Senior User Group

1
Senior User Group

• 17th September 2008

2
Introduction Previous Actions

• Nigel Williams

3
Previous Actions

• 1 MCIS team to prepare Data Dictionary/XML
  Guidance Notes
• 2 Finalise YF UAT Sign Off
• 3 SWRDA to raise Project Variance reporting
  with Ginny Walker
• 4 Implementation dates with YF, AWM and EMDA
  to be finalised
• 5 Approach to PIRs to be developed
• 6 Dates for NWDA interface to be agreed
• 7 AA to issue guidance on evidence to satisfy
  Annex XII
• 8 AA to clarify which RDAs to have more
  detailed follow up inspection
• 9 MA to provide clarity on what additional
  info maybe needed in Annex XII
• 10 MCIS team to issue approach to Implementation
  and User testing
• 11 Change Control process to be issued

4
R1 Development Progress Test Status

• Mark Swan / Rocco Volpe

5
R1 Development Progress Test Status, Topics

• Overall status, key achievements
• V1.8 contents
• Interface developments
• Full user update
• Core system testing
• Progress with YF
• Issues found, lessons learned
• Guidance notes
• Current actions

6
Key Achievements Since Last SUG

• Training of trainers for full system users
  completed
• EEDA passed UAT, now ready for live
• Release 1.8 deployed, for core system go live
• Help texts User Guides available
• Financial interface with LDAs Open Accounts
  systems test complete
• Core system testing with YF continues but some
  issues to resolve
• Core user integration test planning meetings now
  all held
• Deployed first version of Release 2 into systems
  test
• Progress with YF (see later slides)
• Priority axis problem
• Lessons learned documented
• Guidance notes prepared and first drafts issued
• Current actions recommence next week

7
Release 1.8.0 Key Features

• Primarily a release to fix some important
  defects
• User set up adding users to projects works,
  obsolete user records / projects now not in list
• XML upload claim resubmission allowed, priority
  axis and claim type codes corrected, indicator
  amounts now not doubling, forecasts with decimals
  now allowed
• Aggregation clawback step problem resolved,
  Paid status works
• Projects systems errors removed, step ticking
  works, CLG, PMO literals added
• Claims grant payable screen now visible on all
  claim statuses
• Assignment of new projects to applicant user
  records now automatic
• Help texts included

8
Interface Developments

• MCIS financial interface with LDA
• MCIS developer, working with LDA IT, ran
  end-to-end tests to prove the two sides of the
  interface work correctly together
• Only 1 error was found that was not fixed and
  re-tested on the day
• Interface was demonstrated to LDA finance
  representatives - they were content
• Other financial interfaces
• With OneNE, SEEDA, EEDA in the pipeline, but
  not critical to sign-off
• Web service interfaces for NWDA
• Generic version delivered 09/09/08
• Working version for Model Office, delivered
  15/09/08
• Data to be updated today

9
Core Planning Meetings

• EMDA 02/09/08, next 24/09/08 to start
  integration testing
• AWM 04/09/08, next 25/09/08 -------ditto
• SWRDA 16/09/08, next tba -----------ditto
• More about plans later.

10
Progress with YF Issues Found, Lessons Learned

• 01/08/08
• Project Claim XML files
• Sample of XML data of 6 projects successfully
  passed validation after a few corrections
• Project File
• Programme reference reset to 090, not 90
• Header record format corrected
• Programme Priority Axis code wrong in MCIS
  software (mismatch with data dictionary)
• Data validations rules on dates reapplied
• Claim schedule misunderstandings resolved
• Claim type code wrong in MCIS software (mismatch
  with data dictionary)

11
Progress with YF Issues Found, Lessons Learned

• 05/08/08, some problems
• Project File
• Load of 6 projects failed, so one project at a
  time used
• Worries about zero values causing performance
  problems, so zeros suppressed
• Data loaded successfully once validation rules
  had passed, in particular claim schedule
  complete, costs, funding, indicators present for
  all quarters
• Claims File
• Successfully generated after claim period changed

12
Progress with YF Issues Found, Lesson Learned

• 14/08/08, lots of successes, but also some
  problems
• 6 projects and 7 claims loaded successfully, one
  project had multiple PAs
• Chris Lamb (as Aggregate Claim Editor) worked
  with the system
• Costs and funding profile incomplete for one
  project
• One project had a claim for a future claim period
• YF expenditure category code incorrect
  reference data catalogue change needed
• Expenditure data and grant calculations correct
• Layout of target screens needs improvement
• Workflow testing exposed some errors, raised in
  SharePoint
• Cognos MI reporting demonstrated, reconciliation
  reports now available generally regarded as
  good more needed / amendments requested

13
Progress with YF Issues Found, Lesson Learned

• 28/08/08, some problems and successes
• 20 projects but with zero values failed to load
  file size problems (40 Mbytes) due to a zero
  entry for every O/P expenditure category, every
  O/P indicator, every claim period
• Indicator and expenditure forecasts failed the
  validation rules
• Quarterly progress reports successfully loaded
• 11/09/08, some problems
• Duplicate priority axes, due to phasing in
  funding and other funding and have to paid at
  different intervention rates
• Policy directives on this subject e.g. separate
  projects
• Solution to increase PAs from 5 to 9
• Other options considered 2 programmes, 2
  aggregate projects note - MCIS can cope with all
  of these solutions, but revision of data
  configuration in O/P spreadsheets is needed

14
Implementation Status Plan

• Nigel Williams, Mark Swan

15
Implementation Status Plan, Topics

• Go live approach document, including involvement
  of AA finalising compliance statements
• Overview of timescales
• EEDA implementation user testing and Model
  Office
• Project situation report
• Security review

16
Overview of Timescales
17
Go Live Approach User Testing

• Document Issued covering
• The go live and implementation approach
• Difference between User Testing Model Office
• The end to end User Test
• The witnessed test by the MA, CA, AA
• Generic Acceptance Criteria
• Standard end to end test script
• Additional information required by the AA to
  demonstrate compliance
• before we sign off the opinion provided in
  respect of the compliance assessment review
  (anticipated during September 2008) we will need
  to review the results of the MCIS and local
  computerised testing.
• Attend user test events, review outcomes
• Further in depth review of 2 RDAs, 1 x core 1 x
  full
• Model Office evidence

18
Go Live Approach User Testing

• RDA/MCIS Interface evidence required by AA in
  Management Control
• Are ERDF funds accounted for separately, and
  against correct budget headings?
• RDA MI systems that identifies
• each operation
• the final beneficiary
• the date of approval of the grant
• the amounts committed and paid
• the period of expenditure
• the total expenditure by measure and by sub-total
  
• Procedures to ensure that the data flow can be
  followed from first entry to output and the
  transfer of data between the systems
• Reconciliations between systems
• Responsibility for system maintenance
  monitoring
• Access security controls, including backup
  arrangements

19
Go Live Approach User Testing

• Additionally, the AA also require evidence of
• RDAs internal approval and governance of
  interface arrangements and documentation
• MCIS and local system interfaces - effectiveness
  of workflows and accuracy and consistency of
  financial and other information
• Interface descriptions, flow charts,
  configuration plans, desk instructions and other
  documentation
• Operating personnel, including job descriptions
  and training
• Systems ownership and accountability, maintenance
  and change control.
• Continuity planning, back up procedure and
  disaster recovery
• Chinese walls and other special procedures
  where RDA is the beneficiary are being observed,
  separation of duties
• Audit trails and version control
• Confirm the reliability and completeness of
  statements made in the RDA system description in
  Annex XII

20
EEDA Model Office User Test

• Approach
• Model Office 4th to 9th Sept
• Scenarios included, and went beyond, the standard
  set for User Test
• 8 projects, taken from real life, and covering a
  range of types
• 24 financial claims, including restricted and
  final. 6 progress report claims
• Real users, not generic (single-role) logins
• Some processing was demonstrated (1 project
  set-up, 1 claim, aggregation)
• The rest was done beforehand, and EEDAs
  observations recorded
• Scope was EEDAs overall ERDF operation, not just
  use of MCIS
• Off-line processes, forms and other documentation
  were also shown

21
EEDA Model Office User Test

• Outcome
• No time to give Witnesses a tour of the projects,
  claims processed before the day
• User Test sign-off was achieved on the day
• For Model Office, the CA and AA identified some
  follow-up actions in process

22
Project Situation Report

• Need to change implementation approach
• Decouple core and full implementations
• System is ready to make 1st core system live
• Allow full users to progress implementations
• Address any defects found in core user testing
  in later release
• Views of RDAs?

23
Security Review

• MCIS Security Assessment only covers MCIS
  Hosting
• As MCIS is reliant on information held outside of
  the system, assurances are needed that ensure its
  integrity, trust and reliability
• Latest National Security Standard requires that
• Departments are responsible for ensuring a
  coherent approach to information risk management
  across affiliated agencies and Non-Departmental
  Public Bodies. They should lead efforts to engage
  these stakeholders to satisfy themselves that the
  appropriate levels of information risk management
  are maintained in these wider organisations
• IS1 requires an Information Risk Assessment
  across the process
• This will be achieved by a survey of the RDAs
  security arrangements put in place against the
  latest standards proposal is to use the MCIS
  CLAS consultant to gather the information
• Results will be presented back to the SUG at a
  later date

24
Security Review

• The Survey will cover
• Security Policy
• Organisation of Information Security
• Human Resources Security
• Phyisical Environmental Security
• Media handling Security
• IT Communications Operations Management
• Monitoring
• Access Control
• User Responsibilities
• Mobile Working
• Business Continuity Management
• Compliance

25
End of Morning Agenda Items Any Other Business?

• All

26
Lunch

• All!

27
MCIS Post Contract Governance

• Dawn Eastmead

28
Governance, Key Principles

• Focus on contract management as a distinct
  function
• Build on what works use existing structures
• Following IT infrastructure Library (ITIL)
  principles
• Align the IT service with the current and future
  needs of the business and customers
• Improve the quality of the IT service
• Reduce the long term cost of the service provision

29
Business Environment
DG Regional Policy
MANAGING AUTHORITY
INTERMEDIARY BODIES (2007 2013)
EPP
mcis
GOVERNMENT OFFICES (2000-2006)
30
What are we trying to achieve?

• Arrangements to manage the contractual
  relationship with the MCIS supplier
• A clear role for key stakeholders
• Allow all stakeholders to participate in defining
  the direction and prioritisation of any system
  enhancements
• A one customer focus for engagement with the
  service provider
• Role clarity between the various levels of
  governance
• Put in place escalation and change control
  mechanisms
• Allow for SLA reporting and feedback of the
  support service
• Ensure contractual management mechanisms are
  established
• Clear interface with other ERDF delivery functions

31
Governance links with programme management

• ERDF Management Control
• Ensure arrangements in place for effective
  management control of the programmes
• Facilitate regional practitioners to share and
  learn from experiences and help the network
  achieve compliance and N2
• Make sure the right group resolve the issues that
  they are best placed to understand
• Define the responsibilities and authorities of
  the various groups

32
Some core governance functions
33
Proposed Organisation
Programme Implementation Group (PIG) Service
Management Board (SMB)
Chair EPP head of division Attendees All RDAs,
MA, CA, AA, BERR

• Responsibilities
• Overall direction management
• Authorise contract variations
• Arbitrate on business issues

MCIS Change Approval Board
MCIS Service Manager
Chair EPP Service Manager Attendees 1 x core,
1 x full RDAs, MA, CA, Supplier rep
Senior User Group (SUG) Service Delivery Board

• Responsibilities
• Reviewing change requests
• Impact assessments
• Monitoring SLA compliance

Chair EPP Service Manager Attendees All RDAs,
MA, CA, AA

• Responsibilities
• Ensuring operation compliance
• Resolving business technical issues
• Recommend way forward to PIG SMB
• Arbitrate on business issues

34
Issues / Questions for Discussion Nigel Williams
35
Issues / Questions for Discussion, Topics

• What information does the CA require in aggregate
  progress reports
• Article 55 COCOF paper issued what next?
• Others??

36
Release 2

• Alex McIntosh / Alex Hazell

37
Release 2, Topics

• Functional Specification walkthroughs
• R2 schedule
• Current status
• Design reviews

38
Release 2, Progress

• Functional specification walkthroughs completed
• SEEDA
• EEDA
• ONE
• Release 2 Design Completed
• Project Categorisations
• Design document
• Screen design
• Funding Agreement
• Report specification
• First cut of report
• Release 2 Functionality Currently in Design
• Visits
• Irregularities
• Clawbacks

39
Development Plan
40
Risks / Issues Nigel Williams
41
Risks / Issues, Topics

• Risk log review
• New risks / issues

42
End of Afternoons BusinessAny Other Points?

• All