From: mike.jordan@enron.com
To: sally.beck@enron.com, brent.price@enron.com
Cc: fernley.dyson@enron.com, richard.sage@enron.com
Date: 2000-09-05 11:25:00+00:00
Subject: Re: Enlighten Common Timetable

Sally - I mentioned this issue when I was over in Houston and hoped to cover 
it again when we discussed EnVision ( following your meeting with Mary and 
Joel - I think Joel was organising )

Brent  - Do you have a moment to catch up Envision and the on the common 
timetable specifically ?

All - I am planning to organise a Houston / Europe conference call to discuss 
Enlighten and the applications and current/future business requirements that 
are dependent on it. I would like to get an understanding of your prefered 
level of involvement

Regards

Mike
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Jordan/LON/ECT on 05/09/2000 11:19 
---------------------------


John Paskin
05/09/2000 08:01
To: Cindy Horn/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Enlighten Common Timetable  

Cindy

Sorry if there was any confusion in my email - it was not actually prompted 
by your questions about Enlighten, which haven't caused ripples and in any 
case are appropriate questions to ask.

I'm really trying to get commitment from business sponsors (principally Mike 
on this side) on both sides of the pond to agree a common timetable for 
functionality.  If we don't get this, it may be difficult for us to maintain 
a common database across Houston and London, and IT will end up acting as a 
broker between different business areas when establishing priorities.  I 
doubt any of us want that.

Cheers

John






Cindy Horn
04/09/2000 22:55
To: John Paskin/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve Whitaker/LON/ECT@ECT, Scott 
Williamson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cindy Wisemiller/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dragan 
Jojic/LON/ECT@ECT, Phil Yoxall/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve Price/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard 
Samuel/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Enlighten Common Timetable  

For Global Markets, we were not scheduled to get anything by the end of the 
year from Enlighten, Envoice or DTL.  But in order to establish what could 
potentially be delivered by July 2001, we were inquiring as to the data 
elements that were going to be stored as well as the functionality.  It would 
be hard to make committments to use an application, without really knowing 
what it does.  Clarification was what we were trying to get and will require, 
to do a true gap analysis so we can quantify the extent that these 
applications fit or do not fit our business.  

I received a functional spec for Envoice today and would like to get one for 
DTL and Enlighten to get a better understanding of the scope of these and 
possible enhancements that could be added on later.

I am sorry if my queries caused some "ripples".   I still would like some 
tangible information to start looking at regarding these applications.  
Please let me know what information you can supply us.   Thanks    Cindy



John Paskin
04/09/2000 12:30
To: Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve Whitaker/LON/ECT@ECT, Scott 
Williamson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cindy Horn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cindy Wisemiller/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Dragan Jojic/LON/ECT@ECT, Phil Yoxall/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve 
Price/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard Samuel/LON/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Enlighten Common Timetable

Dear all

There is currently some debate as to what is going to be delivered by 
Enlighten.  Some clarification and a question:

Clarification:
Enlighten (certainly in London) is actually a data hub, rather than an 
application.  In itself, it will not add business value.  However, the tools 
which sit on top of this system will add business value.  These tools are 
currently DTL, Envoice, Zebra.  However, I think we all anticipate more 
requirements being developed as this central data store becomes richer.

Question (for business sponsors):
We are trying hard to coordinate US and UK efforts.  However, this will be 
extremely difficult if our respective business timelines are not the same.  
Say - for example - Mike wants Enlighten to deliver volumetric reporting by 
then end of 2000 but Cindy instead wants a full DPR in the same timeline.  
Our data architects are going to struggle to coordinate and prioritise their 
work if we are working for two separate sets of masters.  So:

If we are really to reap the rewards of a UK/US implementation, a common 
timetable is extremely important.  Who are our primary UK and US business 
sponsors and can we ask them to agree a mutual timeline ?  I suspect if we 
are to try and make this a joint development, nothing will make delivery 
harder than having separate and sometimes mutually exclusive sets of 
requirements from our user communities.  

Comments/answers please...

Cheers

John