POL00028362
POL00028362
se
aT
2
x
Frown Anelcenr Sraykins '
Management Resolution Pre-Mecting
12" August 1999
Review of CF’s Summary
There is a clear failure to meet conditions
298 definite high
376 is high but may not be supported by Copping given rectification plan
How to proceed ? Possible way forward F 5
© not fail and impose 3 month delay ,
but get sorted with an extension of 4 to 6 weeks
JM - 4 to 6 weeks will not be enough to deal with the stability issue
KB - would not go into full NRO but need to proceed with recognition of contract
What are Pathway constraints at this stage 2
Contract currently constrains options - Pathway need Fujitsu agreement to change this
Therefore failure would require full retest - do we want this ? Not in our interest to do everything again
1. Stability issue
Not an acceptable position
Root and branch review required - 2months but the solution is likely to be incremental
Need a proposal to be reviewed and agreed
‘What is the hurdle for stability - need to define this in relation to industry standards
We have some ECCO/ALPS data - need to agree how this should be used
2. TIP issue
Cure requires a Pathway fix plus a control on the Pathway side to meet Requirement 891
We believe we need this control but can we insist on this type of control under the contract ?
This is not exactly clear, but the requirement does give strong support to reconciliation controls
Further work required to articulate our contractual requirement
From the contract it does not appear that this new reconciliation can be claimed as a specific
requirement as it has not been directly specified for the interface
Proposed Approach
© We want evidence of current and new fix - the workaround and the root cause solution
© We will need some time to observe this - preferably full cash account cycle for the root fix from 18"
August - further work needed to confirm this requirement Action : RH
© Also we need assurance that problem will not reoccur - we need to be convinced that there is a
solution that will allow monitoring of this reconciliation and that there is a reporting that
demonstrates it is satisfactory
* Extemal auditors say this problem could lead to a qualification of the accounts - although we do
need to reach a financial estimate of the likely scale of errors
3. Training issue
Pathway have gone a long way to resolve the training course (with the help of removal of BES)
The course is as good as we can get it within contractual conditions
But the requirement is that the Pathway solution must take account of users different abilities
We have however changed the role of the HFSO to support training and to help produce the first
balance (100% support now planned)
Without this support we could not be confident that outlets would produce an accurate balance
The issue therefore is that the Pathway solution does not enable users to produce a first balance
unaided
weer
Likely Points for Debate:
1.3 AUG 1999 - 86>
POL00028362
POL00028362
© There is still evidence from Help desks that new course is inadequate
¢ Pathway may claim that the course is adequate giving the optimum mix within the contractual
requirement
© There is evidence that ECCO people can cope much better than manual offices - this supports the
argument for a more streamed approach as stated in the requirement
© Pathway may still claim an agreed rectification plan has been delivered
¢ The criteria for the new course under LT2 were not fully met as documented in BMc’s detailed note
BMC proposed that POCL position is to ask for a further response, especially as POCL are paying the
cost of HFSOs and Help Desk support
But are we trying to redefine the Acceptance Incident ? This focused on the training course. This may
lead to a compromise on this incident.
‘We should review our position after the meeting with Pathway.
View on NRO
If we agree to go ahead on rollout this will be seen by the lawyers as a constuctive acceptance
‘What if we interpreted it as an increase in the numbers in the Live Trial ? This would fall into a
contractual redefinition of Live Trial and NRO.
The steer from the Board is not to accept a sub-standard system.
We should therefore not enter into adding additional offices merely to maintain rollout plans pre-
Acceptance. We may do this however if there were good Live Trial reasons for this, including
considerations of cost and of required rectification plans.
High and Medium Severity Incidents after Meeting on 11th
No PWY POCL
342 Low Med
361 Low Med
371 Low Med
376 «Low High
378 =Low Med
410 None Low
4 None Low/None
211 None Medium
394 None Closed
218 = =None High
372 None Med
368 Low Med
391 Low Med
390 Low Med
395 Low Low
298 Low High (now includes 300)
301 = None _ Closed
314 None Med
369 None Med/High
384 None Low
408 Low Med