SLIDE 3Guiding 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.
SLIDE 4Template 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.
SLIDE 5Section 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
SLIDE 6Summary Slide GuidanceSlide 7. This is principally a financial summary of the whole IPT’s Business andshould include all colours of money that the IPT deals with, including theoperating cost. The Asset Deliveries are intended to show an aggregate of alldeliveries in the IPT but this would not be required if all the delivery informationhas already been presented in a single large project above. Where IPTs controlsignificant stock movements, the Balance sheet section would be an essentialitem. However, it may be less useful for projects in an early stage of theCADMID cycle for example. Employ as required.Slide 8. Is a free text slide where the TL can report on their approach toassurance and any DESIB / IAB submissions and record issues andopportunities for other group / board attendances.Slide 9. Is a free text contribution which should generally be “by exception” andshould be kept as short as possible. The list of subjects may not be relevant toall IPTs and other subjects may be added.
Whole IPT Summary Report – Mar 07 SLIDE 7 NEW EQUIPMENT SUPPORT CAPITAL DEL PROFILE - NEW EQUIPMENT SUPPORT DIRECT RESOURCE DEL - 2007/08 2007/08 16.000 10.000 14.000 9.000 8.000 12.000 7.000 10.000 6.000£M £M 8.000 5.000 6.000 4.000 3.000 4.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0 11 2 1 12 10 1 3 6 8 0 2 4 5 7 9 3 5 0 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Allocation Profile Actual Prof ile Allocation Prof ile Actual Prof ile Forecast Prof ile Forecast Forecast Prof ile Forecast All Equipments - Balance Sheet Deliveries 06/07 15,000,000.00 Fixed Assets Allocation Current Assets 10,000,000.00 AP7 Liabilities £ 5,000,000.00 Actual Net Assets - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AP
SLIDE 8Governance 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 BM nd La IPT fr om ut Inp
SLIDE 9Team, Stakeholders and wider Issues Data to enable review of the following as appropriate: 1. Benefits Tracking 2. Successes, Opportunities, Failings & Threats 3. Staff issues, People & Collocation etc 4. Meetings and Visits 5. Stakeholder engagement issues 6. Wider issues requiring the DG attention BM and L IPT m tf ro Inpu
SLIDE 10Section 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
SLIDE 11 Programme – Baseline Level 0 Plan (Date) EXAMPLE Note: Stage 2 Trials reflect the original DFM scope & strategy 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 Pre CST Nov 07 Sep 08 May 09 Jun 09 Dec 09 Feb 10 Launch Dry 1 Launch Dock Dry Dock Main Wet Docking Current Contractual Latest Ship 02 2 Ship 03 Ship 01 Start Stage 2 Trials Approved Acceptance Public FoC CAD CAD EP07 Harbour/Basin Trials 50% ISD Date 50% ISD Stage 1 Sea Trials PAD First of AAD/ 50% 90% PO2 Outfitting and Ship Completion Activities Class 2 ISD ISD ISD (Daring) MFR Delivery Stage 1.2 Harbour Trials Stage 2 TrialsEquipment Programme Batch 1 PAAMS FoC Deliveries Specification & Integration Completion PAAMS & LRR MFR Installation, STW & NWHT Integration Starts Note: Dates reflect PAAMS IC-A System Linking & Integration Phase 1 Integration Ph 2 programme (Gate 4 JIS draft M) CMS 2.3 Release PAAMS & LRR Acceptance & NWHT 50% 90% MFR Delivery PAD ISD ISD ISD Ship 02 1 2 2 2 Fabrication, Block Build & Shaft Alignment Outfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials Stage 2 Trials 50% 90% PAD ISD ISD ISD PAAMS Delivery Ship 03 1 2 2 2 Fabrication, Block Build & Shaft Alignment Outfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials Stage 2 Trials Batch 2 Contract Let PAAMS Delivery ISD 1 2 Ship 04 VT Build Fabrication, Block Build & Shaft Alignment Outfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials Stage 2 Trials Batch 2 PAAMS Delivery 1 2 Ship 05 VT Build Fabrication, Block Build & Shaft Alignment Outfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials Stage 2 Trials PAAMS Delivery 1 Ship 06 VT Build Fabrication, Block Build & Shaft Alignment Outfit, STW & Stage 1 Trials MFR LRR STW VLS STW C2 & SCE realistic plan)Horizon STW STW HRZ-03 HRZ- HRZ-01 CAD CAD Build Stage 1 ST Stage 2 ST & Firings (PPO LRR VLS MFR C2 & SCE ST STW STW STW HRZ-04 HRZ- HRZ-02 W CAD Build Stage 1 ST Stage 2 ST & Firings CAD C2/VLS MFR MFR Sim PAAMS & LRR C2 Mk3.2 &Programmes Delivered STW Installed Integrated CMSr2.3 Integrated C2 Mk4 & CMSr2.3 Integrated De-Risking MISC STW CSE/PAAMS CS System & General Integration Trials MFR Delivered C2 Mk4 available at CDF C2 Mk4 available to MISC C2 Mk4 / CMSr2.3 decision CDF Install & STW PAAMS Integration PAAMS Trials MFR Delivered Firing F1 Firing F4 STP-2 Install & STW CSE & PAAMS Integration Firing Trials In-Service Support SDP on Contract CLS Contracted Bus Case Issued Sustainability Develop & Contract Support Solution Support to Test & Trials Note: Confidence dates (Post mitigation)Development taken from Joint TRA Mar 06, but amended SOC Update Dockyard facilities in place FoC Enters Portsmouth to take account of the PCO Apr 06 Level 1 Lines of Dockyard Facility Upgrade (Portsmouth & Devonport) plan update. Tranche 1 Tranche 2 Tranche 3 FoC Crew Build-up Tranche 4 T42-1 T42-3 T42-5 Other FNOD FNOD T42-4 FNOD T42-6 T42-7 FNOD Deliver FoC Training T42-2 FoC Training FNOD FNOD FNOD IDR Complete Steady State Training Steady State Training Media Accepted Ready for Training Date
Programme – Equipment Report SLIDE 12Key Target 1 – PERFORMANCE Key Target 2 – TIME KUR01 Current KUR02 Current ISD & Anchor Milestone Tracking Chart PAAMS Force anti-air warfare situational Previous awareness Previous ut O Apr-11 KUR03 KUR04 np PM Current Current I Dec-09 om Aircraft Control Aircraft operation IS Previous Previous fr CM ut Current Current KUR05 KUR06 Jul-08 FoC Actual Acceptance Date (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan) np Embarked military force Naval diplomacy 50% FoC ISD (Latest CMIS date) Previous Previous 10% FoC ISD (Latest IPT TRA Forecast) I 50% FoC ISD (Latest IPT TRA Forecast) Mar-07 90% FoC ISD (Latest IPT TRA Forecast) 90% IAB Approval KUR07 KUR08 Current Current 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) Range Growth potential Anchor: FoC Propulsion drive/motor unit commissioning complete (Latest CMIS date) Anchor: MFR delivered to FoC (Latest CMIS date) Previous Previous Oct-05 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 t-0 an-0 pr -0 J ul-0 t -0 n-0 pr-0 J ul-0 t-0 an-0 r-0 Jul-0 t-0 an-0 pr -0 J ul-0 t-0 an-1 pr-1 J ul-1 t -1 Oc J A Oc Ja A Oc J Ap Oc J A Oc J A OcNARRATIVE Key Target 3 – COST• Performance KUR2&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. M O ,P FC• Time 6750 Latest TRA shows significant increase in risk to ISD, due primarily to the RM inclusion of PRU related risks (Power Systems, S/W, PAAMS, Safety). om 5900 The forecast 50% ISD is now November 10. The implications of this fr 5050 o m FC analysis and the potential mitigation of Test & Trials duration are still being £M ut quantified. Therefore, a revision to, or confirmation of, the December 09 fr nd 4200 CMIS ISD is not expected before negotiations have matured i.e. by the end ut a np of the year. Anchor Milestone forecasts related to Power Systems have 3350 np I also been impacted by the consideration of PRU related risks. 2500• Cost I 1 Apr 06 50% Current CIMIS Current Forcast Position against KT3 Baseline (PRU 6 BPT)
Programme – Support Report (If applicable) SLIDE 13PERFORMANCE TIME KUR09 Current Current FoC Key Milestone Tracking Chart Availability Previous Previous Jun-10 ut O Oct-09 PM Jan-09 np Current Current May-08 I om Previous Previous Sep-07 IS fr Jan-07 CM ut Current Current May-06 np Aug-05 Previous Previous FoC Stage 1 Sea Trials (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan) NOTE: Additional Support I FoC Stage 2 Sea Period 2.1 (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan) Dec-04 Milestones will be FoC Fleet Platform Acceptance Date (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan) Current Current Apr-04 considered for inclusion FoC Actual Acceptance Date (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan) 50% FoC ISD (Latest CMIS date) Aug-03 once a fully integrated programme is developed Previous Previous Dec-02 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0 0 c -0 n-0 c-0 n-0 c -0 n-0 c-0 n-0 c -0 n-0 c-0 n-0 c -0 n-0 c-0 n-1 c -1 De Ju De Ju De Ju De Ju De Ju De Ju De Ju De Ju DeNARRATIVE COST IYM 0607 Near Cash - Budget v Forecast• Performance IYM O 4 Support solution and upkeep cycle for 6 ships meets requirements of STP 3.5 Budget (STP05) KUR9 M 3 Forecast ,P FC 2.5 2 £m Cumulative Spend 1.5 to date• Time 1 RM 0.5 om Support Solution work remains on track but a challenging timescale to 0 Apr 06 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan 07 Feb Mar meet BC submission to IAB scrutineers end Mar 07 and end Jun to IAB 4* fr 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 o m FC Committee. Month fr nd ut Concerns with those materiel delivery dates at risk (IPLs and Tech Docs) being pursued through PCO. 10 Year ut a STP Inp np• Cost I This 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 Profile forecast and budget.
Earned Value Management SLIDE 14EVM Schedule/Cost Variance PERFORMANCE STATUS...Key Things to Track Typical Earned Value graph showing •Planned Value (PV) indicated by the Blue line is the agreed plan and represents Schedule and Cost Variances what the project should achieve. •Earned Value (EV) represented by the green line shows what has actually been5,000 AC PV 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. cv •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. sv EV •Schedule Variance (SV) expresses the schedule difference between the EV and PV. TIME 5 months schedule variance = EV - PV = negative number behind schedule, cost variance = EV - AC = negative number over costQUESTIONS Use Data for Decision Making • To realise the benefit of EVM it is essential that you have confidence in the Five Basic Performance Data data, that you take heed of the information it gives you and that you act Questions & Answers appropriately on that information. •If the graph used in this tutorial was an actual output on your project. What QUESTION ANSWER ACRONYM questions would arise and what actions might you take? How much work should Planned Value PV - How critical is my schedule? E.g. could adjustments be made? be done? - Can additional resources be applied? e.g to work overtime How much work is done? Earned Value EV - Can any tasks be completed concurrently? How much did that work Actual Cost AC - Are there technical innovations which could speed up the process? actually cost? - Can the requirement be reduced? E.g. remove “gold plating”. - Would a schedule risk assessment expose the impact to project? What was the total job Budget at Completion BAC - Could any tasks be re-scheduled? E.g. Time phasing supposed to cost? - Could less costly facilities be employed? What do we now expect Estimate at Completion EAC - Are there tasks which can be deleted? the total job to cost? Comment - This list is not intended to be exhaustive..
Programme – Risk Report SLIDE 15KEY RISKS EQUIPMENT CONTINGENCY EP Risk Budget & ExposureRisk Prob Impact Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Success / RAG P C T Progress £400,000 kProblem with Power & High M H H Re-instate use of SIT @ ESTD SIT de-risking on track. Due toPropulsion Systems STW complete Apr 07. £350,000 k NOTE: Increasedand Integration FOC Critical Path is GTA STW due exposure reflects mid Nov 06. proposed Stage 2Combat System Med M H H Maximise use of MISC with MISC activities continue to de-risk £300,000 k Trials over-budget riskIntegration and Trials MISC Augmentation (Nav Combat System. Radar) Work continues to review Test & £250,000 k Pragmatic Test & Trials Trials approach across the whole approach class. £200,000 k Remaining EP05 Risk BudgetPAAMS Integration Med M H M Max use of trials facilities such PAAMS IC-A being pursued – joint as Longbow and MISC. working, CMS 2.2.1 & 2.3, PAAMS Post-Mgt 50% Cost Exposure O Implement PAAMS IC-A contract realignment. £150,000 k Intend to proceed with IC-A on a Pre-Mgt 10% Cost Exposure PM staged basis. The IA and Business Pre-Mgt 50% Cost Exposure Case for Stage 1 raised at a cost of £100,000 k Pre-Mgt 90% Cost Exposure £9M.Further WR21 delays for Med L M M Install Enclosures at earliest Critical path for Ship 2 is availability £50,000 kShip 2 onwards opportunity of engine change tooling due Mar om Fit Gas Turbines via removal 07, currently on track. route Potential delay of up to one month fr £0 k Fit un-FATed Gas Turbines currently forecast for Ship 4. Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06KEY RISKS ut SUPPORT CONTINGENCY I npRisk Prob Impact Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Success / RAG P C T Progress STP Risk Budget & ExposureSupport solution for ship, Low M H M Establish support solution Significant savings identified - teamPAAMS & WR21 provesunaffordable affordability team have completed Support Affordability Statement Will show an analysis of 10%, 50%, 90% exposure against STP Risk Budget, when STP Risk data is sufficiently matureInability to gain customer Med M H M Establish support solution Support Solution Team involved allapproval for affordable affordability team key stakeholders, hence Customersupport solution involved in defining solution STP AffordabilityInability to develop and Med M M L Investigate alternatives Affordability of core engineeringdeliver training within synthetic media may requirebudget / timescale Prioritise training prioritisation/de-scoping An IAB Information Note, to be issued through CDP mid Oct,constraints Engage stakeholders to scrutinise current proposals Uncertainty over PAAMS maintainer training solution (GFE concludes that affordability against existing budget levels in Seek training opportunities within the trials programme vs Synthetic) average annualised cost terms can be achieved for a class MCTS 7 month delay requires interim solution to be identified of 8 ships or less. More work will be necessary to achieve aLack of agreement for Med L H H FoC spares package to be IPT Business Case for spares is more acceptable RDEL/CDEL balance during theprocurement & funding of developed ahead of In-Service currently being prepared (value £7-spares to support FoC Support Solution 10m). development of the support solution although the full scale ofcommissioning & trialsprogramme However, delay caused by on-going commercial dispute means that the issue cannot be resolved without external Project time-line for procurement of some items may have been compromised assistance.
Programme – Financial Report SLIDE 16EQUIPMENT PLAN – FORECAST AGAINST APPROVAL NARRATIVE 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 7600 cash). 6750 5900 Ships 7&8 Commitment Against Approval 5050 6 ships 4200 ASSET DELIVERIES - No planned asset deliveries 3350 during FY06/07 2500 First Asset deliveries planned during FY07/08 EP07 Committed Approval (PAAMS Missiles & Training equipment) FCIN_YEAR MANAGEMENT fr om NARRATIVE ut EP FORECAST 700 600 500 In p Equipment Plan Forecast £558m (control total £616m). No from £m 400 300 200 AP5 forecast. 100 0 Risk Analysis 11 12 13 10 0 1 2 6 8 9 3 4 5 7 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Control Total Accruals Forecast OP COST IN-YEAR FORCAST 1250 Op Costs 1000 750 Forecast £?????m compared to Budget £K 500 250 of £????m, variance of £????m. 0 No change from AP5 forecast. 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Time Control Total Accruals Forecast
SLIDE 17 MPR/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 /FC 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. BM om – 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, fr so soon after the NAO agreeing the MPR06 figure in June 2006. The proposed course of action is ut to update CMIS once negotiations with Industry have reached a mature and stable position, p planned for 1st Qtr 2007.• PCT SUMMARY In FORECAST HISTORY PRU RECOMMENDATIONS COST VARIATIONS Original MPR05 MPRO6 Current 6 ship BTP 6 ship Delta on Delta on MG CIMIS Risk adjusted Baseline MPR06 MPR06 approval Forecast Cautious (PRU BTP-MPR) (PRU Baseline- (90%) (50%) MPR)Cost £????m £???m £???m £???m £????m £????m +£???m +£????m(£m) ISD Nov 07 May 09 Dec 09 Dec 09 Sep 10 Nov 10KURs 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9
SLIDE 18UOR – Summary Data KEY DATA P9 Name Forecast Main Gate Approved Forecast Approved Forecast ISD Main Gate Achieved Cost 50% Cost 50% ISD 50% ISD 50% Achieved (£m) (£m) P9003040 0.5” Blank Firing 0.452 0.304 Aug 2005 Aug 2005 Barrel (BFB) and Blank Ammunition (BA) 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 3.080 2.804 Feb 2008 Dec 2007 Trainer - Full Task (AFCT-FT) BGTI/Digitisation Upgrade P9000867 Artillery-Fire Control 0.550 0.503 Sep 2006 Nov 2006 Trainer - Part Task (AFCT-PT) Upgrade P9002781 AS90 Lt Gun CEP 17.110 17.110 Oct 2011 Oct 2011 P9000297 AS90 Training 2.198 2.116 Sep 2005 Sep 2005 System (TS) P9003044 Automatic 2.889 2.909 Feb 2007 Apr 2007 Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) P9004170 Automatic 1.550 1.546 Mar 2007 Mar 2007 Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) Support Fleet
SLIDE 19Section 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
SLIDE 20Performance 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
SLIDE 21Performance against User CSA / JBA / OSP outputs 2Month of data assessed eg, APR 07 Availability / Operating hours chart etc to be inserted here if applicable
CUSTOMER WAIT TIME (As appropriate) SLIDE 22 Equipment [Day 1] as at 28 Feb KEY: SUCCESSES CLS Referred REFERRALS DUES OUT PEPS Range Target: 98% Non-PEPS Range Target: 50% 07 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 PEPS 1.36% 100% S Non PEPS 78.06% 11.36% 9.22%DR PEPS 10.00% M Non PEPS 60.26% 14.02% 20.61% 5.11%EH PEPS S Non PEPS 79.66% 12.91% 7.43%TA PEPS T Non PEPS 81.76% 9.12% 9.12%ME PEPS G Non PEPS 61.35% 31.36% 7.28%JE PEPS A Non PEPS 63.99% 22.12% 13.88%GFAs at 18 Oct 06 SAFETY RISKS us nt io re ev ur Pr C Summary of Safety Related Risks - Cat A&B Funded/Unfunded …quarterly r r Cost of reducing Risk to "As Low As Reasonably Practicable" (ALARP) - £M CAT "A" RISK CAT "B" RISK FUNDED UNFUNDED IPT Funded Unfunded Outwith ALARP Funded Unfunded Outwith FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 IPT Total FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 IPT Total O DRS 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N EHM 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O TAS 0 0 0 10 8 8 0 2.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.600 0.000 3.600 3.600 3.500 10.700 I MET 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0.690 0.690 0.000 0.000 1.380 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 P T JEG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 GFA 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0.180 0.114 0.000 0.000 0.294 0.000 0.000 0.135 0.135 0.270 Overall Total 0 0 0 15 18 11 6 £M 3.514 0.804 0.000 0.000 4.318 0.000 3.600 3.735 3.635 10.970
SLIDE 23Supply Chain PerformanceMonth 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