POL00028467
trepe.
POL00028467
* ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CR/ACD/412'
; Version: 0.1
Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 08/09/99
Document Title: I Acceptance Proposal for Acceptance Incident 412
Document Type: Acceptance Proposal
Abstract: This document contains ICL Pathway’s proposal in respect of
Acceptance Incident 412.
Document Status: Issued
Author & Dept: Dave Cooke - ICL Pathway Customer Requirements
Reviewed By: John Dicks - Director Customer Requirements
hen Muchow + Director Customer Service .
: POCL Expert
: John Meagher Peter Copping”
- Tony Oppenheim ” Keith Baines
ICL Pathway Library
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 1 of 8
«
POL00028467
POL00028467
~ ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CR/ACD/412
Version: 0.1
. @ Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 08/09/99
0 Document control
0.1 Document history
Version Date Reason
0.1 08/09/99 First Issue
0.2 Approval authorities
Name Position Signature Date
JH Bennett Managing Director :
JCC Dicks Customer Requirements
< Director
S Muchow Customer Services Director
0.3 Associated documents
Reference Date Vers Title i Source
1. CS/PRO/031 21/10/97 1.0 MIS Report Productionand ICL
Scheduling Pathway
0.4 Abbreviations
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 2 of 8
POL00028467
POL00028467
~ ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CR/ACD/412
. . Version: 0.1
e Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 08/09/99
0.5 Table of content
CRITERIA ....essscsssssseeneeeesersses onssonsesescnscensscssssnscsnsssnsssussonccssccsecsucessecsneesssssssnesesee
POCL POSITION
uk wh
PATHWAY POSITION
5.1 AD-HOC REPORTING....
5.2. SERVICE REVIEW BOOK.
5.2.1 Benchmark Transaction time summaries.
5.2.2 OBCS transaction times.
5.2.3 Fall back transactions
5.3. TRANSACTION VOLUMES .
CYUNNUANH DH Bh RH
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 3 of 8
POL00028467
POL00028467
ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CR/ACD/412
Version: 0.1
Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 08/09/99
1 Purpose
This document is provided to address the questions and concerns expressed in
Al 412 and to propose the basis of its Clearance. This Al 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.
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 fall-back transactions since the
values for the various catagoties of fall back 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 Al.
4 POCL position
POCL's position is represented in the AI text as:
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
¢ “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."
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 4 of 8
POL00028467
POL00028467
re
- . . © ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CR/ACD/412
“ . Version: 0.1
@ Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 08/09/99
5 Pathway position‘
The response to this Al is split into three areas to address the various concerns
and questions raised by POCL.
5.1 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.
I The AI also states that ICL Pathway has refused to provide responses to three
I 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 thred requests are believed to be:
Date ~*~ I 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
subsequent analysis difficult.
The planned introduction of
on-line access to Powerhelp
for POCL was believed to be
a moré 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 does
e.g. “out of virtual memory", "virtual record failures of this type.
memory loss".
Such information is now
available by inspection of the
call closure text via
Powerhelp.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 5 of 8
POL00028467
POL00028467
i ‘
«> ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CR/ACD/412
5 : Version: 0.1
@ Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 08/09/99
Date Ad-Hoc requést Description Reason
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.
The ad-hoc request process (CSPRO/031 - MIS Report Production and
i in operation for some considerable time, and the
ssion was discussed and revised at the July Service Review
¢ reqitests have been and continue to be issued and ICL
‘esponses Provided are to POCL's satisfaction.
c mally provide ad hoc reports in accordance with R914
3L Core Working Days where the information required is
readily available in the form sought. Where such information is not readily
available, as in thése cases, ICL Pathway will agree with POCL the most
appropriate way of addressing the particular request.
(5.2 Service Review Book;
The particular request menti ne ; the ‘Al, dated 23/07/99, requests:
"Transaction Services and transaction times for EPOSS, OBCS and APS for July
showing the underlying data I calcitlations used to show they passed these SLAs".
The calculation of transaction time service levels for OBCS, APS and EPOSS is
specified in Schedules H08, E08 and FO08 respectively.’ These in turn refer to
the Benchmark Counter Transaction Times documents CR/PRP/011,
CR/PRP/013 and CR/PRP/014 all at version 1 and agreed with POCL as
Contract Controlled Documents.
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.
i © 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 6 of 8
ry
POL00028467
POL00028467
ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CRACDIAIZ
Version:
Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 03/09/99
5.2.1 Benchmark Transaction time summaries
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:
5.2.3
-OBCS transaction times
‘In ‘the Se 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 time I Transaction time
June 5.39 26.02 27.01
July 5.66 26.03 27.01
August 4.71 25.98 27.01
Fall back transactions
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
conducted in various forms of fall back. 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 fall-
back.
At present, however, transaction volumes are not required in order to calculate
the transaction time SLAs because the values of the fall-back transactions times
have not yet been agreed.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 7 of 8
POL00028467
_ _ _ POL00028467
* ICL Pathway Acceptance Proposal Ref: CR/ACD/412
. Version: 0.1
@ Acceptance Incident 412 Date: 08/09/99
5.3 Transaction Volumes
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.
© 1999 ICL Pathway Ltd COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 8 of 8