business review templates

Business Review Templates

Guiding Principles

• This set of templates should be used in conjunction with the Business Review Guidance document at ref xxxxxtbc

• The template set is designed to cover business activities across all of the life cycle (CADMID). The selection of which templates are to be used is a decision for the IPTL / DG.

• There should only be one business review of each team.

Template Information

• This set of templates comprises 3 sections• General Slides – applies to all reviews• Project related slides • Support related slides

• The template sections differentiate between delivery of projects (including upgrades and UORs) and support (including supply of services) because our business does. A team engaged in both activities will review slides of data from all sections.

Section One

• Whole IPT Summary – Slide 7– IYM Summary RDEL, CDEL including CPF– Balance Sheet

• Governance of Business – Slide 8• Other Issues – Slide 9

• Benefits Tracking • Successes, Opportunities, Failings & Threats• People & Collocation

Summary Slide Guidance

Slide 7. This is principally a financial summary of the whole IPT’s Business and should include all colours of money that the IPT deals with, including the operating cost. The Asset Deliveries are intended to show an aggregate of all deliveries in the IPT but this would not be required if all the delivery information has already been presented in a single large project above. Where IPTs control significant stock movements, the Balance sheet section would be an essential item. However, it may be less useful for projects in an early stage of the CADMID cycle for example. Employ as required.

Slide 8. Is a free text slide where the TL can report on their approach to assurance and any DESIB / IAB submissions and record issues and opportunities for other group / board attendances.

Slide 9. Is a free text contribution which should generally be “by exception” and should be kept as short as possible. The list of subjects may not be relevant to all IPTs and other subjects may be added.

NEW EQUIPMENT SUPPORT CAPITAL DEL PROFILE - 2007/08

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

£M

Allocation Profile Actual Profile

Forecast Profile Forecast

NEW EQUIPMENT SUPPORT DIRECT RESOURCE DEL - 2007/08

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

£M

Allocation Profile Actual Profile

Forecast Profile Forecast

Whole IPT Summary Report – Mar 07Whole IPT Summary Report – Mar 07

All Equipments - Deliveries 06/07

-

5,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AP

£

Allocation

AP7

Actual

Balance Sheet

Fixed AssetsCurrent AssetsLiabilitiesNet Assets

Governance of Business

• Governance of the Project and Business

• Information on the Assurance Plan

• Approach to Initial Gate / Main Gate / Review Note (if appropriate)

• Comments / information on wider review boards / groups

• Participation in Industry groups etc

Input from IP

TL and BM

Team, Stakeholders and wider Issues

Data to enable review of the following as appropriate:1. Benefits Tracking2. Successes, Opportunities, Failings & Threats3. Staff issues, People & Collocation etc4. Meetings and Visits5. Stakeholder engagement issues6. Wider issues requiring the DG attention

Input from IP

TL and BM

Section Two

• Management of Projects (Upgrades & UORs)– Position against the project plan – slides 11 - 13 – EVM report – slide 14– Risk report – slide 15 – Finance and Approvals – slides 16 – 17– UOR data (if applicable) – slide 18

VT BuildVT Build

Bat

ch 2

Bat

ch 2

Bat

ch 1

Bat

ch 1

Stage 1.2 Harbour Trials Stage 1.2 Harbour Trials

Eq

uipm

ent P

rogr

amm

eLi

nes

of

De

velo

pmen

tD

e-R

iski

ng

Pro

gram

mes

2010200820072006 20112009

Note: Stage 2 Trials reflect the original DFM scope & strategy

First of Class

(Daring)

Ship 02

Ship 03

Ship 04

Ship 05

Ship 06

Other

SOC Update

FoC Training IDR Complete

Deliver FoC TrainingDeliver FoC Training

TrancheTranche 11 TrancheTranche 33 TrancheTranche 4 4 FoC Crew Build-up

Outfit, STW & Stage 1 TrialsOutfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials Stage 2 TrialsStage 2 Trials

PAAMS FoC DeliveriesPAAMS FoC Deliveries

LaunchLaunch

Dry DockDry Dock Main Wet DockingMain Wet Docking

Harbour/Basin Trials Harbour/Basin Trials

Specification & Integration Completion Specification & Integration Completion

Stage 2 TrialsStage 2 Trials

AAD/AAD/ISDISD

AAD/AAD/ISDISD

System Linking & Integration Phase 1 System Linking & Integration Phase 1

Stage 1 Sea Trials Stage 1 Sea Trials

PO2 Outfitting and Ship Completion ActivitiesPO2 Outfitting and Ship Completion Activities

PAAMS & LRR Integration Starts

PAAMS & LRR Acceptance & NWHT PAAMS & LRR Acceptance & NWHT

Fabrication, Block Build & Shaft AlignmentFabrication, Block Build & Shaft Alignment

50% 50% ISDISD

90% 90% ISDISD

Stage 2 TrialsStage 2 Trials

ISDISD50% 50% ISDISD

90% 90% ISDISD

ISDISD

Outfit, STW & Stage 1 TrialsOutfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials

Fabrication, Block Build & Shaft AlignmentFabrication, Block Build & Shaft Alignment Outfit, STW & Stage 1 TrialsOutfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials

11

22

LaunchLaunch

Start Stage 2 TrialsStart Stage 2 Trials

11

11

22

2 2

MFR Delivery

MFR Delivery

Outfit, STW & Stage 1 TrialsOutfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials




11

11

11

Sustainability

MISC

CDF

STP-2

Install & STW PAAMSInstall & STW PAAMS PAAMS TrialsPAAMS Trials

C2 Mk4 available to MISC

Install & STW CSE & PAAMSInstall & STW CSE & PAAMS Firing TrialsFiring Trials

Firing F1 Firing F4

MFR Delivered

MFR Delivered

STW CSE/PAAMSSTW CSE/PAAMS CS System & General Integration TrialsCS System & General Integration Trials

PAAMS & LRR Integrated

C2 Mk3.2 & CMSr2.3 Integrated C2 Mk4 & CMSr2.3 Integrated

Develop & Contract Support SolutionDevelop & Contract Support Solution

In-Service Support Bus Case Issued

SDP on Contract CLS Contracted

Support to Test & TrialsSupport to Test & Trials

Dockyard Facility Upgrade (Portsmouth & Devonport)Dockyard Facility Upgrade (Portsmouth & Devonport)

FoC Enters PortsmouthDockyard facilities in place

22

Batch 2 Contract Let

CMS 2.3 Release

PADPADPADPAD

Current Current Approved Approved 50% ISD50% ISD

Nov 07Nov 07

Current Current Approved Approved 50% ISD50% ISD

Nov 07Nov 07Nov 07Nov 07

Contractual Contractual Acceptance Acceptance

DateDate

Sep 08Sep 08

Contractual Contractual Acceptance Acceptance

DateDate

Sep 08Sep 08Sep 08Sep 08

Latest Latest Public FoC Public FoC

50% ISD50% ISD

May 09May 09

Latest Latest Public FoC Public FoC

50% ISD50% ISD

May 09May 09

Ship 02Ship 02CADCAD

Jun 09Jun 09


Jun 09Jun 09


Dec 09Dec 09


Dec 09Dec 09Dec 09Dec 09

MFR Installation, STW & NWHT MFR Installation, STW & NWHT

PADPAD

PADPAD

22

50% 50% ISDISD

90% 90% ISDISD

Stage 2 TrialsStage 2 Trials22

ISDISD

Outfit, STW & Stage 1 TrialsOutfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials11

Stage 2 TrialsStage 2 Trials22

T42-1 FNOD

T42-2 FNOD

T42-3 FNOD T42-4

FNOD

T42-5 FNOD T42-6

FNOD

T42-7 FNOD

Ship 01 Ship 01 EP07EP07

Feb 10Feb 10

Ship 01 Ship 01 EP07EP07

Feb 10Feb 10Feb 10Feb 10

Steady State Training Ready for Training Date

2 2

Steady State Training Media Accepted

Note:Note: Dates reflect PAAMS IC-A programme (Gate 4 JIS draft M)Integration Ph 2Integration Ph 2

PAAMS Delivery

PAAMS Delivery

PAAMS Delivery

PAAMS Delivery

MFR Delivered

MFR STW

IntegrationIntegrationC2 Mk4 / CMSr2.3 decisionC2 Mk4 available at CDF

IntegrationIntegration

Hor

izon

(PP

O

real

istic

pla

n)

HRZ-01

HRZ-02

BuildBuild

BuildBuildC2/VLS

SimInstalled

Stage 1 STStage 1 ST Stage 2 ST & FiringsStage 2 ST & FiringsCADCAD

Stage 1 STStage 1 ST Stage 2 ST & FiringsStage 2 ST & FiringsCADCAD

LRR STW VLS STW

MFR STW C2 & SCE

STW

LRR STW

VLS STW

MFR STW

C2 & SCE STW

HRZHRZ--03 03 CADCAD

HRZHRZ--04 04 CADCAD

VT BuildVT Build

VT BuildVT Build

Pre CST Dry Dock

TrancheTranche 22

Note:Note: Confidence dates (Post mitigation) taken from Joint TRA Mar 06, but amended to take account of the PCO Apr 06 Level 1 plan update.

Programme – Baseline Level 0 Plan (Programme – Baseline Level 0 Plan (DateDate) EXAMPLE ) EXAMPLE

Programme – Equipment ReportProgramme – Equipment Report

ISD & Anchor Milestone Tracking Chart

•PerformanceKUR2&3 - Shown as at risk as IC minus A delivers less than the planned capability at FOC ISD. Full capability is delivered in ship 3.

•TimeLatest TRA shows significant increase in risk to ISD, due primarily to the inclusion of PRU related risks (Power Systems, S/W, PAAMS, Safety). The forecast 50% ISD is now November 10. The implications of this analysis and the potential mitigation of Test & Trials duration are still being quantified. Therefore, a revision to, or confirmation of, the December 09 CMIS ISD is not expected before negotiations have matured i.e. by the end of the year. Anchor Milestone forecasts related to Power Systems have also been impacted by the consideration of PRU related risks.

•CostPosition against KT3

Key Target 1 – PERFORMANCE Key Target 2 – TIME

NARRATIVE Key Target 3 – COST

KUR01PAAMS

Current

KUR02Force anti-air warfare situational awareness

Current

Previous Previous

KUR03Aircraft Control

Current

KUR04Aircraft operation

Current

Previous Previous

KUR05Embarked military force

Current

KUR06Naval diplomacy

Current

Previous Previous

KUR07Range

Current

KUR08Growth potential

Current

Previous Previous

Oct-05

Mar-07

Jul-08

Dec-09

Apr-11

Oct-05

Jan-06Apr-0

6Jul-06

Oct-06

Jan-07Apr-0

7Jul-07

Oct-07

Jan-08Apr-0

8Jul-08

Oct-08

Jan-09Apr-0

9Jul-09

Oct-09

Jan-10Apr-1

0Jul-10

Oct-10

FoC Actual Acceptance Date (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan)

50% FoC ISD (Latest CMIS date)

10% FoC ISD (Latest IPT TRA Forecast)



90% IAB Approval

Anchor: Complete MFR trials at CDF (FY05/06 - Target 31/03/06) (Latest CMIS date)

Anchor: FoC Gas Turbines run successfully at sync idle (Latest CMIS date)

Anchor: FoC Propulsion drive/motor unit commissioning complete (Latest CMIS date)

Anchor: MFR delivered to FoC (Latest CMIS date)

2500

3350

4200

5050

5900

6750

1 Apr 06 50%Baseline

Current CIMIS Current Forcast(PRU 6 BPT)

£M

CMIS Input

Input from PMO

Input from FC

Input from RM, P

MO

and FC

Dec-02

Aug-03

Apr-04

Dec-04

Aug-05

May-06

J an-07

Sep-07

May-08

J an-09

Oct-09

J un-10

Dec-02Jun-03

Dec-03Jun-04

Dec-04Jun-05

Dec-05Jun-06

Dec-06Jun-07

Dec-07Jun-08

Dec-08Jun-09

Dec-09Jun-10

Dec-10

FoC Stage 1 Sea Trials (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan)

FoC Stage 2 Sea Period 2.1 (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan)

FoC Fleet Platform Acceptance Date (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan)

FoC Actual Acceptance Date (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan)

50% FoC ISD (Latest CMIS date)

Programme – Support Report (If applicable)Programme – Support Report (If applicable)

FoC Key Milestone Tracking Chart

• PerformanceSupport solution and upkeep cycle for 6 ships meets requirements of KUR9

• TimeSupport Solution work remains on track but a challenging timescale to meet BC submission to IAB scrutineers end Mar 07 and end Jun to IAB 4* Committee.Concerns with those materiel delivery dates at risk (IPLs and Tech Docs) being pursued through PCO.

• CostThis is the first year the IPT will incur expenditure against the DLO/STP. Budget (STP05) of £3.755m comprises £0.055m RDEL and £3.7m CDEL. Expenditure is for long lead items/spares. No variance between forecast and budget.

PERFORMANCE TIME

NARRATIVE COST

IYMSTP

10 YearSTPProfile

KUR09Availability

Current Current

Previous Previous

Current Current

Previous Previous

Current Current

Previous Previous

Current Current

Previous Previous

NOTE: Additional Support Milestones will be

considered for inclusion once a fully integrated

programme is developed

IYM 0607 Near Cash - Budget v Forecast

00.5

1

1.52

2.53

3.54

Apr 06 May06

June06

July06

Aug06

Sept06

Oct06

Nov06

Dec06

Jan 07 Feb07

Mar07

Month

£m

Budget (STP05)

Forecast

Cumulative Spendto date

CMIS Input

Input from PMO

Input from RM, P

MO

and FC

Input from FC

EVM Schedule/Cost Variance

QUESTIONS

Earned Value ManagementEarned Value Management

Typical Earned Value graph showingSchedule and Cost Variances

5 months

PV

EV

AC

TIME

5,000

sv

cv

£

schedule variance = EV - PV = negative numbercost variance = EV - AC = negative number

behind schedule,over cost

Five Basic Performance Data Questions & Answers

QUESTIONQUESTION

How much work How much work shouldshouldbe done?be done?How much work How much work isis done? done?How much did that work How much did that work actuallyactually cost? cost?What was the total job What was the total job supposedsupposed to cost? to cost?What do we What do we now expectnow expect the total job to cost?the total job to cost?

Planned Planned ValueValue

PVPV

Earned ValueEarned Value EVEV

Actual CostActual Cost ACAC

Budget at CompletionBudget at Completion BACBAC

Estimate at CompletionEstimate at Completion EACEAC

ANSWERANSWER ACRONYMACRONYM

•Planned Value (PV) indicated by the Blue line is the agreed plan and represents what the project should achieve.

•Earned Value (EV) represented by the green line shows what has actually been achieved or Earned. In this example the EV curve is diverging from the PV curve indicating that at the given time, the project has achieved less than planned.

•Actual Cost (AC) represented by the red curve shows the actual cost of the EV. In this example the AC has exceeded the costs of the PV.

•Cost Variance (CV) expresses the cost difference between the EV and the AC.Remember it is the difference between EV and AC that gives the variance. Comparisons of AC against PV is misleading.

•Schedule Variance (SV) expresses the schedule difference between the EV and PV.

PERFORMANCE STATUS...Key Things to Track

Use Data for Decision Making

• To realise the benefit of EVM it is essential that you have confidence in the data, that you take heed of the information it gives you and that you act appropriately on that information.

•If the graph used in this tutorial was an actual output on your project. What questions would arise and what actions might you take?

- How critical is my schedule? E.g. could adjustments be made? - Can additional resources be applied? e.g to work overtime - Can any tasks be completed concurrently? - Are there technical innovations which could speed up the process? - Can the requirement be reduced? E.g. remove “gold plating”. - Would a schedule risk assessment expose the impact to project? - Could any tasks be re-scheduled? E.g. Time phasing - Could less costly facilities be employed? - Are there tasks which can be deleted? Comment - This list is not intended to be exhaustive..

£0 k

£50,000 k

£100,000 k

£150,000 k

£200,000 k

£250,000 k

£300,000 k

£350,000 k

£400,000 k

Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06

Remaining EP05 Risk Budget

Post-Mgt 50% Cost Exposure

Pre-Mgt 10% Cost Exposure



Programme – Risk ReportProgramme – Risk Report

KEY RISKS SUPPORTSUPPORT CONTINGENCY

KEY RISKS EQUIPMENTEQUIPMENT CONTINGENCY

STP Risk Budget & Exposure

Will show an analysis of 10%, 50%, 90% exposure against STP Risk Budget, when STP Risk data is sufficiently mature

STP Affordability

An IAB Information Note, to be issued through CDP mid Oct, concludes that affordability against existing budget levels in average annualised cost terms can be achieved for a class of 8 ships or less. More work will be necessary to achieve a

more acceptable RDEL/CDEL balance during the development of the support solution although the full scale of

the issue cannot be resolved without external Project assistance.

EP Risk Budget & Exposure

NOTE: Increased exposure reflects proposed Stage 2

Trials over-budget risk

Critical path for Ship 2 is availability of engine change tooling due Mar 07, currently on track.

Potential delay of up to one month currently forecast for Ship 4.

PAAMS IC-A being pursued – joint working, CMS 2.2.1 & 2.3, PAAMS contract realignment.

Intend to proceed with IC-A on a staged basis. The IA and Business Case for Stage 1 raised at a cost of £9M.

MISC activities continue to de-risk Combat System.

Work continues to review Test & Trials approach across the whole class.

SIT de-risking on track. Due to complete Apr 07.

FOC Critical Path is GTA STW due mid Nov 06.

Mitigation Success / Progress

Install Enclosures at earliest opportunity

Fit Gas Turbines via removal route

Fit un-FATed Gas Turbines

L M MMedFurther WR21 delays for Ship 2 onwards

Max use of trials facilities such as Longbow and MISC.

Implement PAAMS IC-A

M H MMedPAAMS Integration

Maximise use of MISC with MISC Augmentation (NavRadar)

Pragmatic Test & Trials approach

M H HMedCombat System Integration and Trials

Re-instate use of SIT @ ESTDM H HHighProblem with Power & Propulsion Systems STW and Integration

RAGProposed MitigationImpact

P C T

ProbRisk

Critical path for Ship 2 is availability of engine change tooling due Mar 07, currently on track.

Potential delay of up to one month currently forecast for Ship 4.

PAAMS IC-A being pursued – joint working, CMS 2.2.1 & 2.3, PAAMS contract realignment.

Intend to proceed with IC-A on a staged basis. The IA and Business Case for Stage 1 raised at a cost of £9M.

MISC activities continue to de-risk Combat System.

Work continues to review Test & Trials approach across the whole class.

SIT de-risking on track. Due to complete Apr 07.

FOC Critical Path is GTA STW due mid Nov 06.


Install Enclosures at earliest opportunity

Fit Gas Turbines via removal route

Fit un-FATed Gas Turbines

L M MMedFurther WR21 delays for Ship 2 onwards

Max use of trials facilities such as Longbow and MISC.

Implement PAAMS IC-A

M H MMedPAAMS Integration

Maximise use of MISC with MISC Augmentation (NavRadar)

Pragmatic Test & Trials approach

M H HMedCombat System Integration and Trials

Re-instate use of SIT @ ESTDM H HHighProblem with Power & Propulsion Systems STW and Integration


P C T

ProbRisk

Significant savings identified - team have completed Support Affordability Statement

Establish support solution affordability team

M H MLowSupport solution for ship, PAAMS & WR21 proves unaffordable

IPT Business Case for spares is currently being prepared (value £7-10m).

However, delay caused by on-going commercial dispute means that time-line for procurement of some items may have been compromised

Affordability of core engineering synthetic media may require prioritisation/de-scoping

Uncertainty over PAAMS maintainer training solution (GFE vs Synthetic)

MCTS 7 month delay requires interim solution to be identified

Support Solution Team involved all key stakeholders, hence Customer involved in defining solution


FoC spares package to be developed ahead of In-Service Support Solution

L H HMedLack of agreement for procurement & funding of spares to support FoC commissioning & trials programme

Investigate alternatives

Prioritise training

Engage stakeholders to scrutinise current proposals

Seek training opportunities within the trials programme

M M LMedInability to develop and deliver training within budget / timescale constraints


M H MMedInability to gain customer approval for affordable support solution


P C T

ProbRisk

Significant savings identified - team have completed Support Affordability Statement


M H MLowSupport solution for ship, PAAMS & WR21 proves unaffordable

IPT Business Case for spares is currently being prepared (value £7-10m).

However, delay caused by on-going commercial dispute means that time-line for procurement of some items may have been compromised

Affordability of core engineering synthetic media may require prioritisation/de-scoping

Uncertainty over PAAMS maintainer training solution (GFE vs Synthetic)

MCTS 7 month delay requires interim solution to be identified

Support Solution Team involved all key stakeholders, hence Customer involved in defining solution


FoC spares package to be developed ahead of In-Service Support Solution

L H HMedLack of agreement for procurement & funding of spares to support FoC commissioning & trials programme

Investigate alternatives

Prioritise training

Engage stakeholders to scrutinise current proposals

Seek training opportunities within the trials programme

M M LMedInability to develop and deliver training within budget / timescale constraints


M H MMedInability to gain customer approval for affordable support solution


P C T

ProbRisk

Input from PMO

Programme – Programme – Financial ReportFinancial Report

EP07 is for 8 ships based on the PRU ‘BTP risk adjusted’ cost of £????m (£????m near cash) with cost growth compared to EP05 of £???m (near cash).

Commitment Against Approval

ASSET DELIVERIES - No planned asset deliveries during FY06/07First Asset deliveries planned during FY07/08 (PAAMS Missiles & Training equipment)

EQUIPMENT PLAN – FORECAST AGAINST APPROVAL NARRATIVE

IN_YEAR MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE

Equipment PlanForecast £558m (control total £616m). No from AP5 forecast.

Risk Analysis

Op CostsForecast £?????m compared to Budget of £????m, variance of £????m.No change from AP5 forecast.

2500

3350

4200

5050

5900

6750

7600

EP07 Committed Approval

Ships 7&8

6 ships

EP FORECAST

0100200300400500600700

£m

Control Total Accruals Forecast

OP COST IN-YEAR FORCAST

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

Time

£K

Control Total Accruals Forecast

Input from FC

MPR/Approvals Forecast SummaryMPR/Approvals Forecast Summary

• MPR/NAO– Draft MPR06 Audit report received from NAO. Shows in-year cost growth of £???M (to £????M)

and delay of +7 months (to Dec 09). Re-statement of MPR05 figures (adding a further cost growth of £??M) not shown against MPR06. Also shows 3 KURs at risk due to potential reduction in capability on FOC at ISD. Proposed text amendment to reflect accurately the progressive demonstration of capability.

– The cost growth reported in MPR06 enabled the DPA to achieve Key Target 3 and the PSA target for 2005/06. There may be sensitivity in reporting all the 2006/07 potential cost growth, within CMIS, so soon after the NAO agreeing the MPR06 figure in June 2006. The proposed course of action is to update CMIS once negotiations with Industry have reached a mature and stable position, planned for 1st Qtr 2007.

• PCT SUMMARY

FORECAST HISTORY

PRU RECOMMENDATIONS

COST VARIATIONS

Original MG

approval (90%)

MPR05 MPRO6 Current CIMIS Forecast (50%)

6 ship BTP Risk adjusted

6 ship Baseline Cautious

Delta on MPR06 (PRU BTP-MPR)

Delta on MPR06 (PRU Baseline-MPR)

Cost (£m) £????m £???m £???m £???m £????m £????m +£???m +£????m

ISD Nov 07 May 09 Dec 09 Dec 09 Sep 10 Nov 10 KURs 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9

Input from BM/FC

P9 Name Forecast

Main Gate Main Gate Achieved

Approved Cost 50%

(£m)

Forecast Cost 50%

(£m)

Approved ISD 50%

Forecast ISD 50%

ISD Achieved

P9003040 0.5” Blank Firing Barrel (BFB) and Blank Ammunition (BA)

0.452 0.304 Aug 2005 Aug 2005

P9003043 60mm Mortar 0.017 0.015 Sep 2005 Sep 2005

P9003041 8.6mm Ammo 0.500 0.495 Jun 2007 Jun 2007

P9258500 ALDS 11.950 9.410 Jul 2006 Jan 2007

P9000866 Artillery Fire Control Trainer - Full Task (AFCT-FT) BGTI/Digitisation Upgrade

3.080 2.804 Feb 2008 Dec 2007

P9000867 Artillery-Fire Control Trainer - Part Task (AFCT-PT) Upgrade

0.550 0.503 Sep 2006 Nov 2006

P9002781 AS90 Lt Gun CEP 17.110 17.110 Oct 2011 Oct 2011

P9000297 AS90 Training System (TS)

2.198 2.116 Sep 2005 Sep 2005

P9003044 Automatic Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL)

2.889 2.909 Feb 2007 Apr 2007

P9004170 Automatic Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) Support Fleet

1.550 1.546 Mar 2007 Mar 2007

UOR – Summary Data

KEY DATAKEY DATA

Section Three

• Support and Service Delivery– Performance against CSA or JBA – slide 20– Availability / Operating Hours – Slide 21– Customer Wait time / Safety Risks – Slide 22 – Supply Chain Issues – Slide 23

Performance against User CSA / JBA / OSP outputs 11Month of data assessed eg, APR 07

• State overall FFP and comment on individual metrics if showing AMBER or RED– Comment factors contributing to metrics that have previously

been AMBER or RED but are now YELLOW or GREEN

Example:-• FFP - YELLOW

– FE@R - RED - commentary– ABORTS - AMBER - commentary

Performance against User CSA / JBA / OSP outputs 2

Month of data assessed eg, APR 07

Availability / Operating hours chart etc to be inserted here if applicable

CUSTOMER WAIT TIME (As appropriate)CUSTOMER WAIT TIME (As appropriate)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

DUES OUTSUCCESSESKEY: PEPS Range Target: 98%Equipment [Day 1] as at 28 Feb 07

CLS Referred Non-PEPS Range Target: 50%REFERRALS

100%PEPS9.22%11.36%

1.36% 100%PEPSNon PEPS 78.06%

PEPS 10.00%

5.11%20.61%

PEPSNon PEPS

PEPS

60.26% 14.02%

10.00%

7.43%12.91%79.66%

PEPS

PEPSNon PEPS

Non PEPS 9.12%9.12%

PEPS

PEPS81.76%

7.28%

PEPSNon PEPS

PEPS

61.35% 31.36%

63.99% 22.12%

PEPSNon PEPS 13.88%

As at 18 Oct 06

Summary of Safety Related Risks - Cat A&B Funded/Unfunded …quarterly

0

00

GFA

0

0

4

810

0

0

0

15

2

11

20 0

Overall Total 0 18

0 0 0

0 0 0

4.3180.000

1 0.180 0.000

£M 3.514 0.000

r r

Previo

us

Curre

nt

0.000

0

UNFUNDED

0.040

3.600

0.0000.000 0.000

Cost of reducing Risk to "As Low As Reasonably Practicable" (ALARP) - £M

FUNDED

2

FY 07/08 IPT Total FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09FY 06/07 FY 09/10IPT Total FY 08/09

1

FY 09/10

0.000

Outwith

0.0000.004

5 0.0000.000 0.0000.040

IPT Outwith

0.000 0.0000.0040 0 0 13

ALARP Funded

CAT "B" RISKCAT "A" RISK

Funded Unfunded Unfunded

0

0.6900

3

2.600 0.000

0.690

08

0 1.380

0.000 0.000

0.0000.000

2.600

0.000

0 00

ONO IPT

DRS

TAS

EHM

JEG 0 0 0.0000.000 0.000 0.000

MET

00

0.2940.000

0.804

0.000 0.000

0.0000.114

0.000 3.600

0.000

6 3.735

0.000

0.000 0.0000.000

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.0000.000 0.000

0.270

0.000 0.000

10.700

0.000

3.600 3.500

0.000

0.135

10.9703.635

0.135

SAFETY RISKSSAFETY RISKS

Supply Chain Performance

Month of data assessed eg, APR 07

Insert details of any known demand failure trends or supply chain issues with details – by exception only

If EVM is being operated for support details should be included here

business review templates

Business

pru related

block build

latest cmis

peps range

test amp

stw amp

failings amp

data assessed