|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks for your note. With the increased focus on our middle office products
and the possible outsourcing of those, I am in very stong agreement that all groups need to start documenting their processes and procedures and believe it falls under my responsibility to ensure they do so. I would be very interested in knowing a bit more about SCOR as any tools - I just received the package you sent me. I'll look it over and get back to you on how I intend to approach this. Thanks HEIDI MASON@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 02/11/2001 07:06 PM To: Shona Wilson@Enron cc: sally.beck@enron.com Subject: Your Input please Shona Sent a message to Sally earlier this week that I realised afterwards would have been best directed to you in the first instance. Apologies for that. I was and still am, seeking input on the whole issue of the level of written control procedures we should have and the best way to achieve that. When I first started here I was a little surprised at the lack of written procedures. While I believe the actual control structure is good, there is very little in writing, even in the most generic form. In discussing this with Paul Quilkey, he noted that policy, at least when he was in Houston, was to deliberately minimise the written procedures to prevent it being too transportable. The reason for my query is that I last week looked at SCOR, a control review process marketed by the Aust Financial Markets Association. It is a risk control review process which allows you to benchmark your processes and which provide detailed documentation which can be personalised to your business, to create controls review. It is very detailed and has been subscribed to by most of our competitors in the energy market. I am interested in subscribing, it we want/need detailed review notes, however in light of PQ's comments I wanted your feed back on exactly what is required/desirable to have for each site. With thanks Heidi
|