POL00401660
POL00401660
(CL
‘aFulitsu company
Keith Baines Our Ref: CLS/jla/304
IS Service Manager - ICLP
Post Office Counters Limited
2®° Floor RECEIVED
Calthorpe House 24 OCT 2001
15-20 Phoenix Place 374
London WC1X ODG 23rd October 2001
Dear Keith,
CRR181
As you will recall, at the JCCB on 10 October 2001 ICL Pathway’s rejection of CR
R181 was discussed. As agreed at that JCCB I am writing in order to set out some
underlying principles and to seek the clarification we require in order to make real
progress with this Change Request.
As you are aware the history that lead up to submission of this CR was a series of
discussions and letters between yourself and ICL Pathway’s Tony Oppenhiem, the
final letter being from Tony to you dated 3 January 2001.
Whilst CR R181 is clearly based on that letter and seems to address when the
effect of changes introduced by POL will be taken into account with regard to re-
measuring benchmark times, CR R181does not address how the impact of such
changes should be applied to the target transaction times, as set out in that letter.
In particular, where a change which is to be taken into account in releases
subsequent to the current release would damage ICL Pathway’s ability to meet
target transaction times, those target times should be increased by an amount
equivalent to the increase in the benchmark times which would result if the
benchmark times were re-measured in the release introducing the change. This
principle is described in Tony’s letter of 3 January as having been discussed with
you and we consider it appropriate. We think it is necessary to agree how an
adverse impact on benchmark times resulting from a POL initiated change would
be dealt with. In respect of the NBS, the approach to re-measuring benchmark
times and adjusting target times is set out, as you have seen, in paragraph 5.23 of
draft Schedule NO1. Subject to the additional points raised below and agreement
upon the detail, we propose that approach is adopted in substance for all POCL
Services. CR R181 proposes amendments to the Codified Agreement as follows:
nl Transaction times shall be calculated only once at the start of each major
release.
24/10 '01 15:54 TX/RX NO. 1991 POL
we
n2
n.3
Where POCL has requested a change to the structure of the menu
hierarchy ICL Pathway may request that the transaction times are
recalculated in accordance with 2.5.1 above.
‘Where changes made to the menu hierarchy have an adverse impact on
ICL Pathway’s ability to meet the SLA for the next and subsequent
releases will be assessed by amendments to “Counter Transaction
Performance Measurement and Benchmarking” which will be agreed with
POCL prior to each release where changes take effect.’
The suggestion in the CR is that these words are added as a new paragraph in the
Service Level Schedules FO8 (EPOSS), H08 (OBCS) and E08 (APS).
There are a number of points we would like to make on these suggested
n.2
amendments to the Codified Agreement. Our comments are shown against
the paragraph numbering from the proposed drafting above taken from the
CR:n.1 We need to be clear what constitutes a ‘major release’. Currently
the planned releases known as BI1, BI2 and BI3 would be classified as
major releases in this context and ICL Pathway intends to carry out a
benchmarking exercise for each of these releases. Subsequent ‘major
releases’ incorporating material changes to any of the POCL Services would
be notified to POL as they are planned.
In addition if there had not been a ‘major release’ in a quarter but POL
initiated changes had been implemented that potentially affected the
benchmark times then ICL Pathway would want to carry out a
benchmarking exercise at the end of that quarter.
Whenever benchmark times are re-measured, we would expect the principle
described above of adjusting the target times for any adverse impact
resulting from such changes to apply. The principle of backdating benefits
to the date of introduction of the change, which is referred to in CR R181
but not reflected in the proposed contract amendments, should also apply.
With regard to the words ‘Where POCL has requested a change to the
structure of the menu hierarchy ICL Pathway may request that the
transaction times are recalculated in accordance with 2.5.1 above’ we would
make the following points:
¢ Whilst the reference to paragraph 2.5.1 could apply to Schedule FO8
it seems to be incorrect. Paragraph 2.5.1 in FQ8 states ‘The printer
component actual time shall be measured in accordance with section
7/8 of the CCD entitled Counter Transaction Performance
Measurement and Benchmarking’. We assume therefore that the
reference in F08 should be to paragraph 2.5, in H08 to paragraph 3.4 \
and in E08 to paragraph 1.5 and that the substantive point behind
these references is that the benchmark times should be re-measured
in accordance with the CCD entitled ‘Counter Transaction
Performance Measurement and Benchmarking’.
24/10 ‘01 15:54 TX/RX NO. 1991
POL00401660
POL00401660
wuud
(CL
aFujitsu company
ener cee ae ee chee aun raiamar
e A more significant point with this proposed drafting is that we
believe that ICL Pathway should not be obliged to request of POL
the right to re-benchmark but should have the right (exercisable at
Pathway’s option) to carry out a benchmarking exercise if there has
been a change requested by POL that potentially impacts the
benchmark times.
n3 This drafting proposes amendments are made to the CCD ‘Counter
Transaction Performance Measurement & Benchmarking’ as a result of
adverse impacts on benchmark times resulting from POL requested menu
changes. This CCD describes the methodology only, so we are assuming
that the CCDs that would require updating would be the appropriate service
documents for example, ‘EPOSS Benchmark Counter Transaction Times’, #~
In addition to these drafting points we believe that in respect of other relevant
POL requested changes (whether OBC requests or Change Requests) it would be
appropriate and beneficial to both parties to re-measure benchmark times based on
the same principles and address the impact on target times in the same way as
agreed for POL initiated menu hierarchy changes. Where changes initiated
through Change Requests necessitate benchmark activities taking place prior to
operational release into the live estate they create the same problem as for menu
hierarchy changes of potentially requiring implementation of a release to be
delayed whilst those activities are completed. By using the same approach for
other POL initiated changes as that agreed for menu hierarchy changes there
would be a measure of consistency and there would also be the potential benefit of
substantial annual cost savings to POL from the reduced number of benchmarking
exercises.
If you are able to confirm your agreement to the principles set out above then ICL
Pathway will submit a CCN to address these issues without an amended CR being
issued by POL. Therefore we would welcome agreement to these principles at
your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
Colin Lenton-Smith
Director, Commercial and Finance
24/10 '01 15:54 TX/RX NO. 1991
POL00401660
POL00401660
(goo3
(CL
@ Fulltsu company
P03