This document provides templates for business reviews of projects and support activities. It includes templates for overall summaries, project management, risks, finances, and milestones. The templates are organized into sections for general information, projects, and support. Guidance is provided on the intended use and key information for each template to ensure a consistent approach across reviews.

1. SLIDE 1
Business Review Templates

2. SLIDE 2

3. SLIDE 3
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.

4. SLIDE 4
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.

5. SLIDE 5
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

6. SLIDE 6
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.

7. 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

8. SLIDE 8
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 BM
nd
La
IPT
fr om
ut
Inp

9. SLIDE 9
Team, 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

10. SLIDE 10
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

11. 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 Trials
Equipment 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

12. Programme – Equipment Report SLIDE 12
Key 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 Oc
NARRATIVE 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)

13. Programme – Support Report (If applicable) SLIDE 13
PERFORMANCE 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 De
NARRATIVE 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.

14. Earned Value Management SLIDE 14
EVM 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 been
5,000
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 cost
QUESTIONS 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..

15. Programme – Risk Report SLIDE 15
KEY RISKS EQUIPMENT CONTINGENCY
EP Risk Budget & Exposure
Risk Prob Impact Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Success / RAG
P C T Progress
£400,000 k
Problem with Power & High M H H Re-instate use of SIT @ ESTD SIT de-risking on track. Due to
Propulsion Systems STW complete Apr 07.
£350,000 k NOTE: Increased
and Integration FOC Critical Path is GTA STW due exposure reflects
mid Nov 06.
proposed Stage 2
Combat System Med M H H Maximise use of MISC with MISC activities continue to de-risk £300,000 k
Trials over-budget risk
Integration 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 Budget
PAAMS 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 k
Ship 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-06
KEY RISKS
ut SUPPORT CONTINGENCY
I np
Risk Prob Impact Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Success / RAG
P C T Progress STP Risk Budget & Exposure
Support solution for ship, Low M H M Establish support solution Significant savings identified - team
PAAMS & WR21 proves
unaffordable
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 mature
Inability to gain customer Med M H M Establish support solution Support Solution Team involved all
approval for affordable affordability team key stakeholders, hence Customer
support solution involved in defining solution
STP Affordability
Inability to develop and Med M M L Investigate alternatives Affordability of core engineering
deliver training within synthetic media may require
budget / 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 a
Lack of agreement for Med L H H FoC spares package to be IPT Business Case for spares is more acceptable RDEL/CDEL balance during the
procurement & 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 of
commissioning & trials
programme
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.

16. Programme – Financial Report SLIDE 16
EQUIPMENT 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)
FC
IN_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

17. 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 10
KURs 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9

18. SLIDE 18
UOR – 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

19. SLIDE 19
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

20. SLIDE 20
Performance against User CSA / JBA / OSP outputs 11
Month 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

21. SLIDE 21
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

22. 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%
GF
As 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

23. SLIDE 23
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