Subject: PRC Committee Meeting - Peer Groups
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [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]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:37:00 -0700 (PDT)

Dear All

Further to the PRC Committee Meeting please find attached the first draft of 
the peer group mapping by function. It was decided that each member would 
review the proposal to move from 4 peer groups to 3 for Mid Year. 

The attached was completed some weeks ago by the HR leads in your business 
Unit and is based on a McKinsey study requested by Jeff Skilling and Steve 
Kean.

Under your review of the attached information, please focus on the final two 
pages that show the 'strawman' on how the functions fell out under the 
proposed peer group 
structure.

I have copied in the HR leads for your business area. They have been 
instrumental in completing the mapping and will meet with you to provide any 
specific information you require concerning placements with your business 
area.

I would point out that there does appear to be some inconsistencies in 
function placements within the peer groups for some business units; it will 
be our primary focus at the next meeting to resolves these issues.

Your assistants have been contacted regarding the time and date of our next 
meeting under separate cover. For our London colleagues we will aim for a 
morning meeting.

David Oxley