Subject: Re: Unify in London
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:56:00 -0800 (PST)

We have pursued implementing Unify in London, however there are a number of 
issues preventing that from happening in the near future:

The Unify IT team has a lot of competing priorities (including the Houston 
SAP implementation, as well as Houston and Calgary changes and enahncements), 
and are unable to commit to a firm implementation date at this time.
New commitments by ENA (see mail at bottom) have further complicated the 
priorities, so even the tentative plans for implementing Unify in London this 
year are in doubt.
On the IT side, there are a number of issues with support and scalability of 
the current architecture of the system.

As it doesn't look like Unify can be implemented in London this year, we will 
therefore change focus to streamlining the existing tactical solutions in 
London (enhancing Back Office Settlements System, integrating with Global 
CounterParties, removing London Office Manager, and using SAP where 
appropriate).

Once Unify has been integrated with SAP in Houston we will in a better 
position to consider the long-term strategic approach to Unify in London.   
If anyone believes that we should take a different response, please respond 
to this email.

Eric, Ian & Richard

   
	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
	
	From:  Fernley Dyson                           17/11/99 12:49

To: Richard Sage/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Stephen P Schwarz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Burchfield/HOU/ECT@ECT, Eric 
Virro/LON/ECT@ECT, David J Williams/LON/ECT@ECT, Ian Sloman/LON/ECT@ECT, Beth 
S Perlman/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Unify  

We need to discuss the details, but to my mind the question has to be why 
wouldn't we do it?

Richard Sage
17/11/99 09:02
To: Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Stephen P Schwarz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard 
Burchfield/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Eric Virro/LON/ECT@ECT, David J Williams/LON/ECT@ECT, Ian 
Sloman/LON/ECT@ECT, Beth S Perlman/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Unify

Putting Unify in London is not something that is going to happen tomorrow.
If we are going to do it we need to do it right.
Shall we go ahead with this?

______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________ 
                        	
	Enron Information Technology
	
	From:  Inja Chun                           17/01/2000 01:52

To: Richard Sage/LON/ECT@ECT, Phil Yoxall/LON/ECT@ECT, Stephen P 
Schwarz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul F Poellinger/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ian Sloman/LON/ECT@ECT, 
Eric Virro/LON/ECT@ECT, Kenneth M Harmon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Regan M 
Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Beth Perlman/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Pickering/LON/ECT@ECT, Philippe A 
Bibi/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Revised Unify Plan

During the last few weeks, we experienced significant increases in Unify 
transaction volumes because of Columbia Energy Services acquisition, EOL and 
Calgary implementation.   For example, recently the Logistics transactions 
increased by 91% while deal/meter count increased by 61% and total volume 
(MMBTU) by 66%.  In addition, it is very possible that volumes may increase 
by another 30% due to  new acquisitions in the near future. For these 
reasons, we  must put our efforts in overhauling Unify Settlement  now before 
working on London implementation.  Therefore, we are postponing our February 
out visit to London.,  We will let you know our revised plans and targets as 
soon as we can.  Thank you.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________