|
|
Enron Mail |
Since we couldn't get us all together on the phone (Sally, you're out of the
office), I wanted to close the loop on some of the discussions we've all been having on Doorstep. After talking with Rick Carson, Shona and I see several alternatives: Our Needs: 1) Database Management 2) Staff to do the deal test and write the report No matter what, we want to use Rick Carson's group to maintain the Doorstep database. Our Goals: The one open question we need to resolve is whether or not Rick Buy does in fact want Rick Carson's group to develop trading expertise with the goal of being able to do Doorstep visits alone without the involvement of Market Risk Management (MRM) or Sally's (Ops) group. Rick Carson indicated that was his understanding from talking to Rick Buy. If that is the case, we should select alternative #1 below, despite the inefficiencies. If we are simply trying to carry out the Doorstep initiative in the most efficient manner possible, it seems Carson's involvement is not actually the way to get there. Alternatives: 1) Include Rick Carson's group to staff the deal test while including them in planning, interviews, etc. - RC does not have low level people to do deal test only; his people are experienced managers/directors who would only be interested in participating if they were learning the trading business; it is also a management problem for his staff to be under someone else's direction so he wants their more active involvement Pros: - inclusion in interviews might shorten turn around time for them documenting the findings in the report - training of a RC's group - is this in fact a goal? Cons: - no real need for a 3rd level of "brains" - we just need brawn -involvement by 3 or more people in interviews might be intimidating to target personnel, may be inefficient, etc. - planning and oversight with 3 groups "in charge" is inefficient and could cause accountability question 2) Don't use Rick Carson's group except for database management: Instead, consider one of the following: A) Have the MRM and Ops people assigned to the Doorstep do the deal test and write the report; bring a staff level person from MRM or Ops to do the deal test Pros: Efficient, keeps expertise and training within our two groups who can benefit most directly as trading is our focus (vs. Carson's group), no issue with managing staff, etc.; Issue: Do our two groups (MRM and Ops) have resources necessary to devote? B) Outsource to AA Cons: Little leverage on timeliness of report, not developing in house expertise, expensive, C) See if there are other internal resources like the Business Risk Management / Energy Assurance Services group (Internal Audit), or accountants from Causey's other groups, etc. Assuming Buy does not actually plan to transfer responsbility for Doorstep to Carson's group, I think Shona and I are leaning toward 2A - it depends on what you two think about it - I think our staff level people would welcome the opportunity to participate and see other offices - the question is can we afford time wise for them to do so. But if we want to train Carson's group with the idea of them eventually becoming the primary RAC Doorstep interface, we can do that instead. Let us know what you think so we can finalize our staffing plans. Regards, Cassandra.
|