Cathy/Marie
See the attached, period 08 (26/11/06) flexible planning v polfs
differences.
I have been unable to isolate the particular day ,only the period.
also see the e-mails from Anne Chambers (Fujitsu) regarding the
differences.
Dave
Dawn Brooks
13/12/2006 17:32
To: Dave Lancashire/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Marie Cockett/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Dave
I have updated Doug based upon the information you have provided, sounds
like good news. My concern is that there remain a number of anomalies
which clearly require investigation.
In readiness for period 9 reporting, and Carol's return, could we pull
together some kind of summary of the offices where we still have
differences, the 49 in question. I think we need to understand,
- month on month is the value of the difference consistent, or does the
difference vary over time? Could your summary include trend analysis from
period 3 onwards.
- can we isolate this to a particular day or transaction/rem?
- what is the overall value of the difference, is Flexible Planning
greater than POL FS or the other way around?
- what is the impact of this difference? Do we need to make any kind of
provision for this difference? Without knowing the value of the difference
I'm not sure if its material.
If you could pull this together over the next few days then could you go
through this with Carol or Marie, in the first instance or myself if they
are not around. My understanding is that Carol is aiming to come into
work on Monday although this is not 100% certain at this stage. We needa
decision about provisions by around next Wednesday so if Carol does not
come in you may wish to speak to Marie and walk her through your findings.
Does this sound ok?
Thanks
Dawn
Dave Lancashire
13/12/2006 09:26
- Forwarded by Dave Lancashire/e/POSTOFFICE on 18/12/2006 13:10 -----
POL00158371
POL00158371
To: Dawn Brooks/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
ce:
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Dawn
See the e mail from Anne Chambers (Fujitsu) changes have been made in
November (period 8) which has reduced the number of FP V POLFS
differences
to49 . Three were new at period 7 and seven newat period 8 most of
the other differences have been their since periods 3 and 4.
Dave
Dawn Brooks
12/12/2006 16:46
To: Dave Lancashire/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
ce:
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Dave
Could you give me an update please so that I can get back to Doug.
Thanks
Dawn
—- Forwarded by Dawn Brooks/e/POSTOFFICE on 12/12/2006 16:46 -----
Douglas Jenner
12/12/2006 15:31
To: Ann A Clarke/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Dawn
Brooks/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Mark Haldane/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Nick M
Lewis/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Ann/Dawn,
This is one of the issues you were pushing me and Scott to push forward.
As you can see Fujitsu implemented a fix back in June and we have been
awaiting evidence of what if any problems remain since. I will shortly be
relinquishing responsibility for POL FS so I would be grateful if you
could update us with what the ongoing problems are as soon as possible so
I can ensure this is handed over to whoever picks up my old role.
Thanks
Doug Jenner
Service Analyst
Post Office Ltd
POL00158371
POL00158371
1st Floor, Dearne House, Corton Wood Drive, Brampton, Barnsley, S73 OUF
louglas jenner¢
-— Forwarded by Douglas Jenner/e/POSTOFF
Mark Haldane
12/12/2006 12:19
on 12/12/2006 15:26 -----
To: "Walmsley Kirst
cc: douglas.jenner¢ _
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Kirsty
I'll have a word with Doug to see where we are with this one, because as
you mentioned it's now appearing in both the LFS and POL FS ORF's. With
that in mind I would presume that the problem is still ongoing but I will
confirm as soon as Doug is back from leave.
Regards
Mark
Business Systems Analyst
Post Office Ltd
Operations
1st Floor, South Wing, Post Office Ltd, Dearne House, Cortonwood Drive,
BARNSLEY, S73 OUF
Fax:
"Walmsley Kirsty" <Kirsty.Walmsley,_
04/12/2006 11:00
To: <mark.haldane:
cc: <douglas jenneri
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Hi again Mark,
Please can you confirm if we can close this problem down?
A fix was implemented in June this year - if this has not achieved the
desired result we need to know what issues are still remaining.
Doug and Sid copied because this action point is now appearing in both
LFS and POL FS ORF's.
POL00158371
POL00158371
Many thanks,
Kirsty Walmsley
Post Office Account
Service Delivery Manager
FUJITSU
From: Walmsley Kirsty
Sent: 01 November 2006 16:27
To: 'mark.haldané..
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Hi Mark,
Any update on this issue as yet?
Thanks,
Kirsty Walmsley
Post Office Account
Service Delivery Manager
FUJITSU
From: Walmsley Kirsty
Sent: 17 October 2006 10:41
To: 'mark.haldane¢
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Hi Mark,
Do you have any further update on this? Are you still having issues or
are you now happy for us to close this problem?
Many thanks,
Kirsty Walmsley
Post Office Account
Service Delivery Manager
FUJITSU
= Original Message-
From: mark.haldane,
[mailto:mark.haldane: _
Sent: 09 August 2006 12:30
To: Walmsley Kirsty
Subject: RE: P10001666 - Mismatch of cash holdings at some branches
between Flexible Planning and POL FS.
Kirsty
I have just had some feedback forwarded to me after a brief conversation
with one of the uses which I think relates to the problem ref. above.
POL00158371
POL00158371
POL00158371
POL00158371
More
detail should come out of the meeting arranged for Wednesday next week
(16.08.06) and I will contact Mark Wood and Dave Lancashire if required.
The perception is though that the users are not happy with the fix and
Pele will have to remain open.
Regards
Mark
Business Systems Service Analyst
Post Office Ltd
Operations
1st Floor, South Wing, CM Force Contract Centre, Corton Wood Business
Park,
Corton Way, ROTHERHAM, S73 OUF
Dawn Brooks
To: — Julie
Dart/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
20/07/2006 16:06 ec: MarkA
Wood/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: Update on
WP23933 (BE/0137387)(Document link: Julie Dart)
Julie
I'm not entirely happy with this response from Fujitsu, we do not
understand what the fix has actually achieved, what the effect should
have
been for example and neither do we understand the time when it was
applied.
There would appear to have been quite an impact on cash in pouches but
we
are not clear if this was intended or not. Normally we have around 88
differences between flexible planning and POL FS, with 33 of these
differences existing since period 6 last year. At period 3 there were
around 2000 differences.
Our comparison was done at the period end, based upon period 3 data, at
25
June 2006. If the fix was applied after this data then we might not
have
seen the impact.
Limited resource means that we will not be repeating the comparison
until
period 4, 30 July 2006.
Could you please liaise with Mark Wood and Dave Lancashire with regards
the
period 4 results to assess the impact of the fix and help us to push
back
to Fujitsu if appropriate?
Thanks
Dawn
Julie Dart
To: Dawn
Brooks/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
18/07/2006 11:17 ec: POLFS
Subject: Update on
WP23933 (BE/0137387)
Dawn,
Here is a further update on the enquiry you raised.
Please let me know if you need me to do anything further with Fujitsu.
Does this answer your query ?
Thanks
Julie
Systems Manager
Post Office Ltd
Finance
1st Floor East, 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
Fax:
POL00158371
POL00158371
ICE on 18/07/2006 11:16 -----
Subject: Update on
WP23933 (BE/0137387)
18/07/2006 10:42
Hi Julie,
Good Morning.
Here is the update regarding the WP23933 mentioned in BIM
BE/0137387.(APS
BIM mail sent on 13/07/06)
This was a problem that was under investigation since mid March this
year.
There was a bug in S60 where EOD failed to summarise correctly and left
the
balances set to incorrect values.
When summarisation changed at S80, this mechanism was still used for
calculating the generated cash position for SAP ADS and the figure is
calculated cumulatively from an S60 migration baseline.
The underlying problem was related to CABSPROCESS at the counter
sometimes
not updating the CofABalance persistent object with the generated cash
value that is sent to POLFS daily in the BLE files.
Now the first time that CABSProcess runs after a TP rollover a double
check
on the Balance attribute of <Collection: CofABalance><ObjectName:551000>
will be made. If it checks out OK an information event "Message: Balance
object checked and no discrepancy found!" will be written to the event
log
POL00158371
POL00158371
and if it does not check out an error event will be written to the event
log an example of which is ""Error Message: The CofABalance 551000
object
has been corrected.The original balance was -52.38 and the corrected
balance was -52.39.". In the latter case
<Collection:CofABalance><ObjectName:551000> will be corrected and it
will
have an extra attribute ErroneousBalance with the incorrect balance.
A fix to correct this was applied in WP23933, which was meant to:
1. Re-basline the balances from the Office Rollover values.
2. Notify and correct if the balances ever get out of step again.
WP23933 commenced live delivery 13/6/06 (LFS_COUNTER 31_2)
Regards,
Pooja Sujith
Business Support Analyst
Post Office Account
FUJITSU
lor intemal GRO.
Intemaliy
E-ma Pooja. Sujitt....
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.ccom
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered
Office
22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW
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: julie.dart GRO
Sent: 13 July 2006 F637 nnn
To: Sujith Pooja
Subject: Re: APS BIM for 13/07/06
Pooja,
Thanks for the update.....but....(always a but) could you provide me
with
details of the fix that went out WP23933 (what it was and who it went
POL00158371
POL00158371
POL00158371
POL00158371
to)
Thanks
Julie
Systems Manager
Post Office Ltd
Finance
1st Floor East, 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
External Email: julie.dart:
"Sujith Pooja"
rT GRO Kay Dolby"
"Sujith Pooja"
, "Tony Kane"
<suzanne.robsoni.......
Subject: APS BIM for
13/07/06
<<13_07_06_APS and EPOSS.zip>>
Pooja Sujith
Business Support Analyst
Post Office Account
FUJITSU
Fax! _
E-mail: Pooja.Sujithy
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered
Office
22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW.
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.
>>>> 13_07_06_APS and EPOSS.zip attachment was removed from this email
>>>> <<<<
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.
POL00158371
POL00158371
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.
POL00158371
POL00158371