Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR032904-02 Detail

Expected Deliverable: That business rule upgrade comparison only compares the last revision versus the existing incremental approach.

Status History

Project Meetings

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she reviewed the denials and understands that Qwest feels that they have accommodated these requests in another CR that highlighted changes. Donna said that she understands that Qwest has denied these requests due to no demonstrable benefit. Donna said that in the response it states that the LOE for SCR032903-02 is approximately 2000 hours. Donna also pointed out that the denial response stated that AT&T, in a clarification call, said that since new products and forms are introduced infrequently that this change to the database would be a costly enhancement used infrequently. Donna said that she does not feel they would have said that. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like Regina Mosely/AT&T to review the denial. Donna stated that she would contact Lynn Stecklein/Qwest to discuss any questions the may have. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if other CLECs could be included if a call was scheduled. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that she would invite the other CLECs.

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR description. AT&T is requesting that the business rules upgrade comparison only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes). Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request. This CR is in Presented Status.

5/6/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Carla Pardee - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Joyce Perry - AT&T, Donna Osborne - AT&T, Steph Prull - Eschelon, Randy Owen - AT&T, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Lynn Steckelin

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed purpose of this meeting. Lynn stated that we wanted to get feedback from AT&T on the format changes Qwest made on the disclosure and addenda. Lynn also stated that we wanted to discuss SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary document and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products relative to EDI disclosure for change summary document.

Randy Owen/Qwest asked if everyone had an opportunity to review the 15.0 disclosure addendum. Qwest is now providing change summaries that 'highlights' the actual change. The CLECs will no longer have to do a stare and compare between column 1 and 2 to determine what changed. Red Font will indicate new inclusions, strikethrough red will indicate deletions, and blue test will notes, etc.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that they liked the changes. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that she also liked the changes made. Steph Prull/Eschelon stated that Eschelopn liked the format changes made.

Randy Owen/Qwest stated SCR012104-01 has accommodated what AT&T is requesting SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that they appreciate the changes made to the disclosure format on this request but would like Qwest to pursue the changes being requested on SCR032904-02 and SCR032904-03.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the status on this request would be changed to CLEC Test.

3/22/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Regina Mosley/AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller, Stephanie Prull/McLeod, Kyle Kirves/AT&T, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call was to discuss the revisions AT&T added to this change request.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewded the description of change. AT&T revised as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that item #1 can be done and said that keeping items #2 and #3 may jeopardize the work on item #1 and would increase the overall LOE for this request. Kyle recommended that AT&T issue a separate CR that would address items #1 and #2.

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if they should issue 2 separate CRs.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that would be the preferred route and the most efficient way to track each item.

Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she would be glad to issue one of the CRs.

2/19/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they have revised this CR based on the IMA 15.0 release call yesterday. Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewed the description of the CR. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. Phyllis stated that the process as it is today, could lead to CLEC errors due to missing the changes. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column. Phyllis also reviewed the revisions they made to the CR as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we originally looked at this request before the revision and thought that maybe we could absorb the LOE. Connie stated that we need to go back and review the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE. Connie stated that based on this review, AT&T could possibly look at adding this as a late adder to the IMA 16.0 Release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that after talking with the Qwest SME that they understand that AT&T does not want the history trail. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we were keeping the date log because we thought that is what the CLECs were looking for. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked the other CLECs for their thoughts on keeping the history log. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that they did not want the history trail either. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will re-evaluate the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE and provide a status in the March CMP Systems Meeting.

2/18/04 e-mail from AT&T

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T requested that the following information be added to this CR:

1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes)to the current IMA documentation. For example the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Note: Final Technical Specification for Appendix F should still include a separate section to capture changes from Draft to Final however again only the last revision should be displayed and compared.

Can you please add this language and provide this in time for the OSS February forum? It is more definitive we feel of our business need. Thank you.

2/5/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Randy Owen - Qwest, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Denise Martinez - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that this CR was presented as a walk on in the January CMP system meeting and reviewed the description of change. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. We would like something similar to what Qwest does today with the QWEST Document Review Process. For example, the latest addendum summary document for IMA 14.0 has two columns: one for the old rules ( under column heading “Description”) and the other column for the new rule ( under column heading “Description II”) The Blocking changes that impacted the RS Worksheet went from pages 9-15 and the Feature Changes went from pages 17-22. This format forces the user to do a very time consuming and cumbersome stare and compare across multiple pages to identify the changes in order to determine the impact(s). The process as it is today, can lead to CLEC errors due to missed impacts. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column.

Discussion Lynn Stecklein/Qwest also recapped the discussion that took place in the January CMP Systems Meeting. (See meeting minutes below dated 1/22/04) Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T reiterated that AT&T is looking for anything such as redline, highlite, etc that will make it easier to to identify a change in the document. Regina Mosely - AT&T stated that the 1st column is larger that the 2nd column and doing a stare and compare is very difficult. Kyle Kirves - Qwest stated that effective with 15.0 the columns will be the same size. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T asked if the CR should be revised to reflect something different than the current title due to the fact that the summary and the addendum are housed in the same database. Kyle Kirves- Qwest stated that the CR title could be changed to 'Change to EDI Summary Disclosure'. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest will revise the title as noted and send a current copy of the CR to AT&T for their approval. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T stated that AT&T is looking for the desire to have the change highlighted and to alleviate the stare and compare.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted This request impacts all products and the interface is IMA EDI.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T requests the EDI summary disclosure document be highlighted to show the changes made, similar to what is done in the Qwest Document Review Process.

Establish Action Plan Qwest will evaluate this request to determine what options exist and present the response in the March CMP Systems meeting

1/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T is requesting that the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) be issued with the changes highlighted. Donna stated that AT&T would like to see something similar to what Qwest does today with Qwest Document Review Process. Donna stated that with the latest addendum summary document there are two columns, one for the old rules and one for the new rules. She stated that they would like the 1st column suppressed and only reflect the change. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the data is a 12,000-page document and is housed in a database. Judy Schultz/Qwest suggested that it might be more feasible to make changes to only those sections that are being updated. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they might be amenable to doing ‘chunks’ of work. Liz Balvin/MCI asked which document AT&T was referring to. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said it was the addendum and not the chapters. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if it would possible to highlight the change in the columns. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if we could use the redline theory. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that redline doesn’t work in a database. Regina Mosely/AT&T asked if Qwest could look at changing the summary too. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 2004 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental Changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary Document (Appendix F)

This document is a response to AT&T’s SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental Changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary Document (Appendix F).”

AT&T requests that the business rule upgrade comparison only show the difference between the most recent published version of the Disclosure to the next iteration of the deliverable instead of incremental changes (e.g., from IMA EDI 14.0 to IMA 15.0 etc.). AT&T cited the example of the FEATURE FIELD on the Resale form, which showed four changes occurring to the IMA15.0 Draft Disclosure documents, and each date revisions were made. As stated in the AT&T request: The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Note: Final Tech Specs for Appendix F should still include a separate section to capture changes from Draft to Final however, again, only the last revision should be displayed and compared.

Qwest responds to these items by stating that, with the publication of IMA EDI 15.0, it has made changes to the design and layout of the change summary in compliance with SCR012104-01. The new design of the change summary makes it easier for CLECs to identify changes from iteration to iteration by using strikethrough, colored font to indicate deletions, and underlined, colored font to show additions. CLECs can perceive the changes much more readily now, as opposed to earlier versions where the CLEC had to stare and compare. Positive feedback from the CLECs indicates that this improvement matches their expected deliverable. Qwest estimates that the amount of time spent by CLECs in using the new version is a fraction of the time spent using the previous two column change from and change to versions. Please see the figure below that shows a sample page of the new format:

W/S Ref Number Field Column Description CRS 75 Feature Negotiated Deleted rules referencing SERIES and MULTI-LINE products. Business Rule Products 9, 9a, 30, 31: Blocking USOCs & FIDs are not allowed in the FEATURE (Field 75) & FEATURE DETAIL (Field 76). These entries will be derived by Qwest from the BA (Field 48) and BLOCK (Field 49) entries. Products 9, 9a, 30, 31: This field is for FID and FID data entry only. Format is: / . If ACT = N, V, Z or C and FA=N, V, T and if requesting PPU Blocking do not submit as a FID and/or FID Data the following values: RCU, COT, AC, SDS, VFA, AR, and TWC. MEGACENTNM is required if Qwest DSL USOCs are populated. Products 9, 30: If ACT = V, or C and FA = N, V, or T of a Line Level USOC, then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with LCC FID. If ACT = V and the LSR HTQTY = 0, then Hunting USOCs are prohibited. Hunting USOC information can be obtained from the Product Catalogs for SERIES and MULTI-LINE,. Products 9a, 31: If ACT=N, V, Z, T, C and, FA=N, T, V then the following shall be required if requesting any of the Call forwarding/Blocking/Custom Ringing USOCs ALL STATES: 1) If FEATURE** field contains any one of the following USOCs: RGG1+, RGG2+, or RGG3+ then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with TN FID 2) If FEATURE DETAIL** field contains MCFI FID, then it must be populated with TN FID. The other USOCs only apply to UNEP POTS and Resale POTs, not Centrex 21 (resale or UNE-P). 3) If ACT = N, V, Z, C, T and FA = N, V, or T of a Line Level USOC, then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with LCC FID. If ACT = V or Z and the LSR HTQTY = D, then hunting USOCs are

With this request, AT&T seeks to further change the format of the change summary in a manner that does not demonstrate appreciable business benefit.

The change summary is generated out of a database that records all of the changes made to the documentation from release to release. These changes are driven by candidate work, enhancements to the documentation, requests from CLECs for clarification, requests from Qwest internal to clarify, and other sources. Frequently, a single field may have numerous changes to it driven by several diverse an unassociated change requests. Each request, upon completion, is input into the database as a change. When the change summary report is run, these changes are listed separately and mapped to the associated, individual change request. So, using AT&T’s example above, the four changes to the Feature field came out of candidate work, enhancements, clarification, etc., and evolved from four separate change requests. In order to explain or justify each individual request, Qwest lists them separately so that it might map and address questions appropriately. Were all of the changes lumped together, Qwest would have no way of mapping the change back to the original request, and therefore would be unable to justify or provide reasoning for the change. This would effectively negate the utility of the walkthroughs Qwest has with the CLECs to explain or answer questions around each individual change.

Secondly, Qwest estimates the LOE for this effort to be approximately 2000 hours to change the structure and reporting functionality of the database. Qwest notes that AT&T has stated that their request is a preference and not something that is preventing them from conducting their business effectively.

Qwest maintains that the change summary format provided in compliance with SCR012104-01 allows CLECs to identify the changes related to the fields quickly even though multiple changes to each field are listed separately. Additionally, Qwest maintains that changing the format of the change summary would negatively impact the CLECs by not allowing them to identify specific changes that they want to question, and impedes Qwest’s ability to research the questions quickly. Last, the cost and resource allocation associated with the change does not demonstrate business benefit reciprocal to that associated cost.

Therefore, Qwest is denying this request for no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest