2.43 Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the schedule slippage of those Major Projects included in the 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 MPRs across the four reports up to and including the 2010-11 MPR. While the information in these tables link to Table 2 on page 20 they are included to present further detail.
2.44 Table 5 tracks the schedule slippage of the initial nine projects75 included in the 2007-08 MPR across the subsequent reports. The table shows that the total schedule slippage for the initial nine projects in 2007-08 was 308 months and that the total schedule slippage for the initial nine projects in 2010-11 was 463 months (an increase of 155 months over three years).
2.45 Table 6 tracks the schedule slippage of the 15 projects76 included in the 2008-09 MPR across the subsequent reports. The table shows that the total schedule slippage reported in 2008-09 was 378 months and that the total schedule slippage for the 15 projects in 2010-11 was 508 months (an increase of 130 months over two years).
2.46 Table 7 tracks the slippage progress of the 22 projects77 included in the 2009-10 MPR across the subsequent report. The table shows that the total schedule slippage reported in 2009-10 was 688 months and that the total schedule slippage for the 22 projects in 2010-11 was 760 months (an increase of 72 months).
2.47 The tables show that 61 per cent (463 months) of the total schedule slippage across the Major Projects covered in the 2010-11 MPR (760 months) is made up of the schedule slippage from the initial nine projects reported in the 2007-08 MPR.
Table 5
2007-08 MPR projects: Schedule slippage across years
| 2007-08 MPR | 2008-09 MPR | 2009-10 MPR | 2010-11 MPR |
Number of Projects | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
Schedule Slippage (Total) | 308 months (37 per cent increase) | 360 months (43 per cent increase) | 431 months (51 per cent increase) | 463 months (55 per cent increase) |
Average Schedule Slippage per Project | 39 months | 45 months | 54 months | 58 months |
Schedule Slippage (In-year) | - | 52 months (4 per cent) | 71 months (5 per cent) | 32 months (2 per cent) |
Table 6
2008-09 MPR projects: Schedule slippage across years
| 2008-09 MPR | 2009-10 MPR | 2010-11 MPR |
Number of Projects | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Schedule Slippage (Total) | 378 months (28 per cent increase) | 452 months (33 per cent increase) | 508 months (37 per cent increase) |
Average Schedule Slippage per Project | 25 months | 30 months | 34 months |
Schedule Slippage (In-year) | - | 74 months (5 per cent) | 56 months (4 per cent) |
Table 7
2009-10 MPR projects: Schedule slippage across years
| 2009-10 MPR | 2010-11 MPR |
Number of Projects | 22 | 22 |
Schedule Slippage (Total) | 688 months (31 per cent increase) | 760 months (35 per cent increase) |
Average Schedule Slippage per Project | 34 months | 38 months |
Schedule Slippage (In-year) | - | 72 months (3 per cent) |
2.48 Further disaggregation according to a project's Second Pass Approval date, shown in Table 8, shows that 88 per cent of the total schedule slippage across the Major Projects covered in the 2010-11 MPR is made up of projects approved prior to the DMO's demerger from the Department of Defence, in July 2005.
Table 8
Project slippage: Project's approved pre and post DMO demerger
Project | No. of months between Approval and Original FOC date | No. of months between Approval and 30/6/11 FOC date | No. of months slippage between Original FOC and 30/6/11 FOC date | ||
Projects Approved pre-July 2005 | |||||
Wedgetail | 96 | 144 | 48 | ||
ARH Tiger Helicopters | 123 | 165 | 42 | ||
Hornet Upgrade | 159 | 169 | 10 | ||
Air to Air Refuel | 94 | 127 | 33 | ||
FFG Upgrade | 61 | 150 | 84 | ||
Bushmaster Vehicles | 107 | 144 | 37 | ||
HF Modernisation | 105 | 239 | 134 | ||
SM-2 Missile | 101 | 101 | 0 | ||
Armidales | 77 | 112 | 36 | ||
Collins RCS | 88 | 160 | 72 | ||
Hw Torpedo | 148 | 148 | 0 | ||
Collins R&S | 165 | 264 | 99 | ||
ANZAC ASMD 2A | 97 | 169 | 72 | ||
Sub Total - Projects Approved pre-July 2005 | 1 421 | 2 092 | 667 | ||
Percentage of Total - Projects Approved pre-July 2005 | 57% | 64% | 88% | ||
Projects Approved post-July 2005 | |||||
AWD Ships | 138 | 150 | 12 | ||
MRH90 Helicopters | 119 | 119 | 0 | ||
Super Hornet | 69 | 69 | 0 | ||
LHD Ships | 113 | 113 | 0 | ||
Overlander Vehicles | 148 | 148 | 0 | ||
C-17 Heavy Airlift | 69 | 69 | 0 | ||
Next Gen Satellite | 87 | 87 | 0 | ||
Additional Chinook | 83 | 83 | 0 | ||
ANZAC ASMD 2B | 90 | 147 | 57 | ||
Stand Off Weapon | 60 | 84 | 24 | ||
155mm Howitzer | 53 | 53 | 0 | ||
Battle Comm. Sys. | 41 | 41 | 0 | ||
Sub Total - Projects Approved post-July 2005 | 1 070 | 1 163 | 93 | ||
Percentage of Total - Projects Approved post-July 2005 | 43% | 36% | 12% | ||
Total - All Projects With Slippage | 2 491 | 3 255 | 760 | ||
__________________________________________________________________________________
75 The nine projects reported in the 2007-08 MPR were Wedgetail, Armidales, HF Modernisation, Bushmaster Vehicles, Hornet Upgrade, Collins RCS, ARH Tiger Helicopters, C-17 Heavy Airlift, and FFG Upgrade.
76 The 15 projects reported in the 2008-09 MPR were the nine projects reported in the 2007-08 MPR, plus AWD Ships, Super Hornet, MRH90 Helicopters, LHD Ships, Air to Air Refuel and Hornet Refurb.
77 The 22 projects reported in the 2009-10 MPR were the 15 projects reported in the 2008-09 MPR, plus Overlander Vehicles, Next Gen Satellite, ANZAC ASMD 2B, Hw Torpedo, Collins R&S, ANZAC ASMD 2A and Stand Off Weapon.