FUJ00126036
FUJ00126036
Message
From: Gurney Bob [/O=ICL/OU=UKSOUTH FELO1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GURNEYB]
Sent: 23/01/2004 17:58:45
To: Boardman Phil [/O=ICL/OU=EURO1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BOARDMANPK]
cc: Jenkins Gareth Gl [/O=ICL/OU=ICL IT CONSULTANCY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GARETH.JENKINS]
Subject: RE: Impact Branch Trading Issues
Phil - shouldn't it get reported as an interim response to the first pat of action 56 so the workshop would then decide how it
needs to be reflected in the process models/principles/etc. We will need to follow up with Clive to adjudicate if there is
any difference in opinion expressed by Ruth. We also need to encourage Dave to chase people up so that we can get the
actions closed down.
Regards
Bob Gurney
Fujitsu Services, Post Office Account
FUJITSU SERVICES
Forest Road, F
Web: _<http://uk f
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 26, Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1SL
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does
not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Boardman Phil
Sent: 23 January 2004 16:10
To: Gurney Bob; Jenkins Gareth GI
Subject: FW: Impact Branch Trading Issues
Importance: High
PSA, FY!
Need to understand how this (and comments like i) gets fed into the Requirements/Workshops proc
ooo Original Message-
From: dave.parnell.
Sent: 23 January
To: Phil.Boardmar,__ GRO
Cc: ben.gilderslevé GRO ; alvin.wes
Subject: Re: Impact Branch Trading Issues
Importance: High
for info...and we probably need to discuss
D
Forwarded by Dave Parnell/e/POSTOFFICE on 23/01/2004 15:07
Clive
Read To: Dave Parnell/é~
23/01/2004Subject: Re: Impact Branch Trading Issues
11:41
FUJ00126036
FUJ00126036
Dave
Below is Tony Marsh's view of the SAT issue, I think we need to clear this one quickly.
Tony Marsh
23/01/2004 10:04
Clive
On point 1, the various thresholds were only recently introduced as part of my negotiations with
NFSP to bring in the revised agents’ losses policy. It was not a critical issue for either side and I
am sure could be easily negotiated back out as part of the wider Impact negotiations, it can
therefore fall.
On the suspense account issue, I'm afraid that I share the same beliefs as mine and other Ops
reps, if there is no independent control and authorisation process for the use of suspense
accounts then postings will rapidly increase to unacceptable levels. Irrespective of our
aspirations for a simplified process to support commercially minded agents I believe that many
of those of a more historic mindset will exploit the facility, creating a large parcel of manual
work for someone, NBSC or retail line, to do to agree terms to reduce each individual posting.
Given that the overall project should simplify reconciliation and settlement significantly and.
should therefore mean that errors will be identified more rapidly and will be even more clearly
the fault and responsibility of the agent, is there any reason to have a suspense facility at all?
This might mean that in extreme cases the agent would need to contact the retail line or NBSC
and negotiate a "loan" (at some level of interest?) to cover very high values of loss but in most
cases the agent should be sufficiently capitalised to cover ordinary variations, particularly if the
opportunity were offered to make losses good via credit card, thereby enabling them to tap into
up to 56 days of interest free credit (a facility favoured by the NFSP despite my early
misgivings.)
Tony
[BClive Read
Clive Read
To: Ruth Holleran,
22/01/2004 13:59 Marsh/e/t.
cc: Sue M Harding,
Subject: Impact Branch Trading Issues
Tony
Tony, Ruth
FUJ00126036
FUJ00126036
As you know we are currently in the middle of requirements workshops on the final phase of the
Impact Programme. Although we have a scheduled Stakeholder meeting early in February,
given tight timescales there are some emerging concerns which I think I need to flag up.
Yesterday I attended day 1 of the Branch Trading workshop, and there appeared to be some
specific issues around the introduction of new processes and controls:
1, Suspense Account Threshold
The current assumed position is that a single threshold of £250 will be applied by Horizon
below which variances cannot be placed into Suspense Account (as presented at Stakeholder
Forum). This is a new system control which does not currently exist.
There is a requirement (from Operations reps) to introduce a number of different thresholds
depending on Office type.(eg Community offices to be at a much lower level)
Although this could be accommodated I have a concern that this begins to add additional
complexity both to the system build and subsequent operation. Given the aspiration to keep
things simple, is this an absolute must-have or is it open to challenge?
2. Suspense Account Authorisation
The current assumed position is that subject to the threshold control above, the requirement to
seek telephone authorisation for posting variances to Suspense would cease, on the
understanding that improved timeliness and visibility of office liabilities (next day, single view
of office cash and liability) would provide sufficient control (given that currently there is a 2
week lag between suspense postings and visibility of these centrally).
The Operations and Security view was that removal of this control would declare 'open season’
on the use of Suspense postings, leading to loss of financial control, spiralling nonconformity
ete...
Way Forward
While we can discuss and take a view on these issues in isolation, my preference is to assume
that we can define new back-office controls which fully leverage the timeliness, accuracy and
completeness of the new systems, and therefore challenge any (understandable) reluctance to
‘give-up' controls that are already in place. The danger is that we spend significant amounts of
time and money while not bringing about the fundamental changes the programme was given
the mandate for.
I think this is an important position to take in our approach, to underline our objective to
simplify and leverage new capability, but recognise the challenge is therefore to define a 'fit for
purpose’ control framework which tackles these fears head-on.
If this is an approach you endorse, I need :
e Your support and communication of this to your representatives on the programme
working groups.
« Engagement on developing new fit-for-purpose controls with lead input from Finance
FUJ00126036
FUJ00126036
Please call if you'd like to discuss further
Clive Read
Chief Systems Architect
-Post Office Ltd...
GRO I
Hee AR FAR I AF IRR AC of IRR AR fA 0 RR Of EE a a a
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are
not the named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of
this communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete
this email from your system.
1 9 fe oe ae 2 a eae fe oe ae se ake oe fe 2k a ie 2 ae of a 2 fe of oe 2k os ie oe ae eo a 2 fe of 2 2 oa oe ae eo ae oe eof oe eo ae ae ae a a ae oie ae af oe ae a a ake ae