ODPM Weekly Actions by SUJ3Q3l

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 4

									MCIS SENIOR USER GROUP MEETING
7th April 2011 – MCIS SUG Minutes

Date:         7th April 2011
Location:     CLG, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E
click for map
Time:         10:30 – 13:00
Attendees

Regional Representatives:
Glyn Darbyshire Evans         AWM - ERDF Business Process Manager
Malcolm Cross                 EEDA - Manager, ERDF Programme Management Team
Stephen Hayler                EMDA – Management Accountant
John Joyce                    LDA - Compliance and Irregularities Manager
Anita Williams                NWDA - EU Accountant
Martin Price                  ONE – ERDF Senior Specialist
Richard Dodsworth             SWRDA - Head of European Monitoring

CLG:
Amanda Millhouse              EPP – MCIS Service Manager (Chair)
Carol Sweetenham              Head of ERDF Delivery Team
Neil Marsh                    Certifying Authority
Phil Huggett                  Audit Authority
Tim Hunt                      Certifying Authority
Andrew Walker                 Audit Authority

Amor Real Time
Laura Verrecchia              Service Delivery Manager

Apologies:
Dan Smith                     Certifying Authority
Ginny Walker                  RDA Regional lead
Lidia Kalka                   SEEDA – European Project Manager
Ursula Klute                  NWDA – Irregs Manager
Jonathan Varley               ONE - Business Systems and Management Information Specialist
Ian Kirtley                   ONE European Funds Accountant
Lee Pepper                    YF - ERDF Programme Finance Manager
Rocco Volpe                   YF – Head of IT
Arni Narain                   EPP Business Manager
Stephanie Lockhart            Certifying Authority
Paul Hirons                   SEEDA – European Project Manager
James Ruel                    SEEDA - European Programme Manager Business & Skills
Emma Kirkpatrick              NWDA
Karan Price                   Audit Authority
MCIS SENIOR USER GROUP MEETING
7th April 2011 – MCIS SUG Minutes



Agenda

Item #   Topic                                                                Actions
1        PREVIOUS ACTIONS

         Action 3 – The question of quantifying the financial value of
         poor output performance and applying as financial corrections
         to projects needs to be addressed. It was agreed to raise this       A Millhouse
         with the MA.

         Action 4 - View project tasks. A number of people were finding
         these increasingly annoying and were getting in the way of
         finding important tasks. A helpdesk had been placed and Real
         Time were deleting the task manually. RT would review the
         call to see if ‘view projects’ could be hidden from the task list.   L Verrecchia

         Action 5 - Non-defrayed claims. Stephanie stated that claims
         with non-defrayed amounts would result in over declaring.
         This was on the ERDF risk register but no further action
         appeared to be underway. Amanda agreed to follow this up             A Millhouse
         with Carol Sweetenham.

         Action 6 - MCIS functionality to enable withdraw/cancel
         projects made live with no spend. Martin pointed out that
         simply deleting a project would not work once it had gone live.
         It was agreed that Amanda would raise a change request to fix
         this and a new status added – ‘closed, not paid’                     Completed

         Action 7 – Post –Declaration Corrections. A new requirement
         for creating a negative Irregularity where it has been
         submitted in error.                                                  A Millhouse
2        MCIS PERFORMANCE REVIEW

2.1      Service Desk
            Real Time Service Feedback
            No issues were raised by the group
            Service Level Agreement/ Report
            Laura reported there had been 106 incidents raised since
            Feb and all but 2 were handled within the SLA. These were
            mostly general queries.


2.2      Current work in progress
           Progress report
            Laura reported that a number of change requests were
            underway, the biggest being the conversion of core users to
MCIS SENIOR USER GROUP MEETING
7th April 2011 – MCIS SUG Minutes

Item #   Topic                                                                Actions
            full. This was completed on time and core users had
            started testing. Bugs detected were being fixed in a
            maintenance release w/c 11 April.
            MCIS/SAP interface continues, but GL codes were required
            as the existing ones could be out of date. Laura S to supply      Laura Short
            to Amor

            GLA/SAP interface work is underway.
            The spec for the ability to identify systemic Irregs by Project
            Owner is underway.
            A16 screens are being reviewed by the AA. ART were asked
            if these could be made visible to all staff. Laura V to
            investigate.                                                      L Verrecchia

3        BUSINESS PROCESSES

3.1      Non-financial issues in MCIS
             Advice was sought as to whether non-financial issues
             should be recorded in MCIS. They are already captured
             by the AA in a spreadsheet. The group agreed that no
             further action need be taken. However, it was agreed that
             all A16 reports should be uploaded into MCIS.             Audit Auth.

3.2      Transition
           Core to full conversion
              Core users have started testing and some have had
              ‘mentor’ support from full users. This seems to have
              been beneficial and it was agreed that all core users
              would spend a day with a full user RDA. ART will also
              arrange a day’s training for each core team for technical       L Verrecchia
              training.

              Laura S explained that it did not seem likely that Steria
              would be ready to support Artemis in time for 1st July, so      L Verrecchia
              RDAs would probably have to bring over local systems for
              the time being. A short term solution would be decided
              at the next Transition Board.

              It was agreed that the best way of establishing data gaps
              would be to go through the data dictionary and see what
              could be used to replace Artemis information and thus
              establish actual gaps. Amanda agreed to fix up a meeting        A Millhouse
              for mid May.

              Further discussion was had around communications and
              lack of papers available to colleagues. SUG colleagues
MCIS SENIOR USER GROUP MEETING
7th April 2011 – MCIS SUG Minutes

Item #   Topic                                                            Actions
              were still not being informed about Transition work.        A Millhouse
              Amanda agreed to feed this back to the Transition team.


            To ensure the final ‘RDA’ claim goes through in a timely
             fashion, the CA agreed to notify teams when claims had       N Marsh
             gone though or if there were any problems.


3.3      MCIS future functionality
             It was agreed this should wait until the data gaps work
             had been completed, but that colleagues should send
             ideas to Amanda for collation. A workshop would then be
             arranged post Transition.                               A Millhouse


3.4      AOB
           The group asked for a list of items for Transaction Lists
             where a negative amount would be acceptable. RDAs to
             send Neil examples and then the CA will issue a definitive
             list.                                                        RDAs/N Marsh
           Anita reported that the output performance screen did
             not appear to be updating. ART asked her to raise an
             incident.                                                    A Williams
           RD colleagues expressed concern that no feedback had
             been sent about the data integrity exercise and that MCIS
             screens had not been checked against the paper files.
             There was a feeling that the RDA teams would have to go
             through the exercise a gain themselves. Amanda agreed
             to find out if any reports had been produced and what
             could be shared with RDAs.                                   A Millhouse

								
To top