Horizon Project - Acceptance Review Comment Sheet
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
Acceptance Specification I End to End Reviewed By Panel comprising Jeff Widdowson, Mark Burley, Ann
Clarke, Dave Stevenson, Martin Box, Karen Rogers
Review Segment No. 1 Review Date -I 7" June 1999; Pathway Responses J C C Dicks 9/6 and
_ I additions from Acceptance Review Meeting 11 June
(B)ass/
Ace. Criterion Document ®)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No. @)efer I Justification
831/5-7 (5) The POCL Interfaces documentation shall BP/IFS/006 Conditi I Clarification is required between the version numbers
cover: data content in logical groupings, POCL Interface Requirements For onal I contained within the Acceptance Specification and
physical layouts, controls (including BA/POCL System. pass I The Acceptance Review Pack. There were also
security), timings, volumes, technical 1.6 concems re the content of the document (Reference
interface specifications (initially options and I 16/4/96 15) which is to be made available at the Acceptance
constraints), configuration management, and I TI/IFS/001 Review.
contingency arrangements. Versions of the Pathway to TIP Application Interface
POCL Interfaces documentation containing Specification The versions referenced in the Acceptance
the existing interfaces shall be made available I 5.1¢ Specification were those that were up to date at the
to the CONTRACTOR within three (3) 17/2/98 time of issue of the Acceptance Specification. The
months after execution hereof. BP/IFS/007 versions supplied in the Acceptance Review Pack
The POCL Interfaces documentation shall
not initially cover further potential interfaces
in respect of:
(a) EFTPOS;
©
(b) reconciliation and exception reporting;
©
operational management information;
Reference Data to Pathway (Reference
Data Project Application Interface
Specification)
3.3¢
2/2/98
LF/BRD/001
Business Requirements Definition -
Logistics Feeder Service
1.0
20/5/98
AP/IFS/001
Pathway to HAPS Interface
Specification
2.0
30/10/97
were the up-to-date versions available at that date
where different. This applies to TUIFS/001, and
AP/IFS/001. These up-to date versions should be
referenced.
As stated in the References entry, BP/IFS/006 is only
partly applicable. A paper copy of this document was
also supplied to KR on 8/6.
11/6 No further action.
Page 1 of 17
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
____ POL00090073
(P)ass/
Ace, Criterion Document @)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No. @)efer I Justification
(d) performance monitoring;
(e) inspection of Transaction and Event
Jogs for audit and security purposes;
(f) transitional arrangements in relation to
the automated payments / ALPS host;
(g) transitional arrangements in relation to
‘cash account processing’.
(7) The detailed format of all interfaces shall be
agreed by POCL.
Page 2 of 17
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
@)ass/
Ace, Criterion Document ®)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No. I M)efer I Justification
911/1-2 (1) The Services shall maintain accounting and I VI/TSC/110 Fail I Nowhere in the references can we find evidence that
reporting integrity in the Services and Pathway Release 2 Systems this criteria has been met. There were also concerns
Service Infrastructure, including any Management HLTP from the panel re the presentation which will be
changes as defined in Schedule A0S 1.0 provided at the Acceptance Review
[Change Control] of the AUTHORITIES’ 30/1/98
Agreement. The letter to Mary Reade was cited because it was the
covering letter for a CCN providing an update by
(2) Such integrity shall cover implementation of Pathway of the Requirement, Solutions and Service
changes, reverting to previous states (should
this prove necessary, for example in fall-
back and Recovery), co-existing before and
after states (e.g. if simultaneous
implementation does not occur) and
reporting across change boundaries (e.g.
using appropriate Reference Data versions
for each part of a report).
Page 3 of 17
Definition Schedules. These updated the relevant
parts of the Agreements for changes that had been
agreed but for which the Authorities had not issued
new texts. After the Acceptance Specification was
published the Authorities rejected the CCN. For this
reason the guidance notes stated the letter was no
longer material.
No new contract texts were forthcoming from the
Authorities. Therefore to reference any changes (to
accounting and reporting in this case) it is now
necessary to look at the Change Control history.
Accordingly this was provided as an additional
document, see yellow rows. With the withdrawal of
DSS the material CCNs to POCL are (probably)
228b, 259b, 264, 277b, 284, 400). Reports &
Receipts document is (probably) the most important
document as regards maintaining reporting integrity,
and 277b and 400 are probably the most important as
regards accounting.
The report from (24) covers the first specific in (2)
and the presentation (of which an advance copy was
provided 8/6) the second
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
(P)ass/
Acc, Criterion Document 4) @)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No, “@jefer. I, Justification
Page 4 of 17
11/6 (911/1) This issue is that POCL seek evidence of
such integrity through access to the end-to-end design
documentation. Reliance on the test results is not
acceptable to POCL. ICL Pathway’ position is that
POCL do not have rights of access to design
intellectual property. It was agreed that POCL and
Pathway would refer the issue to their commercial
authorities.
Pathway’s commercial authority's position is that
POCL does not have such rights. The end-to end
design has been provided under non-disclosure
agreement to named individuals within POCL. These
individuals may be asked if such a design exists and if
it is satisfactory in their opinion. These individuals
may not disclose the contents of such end-to end
designs to others within POCL.
11/6 (911/2) In the case of the first part the issue is
that POCL seek evidence that the reversion works
through access to the appropriate part of the systems
management design. Reliance on the test results is
not acceptable to POCL. ICL Pathway offered to
provide the Low Level Test Scripts. See 911/1 above.
In the case of the second part POCL will provide the
presentation to the POCL panel.
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
“@)ass/
Ace. Criterion Document ‘@)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No. @)efer I Justification
925/13 The performance of the End to End element of 0720HL~1.DOC Fail This criteria is rejected for a number of reasons:-
Integration Test.
The overall objectives for E2E, in association with
Model Office Rehearsal, centre on the bringing
together of the IT functionality across all the
participating systems, with the operational and
business procedures, to form an overall business
system. E2E and MOR activities are planned and
scripted together, run on the same environment,
and involve the same personnel. E2E forms a
natural extension of DIT. It is run in parallel with,
but separate from, MOR.
End to End Interface Testing High Level
Test Plan, BA/POCL Nile Release 2.0
0.2
18/798
BPS
Testco~1 xls
End to End Interface Testing Test
Report
T/10/98
‘tba
Page 5 of 17
There were the same concerns as criteria 911 with
respect to the presentation which is to be made at the
Acceptance Review.
An advance copy of the presentation was provided
&6.
The Known Problem Register should be one of the
referenced documents.
See below. The KPR is available for analysis.
What relevance has the letter J Dicks to Mary Reade ?
See above for explanation.
There a need to compare the contents of the closure
report with the Known Problem Register.
PinICL entries 23013 (Closed), 19808 (NR2+) and
elements of 23474 (NR2+) referred. [These references
since checked.]
11/6 Agreed that additional documentation will be
cited in a revised Acceptance Review Pack: Known
Problem Register, Model Office Testing Evaluation
Report. With respect to the MOT report the following
incidents (KPR PinICLs) are notified, all of which are
Closed: 13/8 (22337), 21/10 (22870), 9/18 (22174),
9/22 (22186), 13/20 (22371), 16/7 (22536=23750),
21/3 (22783), 8/26 (22114), 8/42 (22144), 14/7
(22412), 14/9 (22411), 21/1 (22779), 6/1 (21955),
16/15 (22566), 22/8 (22947), 13/1 (22317), TIP700
(22250), TIP702 (22274). [These references since
checked.]
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
(P)ass/
Ace, Criterion Document (P)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No. Q)efer I Justification
Copy of letter Pat Kelsey to Jim Morley 23/7/97
provided.
928/1-2 1. The CONTRACTOR shall provide to the CR/FSP/004 Fail The panel has no reason to reject Acceptance Criteria
AUTHORITY copies of the Service Service Architecture Design Document 928/1.
Architecture Design Document by a date 4.0 However, with respect to 928/2 there is no evidence
consistent with the project plan agreed by 30/9/97 from the references as to how this is to be done. More
the parties, such that the date does not detail is required in the guidance notes to enable a
adversely impact contractual milestones as I CR/FSP/004 fuller evaluation of this particular criteria
defined in Clause 605.1 of the Authorities Service Architecture Design Document
Agreement. 5A The SADD was updated six times in order to arrive at
23/7/98 the Version defining NR2, the Version under
2. The Service Architecture Design Document Acceptance. This is evidenced from section 0.1.1 of
shall be updated to ensure information is SADD 4.0 and the document history section 0.1.4.
always current.
The later version of the SADD is also cited to show
that it has been further maintained in advance of the
target releases being defined and agreed.
11/6 Agreed that Pathway will provide letter stating
the process for future SADD updates.
929/1 From the start of use of the Card it shall be ‘VI/REP/162 Version 1.0 6/4/99 wa No longer applicable
possible for an Authorised Person to be paid using
a Card at his/her Nominated Post Office and, in
accordance with the rules for Foreign
Encashmenis:
a) at any other automated post office Outlet;
b) imany major post office.
[DN: 929/2,3 are covered within the Rollout
Acceptance Specification, IM/ACS/005.]
Appendix D. Two PinICLs 17956 and
19179 are material, both on KPR.
IM/PLA/010 and IM/PLA/11 show the
rollout taking place between 23/8/99 and
5/2/01 and denoting major conurbations.
See IM/STR/025 sections 3.4.1 and
3.4.4 in particular regarding major post
offices.
Page 6 of 17
POL00090073
POL00090073
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
(P)ass/
Acc, Criterion Document @)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No. @)efer I Justification
938/3 The CONTRACTOR shall provide all Services to I Not applicable w/a I The panel were of the opinion that this criteria is no
support the functional specification. No test. longer applicable and therefore needs to be deleted.
Can this be confirmed at the Acceptance Review ?
Yes
11/6 POCL to seek contract guidance as to
applicability of Requirement 938 in new contract.
Pathway position is this was not and is not applicable
to POCL.
938/4-8 (4) The CONTRACTOR shall ensure that any RS/POL/002 wa No longer applicable
information supplied under the Data Pathway Security Policy
Protection Act 1984 is accurate and that (Section 10.2) 11/6 POCL to seek contract guidance as to
assurances can be given as to the integrity of I 3.0 applicability of Requirement 938 in new contract.
that information. G.4) Pathway position is this was not and is not applicable
8/10/96 to POCL.
(5) The CONTRACTOR shall deliver any
information requested under the Data Pathway Customer Service DPA.
Protection Act 1984 to the requesting body, Procedure
person or DSS as appropriate.
OUTLINE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
The Data Protection Act 1984 became law from 11
November 1987. All subsequent alterations and
reviews to this law shall be integrated and adhered
to.
Page 7 of 17
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
(P)ass/
Ace. Criterion Document (®)ail/
Criterion Description Ref. No. @)efer I Justification
(7)-The CONTRACTOR shall record all written
requests for a data protection print from a
Customer, representative or DSS within forty (40)
days of receipt of the request, and deal with
queries raised within a timescale to be agreed with
the AUTHORITIES by a date consistent with the
project plan agreed by the parties, such that the
date does not adversely impact contractual
milestones as defined in Clause 605.1 of the
Authorities Agreement, such agreement not to be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
(8)-All information provided under the Data
Protection Act 1984 shall be available to facilitate
inspection.
Details of a request and response made under the
Data Protection Act 1984 shall be retained
consistent with the Data Protection Act 1984
requirements.
Page 8 of 17
POL00090073
POL00090073
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
950/1-9
(The CONTRACTOR shall provide an
overview document which describes and
summarises the solutions they are proposing
in response to the requirements documents
sent to them. It shall be written in such a
way that it logically links back to the
requirements.
(2)This document shall include aspects of the
overall end to end solution which are not explicitly
defined in the individual responses to
requirements.
(3)-The document shall be text biased and not
exceed 35 pages. It may be supported by annexes
which could include flow diagrams of the
technical solution and the support processes. It
shall be provided on floppy diskette in Word 6 (12
point) format accompanied by three hard copies
Service Provider Solutions Document
2.0
14/5/96
Service Provider Solutions Document
3.2
20/2/98
Fail
Fail
Defer
There is no logical link back to the requirements
The document formed the Solution response to
Requirement 950, see Solution Schedule ABOS
“(This requirement was to produce a solution
overview for use post award.]””
The final section of the document provides the logical
link back to the requirements. “Further clarification
may be gained from specific requirement responses to
the functional specification prepared pursuant to
Schedule B7 [the Requirements Schedule].” (Note
Schedule ABO4 was formerly called Schedule B7).
11/6 Agreed that SADD to be cited as additional
document to cover responses contained in Functional
Specification and carried forward to SADD.
The panel should be specifically pointed to the
relevant sections of the document.
Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2.2; aspects of sections 5, 6,
7, 9; 10.4.
11/6 Agreed that SADD to be cited as additional
document to cover responses contained in Functional
Specification and carried forward to SADD.
ATM to confirm this with the Horizon Library
11/6 Pathway provided copy of letter Pat Sedgwick to
Liam Foley 8/5/96
Page 9 of 17
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
(@-The format is to cover the following:
DSS
(5) This shall describe CMS and PAS and shall
include the following topics:
(a) Hardware proposed and sizing;
(b) physical locations of central sites;
(Cc) Software proposed;
(d) network (including topology, protocols);
(e) external interfaces (including CAPS and
POCL systems);
(£) resilience and availability;
(g) security;
(h) fallback and Recovery;
(i) scalability.
POCL
(6)-An end to end description of how the POCL
Service Infrastructure shall operate covering all
Outlets. This shall cover the solutions for OP,
TMS, SM, APS, BES, EPOSS and OBCS and
shall include the following topics:
wa
Fail
Not relevant
No longer applicable
BES out. Some of the topics appear to be missing in
the referenced documents ie. fallback and recovery
A side by side set of references is provided.
The specific fallback and recovery references are
listed in (g) below
Page 10 of 17
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
(a) Hardware proposed (with expected (a) 2.4, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 4.1
utilisation); (b) 2.3
(1b) physical locations of central sites; © 2.4 (UNIX, ORACLE7); 3.1, 4.1, 5.2 (NT);
(Cc) Software proposed (including operating 3.1.2 (Eicon); 4.1 (Openview); 5.2, 6 (SMS)
system, middleware and Application @ 5.1, 5.1.2, 7.4
Software); (@) = 7,75
(d) Wide Area Network (including topology, ) 8.1
protocols, message authentication); @ Fallback (backup): 1.2 (General), 1.3
(@) security (including any key management); (Middleware), 211 (ACCS), 2.3
(£) external interfaces (including POCL and Electricity), 3.1.1 (Counter), 4.2 (TMS),
Client systems); 5.1.1 (backbone), 10.1.2 (Helpdesk);
(g) fallback and Recovery; aT a 1 aon). 3 (Middleware),
aye Parner 3.1.1 (Counter), 4.2
(hh) resilience and availability, (1) Resilience: 1.2 (BPS), 3.2.3.1.4 (BES), 5
(4) scalability; (Network), 5.1.2 (ISDN); Availability: 5
(3) system management. (Network), 6 (General), 10.1.3 (Helpdesk)
@ 4.3 (TMS)
@ 6
Technical Interfaces Pass I There is a need to see that the OBCS interface is
delivered. This is substantiated by the SADD
(7) A description of how all the components of
the Service Infrastructure interact with each 11/6 Noted that the OBCS interface is described in
other and with other systems such as CAPS Section 3.2.4
and Post Office Group accounting systems.
Page 11 of 17
POL00090073
POL00090073
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
Benefit Payment Service wa No longer applicable
(8) This shall draw together the specific solutions
to CMS, PAS and BES into an integrated end
to end picture of how the Benefit Payment
Service shall work. This shall draw together
the specific solutions to:
(a) Card design;
(1b) responsibilities;
(c) security;
(d) fraud investigation;
(e) contingency.
Page 12 of 17
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
Provision of Services
(9) Anend to end description of how the
solutions shall be implemented and shall
include:
(a) Roll Out through to Steady State Service;
(b) migration of existing automation and
services;
(Cc) training and Documentation;
(d) Customer education and marketing;
(e) support Services, specifically help facilities.
(10)-The report shall be written at a level directed
at Programme Team members who have a
knowledge of the solution proposed.
Page 13 of 17
Fail
Defer
The provision of services does not include anything
on migration, documentation, marketing and support
services
The specific reference on Migration is at 3.2.5,
documentation (workbooks and guides) at 9.1.1.3,
marketing is at 9.2 and Support Services at 10.
@ 91
0) 3.2.5
() 9.1.1.3
@ 92
(e) Support Services: 10; Help: 2.1(PMS),
2.2(CMS), 3.2.3.1.4(BES), 3.2.4(OBCS),
9.1.1.1/2 (Rollout), 9.1.1.3 (Training Mode),
10 (SIS), 10.1(PMS/CMS), 10.2(SIS).
This is not mentioned earlier
The document was known to behave been received as
very useful, readable and informative. This is
evidenced by the fact that the Pathway were requested
to update the first version for requirements notified
after that and were not requested to make any
changes in treatment appropriate to an audience
having a different knowledge level.
11/6 Pathway provided copy of letter Pat Sedgwick to
Liam Foley 8/5/96
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
951/1-3 I (1) The CONTRACTOR shall develop and CRIFSP/004 Condit I Subject to Acceptance in other areas.
maintain the Service Architecture Design Service Architecture Design Document ional
Document, a document describing the 4.0 Pass
design of the Service Architecture. 30/9/97
(2) Asaminimum the Service Architecture CR/FSP/004 Condit I Subject to Acceptance in other areas
Design Document shall specify: Service Architecture Design Document ional
SA Pass I 11/6 subsection (e) added in column 2
(a) the major components, provided directly or I 23/7/98
sub-contracted, used in providing the
Services;
(b) the functionality within the major
components;
(Cc) the interfaces between the major
components;
(d) the Service Levels required across the
interfaces to meet the objectives of the
overall Services;
all the interfaces with the Service
Environment and with other parties”
computer systems
Page 14 of 17
POL00090073
POL00090073
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
(3) The audience for the Service Architecture Condit I 1J/6 section (3) added in column 2 as Conditional
Design Document shall be technical staff ional I Pass
within the AUTHORITIES. The Service Pass
Architecture Design Document shall be self
contained, though it is expected that it I
references other documents to provide I
further levels of detail as appropriate. The I
level of detail within the Service :
Architecture Design Document shall be such
that it gives a thorough background to the
construction of the Services and the
rationale for the approach. It is anticipated
that the Service Architecture Design
Document shall be between 200 and 400
pages in length.
958/1-3 The CONTRACTOR shall make the Software and n/a__I No longer applicable I
Equipment available for the purpose of the DSS I
Operational Trial end to end testing to ensure the
whole network of DSS Services and DSS Service
Infrastructure from DSS feeder systems through
PAS/CMS to the CAPS are able to work as a
whole.
The CONTRACTOR shall provide infrastructure
and support services for the DSS testing
environment
The CONTRACTOR shall produce a testing !
strategy and plan to be agreed with DSS by a date
consistent with the project plan agreed by the
parties, such that the date does not adversely
impact contractual milestones as defined in Clause
605.1 of the Authorities Agreement
Page 15 of 17 I
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
POL00090073
POL00090073
973/1
The Services may, during the lifetime of the
related agreements or at termination, need to be
replaced or supplemented with services provided
by other suppliers. It shall therefore be both
technically and commercially viable for the
Services to be replaced by and/ or interfaced to
services from other suppliers. To support this, the
CONTRACTOR shall declare all intemal
interfaces between separate Services within the
overall Service Architecture (including those
between PAS and CMS, PAS and the POCL
Infrastructure Services, CMS and the POCL
Infrastructure Services). For each interface the
CONTRACTOR shall provide an interface
specification covering the same properties and to
the same level of detail as requirements 934 - 940
and 942
CRVFSP/004
Service Architecture Design Document
4.0
30/9/97
CR/ESP/004
Service Architecture Design Document
5A
23/1198
Fail
Where does the evidence prove the technical and
commercial viability and how does the SADD doc.
provide the detail required in the last part
The commercial viability for POCL cannot be
evidenced by means of a Pathway Architecture
Design. POCL commercial viability can only be
proven by estimating the costs and revenues for a
particular supplier, which, by definition, is not ICL
Pathway, performing Service replacement(s). The
Criterion does not require such evidence: the first
sentences are statements of fact introducing and
explaining the reason for the requirements in the
sentence beginning: “To support this the
CONTRACTOR shall ...”. The technical viability is
similarly partly a function of the capability of the
supplier in question. That the Services are technically
replaceable is evidenced by the Service separations.
The Criterion is in two parts: first that the interfaces
are declared in the SADD, and second that the level
of specification is comparable with those in the
referenced requirements.
The interfaces are declared in SADD Appendix B -
Interfaces and functionally elaborated in the
appropriate sections in the body of the SADD.
The Interface Principles and Service Boundaries are
described in B.1. (Excluding DSS) the interfaces are
declared: EPOSS B.3.1 (read to exclude BPS
aspects); APS B.3.2; OBCS B.3.3.
The level of detail provided is significantly greater
than that provided in requirements 934-939 [940 no
longer existed] and 942 when functional material,
which is elaborated in the appropriate sections in the
body of the SADD, is taken into account.. Note that
none of these Requirements was a POCL one.
11/6 No further action.
Page 16 of 17
HORIZON PROJECT - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
Reviewer’s Notes (if required):
Page 17 of 17
POL00090073
POL00090073