Minutes of IRIS User Group Meeting – 17 October 2005
Minutes of IRIS User Group Meeting
Held at Leadenhall Street
17 October 2005
List of AttendeesAbacus Syndicates Ltd / (ABA) / Nicky Davy(ND)
Ecclesiastical Insurance Group / (ECL) / Tracy Murden(TM)
Everest / (EVR) / Mary Lightburn(ML)
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc / (GLR) / Graeme Walker(GW)
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc / (GLR) / Sue Talbot(ST)
HIH/Paragon / (HIH) / John Mairs(JM)(Acting Chair)
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co (UK) Ltd / (LIB) / David Westgate(DW)
Liberty Syndicates / (LSM) / Gareth Clarke-Green(GCG)
Momentum / (MTM) / Mark Edwards(ME)
QBE / (QBE) / Gina Dudeney(GD)
QBE / (QBE) / John Taylor(JT)
S R Bishop / (SRB) / Jeremy Battersby(JB)
St Paul Specialist Services / (SPSS) / Andy Holman(AH)
SVB / (SVB) / Nigel Sheppard(NS)
Also in Attendance
Global Insurance Solutions / (XGIS) / Alan Chisham(AC)
Daryl Yeats(DY)
Gagan Vithal(GV)
Jon Downes(JD)
Sharon White(SW)(Minutes)
Apologies
Axis / (AXS) / Ian Holland
Axis / (AXS) / Stuart Gilmour
Castlewood / (RTI) / David Grisley
Co-op / (CIS) / Debra Ifill
Co-op / (CIS) / Wendy Conway
Everest / (ERC) / Graham Titheridge
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc / (GLR) / Peter Greenwood
IGI / (IGI) / Ban Pahlawan
IGI / (IGI) / Rachel Butler
IGI / (IGI) / Waleed Jabsheh
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co (UK) Ltd / (LIB) / Richard Fallon
Limit / (LMT) / Roy London
Omni Whittington / (HIH) / Nick Orford
Rosemont Re / (GOS) / Jonathan Beck
Rosemont Re / (GOS) / Vanessa Hardy
St Paul Specialist Services / (SPSS) / Daniel Blackwell
St Paul Specialist Services / (SPSS) / Joanne Griffiths
SVB / (SVB) / Clive Murray
Tokio Marine Europe Insurance / (TOK) / Eddie Graves
Tokio Marine Global Re / (TOK) / Keith Maruyama
XL Bermuda / (XLB) / Madeleine DeSilva
XL Bermuda / (XLB) / Robert Gillies
XL London / (XLL) / Peter Sammons
XL Singapore / XLS) / Caroline Wee
General
DY welcomed the IUG members present and said that JM had kindly agreed to chair today’s meeting.
1.Previous Minutes
050512.001-GD
GD had said that QBE were trying to incorporate a work around on percentages and that she would email details to DY.
This action is now completed.
050512.002-AC
PG had requested that any available information regarding splitting in IPT be communicated to interested parties. AC had arranged for PJW (Peter Williams) to contact all concerned.
This action is now completed.
050512.003-GD/DY
GD had said that there were several enhancements which had been funded by clients who were no longer members of the IUG. These enhancements had been hard coded into IRIS and were causing problems for QBE. GD had provided DY with a list of these items as part of the 2006 development proposal list.
This action is now completed.
050512.004-ST/AC
At the meeting a list had been circulated showing which GS reports were still required by IUG members (this was to allow the phasing out of reports no longer required). ST/PG had mentioned various reports (signed print, query, bureau reports). ST/PG has asked that AC check that these reports were on the list.
This action is now completed.
050512.005-DY
GT had asked that DY re-issue the list by email to the IUG and at the same time request any feedback/comments from IUG members.
This action is now completed.
The previous minutes were then agreed as complete.
2.Treasurer’s Role and Bank Accounts
DY said that as members would be aware, the previous treasurer, Michael Bell, had resigned from Abacus thereby leaving the IUG without a treasurer. DY had asked if any other IUG members would be willing to undertake the role of treasurer, but unfortunately there had been no volunteers.
After discussion with the Council members it was decided that DY would approach the XGIS finance department to ascertain whether they could assist in this area. After further discussion meetings with the finance department it was decided that this was a role that could be performed by XGIS, however, it would be necessary to close the current IUG bank accounts and transfer the funds to an XGIS account. This account would solely hold IUG monies. The majority of the other processes would remain unaffected and the IUG members would notice little change to the way that the account was administered.
Change to IUG Constitution
DY said that these changes would necessitate a change to the IUG constitution and therefore the members present would need to vote on this point.
JB said that he was not really happy with the proposed change and asked whether the account could remain as it was i.e. as a separate bank account in the name of the IUG. JB said that XGIS could control the funds but have no signatories to the account. DY said that unfortunately this was not possible and reiterated that if any member wanted to put themselves forward for the role of treasurer then the accounts could remain as they were. In the absence of this the accounts would need to be managed by XGIS as described. JM said that he believed that there were sufficient controls and checks in place to ensure that the funds are safe. JM said that if the IUG were unhappy with the proposals then they needed to come up with someone who was willing to undertake the treasurer’s role. JM said that if no one was able to undertake this role then the proposal should go ahead.
DW asked what controls were in place? DY said that agreement/authorization from two council members was required before money could be released from the account.
DY then asked if everyone would like to vote at this point. JB abstained from voting. All other members present voted in favour of the account changes. DY said that the constitution would be updated accordingly.
ACTION 051017.001 DY
3.Treasurer’s Support Role
* Please note this summary is based on bank statements up to 19 September 2005
Standing Order Payments
All standing order payments are up to date as at 19 September 2005.
Non Standing Order Payments
IGI
IGI have now rectified their standing order and all outstanding payments have been received (including October 2005).
River Thames
September/October payment awaited.
XL Singapore
September/October payment awaited.
4.Report on Development Process Discussions Held with IUG Council
JM outlined the recent discussions which had taken place between the Council and XGIS. JM said that the Council were now largely satisfied with the proposals put forward by XGIS and these are detailed more fully below.
Project Management
The Council had requested that a full time IUG account manager be put in place. XGIS had accepted that this was a valid request and would endeavor to have to have a person in place by the beginning of 2006. The appointment would be discussed with the Council members.
NS said that the main reason for a full time PM being suggested was due to the variance on the estimates. NS said now that there are checks in place for this process (see below) a full time manager may not be necessary. AH suggested that delays in specifications being written could be due to clients putting pressure on their account managers with other queries.
Voting and Estimation
JM/DY then outlined the discussions that had taken place concerning the improved method of voting and estimation. The proposal is noted below:
(1)No items are carried over from previous year’s voting lists. If a member wants an item to be carried forward then it would be necessary for the item to be resubmitted.
(2)Any item submitted must be accompanied by a full description of the requirement of at least one A4 page.
(3)A maximum of three suggestions would be allowed per User Group member, prioritised by the proposing member, and three suggestions from XGIS.
(4)XGIS will produce a voting list based on the suggestions put forward, at this stage there will be no estimate associated with the items
(5)The IUG will vote on the items in the list
(6)For the top ten items in the voting list, XGIS would produce a Fixed Price estimate for a Business Requirement based on the business requirement, supplied by the IUG member, accompanying the item. XGIS will continue the estimation process, as outlined above, until in XGIS’s opinion the appropriate number of items has been completed.
(7)The IUG would decide, based on the estimate for the Business Requirement produced, if the IUG wish to proceed with the production of the Fixed Price Business Requirement, which would include a Fixed Price estimate for writing the Functional Specification and an estimate to complete the development.
(8)The IUG would decide, based on the Business Requirement produced, if the IUG wish to proceed with the production of the Functional Specification. If this is the case, XGIS will produce a Fixed Price Functional Specification which includes a Fixed Price for the development
(9)Provided that the estimate for the development contained in the Functional Specification is within a predetermined variance of the estimate for development contained in the Business Requirement, the IUG council would decide, based on the Functional Specification produced, if the IUG wish to proceed with development. Should the estimate for the development contained in the Functional Specification be outside of the predetermined variance of the estimate for development contained in the Business Requirement, the development will go to all IUG members for a decision to proceed.
Agreed tolerance levels
As noted in point 9 above, the IUG will set the level at which a development can be agreed by the IUG council, without the requirement for full IUG agreement. It is suggested that a 20% deviance is acceptable.
Current voting process
As the 2006 voting list is already in progress, XGIS will issue the current 2006 list, however, no estimates will be associated with the items. XGIS will then proceed from point 6 above. However before proceeding, XGIS will contact the proposing member of the item to supply a full description of the requirement of at least one A4 page.
XGIS will supply templates for the one page requirements document to be supplied by the proposing IUG member.
JM/DY asked if the members would like to discuss any of the proposals:
Number of Suggestions
ST said that she was surprised that members would only be able to put through a maximum of three enhancement proposals for inclusion on the voting list. JM said that as there are only a maximum number of items that could actually be carried out in any given budget there was little point in proposing a large number of items as it cost the IUG money and wasted resources as the majority of items would not attract sufficient votes to be developed. JM said that it would be the case that members could trade requests i.e. if one company only put through one request, they could pass the two remaining requests to another member to use. JM said that only one member needed to request any given item, therefore it was recommended that information be shared.
NS said that the business specifications would need to be completed early in the year so that members were aware of the enhancements that they would receive.
Tolerance Level
JM said that in relation to the tolerance level whilst the Council were happy to make decisions on the IUG’s behalf it had been thought that there should be a tolerance level in place at which point an item would need to be referred back to the full IUG. Some discussion then took place as to what the tolerance level should be (20% had been proposed as a starting point). It was decided that the tolerance level should be either 10% or £5,000 which ever was the higher level.
DY asked if members could take a vote on the tolerance level (10% or £5,000). Everyone voted in favour.
New Development Items Form
JT said that the form should include a section to show the benefit a member would get from the suggestion. DY said that this would be added and said that if anyone else would like changes to be made to the form to let her know.
ACTION 051017.002 DY
JT asked whether the account managers would get involved in the voting process? DY said that the account managers should already be involved in this process and be able to discuss/highlight items that members should be considering. DY said that she would reiterate this to the account managers.
JM suggested that the form include a section to denote whether the item had been discussed with the account manager.
ACTION 051017.003 DY
The voting and estimation process was agreed by the IUG members. The constitution will need to be updated.
ACTION 051017.004 DY
Development, Testing and Release Strategy
AC explained the levels of testing currently in place; unit testing, QC testing, peer testing, and system testing. AC said beta testing is occasionally carried out by clients on XGIS premises.
AC explained that some of the testing that is carried out at each stage is of a similar structure. In future the QC team will write their own test plans and run their own separate test. The peer test will be carried out by a dedicated peer test team (the peer test is currently carried out by the account managers). This process would ensure a wider, more thorough test. AC said that members were also encouraged to come into XGIS offices and carry out their own beta testing. This has the advantage that any queries can be resolved on the spot and it is easier to explain to a programmer any difficulties that the client is encountering.
AC went on to explain that XGIS are working with an external consultant from Evolution to set up automated testing within IRIS. Once the development is complete, the system test can be run automatically and therefore more frequently. It currently takes two months to run a system test. AC said that because the automated testing will be built into the product, the clients could then use the software to run their own test scripts. AC explained that the way in which XGIS had developed IRIS facilitated the data capture without the need for the data to be entered via the front end. AC explained that this addressed the issues that had previously been encountered with other third party software, whereby changes to the front end, such as screen layouts, meant that the testing tool had to be reconfigured.
JT commented that when they had received the patch on 7.13 the quality was not very good. However, this year they had attended on site at XGIS to carry out testing and the patch received thereafter had been of much higher quality. JT said that it was a worthwhile investment of time and that QBE had seen a notable difference.
AC said that there is also a project in place to write up more detailed functional test scripts. DY said that if any members would like to send in their own test scripts that these would be very useful.
GW asked if any members had work arounds for teething problems when upgrading to new versions? DY said that if XGIS were aware of any, then they were communicated to the IUG. ST said that they had encountered some difficulty with the stats history, but had since learned that other members had a remedy for this. After much discussion it was decided that a list be placed on the web site to show any problems encountered and the outcome to resolve these items.
DY said that the IUG had discussed the IUG members sharing information in previous meetings but that she had received no feedback from IUG members after the suggestion that comments be placed on the website. However, XGIS could put a list of items that they were aware of on the website
ACTION 051017.005 AC/JD
JM said that the release system was getting more and more complicated and the council had debated whether an annual release was still viable.
AC said that the basis for an annual release was put in place due to the following: (a) database changes in RPG framework, which necessitated a full re-compilation and therefore a version release (b) at the time, releases were tied to annual development budgets, but this is no longer the case (c) the change management software was not sophisticated enough in the past to enable multiple releases, again this is no longer the case with the new software that XGIS have put in place.
AC said a release could, in theory, be issued every couple of months with enhancements if required, or a cumulative yearly update could be given which had been system tested. Clients now have the choice of which option they would prefer.
Future Strategy for IRIS
DY said the members would be aware of the recent Xchanging marketing communication (2005/080) which detailed the new Xchanging insurance sector management structure (see Appendix One).
DY went on to explain that Martin Hanak from the Genius division had now transferred to IRIS and was working with Christine Moore to improve the development process. DY explained that Martin had many years experience of working on very large projects. AH said that he knew Martin and that he had done a good job on Genius.