SLIDE 1
Business Review Templates
SLIDE 2
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.
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.
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
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.
Whole IPT Summary Report – Mar 07
NEW EQUIPMENT SUPPORT CAPITAL DEL PROFILE 2007/08
16.000 14.000 12.000 10.000
SLIDE 7
NEW EQUIPMENT SUPPORT DIRECT RESOURCE DEL 2007/08
10.000 9.000 8.000 7.000 6.000
£M
£M
10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0.000
5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000
10
11 AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
Allocation Prof ile Forecast Prof ile
Actual Prof ile Forecast
Allocation Prof ile Forecast Prof ile
Actual Prof ile Forecast
All Equipments Deliveries 06/07
15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00
£
Balance Sheet Fixed Assets Current Assets Liabilities Net Assets
Allocation AP7 Actual
5,000,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AP
AP
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
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
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
Programme – Baseline Level 0 Plan (Date) EXAMPLE
SLIDE 11
Programme – Equipment Report
Key Target 1 – PERFORMANCE
SLIDE 12
Key Target 2 – TIME
KUR01
PAAMS
Current
KUR02
Force anti-air warfare situational awareness
Current
ISD & Anchor Milestone Tracking Chart
Apr-11
Previous
Previous
KUR03
Aircraft Control
Current
KUR04
Aircraft operation
Current
Previous
Previous
Dec-09
KUR05
Embarked military force
Current
KUR06
Naval diplomacy
Current
Jul-08 FoC Actual Acceptance Date (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan) 50% FoC ISD (Latest CMIS date) 10% FoC ISD (Latest IPT TRA Forecast) 50% FoC ISD (Latest IPT TRA Forecast) 90% 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) Oct-05
Previous
Previous
Mar-07
KUR07
Range
Current
KUR08
Growth potential
Current
Previous
Previous
6 7 8 9 0 6 7 8 9 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 7 8 9 0 t-0 an-0 pr-06 J ul-0 t-0 t-0 an-0 n-0 pr-0 J ul-0 r-0 J ul-0 O ct-0 J an-0 pr-0 J ul-0 O ct-0 J an-1 pr-1 J ul-1 O ct-1 Oc J Oc Ja Oc J A A Ap A A
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.
• Time
Latest 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.
6750 5900
£M
5050 4200 3350 2500 1 Apr 06 50% Baseline Current CIMIS Current Forcast (PRU 6 BPT)
• Cost
Position against KT3
Programme – Support Report (If applicable)
PERFORMANCE
SLIDE 13
TIME
KUR09
Availability
Current
Current
FoC Key Milestone Tracking Chart
Jun-1 0 Oct-09
Previous
Previous
Current
Current
Jan-09
May-08
Previous Previous
Sep-07
Jan-07
Current Current
May-06
Aug-05
Previous Previous
FoC Stage 1 Sea Trials (PCO L1 Deterministic Plan)
Dec-04
Current
Current
Apr-04
Aug-03
Previous Previous
NOTE: Additional Support Milestones will be considered for inclusion once a fully integrated programme is developed
3 3 n-0 c -0 Ju De 4 4 n-0 c -0 Ju De 5 5 n-0 c -0 Ju De 6 6 n-0 c -0 Ju De
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)
Dec-02
2 c -0 De
7 7 n-0 c -0 Ju De
8 8 n-0 c -0 Ju De
9 9 n-0 c -0 Ju De
0 0 n-1 c -1 Ju De
NARRATIVE
COST
• Performance
Support solution and upkeep cycle for 6 ships meets requirements of KUR9
IYM STP
£m
IYM 0607 Near Cash - Budget v Forecast
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Apr 06 May 06 June 06 July 06 Aug 06 Sept 06 Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec Jan 07 Feb 06 07 Mar 07
Budget (STP05) Forecast Cumulative Spend to date
• Time
Support 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.
Month
• Cost
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 forecast and budget.
10 Year STP Profile
Earned Value Management
EVM Schedule/Cost Variance
Typical Earned Value graph showing Schedule and Cost Variances
SLIDE 14
PERFORMANCE STATUS...Key Things to Track
•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.
5,000
AC
cv
PV
£
EV
sv
TIME
schedule variance = EV - PV = negative number cost variance = EV - AC = negative number QUESTIONS
5 months
behind schedule, over cost
Use Data for Decision Making
Five Basic Performance Data Questions & Answers QUESTION How much work should be done? How much work is done? How much did that work actually cost? What was the total job supposed to cost? What do we now expect the total job to cost? ANSWER Planned Value Earned Value Actual Cost Budget at Completion ACRONYM PV EV AC BAC
• 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..
Estimate at Completion EAC
Programme – Risk Report
KEY RISKS EQUIPMENT
Risk Prob Impact P C T
High M H H
SLIDE 15
CONTINGENCY
Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation Success / Progress
SIT de-risking on track. Due to complete Apr 07. FOC Critical Path is GTA STW due mid Nov 06.
RAG
£400,000 k
EP Risk Budget & Exposure
£350,000 k
Problem with Power & Propulsion Systems STW and Integration
Re-instate use of SIT @ ESTD
Combat System Integration and Trials
Med
M H H
Maximise use of MISC with MISC Augmentation (Nav Radar) Pragmatic Test & Trials approach
MISC activities continue to de-risk Combat System. Work continues to review Test & Trials approach across the whole class. 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.
£300,000 k
NOTE: Increased exposure reflects proposed Stage 2 Trials over-budget risk
£250,000 k
PAAMS Integration
Med
M H M Max use of trials facilities such as Longbow and MISC. Implement PAAMS IC-A
£200,000 k
Remaining EP05 Risk Budget Post-Mgt 50% Cost Exposure
£150,000 k
Pre-Mgt 10% Cost Exposure Pre-Mgt 50% Cost Exposure Pre-Mgt 90% Cost Exposure
£100,000 k
Further WR21 delays for Ship 2 onwards
Med
L M M
Install Enclosures at earliest opportunity Fit Gas Turbines via removal route Fit un-FATed Gas Turbines
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.
£50,000 k
£0 k
Jul-06
Aug-06
Sep-06
Oct-06
Nov-06
Dec-06
KEY RISKS
Risk Prob Impact P C T
Low
SUPPORT
Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Success / Progress
Significant savings identified - team have completed Support Affordability Statement
CONTINGENCY
RAG
STP Risk Budget & Exposure
Will show an analysis of 10%, 50%, 90% exposure against STP Risk Budget, when STP Risk data is sufficiently mature
Support solution for ship, PAAMS & WR21 proves unaffordable
M H M Establish support solution affordability team
Inability to gain customer approval for affordable support solution Inability to develop and deliver training within budget / timescale constraints
Med
M H M Establish support solution affordability team
Support Solution Team involved all key stakeholders, hence Customer involved in defining solution 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 IPT Business Case for spares is currently being prepared (value £710m). However, delay caused by on-going commercial dispute means that time-line for procurement of some items may have been compromised
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.
Med
M M L
Investigate alternatives Prioritise training Engage stakeholders to scrutinise current proposals Seek training opportunities within the trials programme
Lack of agreement for procurement & funding of spares to support FoC commissioning & trials programme
Med
L H H
FoC spares package to be developed ahead of In-Service Support Solution
Programme – Financial Report
EQUIPMENT PLAN – FORECAST AGAINST APPROVAL
SLIDE 16
NARRATIVE
7600 6750 5900 5050 4200 3350 2500 EP07 Committed Approval Ships 7&8 6 ships
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 FY06/07 First Asset deliveries planned during FY07/08 (PAAMS Missiles & Training equipment)
IN_YEAR MANAGEMENT
EP FORECAST
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
NARRATIVE
Equipment Plan
Forecast £558m (control total £616m). No from AP5 forecast.
£m
Risk Analysis Op Costs Forecast £?????m compared to Budget of £????m, variance of £????m. No change from AP5 forecast.
10
11
12 AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
Control Total
Accruals
Forecast
OP COST IN-YEAR FORCAST 1250 1000 750 500 250 0
£K
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AP
11
13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12 A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
Control Total
Time Accruals
Forecast
A P
13
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 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 Original MG approval (90%) Cost (£m) ISD KURs £????m Nov 07 9/9 MPR05 MPRO6
PRU RECOMMENDATIONS Current 6 ship BTP 6 ship CIMIS Risk adjusted Baseline Forecast Cautious (50%) £???m Dec 09 9/9 £????m Sep 10 9/9 £????m Nov 10 9/9
COST VARIATIONS Delta on Delta on MPR06 MPR06 (PRU BTP-MPR) (PRU BaselineMPR) +£???m +£????m
£???m May 09 9/9
£???m Dec 09 9/9
UOR – Summary Data
KEY DATA
P9 Name Forecast Main Gate Main Gate Achieved Approved Cost 50% (£m) 0.452 Forecast Cost 50% (£m) 0.304 Approved ISD 50% Forecast ISD 50%
SLIDE 18
ISD Achieved
P9003040
0.5” Blank Firing Barrel (BFB) and Blank Ammunition (BA) 60mm Mortar 8.6mm Ammo ALDS Artillery Fire Control Trainer - Full Task (AFCT-FT) BGTI/Digitisation Upgrade Artillery-Fire Control Trainer - Part Task (AFCT-PT) Upgrade AS90 Lt Gun CEP AS90 Training System (TS) Automatic Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) Automatic Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) Support Fleet
Aug 2005
Aug 2005
P9003043 P9003041 P9258500 P9000866
0.017 0.500 11.950 3.080
0.015 0.495 9.410 2.804
Sep 2005 Jun 2007 Jul 2006 Feb 2008
Sep 2005 Jun 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2007
P9000867
0.550
0.503
Sep 2006
Nov 2006
P9002781 P9000297
17.110 2.198
17.110 2.116
Oct 2011 Sep 2005
Oct 2011 Sep 2005
P9003044
2.889
2.909
Feb 2007
Apr 2007
P9004170
1.550
1.546
Mar 2007
Mar 2007
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
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
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
CUSTOMER WAIT TIME (As appropriate)
Equipment [Day 1] 07 as at 28 Feb
1
SLIDE 22
Non-PEPS Range Target: 50%
KEY:
4 5 6 7 8
SUCCESSES
CLS Referred
REFERRALS
DUES OUT
PEPS Range Target: 98%
2
3
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 Non PEPS PEPS Non PEPS PEPS Non PEPS PEPS Non PEPS PEPS Non PEPS PEPS Non PEPS
61.35% 60.26%
DR S
1.36% 78.06% 11.36% 9.22% 10.00% 14.02% 20.61% 5.11%
100%
TA
S
EH
M
79.66%
12.91%
7.43%
ME T
81.76%
9.12%
9.12%
JE
G
31.36%
7.28%
GF
A
63.99%
22.12%
13.88%
Pr ev io u s
r
Summary of Safety Related Risks - Cat A&B Funded/Unfunded …quarterly
CAT "A" RISK IPT
Funded Unfunded Outwith ALARP
C
r
Cost of reducing Risk to "As Low As Reasonably Practicable" (ALARP) - £M CAT "B" RISK
Funded Unfunded Outwith FY 06/07 FY 07/08
FUNDED
FY 08/09 FY 09/10 IPT Total FY 06/07 FY 07/08
UNFUNDED
FY 08/09 FY 09/10 IPT Total
O N O I P T
DRS EHM TAS MET JEG GFA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 10 0 0 2 15
1 3 8 4 0 2 18
2 0 8 0 0 1 11
1 5 0 0 0 0 6 £M
0.004 0.040 2.600 0.690 0.000 0.180 3.514
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.690 0.000 0.114 0.804
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.004 0.040 2.600 1.380 0.000 0.294 4.318
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 3.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.600
0.000 0.000 3.600 0.000 0.000 0.135 3.735
0.000 0.000 3.500 0.000 0.000 0.135 3.635
0.000 0.000 10.700 0.000 0.000 0.270 10.970
Overall Total
ur re
As at 18 Oct 06
SAFETY RISKS
nt
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