Exhibit 99.391
FROM: Avila, Joseph
SENT: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 4:21 PM
TO: Vane, Jim; McManus, Terry; Fortney, Elizabeth; Lenfestey,
Russell; Srivastava, Ravi
SUBJECT: RE: What John Perry is looking
I have a meeting at DWP at 10:30, but should be back in time. If I am late, by
all means start without me. I will make my way over there as fast as I can.
Regards,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
FROM: Vane, Jim
SENT: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 10:44 AM
TO: Avila, Joseph; McManus, Terry; Fortney, Elizabeth; Lenfestey,
Russell; Srivastava, Ravi
SUBJECT: RE: What John Perry is looking
I have to leave at 3:00 Thursday to go to a doctor appointment. How about
1:00 at the LAEPO. We can proceed without Ravi if he is tied up at Cedars.
He and I have discussed this and agreed on the strategy....
..jim
-----Original Message-----
FROM: Avila, Joseph
SENT: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 8:52 PM
TO: Vane, Jim; McManus, Terry; Fortney, Elizabeth; Lenfestey,
Russell; Srivastava, Ravi
SUBJECT: RE: What John Perry is looking
Nicely summarized Jim. I recommend we offer each piece of the proposal as a
separate option, pricing each piece individually to enable them to pick and
choose based on need and budget. What John needs now are quick, tangible
results. He seems to be very much in sync with us on how to view Kelly and
company, but is willing to give them their due provided PSC is allowed to
move forward. By slicing up the project into multiple pieces, we might help
John fend Kelly off by putting the oneness on him to justify the cost of
the logical model and information registry. I would like to add the
following comments to Jim's (see below).
Also, here are some key parties in the CSBU organization mentioned during
the meeting today;
- Orvil Edwards, Release manager of CDW project, Revenue release # 5
- Nancy Bowling, reports to Russ Garwalki and owner of revenue data
- Russ Garwalki, CDW client reports to Holly Golinski
- Holly Gollinski, reports to Pam Bass
Jim/Ravi, might I suggest that we get together Thursday afternoon around
3:00 in Alhambra and hack out something which we can refine before cob
Friday. Otherwise, I would be happy to take a first whack at something
between now and then. What do you think?
Regards,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
FROM: Vane, Jim
SENT: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 6:46 PM
TO: McManus, Terry; Avila, Joseph; Fortney, Elizabeth; Lenfestey,
Russell; Srivastava, Ravi
SUBJECT: What John Perry is looking
This is a brain dump for discission purposes.... Joe, Ravi, please
comment as necessary....
What John Perry is looking for is a proposal from PSC to help them
achieve their Jan 15 deadline for completing the requirements for
Billed Revenue Reporting. He also wants proposals for performing
various follow on activities with the ability to pick and choose which
pieces he wants contract out.
He has a short fuse so he wants an initial proposal discussion ASAP
with time lines and estimated dollars to be followed by a formal
proposal(s).. Here are my recommendations for the major components of
the discussion proposal:
REQUIREMENTS GATHERING:
- We would propose several JAD sessions to achieve this in a
timely. The sessions would have to be scheduled ASAP because of
the holidays. They will want some of their folks to participate
but we would run the JADs and write the requirements. If
possible, Liz would facilitate the JADS. Rusty could provide the
technical analysis, and a business requirement person would also
be added to the team. We would include a time line for this
activity.
- REQUIREMENTS/ANALYSIS - Scheduled to begin immediately. The CDW
schedule John showed us had an estimated November start date and
a January 17, 2000 completion date. I think the choice of Liz and
Rusty to actually conduct the JAD session(s) are very good,
however, we need to be sensitive to the time of year in which we
are dealing. One large session followed by individual sessions
based on availability might be a better way to go than multiple,
all day group sessions. My guess is that post code freeze, things
should be less hectic around SCE but we will have a very narrow
window in which to work before vacations start becoming a
problem. We need a price for this piece of work inclusive of the
coordination team (You, Ravi and me) and JAD team.
ANALYSIS:
- We would propose that we perform a GAP analyze the requirements
and the existing data model.
- We would propose that we identify modify to the data model design
to fill in any identified gaps.
- We would propose that we perform data source identification to
support the data model.
DESIGN:
- We would propose that we design the architecture for extraction
and loading data for the warehouse.
- DESIGN - Scheduled to begin 3/8/00. Unlike the approach they have
apparently adopted, our design must be much more focused. John
emphasized today that he needs to "bring something to market quickly."
I got the impression that trying to serve two masters (i.e.. Kelly Vs
client) has been a less than satisfying experience. Price for this
option would be just for delivery of "adjusted revenue" data from
either the CSS tables, CRRIS tables or CDB depending on the results of
the requirements analysis. I gather that if this phase of the project
fails, the CDW project is done.
- INFORMATION REGISTRY - Designed and priced separately from the core
effort to deliver revenue information to the CDW. Might want to factor
costs of consulting with SCE personnel who might be assigned to do this
particularly if we are called upon to conduct multiple sessions with
Kelly Williams et al.
- LOGICAL/ENTERPRISE MODEL - Designed and priced separately from the core
effort to deliver revenue information to the CDW. Might want to factor
costs of consulting with SCE personnel who might be assigned to do this
particularly if we are called upon to
conduct multiple sessions with Kelly Williams et al.
- CONSTRUCTION - Scheduled to begin 7/13/00. This should be priced
separately and may ultimately be done by the current SCE staff.
Would we consider providing management services only?
- IMPLEMENTATION - Scheduled to be completed by 8/24/00. Again, low
probability that this would be awarded given John's budget
constraints. However, we should price this piece of work in case
John gets new funding based on the much improved condition of the
project once we get on board.
- DOCUMENTATION/OVERHEAD - Documentation should be priced
separately. Again, we might want to factor in costing for
consulting with SCE personnel who might ultimately be charged
with performing this task.
OPTIONAL PROPOSALS:
- Provide SPI required documentation for all activity
associates with the above activities.
- Participate / support SPI required walk through tasks
for all activity associates with the above.
Participate in the Logical Modeling exercise required by
Kelly Williams.
- Participate or perform the information repository
exercise required by Kelly Williams
- Establish the ETI development environment required to
build this phase of the project using ETI.
FYI.....
He said he has a development organization and didn't seem real
interested in a development proposal at this time. (They didn't
actually use ETI to build any existing interfaces because it took IT
too long to get it in place...surprise, surprise!!) He is not happy
with Kelly Williams and the pressure for a 3 form normalized model.
Essentially, after a lot of failures and a lot of money they have come
around to our (PSC's) way of think on this and will build a logical
model that meets the needs of application first and worry about the
`enterprise' model for Kelly Williams later. They also now see the
light on using a Star Schema for the warehouse versus a normalized
relational model... They are currently fighting that battle with Geoff
Antil and Kelly so we don't have to get in the middle of that again.
We will just include the cost of the LM exercise in our proposal as an
option and they can decide if they want us to do it or not.
JIM VANE
Associate
PEROTSYSTEMS Corporation
LA Office: (626) 537-3033
Cell Phone: (818) 219-3813
PSC email: jim.vane@ps.net
SCE Phone: (626) 302-8216
SCE E-Mail: VANEJJ@sce.com