mcis Project News Richard Goodwin Nigel Williams 20 th May 2008

mcis Issues identified  Some RDA concerns / perceptions  e.g. missed dates, constant change to Data Dictionary  Testing of core  Status with YF  Need for stability  Expectation of Target go-live build  Dates  Content, expectation of full system?  Need to focus on the target go live build  Too many commitments - team spread thin  Not sure we have identified everything that needs to be in place to achieve sign-off of MCIS  Need more visibility across all teams as a whole, re.:  Compliance checks, plans for live use  Impacts on changes on local teams  Local team plans, MCIS team plans

mcis Shift Focus to getting a signed-off system  Postpone implementation preparation activities in RDAs except ONE & YF (NB: does not mean stopping work on payment interfaces, web service, or AWM’s SQL to XML conversion solution)  Create detailed Release Plan, including external milestones relevant to sign-off (e.g. PIG meetings), and manage against it  Mark Swan to focus on UAT; Anne Smith to focus on Release Plan & Release Management  Be clear what’s in scope and what’s a change to the plan  Manage changes: assess functional, technical & stakeholder impact – where possible before change happens, so we have choices  Establish go-live criteria for RDAs, CA, MA & AA  Establish criteria for, & evidence needed to obtain, S.R.O.’s sign-off

mcis Key actions: Design & Build  Definition of target go-live release  What’s in it  What’s not in it, and why / how RDAs can go live without those functions (e.g. what’s the workaround?)  Agree that definition with ONE, YF, CA, MA, other RDAs, MCIS S.R.O.  Build only the inclusions plus fixes sufficient to achieve sign-off  Clear process & responsibilities for incorporating requirements, or other changes

mcis Key actions: Testing  Script coverage matrix (what scripts have been run for each release)  Use matrix (gaps) & knowledge of what’s changed in a build, to prioritise script execution  Track defect levels:  no. open & no. fixed, by severity,  trend in volume being raised (tailing off?)  Brief, regular meetings of development & testing – for system test & for UAT– to align fixing activity & build timings to tester need  Ensure evidence capture arrangements are sufficient

mcis Stakeholder Management  Improve communication with RDAs  Greater transparency around our progress – should give increased confidence  Explain why we have to change things that affect them – in terms their (business & IT) staff can understand – explain what impact assessment has been done, and involve them in process  Quantify changes so their understanding of the impact will be realistic  Keep them posted. Explain delays  Copy FDs on the weekly report, and pick out key messages in the covering  Identify who in the team will assess & manage the stakeholder impact of changes in plan, scope etc.

mcis Steering and Sign-off  Confirm the following group will sign-off UAT and ask them to act as a Release Board:  Richard Goodwin, MCIS S.R.O. (Chair)  Giles Southwell/Naomi Charlton, Head of Organisational Performance, One NorthEast (who will sign-off ONE’s Go-Live decision)  (to be confirmed) Adrian Green, European Funding Manager, Yorkshire Forward (who will sign-off YF’s Go-Live decision)  Margaret Lees, CLG EPP, Head of Managing Authority  Kim Humberstone, CLG Finance, Head of Certifying Authority  Karan Price, CLG Internal Audit Service, Head of Audit Authority  Nigel Williams, CLG EPP Programme Manager  Ensure this group’s acceptance criteria are understood  Create Acceptance Report as a vehicle for their sign-off  Instigate high-level monthly report to the PIG  Consider OGC Gateway 4 Review (Readiness for Service) – how would timing relate to MCIS roll-out across RDAs?