey
Name Position Signature Date
J H Bennett Managing Director
J CC Dicks Customer Requirements
Director
S Muchow Customer Services Director
0.3 Associated documenty
Reference Date Vers Title Source
1. CS/PRO/o31 21/10/97 1.0 MIS Report Production and ICL
Scheduling Pathway
2. CS/PRO/030 21/10/97 1.0 MIS Report dispatch ICL
procedure Pathway
0.4 Abbrevistiony
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Page 2 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
ceeptonce Resolutio La. Ref: CR/ACD/412
tC A R P Version: 0.2
Pothway A Inci 412 Date: 10/09/99
0.5 Tale of content
1 PURPOSE... esescsesscesssescessseesessensnssasesssnssssssssassnescesesessesensesensonascnsessasonsseasonsen 4
VL SCOPE veeeescsesssseseseseeenesesesecnenescsnsnsuceesesessneseseeeensneseeeseeasasaceeeneesasseeessaceeereeseeneeeeeeeenee Gh
2 SUMMARY ceccssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssesesccssssssssssssssssssssscsesescecsesssesssssssssnssseseseeseees 4
3 CRITERIA. ccsssssesccccssssssesecossssssssccscssssssssessessssssvecsessssssssscesssssssesecsesssssuesessesssnee 4
4 POCE POSITION iesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssessssssssssssssssssessssssssseseseessssssssssssssnsess 4
5 PATHWAY POSITION. ..cssssssssssscsssssssssssssecssssssccssssecsssssssosssssecssssscessssessssseeessse 5
5.1 AD-Hoc REPORTING... wed
5.1 Ad-Hoc Request - “History (Action Point Don 7
5.1.2 Ad-Hoc Request - Request Definition (Action Point 2 8
5.14.3 Ad-Hoc Request - Process Improvement (supporting Action Point 1) 8
5.2 SERVICE REVIEW BOOK... 9
5.2.1 Benchmark Transaction time s summarie: 0
5.2.2 OBCS transaction times.
5.2.3 Fallback transactions
5.3. TRANSACTION VOLUMES .
5.3.1 Service Level Reporting Cycle (Action Point 3).
6 RESOLUTION PLAN .....ccsesccscssessenseeeseesenseneesessceaeseeseeseesesseneessesenseneeaesesenenes 12
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 3 of 13,
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
P Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 10/09/99
1 Purpose
This document is provided to resolve the questions and concerns expressed in
AI 412 and to propose the basis of its Resolution. This AI relates to ICL
Pathway’s responsiveness in dealing with requests for ad-hoc reports, the
method of calculation used in the July Service Review Book and the ability of
ICL Pathway to generate counts of transaction volumes associated with SLA
calculations.
The structure of this document follows these three areas of concern.
In addition the response to a particular ad-hoc report request referenced in the
Al is also addressed by this document.
1.1 Scope
The scope of this response comprises the original Al412, the supplementary
POCL paper Al412 - Service Performance Reporting and the minutes of the
Acceptance workshop of 09/09/99.
2 Summary
e Ad-Hoc Reporting - ICL Pathway accepts that the response to the particular
ad-hoc request referred to in this AI was delayed, but that the overall
process is operating correctly.
e July Service Review Book - The Transaction Time service level calculations
are based on the previously agreed mean benchmark transaction time. At
this time no adjustments were made for fallback transactions since the
values for the various catagories of fallback transaction time are still in the
process of being agreed with POCL.
e Transaction volume counting - ICL Pathway is able to count the various
classes of transactions and the overall transaction volumes are published via
the ICL Pathway Customer Services Web page.
3 Criteria
No criterion is mentioned in the AI.
4 POCL positiow
POCL's position is represented in the Al text as:
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 4 of 13
FU
Ps Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 10/09/99
e ICL Pathway has not responded to an ad-hoc request issued on 22/07/99
associated with the July Service Review Book
e ICL Pathway has refused to respond to three previous ad-hoc requests
e ICL Pathway is unable to count transaction volumes
e "if this data was not available it would not have been possible to report that
they had passed the service levels - this calls into question the veracity of
their service reporting."
The actions arising from Acceptance Workshop (5) are:
1. POCL/ ICL Pathway to meet to review particular examples (of ad-hoc
reporting) that are of concern to POCL
2. ICL Pathway to consider whether it would be appropriate to provide a
targeted teach-in to appropriate POCL experts to enable them to focus their
ad-hoc requests around Pathway data structures
3. ICL Pathway to provide further information on (the SLA reporting cycle) for
POCL to review.
5 Pathway position
S.1
The response to this Al is split into three areas to address the various concerns
and questions raised by POCL. In addition a Resolution Plan is provided in
section 6 to address outstanding activities.
Ad-Hoc Reporting
ICL Pathway accepts that there has been some delay in dealing with the ad-hoc
request of 22/7/99. POCL has since provided evidence that it was actually
submitted on 23/7/99 by email, but the intended ICL Pathway recipient did not
receive it. Section 2 of this AI response provides the response to this request.
The AI also states that ICL Pathway has refused to provide responses to three
previous ad-hoc requests. This is not the case and ICL Pathway believes that
POCL were advised why it was not possible to respond to these requests.
The three requests are believed to be:
FUJ00119608
}J00119608
Date Ad-Hoc Request Description Reason
25/06/99 I Information of every call to HSH since I The volume of information
start of NR2 to present that this would have
generated would be
considerable and in a form
that would make any
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 5 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
en e Resolutio La. Ref: CR/ACD/412
ICL A R P Version: 0.2
Pothway A Inci 412 Date: 10/09/99
Date Ad-Hoc Request Description Reason
subsequent analysis difficult.
The planned introduction of
on-line access to Powerhelp
for POCL was believed to be
a more appropriate way of
meeting this request.
06/07/99 I Incidents raised at HSH relating to non- I It was explained to POCL
application or desktop specific messages I that the Horizon system
e.g. "out of virtual memory", "virtual does record failures of this
memory loss". type.
Such information is now
available by inspection of the
call closure text via
Powerhelp.
06/07/99 I Incidents raised at HSH relating to It was explained to POCL
"lockups" and "screen freezes". that the Horizon system
does record failures of this
type.
Such information is now
available by inspection of the
call closure text via
Powerhelp.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 6 of 13
ICL
Pathwoy
Acceptance Resolution Plaw
Acceptance Incident 412
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
Ref: CR/ACD/412
Version: 0.2
Date: 10/09/99
5.1.1 Ad-Hoc Request - History (Action Point 1)
The ad-hoc request process (CS/PRO/o31 - MIS Report Production and
Scheduling) has been in operation for some considerable time, and the
procedure for submission was discussed and revised at the July Service Review
forum. Many ad-hoc requests have been and continue to be issued and ICL
Pathway believes the responses provided are to POCL's satisfaction. The
following table summarises recent requests and ICL Pathway's achievement
against POCL's required response date.
Requested I Date of Date Request Date Outcome
By RequestI required delivered /
by response
Jayne 21/05/99} 21/05/99} Freeze incidents 21/05/99] Completed, results supplied
Widdowson
Jayne 01/06/99} 01/06/99] Calls to HSH by 2 outlets 02/06/99] Completed, results supplied
Widdowson
Jayne 01/06/99} 04/06/99) OBCS transactions 03/06/99} Completed, results supplied
Widdowson
Jayne 10/06/99} 10/06/99} OBCS transactions 14/06/99} Completed, results supplied
Widdowson
Phil Turnock I 25/06/99} ASAP} All HSH calls since 25/06/99} Face to face discussion
commencement of LT between R. Brunskill, PW and
Phil Turnock, POCL
See 5.1 above.
Jayne 06/07/99} 06/07/99} HSH calls - virtual 06/07/99] Telephone discussion between
Widdowson memory, R Brunskill, PW & David
McLaughlin.
See 5.1 above
Jayne 06/07/99] 06/07/99) HSH calls — screen 06/07/99] Telephone discussion between
Widdowson freezes R Brunskill, PW & David
McLaughlin.
See 5.1 above.
Adele 23/07/99] 02/08/99) Txn times / service for 29/07/99} Receipt response delivered.
Kilcoyne EPOSS, OBCS, APS No trace of original request
showing performance & since. Administrative error.
calculation of SLA
Lisa 08/09/99} 08/09/99} Top 10 txns for all June 99 09/08/99} Completed, results supplied
Browsden - Aug 99 for OBCS, after further clarification of
EPOSS,APS by Product what was required, this was
Description. contrary to what was requested
via the ad-hoc form.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Page 7 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
Ps Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 10/09/99
Analysis of the above shows that responses were provided to POCL for eight out
of the nine requests, of which seven were within three days or the POCL
required date.
The exceptions were the request of 10/06/99 whose response was delivered after
four calendar days, but three POCL Core Working Days, and the request of
23/07/99, which was not received by ICL Pathway. The subsequent escalation
activities were not sufficient to recognise and resolve this.
Complete responses were provided to five requests and POCL were advised that
three requests could not be answered directly (see 5.1).
ICL Pathway will normally provide ad hoc reports in accordance with R914
within three POCL Core Working Days where the information required is
readily available in the form sought. Where such information is not readily
available, as in these cases, ICL Pathway will agree with POCL the most
appropriate way of addressing the particular request.
5.1.2 Ad-Hoe Request - Request Definition (Actiow Point 2)
Analysis of Ad-Hoc Requests shows that it would be mutually beneficial if the
style of the request was structured in a form that more readily reflected the data
sets available to ICL Pathway and from which the response will be generated.
In order to assist in this process, ICL Pathway will provide a document to POCL
by 31 October 1999, highlighting the structure of the data captured in the Data
Warehouse, the Riposte Message Store and other Databases (local to ICL
Pathway Customer Services / MSU).
This document is intended to assist POCL in identifying whether or not an
intended request for information, via the Ad-hoc query process can be readily
met. (This does obviously not prevent POCL submitting a request without
reference to this document).
It is proposed that a joint workshop be held, prior to 31 October 199, between
ICL Pathway and POCL to discuss the POCL MIS requirements in detail. (This
workshop was originally scheduled for the end of August 1999 but was deferred
by joint agreement between R Brunskill and Jayne Widdowson (POCL BSM)
due to Acceptance activities.
5.1.3 Ad-Hoe Request - Procesy Improvement (supporting Action
Point 1)
In order to improve the handling of Ad-hoc queries it is proposed that the
following changes are introduced to the receipt and delivery procedures for Ad-
Hoc requests.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 8 of 13
ICL
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
Acceptance Resolution Plaw Ref: CR/ACD/412
Version: 0.2
Pothway A Inci 412 Date: 10/09/99
5.2
e ICL Pathway will arrange for an ‘Ad-hoc Query’ mailbox to be set up within
MS exchange. All members of the ICL Pathway CS / MSU will have access to
this mailbox.
¢ The ‘Out of Office’ return message will be utilised to advise POCL that a
query has been received into the mailbox (Wording to be agreed with
POCL)
e The mailbox will be accessed on an hourly basis by ICL Pathway CS / MSU
staff who will, upon receipt of a new request, send an e-mail confirmation
that the request has been logged by one of the MSU team and will advise the
following:
e The expected completion date of the query, or
e Ifthe query cannot be completed, the Ad-hoc request will be returned
with full details as to why we cannot supply the information
¢ The Ad-hoc query will then be logged into the Ad-hoc query database
¢ All replies to the originator will be electronic, using the fields within the Ad-
hoc query report.
e Inorder to complete this procedure correctly, the Ad-hoc query request will
be amended to include a field for the originator’s e-mail address.
e Ad-hoc query process document ref: CS/PRO/o30, v1.0 21/10/97 ‘MIS Report
Despatch Procedure’ will be re-issued to describe this new procedure.
e Interim Arrangements - Until the MS mailbox is operational, Ad-hoc
requests should be sent, by e-mail, to both:
land Richard.Brunskilf GRO I
Kashmir.Purewal}
Service Review Book
The particular request mentioned in the AI, dated 23/07/99, requests:
"Transaction Services and transaction times for EPOSS, OBCS and APS for July
showing the underlying data / calculations used to show they passed these SLAs".
The calculation of transaction time service levels for OBCS, APS and EPOSS is
specified in Schedules Ho8, Eo8 and Fo8 respectively. These in turn refer to the
Benchmark Counter Transaction Times documents CR/PRP/ou, CR/PRP/013
and CR/PRP/o14 all at version 1 and agreed with POCL as Contract Controlled
Documents.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 9 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
P Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 10/09/99
These documents state that, with the exception of OBCS foreign transactions,
all other transactions times are to be based on the set of benchmark figures
contained in each document and not based on actual transaction time
measurement. In all cases the weighted mean transaction time of these
benchmark figures is within the target transaction time (see 2.1) and
accordingly the Service Review Book for July and previous months will show
this as achieved using a green entry against the various Transaction Services.
5.2.1 Benchmark Transaction time summariey
The following is reproduced from the summaries of the above transaction time
documents.
Service Mean Benchmark Mean Maximum
transaction time transaction time
OBCS 26.02 secs 27.01 secs
APS 18.80 secs 20.27 secs
EPOSS 22.90 secs 23.13 secs
5.2.2 OBCS transaction timey
In the case of OBCS foreign transactions, comprising 6% of the total OBCS
transactions, the variable element is the ISDN communications time. The
measured benchmark figure for this is 5.4 seconds.
The actual mean time for the last three months, and the corresponding actual
mean transaction times are: -
Month ISDN time Actual Mean Target Mean
Transaction Transaction
time time
June 539 26.02 27.01
July 5.66 26.03 27.01
August 4.71 25.98 27.01
5.2.3 Fallback transactiony
The service level calculations for all of the transaction types described in the
Service Level Schedules also have to be adjusted by the number of transactions
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 10 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
Ps Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 10/09/99
conducted in various forms of fallback. This will take place when the
individual fallback transaction time figures have been agreed with POCL and
this activity is being managed by Jan Ambrose (ICL Pathway) and Pavittar
Sandhu (POCL). A proposal from ICL Pathway was made on 3/8/99 and final
comments are awaited from POCL.
When these figures are agreed and the relevant Contract Schedules updated,
the SLA calculations will then take account of any adjustments required for
fallback.
At present, however, transaction volumes are not required in order to calculate
the transaction time SLAs because the values of the fallback transaction times
have not yet been agreed.
5.3 Transaction Volumey
POCL has expressed concerns over the ability of ICL Pathway to calculate
transaction volumes, particularly in the context of transaction time SLA
calculations. The above explanation covers why transaction volumes are not
currently required.
The particular meeting referred to in the AI (9/7/99 - Liz Blackburn, Graham
Wingrove et al.) was not concerned with overall transaction counting, but with
particular aspects of EPOSS transaction aggregation.
Transaction volumes for APS, OBCS and EPOSS are provided as part of the vital
statistics information available on the ICL Pathway Customer Services Web
page.
These overall totals are broken down into the transaction types required by the
Service Level Contract Schedules and will be used in future SLA calculations,
subject to agreement of the fallback times. Once this is in place POCL may
request a detailed breakdown of the transaction volumes that underpin entries
in the Service Review Book.
5.3.1 Service Level Reporting Cycle (Actiow Point 3)
In response to a request from POCL, ICL Pathway will provide a document by 31
October 1999 describing the data collection and SLA reporting cycle. It is
intended that the scope of this document will cover:
© What data is collected from the counters / helpdesks etc, and where it
resides
¢ How this data is used in the calculation of SLA performance measures - the
interaction between Contract Administrator and the application of the
formulas to calculate SLA achievement.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 1 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
P Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 10/09/99
¢ How this data is reported within the Service Level Agreement Monitor
(SLAM) and the outputs delivered to POCL.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 12 of 13
FUJ00119608
FUJ00119608
coeptance Resolution Pla Ref CR/ACD/412
tC A R P Version: 0.2
Pothway A Inci 412 Date: 10/09/99
6 Resolution Plaw
No. Action Target Responsibility
completion
date
1 Complete agreement to End September I Jan Ambrose (ICL Pathway)
Fallback Transaction times / Pavittar Sandhu (POCL)
2. Review and agree End September I Richard Brunskill (ICL
improvements to Ad-Hoc Pathway) / Dave McLaughlin
Request process (POCL)
3. Joint MIS workshop to agree Prior to end Richard Brunskill and Jayne
POCL requirements October Widdowson (POCL)
4. Provide " data structure By 31/10/99 Richard Brunskill
definition" document
5. Provide "Service Level By 31/10/99 Richard Brunskill / Peter
Reporting Cycle" document Robinson (ICL Pathway)
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 13 of 13,