1.6 Project Maturity Score and Benchmark
| Maturity Score | Attributes |
| |||||||||
| Schedule | Cost | Requirement | Technical Understanding | Technical Difficulty | Commercial | Operations and Support | Total | ||||
| Project Stage: Preliminary Design Review | Benchmark | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 45 | ||
| Current Project | 7 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 48 | |||
| Explanation | • Schedule: Establishment of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and maturity of the majority of designs gives confidence in the schedule. • Cost: Project estimates for individual enhancements were infeasible 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 Understanding: Most enhancements are well understood and have undergone some level of at-sea or shore- based testing. • Technical Difficulty: Some verification of designs have been completed, however some technical design challenges remain in progress; such as, composite external pressure vessels. • Commercial: Most work is performed under the ASC TLSA which is being transitioned to an In Service Support Contract (ISSC) to facilitate better control of cost and quality. | ||||||||||
| Project Stage | Total Benchmark Score | Total Current Score | |||||||||
| Preliminary Design Review | 45 | 48 | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
