MCIS SENIOR USER GROUP MEETING
Minutes
Date:
12TH December 2007
Location:
Maple 1 Meeting Room, Stockley House, 130 Wilton Road, London. SW1V 1LQ
Time:
11.00-15.00
Attendees
MCIS Project Team
Nigel Williams
Jo Budd
Mark Swan
Alex McIntosh
Alan Hazell
Chris Crow
Chris Hubbard
MCIS Programme Manager
MCIS Project Office
MCIS Implementation Co-ordinator
MCIS Business Analyst
MCIS Technical Architect
MCIS MI Analyst
Head of Branch, ERDF
Regional Representatives
Abigail Hall
Glyn Darbyshire Evans
Jon Veal
Malcolm Cross
Stephen Hayler
Chris Heath
Brenden Byczkowski
Kenroy Reid
John Joyce
Mike Shovelton
Jemma Cornish
Ken Sawyer
Richard Dodsworth
Andy Northey
Jeff Owen
Rocco Volpe
John Underwood
AWM - Representing all RDAs
AWM - ERDF Business Process Manager
AWM - IT Manager
EEDA - Manager, ERDF Programme Management team
EMDA - TBC
EMDA – Project Manager
EMDA – Programme Manager
LDA – Access to Finance Manager
LDA – TBC
NWDA - TBC
ONE - Business Systems Specialist
SEEDA – Programme Manager
SWRDA – Rural Financial Programme Manager
SWRDA – TBC
SWRDA - Information Systems Architect
Yorkshire Forward – IT Manager
Yorkshire Forward - Finance/MI Reporting
Apologies
David Hampson
Paul Stovold
LDA
EEDA
Documents Distributed Prior to Meeting
G:\ ESAD\ MCIS
G:\ ESAD\ MCIS
G:\ ESAD\ MCIS
G:\ ESAD\ MCIS
Project File\ 04 Business Requirements\
Project
05 File\
Standards
04 Business
& Policies\
Requirements\
ERDF2007-2013
Project
05File\
Standards
05
Management
Analysis
& Policies\
and
InformationRequirements
Design\
ERDF2007-2013
Project
04 Data
File\
Architecture\
05
Management
Analysis
v0.4.doc
01
and
InformationRequire
Data
Design\
Dictionary\
04 Data
02
MCIS Requirements &
Standards, v0.4
Feedback Comments
on v0.3
Data Dictionary
Data Dictionary
Feedback Comments
M Swan
MCIS SENIOR USER GROUP MEETING
Minutes
Meeting Notes / Actions
Item
1
Item & Commentary
2
Updated Requirements Document
Introductions
NW (CLG) introduced version 0.4 of the Requirements document and went through the feedback from
version 0.31 that gave rise to it. These responses are presented in the accompanying Feedback on
Management Information Requirements, v0.31 document.
During the course of the ensuing discussions, eight issues were written up on the flipchart requiring
resolution from the MCIS team. These are presented in the table below.
In addition, there were some other key observation / suggestions / comments:





KR (LDA) wanted the functionality removed from Section 7 of v0.31 put into an appendix for the
next version. NW (CLG) said it would be kept separately, but there will be a cross-reference in the
document that there will be a functional specification for the full MCIS.
JO (SWDRA) suggested changing the name to ‘Framework’; MS (CLG) suggested ‘Operational
MIS Framework’. Agreed.
NW(CLG) pointed out that all requirements documentation for the project will be available on the
MCIS web-site to be launched next Monday.
To eliminate any further confusion, NW (CLG) explained the three options - Baseline, Option 1,
Option 2:
o Baseline is using regional systems to collate claims data in the RDA, and then to use
MCIS (Core), Release 1 to aggregate the claim and enter claim details and project
information via the MCIS web screens to submit it to CLG;
o Option 1 is similar to the baseline, but instead of entering the data in the MCIS screen the
RDA would use a web service to transmit the aggregated claim and project information. ;
o Option 2 is the full use of MCIS, Release 2 to provide all functions.
o
NW (CLG) asked the group if there was broad agreement to the document. No objections were
raised, other than the issues identified below. All RDAs were requested to provide feedback on
v0.4 of the MCIS Requirements document by Friday 14 th December, and a no response will signal
acceptance of the document. The document will be presented to the Project Board on 18 December,
2007.
3
Lunch
4
Data Dictionary & XML Schemas
AH (CLG) presented the Data Dictionary & XML Schemas.
During the course of the ensuing discussions, two issues were written up on the flipchart requiring
resolution from the MCIS team. These are presented in the table below.
In addition, there were some other key observations / suggestions / comments:


GD-E (AWM) asked why CLG needs some of the project data. CH (CLG) explained that as the
Managing and Certifying Agents in the new funding programme, it carried all the risk. The request
for RDAs to populate the data dictionary was to provide assurance and confidence that RDAs have
designed, built and were operating the required business processes, as well as to provide the
required information to operate the programme successfully and in line with the needs of audit,
certification and verification processes.
CH (CLG) cited the example of one of the GO regions who substantially had delegated authority
to intermediary bodies and then suffered some loss of traceability down to the most detailed level.
One of the many recommendations from a recent consultancy study suggested preventative action
M Swan
MCIS SENIOR USER GROUP MEETING
Minutes



in this area.
CH (CLG) asked whether the representatives of the RDAs present thought they could gather the
required data. Substantially they could was the reply. So, CH (CLG) repeated his request that they
both gather the data, and send the parts of it indicated in the dictionary to CLG. Furthermore, this
approach would reduce the need for frequent audit.
CH (CLG) mentioned that CA processes would be defined in draft by the end of the year. It is
possible that this will give rise to further minor changes to the Data Dictionary.
AH (CLG) reinforced the message that populating the data dictionary with accurate data was not
just about submitting and verifying claims, it was to meet EC, NAO & CLG requirements.
NW (CLG) asked for any other comments. MC (EEDA) expressed a view that knowing in advance about all
the data that had to be collected was a good idea, as it was likely to reduce the need for rework later.
CC (CLG) explained that there were 160 outstanding comments to provide answers. Subject to these being
provided, attendees agreed to CH’s request and to operate the XML schema, subject to resolution of the
issues below.
CH said that an update to the Data Dictionary incorporating the feedback (where necessary) would be issued
on Friday 21st Dec 2007.
5
Flip Chart Issues & Resolution Given / Required
Ref.
1
Requirements Document
Some RDAs are not yet able to work with XML technology
2
Feedback of Euro exchange rate used
3
4
5
6
7
Clarification of whether PES allocations will still be required
Clarification required on Irregularity reporting <€10k
Justification of requirement for Annexe 3 data items
Web-link for LAU definitions
Ownership / responsibility for EC reporting needs to be
specified / agreed
Alignment of Section 14 in the User Guide needs to be made
with the ‘Operational Framework’ document. In addition,
check consistency with other sections
8
6
Issue
1
Data Dictionary & XML Schemas
The monthly claim in arrears rule, and the timing in relation to
meeting N+2 targets
2
Why does CLG need information about changed projects?
Resolution
CLG to provide support and
guidance here. Follow up
meeting required.
AMcI (CLG) will provide a
process showing how this will
be done
CLG to respond
CLG to respond
CLG to respond
CLG to provide
CLG to respond
CLG to do this
AMcI (CLG) will provide a
process showing how this will
be done
All projects will be sent as a
‘snap shot’. CLG will work out
which have changed.
AOB
NW (CLG) said that s regular monthly meeting is to be organised.
NW (CLG) requested that RDAs provide MS (CLG) with availability dates in 2008 by 14/12/08 for him to
visit to agree an implementation plan.
Next Meeting: Wednesday 30 January, 11:00am.
M Swan