Enron North America and Enron Canada are still providing IT and Back Office Services to several parties.  Beth has expressed some concerns about the estate's ability to be able to support  a production trading environment once a split of applications and hardware is made between NETCO and the estate.  Given this we need to make some decisions as to how to best handle these services agreements.  Here are some suggestions:

Peggy Hedstrom, in Calgary would like to assign the Enron Canada Master Services agreements to NETCO and continue to service those via that entity.

Bridgeline, which is a JV in which ENA owns a 40% interest, currently has no way that they can support themselves.  They are totally dependent on Enron for everything from email, internet, network services and office applications as well as trading, risk and back office applications.  If there are concerns about the estate's ability to support Bridgeline then it may be in Enron's best interest to assign this agreement to NETCO.

AEP/HPL is more of a stand alone operation.  They have their own infrastructure in place and currently provide for their own email and office support services.  They have also brought up with their own version of our SCADA system and are in the process of trying to bring up their own version of our Pipeline Operations system.  If we sell them our version of PGAS to support their measurement operations they will then try to tie these applications into their own Trade Blotter, Open Link Financials and Altra.  Their goal was to try and have all of this in place by sometime in June of this year.  Given all of the Commercial conflicts with AEP regarding the sale of HPL it may make the most sense to leave this agreement with the estate and suggest that AEP try to be stand alone ASAP.  That way if the estate defaults on the service agreement then they can at least manually rekey information from one system to another until they have put in their own integration between the applications listed above.

Please let me know if you have any comments or if it makes sense to put together a meeting to discuss the issues of Service Agreements.

  

Tommy J Yanowski
Sr. Director - Enron Net Works
Work # 713.853.6858
Cell # 713.539.7094


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Perlman, Beth  
Sent:	Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:54 PM
To:	Johnson, Jeff; Stock, Steve; McAuliffe, Bob
Cc:	Webb, Jay; Yanowski, Tommy J.; Burchfield, Richard
Subject:	RE: Integration Test Planning / Coordination Mtg Summary

The AEP and Bridgeline deals must be investigated.  There is no way the estate can support a production environment.  I will be reviewing the contracts to determine our obligations and possible alternatives.

Beth

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Johnson, Jeff  
Sent:	Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:23 PM
To:	Stock, Steve; McAuliffe, Bob; Greig, Iain; Nommensen, Dave; Ward, Bob; Sanvido, Terry; Wei, Zhiyong; Nat, Steve; Harmon, Kenneth M.; Warner, John; Saleem, Aftab; Smith, Regan M.; Hillier, Bob
Cc:	Webb, Jay; Perlman, Beth
Subject:	Integration Test Planning / Coordination Mtg Summary



Key Planning Assumptions
1) Jan 20 go live
2) New Co Conversions must be completed and tested by application teams by Jan 15. This assumes all major production data setup - users, rights, books, global data - is completed and tested on a per application basis. Some code changes may still be in process but integration testing can begin to ensure the applications still talk to each other. 
3) Integration test planning focus will be to run representative transactions from EOL to SAP through all core trading applications to ensure that applications and interfaces still work. We will not be testing functional permutations, data conditions, validation or exceptions to any significant degree. 
4) Each application conversion team must test their changes before approving their changes for integration testing. We are operating from the premise that data, infrastructure and code changes have been tested at a application system level before the enterprise integration test starts. 
4) All systems will be physically split (even Unify at this point). 
5) Integration test team will develop and execute the test plan for both Estate and New Co. 
6) We will integrate key business reps into the process for planning and execution and they will have shared responsibility for signoff on the test to support go live to production. 
7) We will minimize the differentiation between New Co and Estate for conversion and test team purposes. There are two teams - Conversion and Integration Test. Each team will focus on both Estate and New Co. Resources are too tight and the process is too inefficient to separate responsibility. 
8) Estate conversions must happen at the application level before New Co conversion work can begin in earnest. Estate conversion is on the critical path for New Co. 


Key Issues
1) We will push to get a decision to see if we can focus on financial trading first, then physical. If financial is the focus, delivery risk goes down dramatically. For now, we must plan on the worst case -- physical and financial on Jan 20. 
2) We need both a dev and a test environment for all systems that support AEP and Bridgeline in Estate. This means that we need a dev environment (and HW gap addressed) for Unify, Sitara, CPR, TAGG/ERMS. Conversion teams need to coordinate with infrastructure immediately on this issue to make sure we're in synch. 
3) Unify servers probably can't be owned by New Co while running a single license of Unify. 
4) Some systems are using 'short name' instead of Duns ID as a key for counterparties from Global. The Global, TAGG / ERMS, Unify and SAP reps must quickly define the best approach for making global data changes and minimizing hard coded reference id risks. 
5) We must clearly define limits of conversion and test scope to hit these potential dates. We must focus on core systems with only core changes required to support day one trading. 
6) We can only convert Estate over the weekend due to AEP / Bridgeline considerations. The time window will be very small. 


Core Conversion Team  
1) Steve Stock - Applications
2) Bob McAuliffe - Infrastructure
3) Ziyong Wei
4) Steve Nat
5) Dave Nommensen
6) Ken Harmon
7) John Warner
8) Bob Ward
....

Core Integration Test Team 
1) Jeff Johnson
2) Iain Greig
3) Aftab Saleem
4) Terry Sanvido
5) Regan Smith

Program Coordination 
1) Jane Henry
2) Steve Simpson

Next Steps For Integration Test Team
1) Due 12/20. Define integration test approach and id test script and expected results templates. Owner: Aftab Saleem / Regan Smith
2) Due Jan 3. Application system flow diagram at appropriate granularity for communicating flow on integration test for core systems. Owner: Terry Sanvido / Steve Simpson
3) Due 12/20. Identify list of core systems for test purposes. Identify key IT owner and key business owner and respresentative for integration test. Owner: Iain Greig. 
4) Due 12/21. Define integration test workplan for integration test planning and execution for both Estate and New Co. Owner: Jeff Johnson
5) Ongoing. Participation in daily program management coordination meeting at 8:30. Owners: Jeff Johnson, Iain Greig, Aftab Saleem. 
6) Due 12/21. Organize meeting with key users and IT contacts to communciate foundation assumptions, context, team and approach for integration test. Develop first cut at sample trade transaction set. Owner: Iain Greig / Aftab Saleem. 
7) Completed. Contact Bob Hall, Leslie Reeves, Bob Superty, Brice Baxter to communicate above and set up meeting to begin planning with them on the integration testing process. Owner: Jeff Johnson
8) Due 12/21.  Refine core system list with IT owners and Business owners for integration test purposes. Owner: Iain Greig. 
9) Due 12/20. Set up Integration Test folder on O drive under Infotech / Development Support.  Owner: Aftab Saleem. 

Let me know if you have questions or changes. I am out tomorrow but I'm back on Friday. 

Thanks.