Versions Compared

Old Version 11

changes.mady.by.user Adewale Adekoya

Saved on

compared with

New Version 12

changes.mady.by.user Adewale Adekoya

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

In table below are issues raised at the meeting with the details. I have created the Actions/Comments' column to give up to date findings 


The table shows  issues raised at the meeting with the details. Please Note: text in red are actions

Issues

Details

Actions/Comments

RTC

ESR

needs exception report from TIS for the RMT they send TIS

15/03/2019:

Now in NDW.  Naz may have to look at this from TIS end and decide who to give access to in NDW

queried about the details sent back in the RTC file. Enquired about whether post level details processing could be included in the RTC.

Ade to investigate

Ade investigated and see below for my findings:

The current RTC file sent back to ESR has File level details. It indicates whether a RMT file has been received and successfully processed at TIS end.

At the time the interface was build, this was discussed with Pav/Victoria on the level of details that should be in there as the specification provided did not have that detail.

In order to extend the level of details to post level details, it will require extending the interface. Also we’ll require what sort of Post details we need in the file

  .

DNC 

ESR needs Notification Confirmation files - DCC - send to NWD - for

esr to

ESRto have access

15/03/2019:

There is a

ticket for it  under the EPIC TISNEW-2528 

ticket  which is  - TISNEW-2698

. TIS team and POs need to prioritise  this piece of work

already in the backlog and need to be prioritised .

Error Reports

ESR wants a view of all the error reports 

  • Missing Mandatory Fields - Trainees with missing mandatory ESR fields for future placements on TIS
  • Unmatched Deleted DPNs - Deleted positions on ESR but CURRENT on TIS
  • Unmatched Pending DPNs- .Mismatch of ESR DPNs against TIS NPNs, i.e. DPN's incorrectly entered on ESR
  • APC warnings - Warnings generated by ESR e.g. missing GMC end date, nationality does not match etc
15/03/2019: 

Create your reports via NDW- Tableau -

 Naz

 Naz may have to look at this from TIS end and decide who to give access

Duplication

TIS sending us the same information again and again and ERS duplicating the

detials15/03/2019: 

details

ESR- to send Chris

M

samples. 

ESR have a temporary solutions in place – ESR keeps sending us the same 'positions' again and again – Problem should be resolve at source (recommendation)

   

. The temporary solution is working as well as far as we’re aware.   

A ticket already created - TISNEW-2062

Chris and TIS team may have to look at the issue

Already in the backlog and need to be prioritised .

Post Code 

Joined together post codes from TIS. ESR only accept 8 characters in this field and TIS allows free text

15/03/2019: 

Ade to investigate

and go back to Pav

Questions to ask Pav

Ade investigated and email Pav the following questions

  • which post code finder ESR is using, if any?
  • can ESR look from their end on solutions; e.g. extending 8 characters, using text format etc?
  • are you talking about UK post codes?
  • What sort of validation is ESR using to validate post codes?
  • there is a ticket for the trimming of leading and trailing spaces - TISNEW-2819, should we just keep it at this or there is more to the issue?

Pave Response of 21/03/2019 in

Red

Amber

  • which post code finder ESR is using, if any? Quick Address System supplied by Experian
  • can ESR look from their end on solutions; e.g. extending 8 characters, using text format etc? 8 characters, spaces are counted
  • are you talking about UK post codes? The validation we do is as specified below. There is no added intelligence to check if UK or not.
  • What sort of validation is ESR using to validate post codes? 8 characters, spaces are counted as a character
  • there is a ticket for the trimming of leading and trailing spaces - TISNEW-2819, should we just keep it at this or there is more to the issue? This could be useful to ensure that postcodes don’t deviate from the format.

Note: There is an existing ticket on this issue and needs to be

prioritise by the Product Owner to go into TIS sprint

prioritised and further discussions may be required with ESR team. The issue log was sent to Pav to provide a priority and order and the ticket did not appear on the list sent back to us.

Some trust not using TIS-ESR interface

Typical example is St' Helen and

Knowley

Knowsley using Trac - with over 9000 trainees. 

15/03/2019:

To be considered during the bi-directional solution. Maybe the bi-directional solution needs to be flexible enough to accepting GMC number and NTN if possible

Monitoring Tools

Need a two way tools to monitor ETL. Something that will work for both TIS and ESR. TIS already have a tool to monitor ETL but might need to be developed on. 

15/03/2019:

Chris looking at this from TIS end

  • There are tickets already on this - TISNEW-2543 and 2544

POs Involvement 

Getting POs to get

involve

involved in this interface and attend meetings

15/03/2019:

Naz may have to look at this from TIS end



Meeting Outcome: 

  • It was agreed that we should look at the above data quality issues and make sure they are resolved before with start the bi-directional interface. It will not be appropriate to carry the known issues to bi-directional interface without being resolved.
  • To fix another date for meeting after Tayo's team must have completed their work on the  business requirements side of things -  19th April 2019 suggested

...