Archived System CR SCR082302-01EX Detail |
| Title: Exception Request to Implement Multiple CRs Prior to IMA 12.0 | |||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Level of Effort |
Interface/ Release No. |
Area Impacted |
Products Impacted |
|
|
|||||
| SCR082302-01EX |
Completed 9/19/2002 |
- | 3/ | ||
| Originator: Balvin, Liz |
| Originator Company Name: WorldCom |
| Owner: Thompson, Jeff |
| Director: |
| CR PM: Stecklein, Lynn |
| Description Of Change |
|
As excerpted from an August 22, 2002 email from Elizabeth Balvin/WorldCom to Michael Buck/Qwest -
"Exception:
To implement the following CRs SCR060702-01 Migrating Customers using the Conversion As Specified Activity Type and SCR061302-01 Migrate UNE-P Customers by TN prior to IMA 12.0 planned production release of April/03.
Description of request with good cause for seeking an exception:
Qwest is currently not industry compliant because of its requirements surrounding migrate as specified and the fact that migrate by TN currently is not available. Currently, when migrating as specified, CLECs are obligated to differentiate between features the customer already has and features the customer desires for the first time. They are also forced to include the customer's service address and customer code on every order, and must retrieve new customer codes before submitting supplemental orders. The requirement for additional information places the burden on CLECs to pull, populate and verify information prior to order submission -- all steps that reduce efficient ordering and provides greater room for error. NOTE: Requested migrate as specified capabilities existed prior to IMA release 6.0.
Desired outcome:
That the migrate as specified and migrate by TN CRs are implemented by Qwest per OBF guidelines no later than the end of 2002.
Supporting documentation:
1) "Qwest's Wholesale Change Management Process Document - 7/10/02", section 16.0 states "If the Exception Request is for changes to CMP timelines and sets forth specific dates for completion of tasks, a two-thirds majority vote will be required unless Qwest or a CLEC demonstrate, with substantiating information, that one of the criteria for denial set forth in Sections 5.1.3 or 5.3 is legitimately applicable. If one of the criteria for denial will cause such an exception request to be rejected, the requestor may withdraw the specific dates from its exception request at the meeting where it is discussed, in order to have the two thirds majority vote apply to the request." Thus WCom believes a two/thirds vote would be required to implement the requested changes prior to IMA 12.0 planned production release date of 4/03.
2) Qwest's Ex Parte dated August 13, 2002 addressing the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau requests states "The Exception Process, specified in Section 16 of the CMP, provides the ability for a CLEC or Qwest to request a deviation from the CMP. This process could be used to request expedited treatment or implementation outside of the normal planned release". Thus WCom requests the identified CRs be implemented outside the normal planned IMA release date of 4/03.
VOTE: That CRs SCR060702-01 Migrating Customers using the Conversion As Specified Activity Type and SCR061302-01 Migrate UNE-P Customers by TN are implemented by Qwest no later than the end of 2002. A "yes" response would require Qwest to implement by the end of 2002. A "no" vote would require the CRs to follow the processes currently imposed by the Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document."
|
Status History |
| Date | Action | Description |
| 8/23/2002 | CR Submitted | |
| 8/23/2002 | CR Acknowledged | |
| 8/27/2002 | Communicator Issued | Notice CMPR.08.27.02.F.01320.CMP_Meeting_Vote issued |
| 8/28/2002 | CLEC Provided Information | Requests to discuss issue in re-design received from Eschelon and WorldCom (see Project Minutes for details) |
| 8/30/2002 | Communicator Issued | Notice CMPR.08.30.02.F.01322.Ad_Hoc_CMP_Mtg issued |
| 9/4/2002 | Communicator Issued | Notice CMPR.09.04.02.F.01323.Ad_Hoc_Mtg_Revision issued |
| 9/10/2002 | Communicator Issued | CMPR.09.10.02.F.01324.Ad_Hoc_Mtg_Material |
| 9/19/2002 | Discussed at Monthly CMP Meeting | SCR082302-01EX discussed at September Systems CMP Monthly meeting; please see Systems CMP Distribution Package September CMP -- Attachment P |
| 9/19/2002 | Status Changed | Status changed to completed |
Project Meetings |
| Meeting Minutes Ad-Hoc meeting for WorldCom CR SCR082302-01EX Wednesday September 11, 2002 @ 11:00 a.m. Bridge Call open to all CLECs This meeting was held to discuss the questions raised around WorldCom’s exception request SCR082302-01EX. MBuck/Qwest held roll call and reviewed all of the participants that were on the conference bridge. Everyone in the room announced themselves. Michael stated that the purpose for this ad hoc meeting was to discuss the questions raised regarding WorldCom’s exception request. He provided a brief overview of the CR and he pointed to the notice that went out with the questions and answers. The questions:1. More details provided by Qwest to better understand if this change request is approved, what would be the end result impact?What in addition to timeline changes (disclosure documentation requirements) does Qwest believe will apply? What is the progress to date surrounding these CRs? "Migrate as specified" business development requirements should have begun as of July 26, 2002. Did Qwest account for the fact that migrate as specified functionality existed prior to IMA 6.0 when estimating its man-hours? Has there been any analysis performed on "migrate by TN" (synergies?). Are the man-hours established for "migrate by TN" still considered appropriate?How would Qwest resources be diverted How would the 12.0 prioritization list be impacted?What additional man hours would be estimated?What "voting" standard must apply (2/3rds or unanimous) Is it possible to treat the CRs separately given their 12.0 ranking status?Example: "migrate as specified" will be implemented in April/03, would only "timeline" changes apply?, thus 2/3rds vote 3. What other options are available to address the Exception CR and lessen the impact on the 12.0 release? J Thompson/Qwest Reviewed the analysis that was done in answer to the questions that were submitted by WorldCom. He noted the 2 CRs that WorldCom has asked to have accelerated. Jeff spoke to the high level points included in the detailed feedback Qwest had provided.He noted that both CRs are CLEC impacting candidates that affect GUI & EDI, therefore the activities associated with a major release must be done. Therefore, this leads to the need for a major IMA release. Qwest looked at the schedule and determined that the development process is too far along the path for IMA 11.0 to get these two CRs included in the IMA 11.0 release so Qwest ruled that out. Qwest has a point release (IMA 11.1) scheduled for January. The most doable thing would be to convert the planned point release to a major release, leave it in January, and do required additional activity that is associated with a major release (including SATE). Qwest would probably deliver SATE in conjunction, in January because of the schedule. If Qwest and the CLECs can’t agree to do that, then Qwest could push the new major release out to February and deliver SATE in January. Because the request is to have it done by December, Qwest evaluated the possibility of the January date. Regardless of the date, scheduling a new, accelerated major release has the following implications: 1 This would produce a short schedule for Qwest and CLECs. If CLECs want to benefit from this acceleration, they would have to do work to assume those benefits. 2 The acceleration of candidates carries its own risks. The development scheduled is shortened by 2 months. If something goes wrong, Qwest doesn’t have as much time to recover as there would be on an April delivery schedule, causing Qwest not to deliver on time. He noted that it’s just risky. 3 All the documentation would be less than the 73-day requirement. Because of the short, aggressive timeline, Qwest probably wouldn’t be able to make the 73 days for technical specs. The DRAFT specs would probably come out at the time the finals would normally come out. 4 Training on 11.0 will have just been delivered. More training schedules will have to be released. There will probably be some overlap causing back-to-back training. 5 Resources would be taken away from 12.0 in order to meet the acceleration. The candidates are using the high end of the LOE because of the nature of acceleration. Qwest doesn’t have detailed numbers. Qwest did the estimates using the high numbers (Jeff reviewed the numbers in the response). In addition to the 2 CRs that get pulled up, Qwest and the CLECs would need to figure out which of the 2 CRs that tied for the #17 slot, would be eliminated from the release as well. Those are consequence for accelerating. 6 Impacts to CMP commitments: The CMP process requires that Qwest can’t have major releases less than 3 months apart. This would be violated (either with the January release being too close to the November 18 release date for IMA 11.0 or a February release being too close to the April 7th date for IMA 12.0). So that CMP obligation would not be met. 7 Sunset impacts: The process states that Qwest will support the previous IMA release for six (6) months after the next major IMA EDI release has been implemented. J Thompson/Qwest noted that the 3 hardware production platforms are only to support 3 releases. He reviewed the changes in retirement date for 10.0, and noted that we just received a CR to extend that date. He added that the WorldCom request would move shorten the sunset timeframe for 10.0 rather than lengthen it. 8 Noted that there has been a lot of churn on the IMA 12.0 release already. He indicated that CLECs have created issues around the prioritization process and that this is now the third exception on how the IMA 12.0 release should be handled. So far, there has unanimous agreement on how resources are to be used. This is causing lots of churn and exceptions for resources. Another way to address this would be to invoke the SCRP to get additional resources applied. As the CLECs continue to induce churn, Qwest continues to induce change in the way resources are applied to this release. This impacts issues that Qwest has to look at in dealing with this CR. He added that it is important to note that invoking the SCRP process would minimize the churn.JThompson/Qwest Noted that this is the initial take on an additional release. He added that both of the CRs in the WorldCom request are on different Business Requirements schedules for completion and that there has been no synergy identified between them. He added that once the specifications for the changes are completed, Qwest will revisit the LOEs to see if they need to be changed. He concluded by reiterating that this is the summary of Qwest’s analysis of the impact of this CR.Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon Asked if Qwest could explain about how this would impact the sunset of IMA 10.0.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Indicated the he has an interest in the IMA 10.0 sunset as well. JThompson/Qwest Stated that Qwest has 3 platforms. He explained that normally, in this situation, Qwest would run IMA release 10, 11 & 12 on those 3 hardware platforms. When it came time to run 13, Qwest would retire 10 so the hardware would be available to run 11, 12 & 13. So in that scenario, Qwest would retire IMA 10.0 when it is forced to go on 13. IMA 13.0 is currently scheduled for August, because Qwest needs time to prep the platforms. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Asked if Qwest put the WorldCom major release in, then what would the sunset date be.Jeff Thompson/Qwest Replied that 10.0 might sunset as late as April. He added that Qwest would hang on as long as possible to the platform. He added that it might have to be March. And that these are all preliminary assessments. One thing is clear, it would not be May or later.Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon Asked if that would matter if it was the point releases.JThompson/Qwest Clarified that it wouldn’t matter. The fact that Qwest has to create a new code base causes Qwest to change platforms.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Requested clarification around the concept of a major release. WorldCom views this request as a ‘mini-major.’ What would the impacts be for us as end users? She stated that the changes to CMP documentation would be against the 2 CRs only, and asked if that was right.JThompson/Qwest Confirmed that there would be documentation changes. But the impact would be more than just documentation. Qwest must assume that if the CLECs approve this then the CLECs must want to use it. In order to use it they would need disclosure, they need to be able to test, etc. He noted that if the CLECs want to do this, the CLECs must want to use it early.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that her point is that it’s not truly a major release because it’s not 40,000 hours of coding changes. She noted that because Qwest is using a point release, the functional changes that exist are only based on 2 CRs.JThompson/Qwest Clarified that he was not suggesting Qwest use a point release. He was saying that Qwest could abolish the point release to use the timeslot for the major release. He noted that the definition of major versus point doesn’t hinge on LOE, it hinges on level of CLEC impact. The question is whether CLECs would need to make code changes, need a test environment, etc. Adding that if the CLECs are looking at that definition, then the answer is clearly yes, it’s a major release.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Indicated that she did understand what Jeff Thompson was saying, but that this release would not be adding any other functional changes but these 2 CRs.J Thompson/Qwest Jeff confirmed that the proposed major release would be for delivery of the 2 CRs in question. Delivery of the functionality for these 2 CRs and all the related activities would constitute a major release.Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Asked if it would be a major release because of coding impact?Jeff Thompson/Qwest Confirmed that she was correct.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Confirmed that there would be no coding or functionality changes with the currently scheduled point release.J Thompson/Qwest Clarified that there is one spillover candidate disclosed as part of the major release, and added that there is no coding impact with that change.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked that if this Exception CR was approved, would there be coding changes required for the other CLECs. JThompson/Qwest Confirmed that there would be.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked about the comment in Qwest’s feedback concerning the 40,000 hours. Qwest will most likely be able to address the top 19 CRs? Does that mean that #19 is going to make it in the IMA 12.0 release? Jeff Thompson/Qwest Indicated that it is too early in the process to say. He indicated that for now Qwest needs to plan as if Qwest is going to make it all the way through #19 on the CR prioritization list. He noted that the process is to complete requirements analysis and communicate that in the packaging discussion in November this year. He added that Qwest would continue with design, then begin code, then provide the final commitment in December. Liz Balvin/WorldCom Indicated that she has played the numbers game and didn’t know how Qwest believes they can get to #19. J Thompson/Qwest Reiterated that this goes back to the way the process is worked. From a process standpoint Qwest must define further down the CR prioritization list than we estimate we will actually get. By doing this, we might find synergies with candidates further down. Also, we might re-LOE some CRs, causing candidates to go higher or lower on the list. It’s early in the process, but at this stage, Qwest has to work this list as if this will make it into the release. In November Qwest will bring the results forward to discuss exactly what can make it in the release and why. He noted that right now Qwest has to work it as if it could make the release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Mentioned that Liz (Balvin) had concerns about this prior to today. She noted that the Migrate as specified CR existed prior to IMA 6.0. She asked what had happened that caused the CMP process to lose thaJThompson/Qwest Stated that we have had that detailed conversation before in a Monthly Meeting. At a high level, he recapped that there were a series of issues, some concerns around converting the wrong account, adding/deleting the wrong feature, and a whole serious of issues between Qwest & the CLECs, that lead Qwest to beef up how those conversions were done. The result is that more information is required from the CLECs to ensure those service issues did not occur. He added that it morphed into what Qwest believes is the higher quality implementation that exists today.Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Noted that she didn’t know if a CR came forward in between then and now to change this?JThompson/Qwest Clarified that it was a whole series of smaller CRs that morphed the capability.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Asked if we clarify that this alters timeframes, would the vote be unanimous or two-thirds?JThompson/Qwest Responded that he didn’t think the analysis dictated whether it would be unanimous or 2/3. However, he did point out that the analysis shows this Exception Request would change more than just timelines, this would have broader impacts to CMP. Additionally, it would overturn 2 other Exception CRs that were agreed to with the unanimous vote.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Indicated that in order to be prepared for next week’s vote, we need to know how the voting would be handled.Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Asked for clarification on which 2 unanimously approved Exception CRs would be overturned by the current WorldCom Exception CR.JThompson/Qwest Clarified the two CRs to be overturned: 1) Qwest exception CR regarding full LSOG versus 50/50 and 2) WorldCom exception that sought prioritized 12.0 list versus 50/50. He indicated that there is a different resource issue for 12.0. He referred to the churn issue that he was talking about earlier.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Asked how the CLEC community would go about making the decision. Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that she thinks it is important for WorldCom in dealing with IMA 12.0. She recapped that Qwest came forth to say they wanted the 50/50 option. WorldCom wanted another option and submitted a CR. Looking at the end result, we weren’t going to get more functionality for LSOG and it was unanimously voted to keep the list as is. This third Exception CR came as a result of information Qwest provided to the FCC, per section 16, that a CLEC could use this process to request expedited treatment of the release. WorldCom understood this to allow for a change request to change timelines. If you look at the correspondence between Qwest and WorldCom, it will change a lot more than timelines. On one side Qwest is saying this is an option, to the FCC, when WorldCom submits the changes, it truly is not an option, we’ve been told the real option is SCRP.J Thompson/Qwest Indicated that the exception process truly is an option. He noted that it is a fact of this particular case, that it might not be a good option because of the impacts. He noted that he could envision other circumstances where it is a good option. The process is there, and it is worth the attempt and it allows the discussion to take place. Qwest has brought forward how we analyzed this. The objection in this case, it seems, is with the outcome. If a CR was submitted to change IMA 19, for example, that would probably work because there is enough lead-time. It’s not a problem with the process; it’s this specific CR.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that she thought that it was unrealistic to change IMA 19. Noting that it’s so far down the pipeline.JThompson/Qwest Commented that he didn’t intend a trivial example. The point is that the exception process exists and it works. He noted that with Exception CRs that Qwest had dealt with before, for example: the sunset dates for extending the process, that those CRs had worked. Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that this proves the point that WorldCom’s original exception CR cannot be implemented regardless if there is a vote, and that it was evidenced by the correspondence that has been going back and forth. The original intention of the WorldCom CR can’t be met. She noted that there’s no vote that can change that. It looks like what’s on the table is to shift 11.1 candidates and divert the 12.0 resources. It looks like they will implement both by the April timeframe. JThompson/Qwest Noted that Qwest is working under that assumption today. He added that Qwest can in no way commit to that. He stated that the process says Qwest will deal with that at packaging. Both are in requirements definition, both will be examined and Qwest will get back to the CLECs at the appropriate time according to CMP.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked if that is in November.JThompson/Qwest Confirmed that it was.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked if the soonest Qwest can do it is with the Jan/Feb proposal. She noted that the CLECs would be faced with all the impacts documentation, training, SATE, sunset. JThompson/Qwest Confirmed that with current assumptions that was correct.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked, where do we sit? She stated that it sounds like our exception CR has been rejected, I need to understand what Qwest’s thought is. What’s the vote?M Buck/Qwest Stated that he thought it’s not Qwest’s decision alone, it’s a community decision. He stated that from a process standpoint, it would seem that the decision is whether to treat the CR as an exception. He asked what other CLECs thought.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Indicated that if these 2 CRs are implemented as Jeff Thompson/Qwest has attempted to outline, it would result in another release. What affected Allegiance is the sunset of IMA 10.0 a month earlier because he had planned to request to extend this at least 6-8 weeks later. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Noted that the whole year’s planning is critical to an EDI development person, as well as all of the CMP development deliverables. Liz Balvin/WorldCom Explained that WorldCom didn’t want to change the whole CMP to accommodate these CRs. She noted that WorldCom believed the functionality is critical to their business. She stated that this falls back on the process. It seems that Qwest is rejecting the request. She noted that if the group does move forward with the exception CR, it is not as it was originally intended.M Buck/Qwest Stated that he didn’t think Qwest shares the view that the CR is being rejected. The process calls for voting on whether or not to treat the CR as an Exception. The CMP could still vote to treat this as an exception request if WorldCom wishes to do so, noting also that Qwest has outlined the implications and offered alternatives.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Clarified that a vote of yeis that these would be implemented on December 31, 2002. He indicated that the inclusion of a specified date on the exception didn’t seem appropriate at this time. He also clarified that there would be no vote at today’s meeting. The vote was planned for next Thursday’s CMP Meeting.M Buck/Qwest Agreed with that. He stated that is why Qwest believes that the vote should be on whether to treat the CR as an exception. He noted that WorldCom has the option, under the process, to adjust their request in light of new information. Additionally, regardless of when this CR might be done (i.e. December, January, or February) it would still impact the sunset timelines.Terry Wicks/Allegiance stated that this exception has to be unanimous. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Agreed.M Buck/Qwest Stated that Qwest also agreed.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Noted that she thought the vote option that WorldCom has put on the table has changed.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Clarified that the change was from December to February.Connie Winston/Qwest Noted that it would be February if Qwest has to adhere to the SATE implementation in January. She stated that Qwest was going to take a one-moment break from the call to discuss the issue.M Buck/Qwest Stated that Qwest is trying to answer the question as to what the vote is that we go forward with. If WorldCom wants to remove or adjust the dates, Qwest can do that, or we can go forward with it the way it’s written. Again, the question is whether to approve an exception to the process.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that this will always happen. It’s going to be an ongoing problem.M Buck/Qwest Stated that that’s a result of the process that’s been agreed to.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Replied that she doesn’t believe that the option that was provided to the FCC is truly an option.Connie Winston/Qwest Responded that the Exception process is certainly always an option. She noted that it’s the specifics of a particular CR that drives its feasibility. Adding that it’s not that Qwest doesn’t want to look at the options. She noted that sometimes it will work. Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that it seems Qwest cannot accept the original request. So going forward, does Qwest rejects this CR, or do you expect Qwest to change the CR?Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon recalled that there was one of these a couple of months ago. She noted that we did collectively agree that since Qwest was unable to meet the original request that the CR be denied.MBuck/Qwest Clarified that the one Bonnie was thinking of was not an exception request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon Agreed with Michael that the previous example was not an Exception. She stated that she thought there was another CR like this that was discussed.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that she did recall that too and that she thought that was what we’re faced with today. M Buck/Qwest Stated that he thought the example we are looking for here is the Covad exception where Qwest was requested to move the sunset date beyond a date that Qwest could accommodate. After consultation between Covad and Qwest, Covad changed the date in their Exception CR and the CR was unanimously accepted.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Stated that we need to vote on weather to accept this as an exception CR.M Buck/Qwest Stated that Qwest agrees and believes we are voting on whether or not to treat this as an exception.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Explained that the WorldCom CR is requesting a specific date and that Qwest is saying that it can’t meet the date.M Buck/Qwest Mentioned that if WorldCom choose to go forward with it as an exception, Qwest is prepared to vote on is whether to treat this as an exception. He stated that he believed that the question goes to all the CLECs.Qwest was asked to examine the risks and had done so. Based on the feedback and impacts Qwest has identified, Qwest and the CLECs need to decide whether there is a desire to consider this request as an exception to the process. Determining whether the impacts are acceptable, regardless of the date, is the purpose of voting whether to treat the CR as an exception.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that the key is that Qwest is asking WorldCom to remove the date.M Buck/Qwest Stated the he didn’t believe that Qwest was asking WorldCom to remove the date. He noted that the interpretation that Qwest has is that we need to decide on whether to move forward with this as an exception. According to the process, if the vote is in favor, a schedule for subsequent activities would need to be agreed to. He stated that he thought Terry Wicks had said it much better than he did.Monica Avila/Vartec Stated that Jeff Thompson had mentioned that Qwest felt that the changes could not be implement by the end of 2002.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Indicated that she had heard the same thing and it was included in the answers Qwest had provided to WorldCom’s questions.MonicaAvila/Vartec Stated that she didn’t see that.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Pointed out that it was on page 9 of the CR response.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Asked Liz Balvin if she was opposed to voting as it is stated? If we want to say yes, and we leave the date in there, then the exception either way passes or not. If it passes then Qwest will have to prove how they can’t do it.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that this would have to be a unanimous vote. She added that if a vote is taken today to see if we can get it in, it sounds like we are faced with taking a vote to move forward as it stands now. She added that a yes vote would say to implement the CR as it is written.M Buck/Qwest Stated that it’s up to WorldCom. Qwest can conduct the vote on the exception as it’s written, but if WorldCom chooses to change the language of the exception, Qwest can conduct the vote on that.Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Asked that if WorldCom changed the title, then this wouldn’t be an exception CR.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Responded by saying that if we follow the process, we have to vote on this, yes or no, to be an exception without altering the date or anything because the notice has gone out. The purpose of this meeting was to gather more information.M Buck/Qwest Indicated that if there was a desire to change the wording a notice could probably go out to the entire community with the updated wording. But, yes, Qwest agrees that there needs to be a vote on whether to allow an exception to the process in this instance.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked if the group had agreed that a unanimous vote is required.Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Confirmed that we had.Terry Wicks/Allegiance Stated that he also agreed. Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked if we’re saying it’s unanimous because it not only changes the timeline but it changes other things too.Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Responded that it’s because it’s called an exception.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Reviewed the language in section 16. She stated that WorldCom thought when writing the CR that the primary impact was changing the timelines set forth with tech specs etc.M Buck/Qwest Replied that on this call, the group seems to have clearly established that this CR, per bullet 3, seeks to change more than timelines.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Asked Michael which sections he was talking about. She indicated that she still thought they were all timeline changes.M Buck/Qwest Indicated that J Thompson/Qwest had already gone through the list in great detail. As just one example, he cited on page 9 the implication of having Major Releases less than 3 months apart.Liz Balvin/WorldCom Stated that she thought the group cleared that up that this is not a major release.M Buck/Qwest Stated that Qwest doesn’t share that view. As it was previously discussed, the changes required by this exception meet the definition of a major release as defined in the process. He indicated that the view seemed to be largely shared by others on the call.Liz Balvin/WorldCom indicated that she did understand that this change would be a reallocation of resources.Terry Wicks/Allegiance stated the changes would be functional and require coding by CLECs, that's another reason it qualifies as a major release.Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she wanted to be clear that a unanimous vote is required and that a major reason is resources.Everyone on the call agreed that this is a unanimous vote.Terry Wicks/Allegiance clarified that for next week's vote we are voting yes or no on the CR the way it was writtenLiz Balvin/WorldCom reviewed the wording in the notice and said that yes the vote would be for the CR the way it was written. WorldCom would not change the wording. M Buck/Qwest asked if there were any other comments/questions and there none. The call ended at 12:25pm DateAug27, 2002 EffDate:CMPR.08.27.02.F.01320.CMPMtgVote Notification Category: CMP Target Audience: CLECs, Reseller Subject: CMP EXCEPTION VOTE REQUIRED Associated CR or System Name and Number:SCR082302-01EXPursuant to Sections 16.3 and 17.3 of the Qwest Wholesale CMP Process Document http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp.html, the purpose of this notification is to alert the CMP community that Qwest has received an ExceptionRequest that will be discussed and voted on at the Sept 19, 2002, Monthly Systems CMP Meeting At this meeting participants will vote to accept or decline to treat this request as an Exception in accordance with Section 17.0 of the Qwest WholesaleCMPDocument,http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp.html.Exception Request Details: Requestor: WorldCom Inc. Description of request with good cause for seeking an exception: "Exception: To implement the following CRs SCR060702-01 Migrating Customers using the Conversion AsSpecified Activity Type and SCR061302-01 Migrate UNE-P Customers by TN prior to IMA 12.0 planned production release of April3.Description of request with good cause for seeking an exception: Qwest is currently not industry compliant because of its requirements surrounding migrations as specified and the fact that migrate by TN currently is not available. Currently, when migrating as specified, CLECs are obligated to differentiate between features the customer already has and features the customer desires for the first time. They are also forced to include the customer's service address and customer code on every order, and must retrieve new customer codes before submitting supplemental orders. The requirement for additional information places the burden on CLECs to pull, populate and verify information prior to order submission -- all steps that reduce efficient ordering and provides greater room for error. NOTE:Requested migrate as specified capabilities existed prior to IMA release 6.0. Desired outcome: That the migrate as specified and migrate by TN CRs are implemented by Qwest per OBFguidelines no later than the end of 2002. Supporting documentation: 1) "Qwest's Wholesale Change Management Process Document - 7/10/02", section 16.0 states "If the Ex Request is for changes to CMP timelines and sets forth specific dates for completion of tasks, a two-thirdsmajority vote will be required unless Qwest or a CLEC demonstrate, with substantiating information, that one of the criteria for denial set forth in Sections 5.1.3 or 5.3 is legitimately applicable. If one of the criteria for denial will cause such an exception request to be rejected, the requestor may withdraw the specific dates from its exception request at the meeting where it is discussed, in order to have the two thirds majority vote apply to the request." Thus WCom believes a two/thirds vote would be required to implement the requested changes prior to IMA 12.0 planned production release date of 4/03. (Note: Qwest disagrees with WorldCom’s interpretation of the Qwest Wholesale CMP Doc, Section 16. See Decision bullet on page 2, below.) 2) Qwest'sEx Parte dated August 13, 2002 addressing the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau requests states "The Exception Process, specified in Sect 16 of the CMP, provides the ability for a CLEC or Qwest to request a deviation from the CMP. This process could be used to request expedited treatment or implementation outside of the normal planned release". Thus WCom requests the identified CRs be implemented outside the normal planned IMA release date of 4/03. VOTE: That CRs SCR060702-01 Migrating Customers using the Conversion As Specified Activity Type and SCR061302-01 Migrate UNE-P Customers by TN are implemented by Qwest no later than the end of 2002. A "yes" response would require Qwest to implement by the end of 2002. A "no" vote would require the CRs to follow the processes currently imposed by the Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document." Desired outcome: "That the migrate as specified and migrate by TN CRs are implemented by Qwest per OBFguidelines no later than the end of 2002."Supporting documentation: See related CR, SCR082302-01EX, in the CLEC Qwest Change Request - Systems Interactive Reports at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html. Logistics for Call/Meeting: This request will be discussed and voted on at the Sept19, 2002, Monthly Systems CMP Meeting. Date: Thursday, Septr 19, 2002 Time: 8:00 5:00 MT Location: Inverness Hotel Englewood, Co877-572-8687, Passcode: 3393947 Vote: Yes: A vote of "Yes" will indicate a preference that development efforts for IMA 12.0 be allocated first to CRs SCR060702-01 and SCR061302-01, inorder for Qwest to attempt to meet a December 31, 2002 production date, and then to remaining CRs in accordance with Exception Request SCR081402-01EX. (See Qwest Notification CMPR.08.26.02.F.01319.EmergencyCallVote.) No: A vote of "No" will indicate a preference that development efforts for IMA 12.0 be allocated in accordance with Exception RequestSCR081402-01EX. (See Qwest Notification CMPR.08.26.02.F.01319.EmergencyCallVote.) Decision: Qwest’s position is that this request seeks a change to the prescribed manner in which Qwest will apply systems resources, outlined in Sections 5.1.3, 5.2 and 5.2.1 of the Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document, http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp.html; this vote requires unanimous approval to grant the exception request. Deadline for e-mail votes: All e-mail votes must be received by Qwest, cmpcr@qwest.com, no later than 6:00 AM MT on Thursday, September 19, 2002. (Please refer to Section 17.4.3 of the Qwest Wholesale Change Management Doc http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp.html, for e-mail ballot format and procedures.) Change Request Number: SCR082302-01EX Primary contact information: M Buck, Qwest CMP Manager, mjbuck@qwest.com, 303-294-1633On August 23, 2002, Qwest acknowledged this request by e-mail. Qwest cautions that, if granted, the accelerated nature of the development required to implement this request will impact CLECs and Qwest. This requestrequires Qwest to attempt to implement an additional Release, including CLEC coding changes, before December 31, 2002. Additionally, if Qwest attempts to implement two CRs on a completely different timeframe than the rest of IMA 12.0 Qwest must divert resources already deployed to IMA 12.0 This resourcediversion and intensified re-application will require a Level of Effort greater than that estimated prior to IMA 12.0 Prioritization (which assumed implementationwith IMA 12.0 in April 2003)reducing the resources available for the remainder of IMA 12.0
Original Message From: "Clauson, Karen L."
Original Message From: Elizabeth Balvin
Date: Aug30, 2002Eff Date: Immediately CMPR.08.30.02.F.01322.AdHocCMPMtg Notification Category: Change Management Notification Target Audience:CLECs, ResellersSubject: CMP Request for Ad Hoc CMP Meeting Important Exception Discussion No Vote Required This notice is to inform all CLECs that WorldCom has requested an additional CMP meeting before the next regularly scheduled monthly CMP meeting.On August 27, 2002, Qwest sent notice CMPR.08.27.02.F.01320.CMPMeetingVote because of a CMP Exception Request (SCR082302-01EX) submitted by WorldCom. WorldCom has subsequently requested an additional CMP meeting to discuss the exception as described below. Additional Meeting Details: Requestor: WorldCom Agenda: Begin verbatim excerpt of request received from WorldCom: WCom requests that an ad hoc meeting (per section 3) be established as soon as possible to address at a minimum the following issues:1.More details provided by Qwest to better understand if this change request is approved, what would be the end result impact?What in addition to timeline changes (disclosure documentation requirements) does Qwest believe will apply?What is the progress to date surrounding these CRs..."migrate as specified" business developmentrequirements should have begun as of July 26, 2002. Did Qwest account for the fact that migrate as specified functionality existed prior to IMA 6.0 when estimating its man hours? Has there been any analysis performedon "migrate by TN" (synergies?). Are the man hours established for "migrate by TN" still considered appropriate? How would Qwest resources be diverted How would the 12.0 prioritization list be impacted What additional man hours would be estimated1.What "voting" standard must apply (2/3rds or unanimous) Is it possible to treat the CRs separately given their 12.0 ranking status? Example: "migrate as specified" will be implemented in April/03, would only "timeline" changes apply?, thus 2/3rds vote 1.What other options are available to address the Exception CR and lessen the impact on the 12.0 release? End verbatim excerpt of request received from WorldComSupporting Documentation: Related Exception Request SCR082302-01EX (Exception Request to Implement Multiple CRs Prior to IMA 12.0) available in the CLEC Qwest Change Request Systems Interactive Reports at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html Related Change Requests SCR060702-01 (Migrating Customers Using the Conversion As Specified Activity Type) and SCR061302-01 (MigrateUNE-P Customers By TN) available in the CLEC Qwest Change Request Systems Interactive Reports at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html Notice CMPR.08.27.02.F.01320.CMPMeetingVote available in the Qwest Customer Notice Letters Archive (CNLA) athttp://www.qwest.com/wholesale/notices/cnla/ Logistics for Call/Meeting: Date: Monday, Sept 9, 2002 Time: 1:30 PM 3:00 PM MT Contact information: Ml Buck, Qwest CMP Manager, mjbuck@qwest.com , 303-294-1633 ============================================= Announcement September 4, 2002 Effective Date:ImmediatelyCMPR.09.04.02.F.01323.AdHocMtgRevisionNotification Category: Change Management NotificationTarget Audience:CLECs, ResellersSubject:CMP Request for Ad Hoc CMP Meeting Important Exception Discussion No Vote Required MEETING DATE CHANGEThis notice is to inform CLECs that Qwest has received a request to reschedule the Ad Hoc CMP Meetingdescribed in noticeCMPR.08.30.02.F.01322.AdHocCMPMtg. As a result of this request, the logistics for the AdHoc meeting originally scheduled for September 9, 2002 have been revised as follows: Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 Time: 11:00 AM MT 12:30 PM MT Call in Details: 877-572-8687, The remainder of this notice contains meeting details as originally described in noticeCMPR.08.30.02.F.01322.AdHocCMPMtg.This notice is to inform all CLECs that WorldCom has requested an additional CMP meeting before the next regularly scheduled monthly CMP meeting.On August 27, 2002, Qwest sent noticeCMPR.08.27.02.F.01320.CMPMeetingVote because of a CMP ExceptionRequest (SCR082302-01EX) submitted by WorldCom.WorldCom has subsequently requested an additional CMP meeting to discuss the exception as described below. Additional Meeting Details:Requestor: WorldCom Agenda: Begin verbatim excerpt of request received from WorldCom: WCom requests that an ad hoc meeting (per section 3) be established as soon as possible to address at a minimum the following issues:1.More details provided by Qwest to better understand if this change request is approved, what would be the end result impact? What in addition to timeline changes (disclosure documentation requirements) does Qwest believe will apply? What is the progress to date surrounding these CRs..."Migrate as specified" business development requirements should have begun as of July 26, 2002. Did Qwest account for the fact that migrate as specified functionality existed prior to IMA 6.0 when estimating its man hours? Has there been any analysis performed on "migrate by TN" (synergies?). Are the man hours established for "migrate by TN" still considered appropriate?How would Qwest resources be diverted How would the 12.0 prioritization list be impacted What additional man hours would be estimated1.What "voting" standard must apply (2/3rds or unanimous)Is it possible to treat the CRs separately given their 12.0 ranking status? Example: "migrate as specified" will be implemented in April/03, would only "timeline" changes apply?, thus 2/3rds vote1.What other options are available to address the Exception CR and lessen the impact on the 12.0 release? End verbatim excerpt of request received from WorldComSupporting Documentation: Related Exception Request SCR082302-01EX (Exception Request to Implement Multiple CRs Prior to IMA 12.0)available in the CLEC Qwest Change Request Systems Interactive Reports at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html Related Change Requests SCR060702-01 (Migrating Customers Using the Conversion As Specified Activity Type) and SCR061302-01 (MigrateUNE-P Customers By TN) available in the CLEC Qwest Change Request Systems Interactive Reports at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html Notice CMPR.08.27.02.F.01320.CMPMeetingVote available in the Qwest Customer Notice Letters Archive (CNLA) at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/notices/cnla/ Logistics for Call/Meeting: Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 Time: 11:00 AM MT 12:30 PM MT Conference Bridge Information: 877-572-8687, Passcode: 3393947# Primary Contact information: Michael Buck, Qwest CMP Manager, mjbuck@qwest.com, 303-294-1633. ================================================ ANALYSIS AS REQUESTED BY WORLDCOM WorldCom has requested that the schedule for two CRs that are currently prioritized in the IMA 12.0 Release Candidate List be accelerated, and that those two CRs be delivered before the end of 2002. The two CRs are:SCR060702-01 Migrating Customers using the Conversion As Specified Activity Type. This candidate was prioritized number two on the IMA 12.0 candidate list.SCR061302-01 Migrate UNE-P Customers by TN. This candidate was prioritized number nineteen on the IMA 12.0 candidate list.In response to WorldCom’s request to accelerate these CRs, Qwest provides the following analysis as to the implications of fulfilling the request. The first notable point is that both candidates are CLEC impacting candidates that by their implementation require that the functions associated with an IMA major release (technical specifications, CLEC interface testing, production migrations, etc.) be performed. Failing to perform these functions would render the candidates unusable by EDI CLECs.Having determined the need to treat these candidates as major release candidates, it should be noted that the IMA 11.0 Release lifecycle is currently in test and hence it is too late to attempt to implement these candidates as part of the 11.0 release. With the schedule for IMA 11.0 release in November, it is not possible to complete the development effort for these two candidates and deliver them in December. The best possible schedule Qwest could achieve for the delivery of these two candidates is to convert the 11.1 point release scheduled for January 2003 to a special major release, include these candidates along with the current 11.1 candidates and deliver them in January 2003. Following this schedule will require the delivery of a SATE special release and the IMA special major release simultaneously, violating the SATE 30-day test window required by CMP and likely impacting the schedule on which PO-19 could be executed. Alternatively, if the SATE 30-day test window is a requirement, the SATE special release could be delivered in January 2003 with the IMA special major release delivered in February 2003. Since this would only result in a schedule acceleration of 60 days, we will assume that WorldCom would prefer to see the candidates delivered in January 2003 and will use that date in further discussions. Much of the discussion does not change regardless of whether the date is January 2003 or February 2003. Approval of this exception CR will create a major IMA release with only one quarter’s notice prior to implementation. Because of this aggressive schedule, EDI CLECs will have to work similarly aggressive development schedules on their side of the EDI interface in order to take advantage of these candidates prior to the IMA 12.0 release.Acceleration of candidates of this nature has implications that arise simply from the requirements of the development process itself. The first of these is the risk associated with the delivery of the release. By accelerating these candidates, you drastically reduce the development lifecycle timeline and thereby increase the likelihood of an issue arising from which the IMA timeline cannot recover, and potentially causing Qwest to fail to deliver the release on the accelerated schedule.The risk associated with the development schedule pertains not only to the software itself, but also to the accompanying deliverables such as documentation. Working under this accelerated schedule, Qwest will not be able to make the CMP required technical specifications delivery schedule (section 8.1 of the CMP document) or the documentation schedule. While a detailed schedule for these deliverables has not been completed, a high level assessment of the situation would indicate that Qwest would miss these dates by at least 30 days in some cases (draft interface technical specifications).The same implications exist for the training schedule. The addition of these products will require revision of the training classes very close behind the revisions required for IMA 11.0. This will cause overlap in the both the training development and delivery schedule that will have to be managed.The second development issue pertains to the shifting of resources from the IMA 12.0 Release to this special major release. Creating this special major release will require the resources currently devoted to IMA 11.1 as well as the diversion of IMA 12.0 resources to this special major release. Because of the additional resources required on an accelerated development schedule, using the high end range of the LOEs for these candidates, Qwest would need to divert approximately 13,000 hours of effort from the IMA 12.0 to apply to this special major release. This would result in the application of 27,000 hours to the IMA 12.0 Release. Based on the application of 40,000 hours to the IMA 12.0 candidate list, Qwest is most likely to be able to complete the top 19 candidates. With the application of 27,000 hours to the IMA 12.0 Release, Qwest is most likely to be able to complete 16 candidates resulting in not only moving these two candidates out of the release, but also loosing one additional candidate. While there have not been any packaging or commitment decisions made for IMA 12.0, it is likely that either SCR062702-03 Autopopulate LSO (Local Serving Office) field in IMA and remove edit that prevents APTCON (appointment confirmation) and LSO field to both be populatedor SCR062702-10 Create a field in IMA that can be checked to flag this LSR is to place a change order on an account where the CSR is not updated from the conversion activitywould need to be dropped from the release.Additionally, there are several CMP issues that are created by using the above schedule for the special major release. The first is the requirement that The Major release changes should occur no less than three (3) months apart as specified in section 8.0, Changes to Existing OSS Interfaces, of the CMP document. Whether the release is delivered in January or February of 2003, this CMP requirement will be violated with the IMA 11.0 and 12.0 dates remaining where they are at today. Having major releases this close together will impact the sunset dates for the major releases under discussion. Section 8.0 of the CMP document specifies thatQwest will support the previous major Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) EDI release for six (6) months after the subsequent major IMA EDI release has been implemented. Qwest supports 3 production hardware platforms, which, when releases are at least 3 months apart, is sufficient to meet the requirements of CMP. However, under the schedule discussed above, using these three hardware platforms would require the early retirement of both the IMA 10.0 and 11.0 releases. IMA 10.0 will be retired in April 2003 instead of May 2003. Qwest has already received inquiries about extending the sunset date for IMA 10.0 beyond May. These inquiries would have to be denied with the approval of this exception CR. Additionally, the IMA 11.0 retirement date would be moved from October 2003 to July 2003.Another CMP concern involves the requirement to prioritize what candidates will be scheduled for a major release of IMA (section 10 of the CMP document). As described above, the delivery of these candidates requires the implementation of a major release. Invoking this exception process to move the number 2 and 19 candidates from the IMA 12.0 prioritization list into a major release of their own without providing the opportunity required under CMP to prioritize the contents of the new release. Approval of this exception will overrule the outcome of the previous WorldCom exception, which was unanimously approved by the CLECs and Qwest. t should be noted that CMP Redesign Team developed a specific process (SCRP) for the situation in which a candidate or candidates is not prioritized high enough to be slotted into a release that would meet a CLECs desired timeframe. An alternative mechanism for requesting the acceleration of these candidates may be the SCRP process which would involve the application of additional, CLEC funded, resources and would not be as disruptive to the development efforts currently underway.Finally, one additional question has come up that was not answered as part of the above analysis and are included here for completeness.Question: What is the progress to date surrounding these CRs migrate as specifiedbusiness development requirements should have begun as of July 26, 2002. Did Qwest account for the fact that migrate as specified functionality existed prior to IMA 6.0 when estimating its man-hours? Has there been any analysis performed on migrate by TN (synergies?). Are the man-hours established for migrate by TN still considered appropriate?Response: The CR Migrating Customers using the Conversion As Specified Activity Typeis in the Business Requirements phase and is scheduled to complete this phase by mid September. The functionality existing prior to the IMA 6.0 release helps only in understanding some of the complexities of this deliverable. The system changes in each release and the requirements have to be written to support or build upon the current release level. The staff-hours are still valid at the point. The re-evaluation of the LOEs will be done just prior to packaging and any changes in the LOEs will be made available to CMP. The CRMigrate UNE-P Customers by TNis just beginning its definition phase. Qwest defines the CRs based on their CMP prioritized ranking. As with all CRs we look for synergies during the definition phase. A full synergy evaluation would be complete by end of September when the CR is targeted to complete the Business Requirements phase. The staff-hours are still valid at this point. As with the previous CR, the reevaluation of the LOEs will be done just prior to packaging any changes in LOEs will be made available to CMP. ================================================ Date: Sept 10, 2002Eff Date: Immediately: CMPR.09.10.02.F.01324.AdHocMtg
|
CenturyLink Response |
|
|
Information Current as of 1/11/2021