6.1 Project Maturity Score and Benchmark
Maturity Score | Attributes | Total | ||||||||
Schedule | Cost | Requirement | Technical Understanding | Technical Difficulty | Commercial | Operations and Support | ||||
Project Stage: | Benchmark | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 50 | |
Critical Design Review | Project Status | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 53 | |
| Explanation | • Schedule: Establishment of the IMS and maturity of the majority of designs gives confidence in the schedule. • Cost: Project estimates for individual enhancements were not feasible given the TLSA and undefined project scope. Removal of selected capability or engineering enhancements is required in order to deliver other enhancements within the remaining budget. • Requirement: Designs are either complete or well advanced for most platform upgrades projects. Many are partially implemented across the class. • Technical Difficulty: Some verification of designs have been completed, however some technical design challenges remain in progress; such as, composite external pressure vessels for Special Forces. • Commercial: Transition to an In Service Support Contract (ISSC) from TLSA is providing Project with confidence that the remaining project cost will be reduced or stabilise as the ISSC is a fixed price contract which will facilitate better control of cost. • Operations and Support: Project has achieved IMR for a number of sub-project enhancements and is now primarily in the implementation phase. | ||||||||
| ||||||||||
