From: cassandra.schultz@enron.com
To: ted.murphy@enron.com, sally.beck@enron.com
Cc: shona.wilson@enron.com
Date: 2000-10-09 17:40:00+00:00
Subject: Staffing for Doorstep

Since we couldn't get us all together on the phone (Sally, you're out of the 
office), I wanted to close the loop on some of the discussions we've all been 
having on Doorstep.  After talking with Rick Carson,  Shona and I see several 
alternatives:

Our Needs:
1) Database Management
2) Staff to do the deal test and write the report

No matter what, we want to use Rick Carson's group to maintain the Doorstep 
database.  

Our Goals:
The one open question we need to resolve is whether or not Rick Buy does in 
fact want Rick Carson's group to develop trading expertise with the goal of 
being able to do Doorstep visits alone without the involvement of Market Risk 
Management (MRM) or Sally's (Ops) group.  Rick Carson indicated that was his 
understanding from talking to Rick Buy.  If that is the case, we should 
select alternative #1 below, despite the inefficiencies.

If we are simply trying to carry out the Doorstep initiative in the most 
efficient manner possible, it seems Carson's involvement is not actually the 
way to get there.

Alternatives:
1)  Include Rick Carson's group to staff the deal test while including them 
in planning, interviews, etc. 
  - RC does not have low level people to do deal test only; his people are 
experienced managers/directors who would only
  be interested in participating if they were learning the trading business; 
it is also a management problem for his staff to be
  under someone else's direction so he wants their more active involvement

  Pros: - inclusion in interviews might shorten turn around time for them 
documenting the findings in the report
   - training of a RC's group - is this in fact a goal?
   
  Cons: - no real need for a 3rd level of "brains" - we just need brawn
   -involvement by 3 or more people in interviews might be intimidating to 
target personnel, may be inefficient, etc.
   - planning and oversight with 3 groups "in charge" is inefficient and 
could cause accountability question

2) Don't use Rick Carson's group except for database management: Instead, 
consider one of the following:
 A) Have the MRM and Ops people assigned to the Doorstep do the deal test and 
write the report; bring a staff level person from MRM or Ops to
  do the deal test
   
  Pros: Efficient, keeps expertise and training within our two groups who can 
benefit most directly as trading is our focus (vs. Carson's group), no
   issue with managing staff, etc.; 

  Issue: Do our two groups (MRM and Ops) have resources necessary to devote? 

 B) Outsource to AA

  Cons: Little leverage on timeliness of report, not developing in house 
expertise, expensive, 


 C) See if there are other internal resources like the Business Risk 
Management / Energy Assurance Services group (Internal Audit), or 
accountants   from Causey's other groups, etc.


Assuming Buy does  not actually plan to transfer responsbility for Doorstep 
to Carson's group, I think Shona and I are leaning toward 2A  - it depends on 
what you two think about it - I think our staff level people would welcome 
the opportunity to participate and see other offices - the question is can we 
afford time wise for them to do so.  But if we want to train Carson's group 
with the idea of them eventually becoming the primary RAC Doorstep interface, 
we can do that instead.

Let us know what you think so we can finalize our staffing plans.  

Regards,
Cassandra.