Horrifying Forest Fires in Portugal Leave at Least 6. People Dead. Around 1,6. Portugal early Sunday morning. At least 6. 2 people have been confirmed dead, many of whom were burned in their cars as they tried to escape. Forest fires are common in the the Iberian peninsula during the summer months, but today’s example is particularly extreme. 4 Mens Down Video Song Download more. Portugal’s prime minister, Ant. Many homes have burned but the largest death toll occurred on a road between Figueir.

Sample dissertations and applied research projects by recent graduates of the DMin program. IT organizations are quick to talk about hardware failures, software failures, and outages, but so often the cause of IT failures can be pinned on people. Display of different surgical robots, robotic systems and their use in the medical field.

Our staff add value to public sector effectiveness and the independent assurance of public sector administration and accountability, applying our professional and. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a.

Authorities say that at least 3. The number of deaths is expected to rise and according to CNN, 5. Many more residents are being evacuated. No foul play is currently suspected.

A dry thunderstorm is believed to have been the initial cause of the disaster. The area is experiencing a brutal heatwave with temperatures hovering around 1. Fahrenheit. With no rainfall, a lightning strike likely set off the blaze. President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa tells the New York Times that firefighters are facing a perfect storm of “temperature, wind, and zero humidity.”In recent years, Portugal has experienced numerous wildfires, but none like this. In August of last year, the island of Madeira was devastated by a fire that killed three people and more than a thousand had to be evacuated from their homes. Leaders from around the world have expressed their condolences and the government has declared three days of national mourning.

Defence’s Management of Materiel Sustainment. Areas examined. This chapter examines Defence’s performance framework to support the management and external scrutiny of materiel sustainment for specialist military equipment. Conclusion. The development of an effective sustainment monitoring system remains a work- in- progress, and the effectiveness of Defence’s internal reporting system for sustainment could be improved in several areas. Opportunities also remain to increase the completeness and transparency of publicly reported information regarding materiel sustainment.

Areas for improvement. The ANAO has recommended that Defence institute a risk- based quality assurance process for information included in the Quarterly Performance Report. Defence’s sustainment . Once fully implemented this system should be capable of systematically reporting against a suite of performance indicators settled in agreement with Capability Managers.

There remains potential to improve some core key performance indicators used within the system—for example to more usefully determine the total cost of the capability to Defence. The SPMS system was not fully implemented during the ANAO’s audit fieldwork but is expected to be fully operational by the end of June 2. In the longer term the system is to be expanded to cover acquisition. The Monthly Reporting System (MRS) and the Sustainment Performance Management System (SPMS)3. The reporting system relied upon by Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and, before it, the DMO, to track major acquisition projects since mid- 2. Monthly Reporting System (MRS). At the time DMO developed MRS it was noted internally that .

At worst, non. MRS and, to an increasing extent, SPMS, are now used to populate a Quarterly Performance Report on both acquisition and sustainment (see paragraph 3. How SPMS works. 3.

In common with MRS, SPMS is a web- based system designed to provide performance reports for Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and Capability Managers. Data is entered monthly by subject matter experts, usually based in the relevant Systems Program Office. The Systems Program Office Director reviews the data and comments for each measure and provides comments for a set of . By way of example, Appendix 2 of this audit report lists Navy’s MSA Performance Framework core Key Performance Indicators and Key Health Indicators. Defence advised the ANAO that Air Force has also developed a corresponding set of indicators and Army is progressing similar work.

SPMS implementation. SPMS was introduced, first, for Navy (May–July 2. The system was being implemented in Air Force and Army from late 2.

Implementation is incremental and subject to feedback and review. Defence expects that all sustainment products will be reporting in SPMS by the end of June 2.

A joint review of Navy’s performance framework, completed in March 2. Navy and Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, concluded that there was .

The indicator was replaced with a measure . Defence informed the ANAO that both measures are based on direct product costs incurred by the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and do not include sustainment costs incurred by other parts of Defence. Neither indicator is useful in determining the total cost of the capability to Defence. Knowledge of the total cost could contribute to a better understanding of the whole- of- life costs of Navy assets and, over time, could provide useful insight into whether cost- effectiveness is improving or deteriorating. Further development of SPMS3. In September 2. 01.

Defence decided to expand SPMS to cover acquisition. When implemented, the system will be renamed the . The Quarterly Performance Report is the primary way by which Defence provides information to government and senior Defence personnel about the status of major acquisition and sustainment activities.

However, based on the ANAO’s review of a Quarterly Performance Report produced during the audit, its contents are neither complete nor reliable, it takes two months to produce and its contents are sometimes difficult to understand. The ANAO’s analysis found that the report may not include additional information available to Defence that is critical to the reader’s ability to understand the status of significant military platforms.

It provides only a partial account of materiel sustainment within Defence and is potentially at odds with the . The Mortimer Review (2. DMO sustainment performance will not improve unless it is measured. The Quarterly Performance Report.

The Quarterly Performance Report is the primary way by which Defence provides information to government and senior Defence personnel about the status of major acquisition and sustainment activities. The report was developed in 2. Minister for Defence.

Staff in the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group compile the report manually, incorporating information contained in MRS and, increasingly, SPMS. The report includes performance summaries for the Top 3.

Major Projects Report and the Top 3. The report also includes an overview of projects of concern and underperforming acquisition projects and sustainment products.

In a recent submission to the JCPAA, Defence stated that . These risks and issues are highlighted so that stakeholders can respond in a coordinated manner to guide the conduct of remediation actions. This broad focus is consistent with Defence advice to the ANAO that some sustainment services for some equipment items are also undertaken by Capability Managers and other enabling Groups, including Joint Logistics Command. The primary data source for the report is SPMS—the . Beispiel Einer Software Requirements Specification Examples on this page. This narrower focus risks telling only a partial account of sustainment within Defence and is potentially at odds with the . Some terms are used in an unusual way, for example, expenditure of more funds than had been budgeted is referred to as an .

Eight underperforming products were listed in the second quarter of 2. Ten such products are listed in the report for the subsequent quarter (July – September 2. In that later report the list was labelled . Neither of these is a reasonable assessment of the aircraft’s capacity to meet the required level of capability expected by government.

The report’s traffic lights, in particular, focus attention on the measures contained in contractual and intra- Defence agreements (for example, aircraft . The effectiveness of these reviews could be increased if the lessons obtained from gate reviews were routinely incorporated into management reporting on sustainment and if gate reviews were extended to contribute to the proposed quality assurance mechanism for Quarterly Performance Reports. Defence has implemented a strategy in recent years that should help to draw problems in individual sustainment products to senior management attention.

This has occurred with the extension of DMO’s earlier program of gate reviews to cover sustainment as well as acquisition. In 2. 00. 9 Defence commenced gate reviews for capital acquisition projects as an internal assurance process. They have provided insight into a project’s progress and an opportunity for project staff to discuss difficult issues with senior management and seek guidance. Defence later recognised that gate reviews also have potential value for sustainment, especially where it allows management to become aware of maintenance problems that might otherwise remain hidden.

The Rizzo Review into naval sustainment raised this problem in the following terms: To avoid being seen to fail personally, there is a danger (especially in the can do, make do environment) that staff will choose to not raise bad news. This can result in bad news remaining at lower levels in the organisation, increasing enterprise risk and only becoming apparent when recovery is expensive, difficult or even impossible. Defence commenced sustainment gate reviews in December 2. Gate reviews are conducted to . Defence requires that the first sustainment gate review be held within 1.