Acceptance at Release Authorisation
A suggestion has emerged that Contractual Acceptance could be given at New
Release 2 Release Authorisation, rather than waiting the completion of the formal
Acceptance process. This note seeks to outline likely dangers in this approach.
© The only contractual right that the sponsors have to obtain any assurance that the
ICL Pathway service will met the contract is via the Acceptance process.
Assurance outwith acceptance is not supported by the contract and has, to date,
been only of limited effectiveness due to the reluctance of ICL Pathway to
provide access to the detail of their solution. This situation has only been
sustainable on the basis that the Acceptance process would provide an backstop
for assurance.
¢ The current approach to assurance involves the review and agreement of a high
level design, together with a full audit trail from the Requirements to associated
trials and reviews within the Acceptance process. The assurance process is
therefore closely linked to the Acceptance process.
e Although a number of the tests used in the Accpetance trials may already have
been run in some form (or due to be run in the coming few weeks), many of the
Acceptance Reviews will not have taken place before the Release Authorisation
Board has sat. A large number of deliverables cited for Acceptance Review have
yet been made available to Horizon, as these are scheduled to be produced
during the Operational Trial.
¢ The current approach will provide assurance to the Release Authorisation Board
that the associated “functionality” will work however it will not full prove the
service deliverability. The ability of ICL Pathway to deliver the service (rather
than just provide software) will only be demonstrated through the period of Live
Trial, which by definition occurs after the Release Authorisation Board.
¢ Release Authorisation will only consider that functionality supplied for New
Release 2; by its nature of being release orientated it does not consider that core
functionality postponed by ICL Pathway to New Release 2+ or thereafter.
Conclusion
The current Acceptance Process acts as a safety net for the Contracting Authorities,
offering a level of protection from having to accept and rollout an inadequate service.
We believe it would be very dangerous to accept any proposal which would remove
the protection offered by the Acceptance process.
Without this protection, the Authorities would be exposed to having to rely for
Acceptance on a Release Authorisation process which was been designed for a much
less significant purpose, that is to authorise the implementation in 300 offices for a
limited period of time. Without a live trial and associated Acceptance activities, the
RAB is unlikely to have adequate evidence by which to make an informed
Acceptance decision.
This could result in the Acceptance of a service which, although demonstrated in
“lab conditions”, would be totally unsuitable for rollout to the network.
WITNO5970119
WITN05970119
WITNO5970119
WITN05970119
Jeremy Folkes
12th October 1998