Thanks for your note.  With the increased focus on our middle office products 
and the possible outsourcing of those, I am in very stong agreement that all 
groups need to start documenting their processes and procedures and believe 
it falls under my responsibility to ensure they do so. 

I would be very interested in knowing a bit more about SCOR as any tools - I 
just received the package you sent me. I'll look it over and get back to you 
on how I intend to approach this.

Thanks






HEIDI MASON@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
02/11/2001 07:06 PM
To: Shona Wilson@Enron
cc: sally.beck@enron.com 

Subject: Your Input please

Shona

Sent a message to Sally earlier this week that I realised afterwards would 
have been best directed to you in the first instance. Apologies for that.

I was and still am, seeking input on the whole issue of the level of written 
control procedures we should have and the best way to achieve that. When I 
first started here I was a little surprised at the lack of written 
procedures. While I believe the actual control structure is good, there is 
very little in writing, even in the most generic form. In discussing this 
with Paul Quilkey, he noted that policy, at least when he was in Houston, was 
to deliberately minimise the written procedures to prevent it being too 
transportable.

The reason for my query is that I last week looked at SCOR, a control review 
process marketed by the Aust Financial Markets Association. It is a risk 
control review process which allows you to benchmark your processes and which 
provide detailed documentation which can be personalised to your business, to 
create controls review. It is very detailed and has been subscribed to by 
most of our competitors in the energy market. 

I am interested in subscribing, it we want/need detailed review notes, 
however in light of PQ's comments I wanted your feed back on exactly what is 
required/desirable to have for each site. 

With thanks

Heidi