CHAPTER 1 - data.parliament.ukdata.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2014-1147/… · Web viewReference: O:\WIP\04-Deliver\04-TrgCell\10-TrgStats\14-TrendAnalysis\02-1011\20111108-DA_TrgDeliveryRpt_v1.0

$Page 1: CHAPTER 1 - data.parliament.ukdata.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2014-1147/… · Web viewReference: O:\WIP\04-Deliver\04-TrgCell\10-TrgStats\14-TrendAnalysis\02-1011\20111108-DA_TrgDeliveryRpt_v1.0$
Reference: O:\WIP\04-Deliver\04-TrgCell\10-TrgStats\14-TrendAnalysis\02-1011\20111108-DA_TrgDeliveryRpt_v1.0

Version 1.0, 8 November 2011

Statistical Analysis ofDefence Academy Training

Academic Year 2010/2011

Authors: DEFAC HQ Training Cell

Email: [email protected]

For Training Purposes OnlyDefence Academy HQ

mailto:[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Background

1. In December 2010, following a review of the Defence Academy Headquarters (DefAc HQ), the College of Management and Technology (CMT) Training Cell became the DEFAC HQ Training and Education (T&E) Training Cell (hereafter referred to as the Training Cell) and its remit was widened. The process for collecting data (used to compile the Statistical Analysis of DA-CMT Face-to-Face Training Academic Year 2009/2010 report1) was implemented across all DefAc components2. This report is based on data received via this process during the academic year 2010/2011, i.e.1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011.

Aim

2. This report provides the DAOG, through DefAc HQ Hd T&E, with summary statistics and an initial assessment of training delivered during the reporting period expressed in terms of frequency, duration and attendee background. Its main aim is to highlight trends that might influence future business decisions and areas that might warrant more detailed analysis.

Methodology

3. The data used to compile this report was submitted to the Training Cell in an agreed format by nominated representatives from each of the components, in accordance with the process policy document3. The Training Cell collated data received into a master spreadsheet and thus built up a record of training undertaken across the DefAc over the reporting period.

Scope

4. This report focuses on face-to-face (F2F) training (i.e. classroom based), providing detail such as numbers trained by Top Level Budget (TLB) and by rank/grade, the number of training days delivered, the military and civilian split, and the most/least popular courses. For the first time it also includes an overview of non face-to-face training4 undertaken by students. This is limited to the headline figures of student numbers and equivalent training days, as it is not possible to obtain the same detailed breakdown that is available for face-to-face training.

5. Where possible, the report provides a comparison with statistics submitted by each component or CMT division5 for the 2009/10 academic year. However, such comparisons are more limited for AFCC, JSCSC and RCDS as this is the first year that they have been required to submit training data to DefAc HQ T&E.

6. The Defence Technical Officer and Engineer Entry Scheme (DTOEES) does not lend itself to most of the tables in this report. However summary information is given in Table 5, totals included in Table 6 and a comprehensive annual report is available as a separate document6.

7. Headline figures across DefAc are highlighted in the main body of the report; supporting diagrams for each component can be found at the relevant annex.

1 20101129-CMT_TrgDeliveryRpt_v1.02 Armed Forces Chaplaincy Centre (AFCC), College of Management & Technology (CMT), Joint Services Command and Staff College (JSCSC), Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS)3 20110601-DA_Policy2.03_StatisticsCollationPolicy_V14 Includes eLearning, blended and distance learning5 Acquisition & Business (A&B) Learning, Leadership & Management Division (LMD), Nuclear Department (ND) and Technology Division (TD)6 DTOEES Annual Report 2011

Version 1.0, 8 November 2011 Page 2 of 47

8. Students who are external to Defence or whose TLB is unknown are grouped under “No TLB”. Military students with a rank below OF level are grouped in the category of ‘Other Ranks’; civilian students who do not fall into one of the specified grades are categorised as ‘Other Grades’. Students who are known to be either military or civilian, but whose rank or grade is not known, are grouped under “Unknown Ranks” or “Unknown Grades” accordingly. Students who cannot be otherwise categorised are classed as “Unknown”.


SUMMARY DEFENCE ACADEMY STATISTICS

9. Table 1 gives the total number of students trained by each DefAc component (on a face-to-face (F2F) basis) during the reporting period, together with the corresponding number of training days. Both sets of figures are also expressed as a percentage of the total number of DefAc students/ training days.

Component Students % Students Training Days % Training DaysAFCC 2,852 8% 7,975 3%CMT7,8 29,813 84% 95,287 35%JSCSC 2,879 8% 146,844 55%RCDS 115 ~ 19,469 7%Total 35,659 269,575

Table 1 – F2F Students and Training Days by DefAc Component7,8

10. Table 1 data shows that DefAc trained a total of 35,659 students, delivering a total of 269,575 training days.

11. Of the total students, 84% were trained by CMT making CMT the biggest provider of training in terms of numbers, but the second biggest in terms of training days with 35% of the total. JSCSC provided the highest number of training days with 55% of the total whilst training 8% of all students, reflecting its high proportion of long courses. RCDS trained the smallest number of students (less than half of one percent) but still delivered 7% of all training days, due to the fact that its one course spans the whole academic year.

12. Table 2 shows that DefAc trained 29% fewer students over 7% less training days during this reporting period when compared with the previous academic year.

Component 2009/10 2010/11 % Change

AFCCStudents 2,784 2,852 2.5 %

Training Days 8,032 7,975 < 1 %

CMT7,8Students 44,473 29,813 33 %

Training Days 110,551 95,287 14 %

JSCSCStudents 3,081 2,879 6.5 %

Training Days 152,385 146,844 4 %

RCDS9Students 112 115 3 %

Training Days 18,634 19,469 4.5 %

TotalsStudents 50,450 35,659 29 %

Training Days 289,602 269,575 7 %

Table 2 – F2F Students and Training Days by Component compared with 2009/10

7 Excluding DTOEES8 Excluding HQ managed Postgraduate Education9 RCDS 2009/10 figures relate to calendar year 2009 as the college moved to an academic year during 2010


13. CMT experienced the largest overall decrease in its business, with falls of 33% in student numbers and 14% in training days. RCDS was the only college to increase both its number of students and training days, with increases of 3% and 4.5% respectively. AFCC saw an increase of 2.5% in student numbers, whilst its total training days decreased by less than 1%.

14. The overall statistics for non-F2F training are given in Table 3 below.

Component/Division Students 2010/11

Equivalent Training Days

CMT (A&B Acquisition) 10,92910 13,75111

CMT (A&B Business) 130,84210 72,36212

CMT (TD)13 5,40514 19,12515

JSCSC16 1,31517 6,46718

Total 148,491 111,705

Table 3 – Non F2F Students and Training Days by Component

15. Table 3 shows that non-F2F training in the DefAc was delivered to 148,491 students and amounted to 111,705 equivalent training days (ETDs). The largest provider of non F2F training during the reporting period was CMT’s A&B (Business) division, both in terms of students and ETDs. The smallest number of students and ETDs was reported by JSCSC’s RAF division. Neither AFCC nor RCDS reported any non F2F training.

16. For legacy reasons, the post-graduate programmes delivered by Cranfield University under the academic provider contract are managed by the T&E team in the DefAc HQ. The statistics for these students are given in Table 4.

10 Total number of completions11 Equivalent training day = number of enrolments * predicted hours per course /712 Equivalent training day = number of delegates * 3 hours per course /713 Military Knowledge courses; numbers relating to financial year 2010/1114 Total number of students registered at some time during period15 Equivalent training day = 6 hours; actual study/assessment time = lesson study time *1.5; MK1/MK2 average study time = 2.5 years16 Blended Learning i.e. network-enabled transfer of skills & knowledge, where content is delivered via Internet or other remote means (e.g. books)17 Total number of completions18 Equivalent training day = 6.75 hours


Programme19 2009/10 2010/11 % Change

Full-timeMScs

Student intake 81 52 36%

Training Days 17,010 10,920 ~ ~

Part-time MScs


Training Days 966 1,932 ~ ~

ExecutiveMScs


Training Days 3,402 4,242 ~ ~

Intake totals Student intake 185 199 8%

Existingenrolments20

Students > 739 878 ~ ~

Training Days > 31,038 36,876 ~ ~

MPhil/PhDStudents 9 6 33%

Training Days ~ ~ ~ ~

Programme Totals

Students > 933 1,083 ~ ~

Training Days > 52,416 53,970 ~ ~

Table 4 – HQ managed Post-Graduate (PG) Programme Summary

17. Table 4 shows that the number of students enrolling on all PG programmes increased by 8% this reporting period. Student intake on full-time MScs has fallen by 36% but this is in part due to the withdrawal of the Global Security and Weapons and Vehicle Systems MSc programmes at the end of 2009/10. Enrolments on part-time MScs have doubled, due to the inclusion of the Military Aerospace & Airworthiness (MAA) MSc programme which came onto the AP contract in CY5, and the executive programme intake has also risen by 25%.

18. Further details of the 2010/11 PG programme are included at Annex A.

19. Details of the DTOEES numbers are given in Table 5.

Unit 2009/10 2010/11DSFC Students 311 306

Training Days21 52,870 52,020DTUS Students 457 454

Training Days22 18,280 18,160Totals Students 768 760

Training Days 71,150 70,180

Table 5 – DTOEES Summary Statistics

20. Table 5 shows that DTOEES delivered 70,180 training days to 760 students during this reporting period, a small decrease on the previous academic year.

19 Nuclear MSc and PG Dip not included here20 Students already enrolled on the Part-time/Executive MScs & the Modular Masters Programme (MMP) prior to the reporting period21 DSFC training days based on 34 weeks (170 days) per academic year, delivered via a PFI contract22 DTUS training days based on 40 days per academic year, excluding training delivered by Partner Universities


21. Although part of CMT, DTOEES training is treated as a separate entity because of its unique nature. There are two parts to the scheme, the Defence Sixth Form College (DSFC) and the Defence Technical Undergraduate Scheme (DTUS). DSFC provides a science-based curriculum (delivered via a PFI contract) to students pre-selected as engineer/technical officers in the Armed Forces or as graduate entrants to the MOD Civil Service. This leads to undergraduate/masters study of engineering/technical courses at Partner (and associated) universities.

22. Summary statistics for both F2F and non-F2F are given in Table 6.

AY 2010/11 Students Training DaysF2F 35,659 269,575Non F2F 148,491 111,705Post Graduate 1,083 53,970DTOEES 760 70,180Grand Total 185,993 505,430

Table 6 – DefAc Total Students and Training Days

23. Table 6 shows that total DefAc business during the reporting period saw 185,993 students undertake different types of training that amounted to 505,430 training days.

DefAc TLB STATISTICS

24. The DefAc F2F training delivered to 35,659 students over 269,575 training days is broken down by TLB as shown in Table 7.

Air Central CJO DE&S DIO23 Land Navy No TLB TotalStudents 4,574 5,132 205 11,249 779 6,304 2,098 5,318 35,659Training Days 42,270 10,208 385 25,528 1,319 90,125 37,289 62,451 269,575

Table 7 – F2F Students and Training Days by TLB24

25. Table 7 shows that the ratio of total training days to students is 7.5:1. This is higher than CMT’s 2.5:1 (from last year’s report), explained by the inclusion of JSCSC and RCDS whose courses are significantly longer. Air Command, Land Forces and Navy Command all have training days to student ratios higher than the average, due to the take up of service specific courses within JSCSC and ND.

26. The high number of students and student days that fall into the No TLB category is attributed to various reasons. The fact that RCDS submitted no TLB data, JSCSC holds limited TLB data and AFCC was not able to report any TLBs until January accounted for over 73% (45,695) of the No TLB training days total. The total students, however, was more affected by the lack of TLB data from HRMS (2,225 A&B students), LMD’s international (662) and ND’s external students (254). Another 490 TD students were recorded as No TLB, which was due to missing application form and/or nominal roll data. These four groups accounted for 68% (3,631) of the students recorded with No TLB.

27. Figure 1 below shows that DE&S provided 31.5% of DefAc students which accounted for 9.5% of training days. Thus DefAc’s primary customer in terms of students during the reporting period was DE&S. However, if student days are considered, the primary customer becomes Land Forces who received 33% of the training delivered, whilst providing 18% of the student total.

23 Defence Infrastructure Organisation wef 1 April 2011, formerly Defence Estates (DE)24 All TLBs have a mixture of service and civilian personnel


Students by TLB

DE&S31.5%

Land17.7%

Central 14.4%

Air12.8%

CJO0.6%

No TLB14.9%

DIO2.2%

Navy5.9%

Training Days by TLB

DIO0.5%

Navy13.8%

Land33.4%

Air15.7%

Central 3.8% CJO

0.1%DE&S9.5%

No TLB23.2%

Military/Civilian percentages

External 4% (1,406)

International 3% (1,008)

Unknown 4% (1,277)

Military 36%(12,866)

Civilian 53% (19,102)

Figure 1 – F2F Students and Training Days by TLB

DefAc RANK AND GRADE STATISTICS

Figure 2 – F2F student numbers by Military/Civilian split

28. Figure 2 shows that 53% of DefAc students were MOD civilians whilst 36% were military, giving a civilian to military ratio of 1.5:1. This is a significant change from CMT’s 2009/10 ratio of 3:1, reflecting an increase in the proportion of military students. This can be largely accounted for by the fact that 99% of


civilians were trained by CMT, demonstrating the military focus of the other components, particularly JSCSC and AFCC.

29. Figure 2 also shows that 3% were international students and 4% were from external sources such as industry. The remaining 4% were unknown, due mainly to insufficient data being recorded in HRMS for 840 A&B Learning students; AFCC reported a further 333 as unknown.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Number of Students

Other

Unknown

Industrial

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

OF6 & above / SCS

Rank/Grade

Students by Rank/Grade

MilitaryCivilian

Figure 3 – F2F Students by Military Rank and Civilian Grade

30. Figure 3 shows that the Other ranks grouping (OR9 – OR1) provided the largest number of military students (3,743) during the reporting period. However, in terms of single named ranks, OF3 was the largest military category with 2,554 students, closely followed by OF2 with 2,268. Civilians mirrored this pattern, with the grade of C2 (OF3 equivalent) providing the most civilian students (4,914) and D grades (OF2 equivalent) a close second with 4,036.

31. The DefAc top two military ranks of OF3 and OF2 were the same as CMT’s top two from last year, as were the top two civilian grades of C2 and D.

32. Almost half (1,103) of the military unknown category of 2,209 is accounted for by ranks not being entered on to HRMS (used by A&B Learning to record its training) and ranks not being reported by its AFT section during terms 1 and 2. The same number (1,103) of unknown ranks was reported by AFCC (see section 6).

33. Two thirds (750) of the civilian unknown category of 1,141 are from A&B (Business), most being grades not reported by its AFT section during terms 1 and 2. The lack of ranks and grades from AFT improved in term 3 when actual ranks/ grades were reported rather than just military/civilian status.


COURSE COSTS

34. Table 8 shows the total cost of DefAc training delivery and the average cost per student day by component or CMT division. These costs include all training, i.e. MScs, standard face to face, e-learning, blended learning and distance learning.

35. The average cost per student day of training delivered by A&B is low by comparison because of the high amount of e-learning delivered by this division.

36. TD and LMD costs include both costs for training not delivered via the Academic Provider (AP) contract and costs that are in support of the AP contract.

£ Total Gross

Expenditure£ Total Net

Expenditure

Number of

F2F Days

Number of All

Student Days

£ Average Cost per Student

Day25

CMT

A&B 12,946,718.61 12,920,571.0

5 51,039 137,039 94.47

ND 1,912,066.65 1,696,835.1

6 12,465 12,465 153.39

DTOEES26 16,021,363.54 15,252,532.4

1 87,640 87,640 182.81

HQ Other 1,730,258.52 1,730,258.5

2

LMD 3,063,757.64 3,054,757.64

TD 4,084,422.92 4,034,427.5

5

HQ AP Contract 17,011,386.90 15,986,301.3

7 TD/LMD Total 24,159,567.46 23,075,486.56 90,837 131,228 £184.10

CMT Total 56,769,974.78 54,675,683.7

0 241,981 368,372 154.11

RCDS26 4,532,989.12 716,198.4

1 20,870 20,870 217.20

AFCC26 1,221,320.18 1,210,810.6

4 8,340 8,340 146.44

JSCSC27 45,812,236.41 42,443,578.7

8 152,392 158,859 288.38

HQ 23,994,386.83 19,551,958.8

7

TOTAL DA132,330,907.3

2 118,598,230.4

0 423,583 556,441 237.82

25 Based on Gross Expenditure and Includes MScs, standard F2F, E-learning, Blended learning and Distance learning26 DTOEES, RCDS and AFCC days based on Business Plan 2011-2016 figures27 JSCSC expenditure includes residential costs


Table 8 - Average Costs of DefAc Training per Student Day in Financial Year (FY) 28 2010/11

28 FY is used as expenditure as it is not available by academic year


Percentage Students by Component

JSCSC8%

CMT84%

RCDS<1% AFCC

8%

Percentage Training Days by Component

CMT35%

RCDS7%

AFCC3%

JSCSC55%

DefAc COMPONENT STATISTICS

37. Figure 4 shows the percentages of students trained and training days delivered by DefAc component.

Figure 4 – F2F Training Delivery by DefAc Component

AFCC

38. As figure 4 shows, AFCC’s percentage of DefAc students was 8% (2,852) during this reporting period, equating to 3% (7,975) of training days. Its students comprised 2,209 military personnel and 120 civilians, giving a military: civilian ratio of 18:1. The high proportion of military is due to AFCC’s primary role being to train chaplains in the Armed Forces. Additionally, 190 external and 333 unknown students were reported.

39. AFCC business encompasses core Chaplaincy Based Training, Continuing Professional Development and Initial Officer Training (IOT), other MOD compassion/welfare/medical support/miscellaneous training events, as well as Faith Conferences. During the academic year AFCC reported 95 different courses/ training events.

40. The course with the highest number of training days was Visiting Officer Skills, with 663 days delivered to 221 students attending 11 occurrences. RAF IOT Care in Leadership was a close second with 648 training days delivered to 216 students over 9 occurrences. During 2009/10 RAF IOT had 354 students over 1,062 days and Visiting Officer Skills 169 students over 507 days.

41. Table 9 shows the number of students trained and F2F training days delivered by AFCC broken down by TLB.

2010/11 Air Central CJO DE&S DIO Land Navy No TLB TotalStudents 573 109 0 0 0 803 181 1,186 2,852Training Days 1,582 216 0 0 0 2,326 533 3,318 7,975


Table 9 – AFCC F2F Students by TLB

42. Historically AFCC has not recorded TLB information but this issue has been addressed and TLB data was submitted from January 2011 onwards. As Table 9 shows, Land Forces provided the highest number of students (28%), followed by Air Command (20%), which means that these TLBs made up almost half of all AFCC’s students and 83% of those with a recorded TLB.

43. Table 10 below shows the number of students trained and F2F training days delivered by AFCC broken down by Rank.

2010/11 OF6 OF5 OF4 OF3 OF2 OF1 Other Unknown TotalStudents 4 10 48 156 181 209 498 1,103 2,209Training Days 12 22 103 365 742 626 1,289 2,941 6,100

Table 10 – AFCC Military F2F Students by Rank

44. The military comprised 77% of all AFCC students and Table 10 shows that the largest category within this group was Other ranks, with 23% of the total military. Of the named ranks, OF1 and OF2 were the largest categories with 209 and 181 students respectively and DefAc’s most trained rank of OF3 was in third place with 156 students; these 3 ranks made up 25% of the military total.

45. AFCC had a large percentage of unknown ranks, with half of the military falling into this category. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. RN chaplains not having recognised ranks and the AFCC ‘rank-less’ training culture both contribute.

JSCSC

46. As shown in figure 4 JSCSC delivered 55% (146,844 days) of training to 8% (2,879) of students during the reporting period, making it the biggest provider of DefAc training in terms of days delivered. 2,567 military personnel and 10 civilians received training, reflecting its primary role as a provider of training for future commanders and staff officers of the UK Armed Services. Additionally 204 international students, 69 unknown and 29 external students, mainly from industry, were trained.

47. The Advanced Command and Staff Course (ACSC) delivered the highest number of training days, 60,060, (41%) to 286 (10%) students. The Intermediate Command and Staff Course (Land) (ICSC(L)) was the next highest, delivering 49,200 (34%) training days to 328 (11%) students. The course with the highest number of students was the RAF’s Junior Officers’ Development (JOD) programme29, with 925 students (32%) totalling 7,090 days (5%).

48. The same courses delivered the highest number of training days during 2009/10, i.e. ACSC with 59,850 to 285 students and ICSC(L) with 54,150 to 361 students. There was also no change in the course with the highest number of students, i.e. the JOD programme with 1,174 students and 9,030 days.

49. Separate versions of the Intermediate Command and Staff Course (ICSC) are run for each service; during the reporting period the Land version had the highest output, as detailed above. ICSC(Air) delivered 12,440 training days to 311 students and ICSC(Maritime) delivered 8,080 days to 202 students.

29 The JOD programme comprises courses JOD(1), JOD(2) and JOD(L) and has additional students/training days under its blended learning elements


50. Table 11 below shows the number of students trained and F2F training days delivered by JSCSC broken down by TLB.

2010/11 Air Central CJO DE&S DIO Land Navy No TLB TotalStudents 1,488 2 0 0 0 644 438 307 2,879Training Days 34,780 10 0 0 0 63,002 26,144 22,908 146,844

Table 11 – JSCSC F2F Students by TLB30

51. Limited TLB information is held for JSCSC courses but, based on the data in Table 11, Land Forces received the most training in terms of students days, due to the length of courses such as ICSC(L). Air Command was second in terms of student days, due largely to RAF division’s ICSC(Air) and Junior Officer Development (JOD) courses. However, if the number of students is considered the positions are reversed with Air Command first, providing over half the total, and Land Forces second with 22%.

52. Table 12 below shows the number of students trained and F2F training days delivered by JSCSC broken down by Rank.

2010/11 OF6 OF5 OF4 OF3 OF2 OF1 Other Unknown TotalStudents 2 37 235 876 1,016 235 166 0 2,567Training Days 80 1,996 20,494 84,639 13,712 1,300 1,555 0 123,77

6Table 12 – JSCSC Military F2F Students by Rank

53. The military comprised 84% of JSCSC’s business in terms of training days and 89% in terms of students. When considering training days, Table 12 shows that its most trained grade was OF3 , (the same as DefAc’s most trained rank), with 68% of the military days. However, when considering the number of students, OF2 provided the most attendees with 40% of the total military.

RCDS

54. The nature of training at RCDS means that only one course is held per year; its aim is to prepare senior officers and officials of the UK and other countries, and future leaders from the private and public sectors, for high responsibilities in their respective organisations.

55. During the reporting period 19,469 training days were delivered to 115 students. Of these, 84 students attended all four terms of the RCDS academic year (17,136 training days), with the other 31 attending for various combinations of terms/part-terms (2,333 training days).

56. 56 of the 115 were international military students meaning this category made up the largest proportion (49%) of the total attendance. The balance comprised 5 non-military international, 36 MOD military, 3 MOD civilians and 15 external students.

30 Although JSCSC long course students are appointed to Centre TLB for the duration of their studies, they are included in their Service TLB here to reflect the provenance of the training requirement


57. The 61 international students, including 5 non-military, attended from many different countries as depicted in table 13.


Country Number of students

Country Number of Students

Country Number of Students

Afghanistan 1 Germany 1 Pakistan 3Algeria 1 Hong Kong 1 Poland 1Australia 2 India 4 Qatar 3Bangladesh 1 Italy 1 Rwanda 1Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 Japan 2 Saudi Arabia 4Botswana 1 Jordan 1 Serbia 1Brazil 2 Kuwait 1 Slovenia 1Canada 1 Malaysia 1 South Africa 1China 2 Netherlands 3 Sudan 2Czech Republic 1 New Zealand 1 UAE 1Ethiopia 1 Nigeria 2 Ukraine 1France 2 Norway 1 USA 2Georgia 2 Oman 2 Yemen 1

Total 61

Table 13 – RCDS International Students

58. The 36 military were all OF4, OF5 and OF6 ranks, with the majority (20) being OF5s. Of the 3 civilian grades, 1 was SCS1 and 2 were not reported (unknown).

CMT

59. Table 14 below shows the number of students trained and F2F training days delivered by CMT divisions in 2010/11 compared to the same in 2009/10.

CMT Division 2009/10 2010/11 % ChangeA&B

(Acquisition)

Students 9,912 9,585 3 %

Training Days 17,983 17,994 ~

A&B (Business)

Students 28,200 13,155 53 %

Training Days 46,275 25,165 46 %

LMDStudents 2,711 2,535 6.5 %

Training Days 13,043 11,698 10 %

NDStudents 994 1,072 8 %

Training Days 10,498 13,617 30 %

TDStudents 2,656 3,466 30.5 %

Training Days 22,752 26,813 18 %

TotalsStudents 44,473 29,813 33 %

Training Days 110,551 95,287 14 %

Table 14 – F2F Students and Training Days by CMT division compared with 2009/10


60. As table 14 shows CMT training has decreased this year both in terms of students and training days, with student numbers dropping by 33% and training days by 14%. Of the CMT divisions, A&B (Business) saw the biggest losses training 53% fewer students over 46% less days, whilst ND and TD experienced increases in both student numbers and training days. ND trained 8% more students over 30% more days and TD trained 30% more students over 18% more days.

61. ND’s small increase in student numbers translated into a more substantial increase in training days, due to the longer nature of many of its courses.

62. TD experienced the largest increase in student numbers. This is partly due to the modularisation of the MAA MSc (wef October 2010), meaning that the individual modules can now be taken as accredited short courses, accounting for an extra 310 students over the reporting period. TD is also now responsible for the TLCM courses (previously run by LMD) accounting for a further 316 students and an additional 200 students were trained on the three Information Manager courses31.

CMT TLB Statistics

63. Table 15 below shows the number of F2F students trained by CMT in 2010/11 and 2009/10 broken down by TLB.

Students Air Central CJO DE&S DIO Land Navy No TLB Total2009/10 4,704 7,084 576 16,783 1,503 7,583 2,072 4,168 44,473

2010/11 2,513 5,021 205 11,249 779 4,857 1,479 3,710 29,813

% Change 46.5% 29% 64% 33% 48% 36% 28% 11% 33%

Table 15 – CMT F2F Students by TLB compared with 2009/10

64. As table 15 shows the number of CMT students from Air, CJO and DIO TLBs decreased the most in this reporting period, with percentage losses greater than the 33% overall total. Conversely, the numbers of students from Central and Navy Command decreased the least, with percentage losses less than 33%. The number of students with no reported TLB showed the smallest decrease, which is a positive sign that the quality of the data collected continues to improve.

31 Information Managers' Course, Information Support Officers' Course and Senior Information Officers’ Course


CMT MILITARY RANK AND CIVILIAN GRADE STATISTICS

65. Table 16 below shows the number of F2F students trained by CMT in 2010/11 and 2009/10 broken down by military rank.

MilitaryRank 2009/2010 2010/2011 % ChangeOF9 1 0 100%

OF8 13 11 15%

OF7 45 41 9%

OF6 206 198 4%

OF5 371 305 18%

OF4 807 563 30%

OF3 1,952 1,522 22%

OF2 1,150 1,071 7%

OF1 377 158 59%

Other 4,570

3,0798%

Unknown 1,106

Total 9,492 8,054 15%

Table 16 – CMT Military F2F Students compared with 2009/10

66. As shown in table 16 the number of military students trained by CMT during this reporting period fell by 15% although, as this is less than the 33% total CMT decrease, the proportion of military increased in real terms. This could be partly due to the fact that, as better information is now being collected, fewer students are recorded in the unknown category.

67. The ranks of OF9, OF4, OF3 and OF1 showed the biggest falls, with percentage losses greater than the 15% military total. Of these (disregarding the rank of OF9 because of the small number involved), the OF1 total decreased the most. The ranks of OF6 and OF2 showed the smallest percentage losses and thus decreased the least, whilst the combined categories of other and unknown ranks32 fell by 8%. Again, this could be partly due to fewer unknown ranks being reported.

68. CMT followed DefAc’s pattern in terms of the number of military students trained, with OF3 the largest single category (in spite of a larger than average decrease of 22%) and OF2 next largest. This was the same pattern as last year.

69. Table 17 below shows the number of F2F students trained by CMT in 2010/11 and 2009/10 broken down by civilian grade.

32 Other/unknown rank categories combined during 2009/10, therefore separate comparisons not possible here


CivilianGrade 2009/2010 2010/2011 % ChangeSCS 127 189 49%

B1 376 260 31%

B2 1,269 956 25%

C1 4,390 3,375 23%

C2 6,211 4,912 21%

D 5,848 4,029 31%

E 4,943 2,484 50%

Industrial 1,473 557 62%

Other5,867

1,13862%

Unknown 1,069

Total 30,504 18,969 38%

Table 17 – CMT Civilian F2F Students compared with 2009/10

70. As shown in table 17 the number of civilian students trained by CMT during this reporting period fell by 38%. This is greater than the 33% total CMT decrease meaning that the number of civilians trained fell in proportion to the number of military. The grades of C2, C1 and B2 showed the smallest percentage losses, whilst the number of SCS grades trained increased by nearly half on the previous reporting period, the only category to show an increase.

71. Industrial and E grades showed the biggest falls, with percentage losses greater than the 38% civilian total. The combined categories of other and unknown grades33 fell by 62% and it is likely that this occurred across both categories; i.e. that fewer unknown grades were reported (due to the general improvement in data held) and that the other (non-specified) category followed the trend of the E grade and Industrial categories.

72. As with the military, CMT civilians mirrored DefAc in terms of the most trained categories. The largest single category was C2 (OF3 equivalent) with 4,912 students closely followed by D grades (OF2 equivalent) with 4,029. As with the military, this was the same pattern as last year.

F2F COURSE STATISTICS

73. The courses (from the 589 reported) with the highest number of training days in the reporting period are reflected in table 18 below.

74. Almost 62% of DefAc training days were delivered by just the top ten courses to 7% (2,482) of its students.

75. 90% (242,708 days) of training effort went on 144 courses, leaving 445 training events delivering less than 10% (26,866 days) of effort between them.

33 Other/unknown grade categories combined during 2009/10, therefore separate comparisons not possible here


Component Course Title Duration Students Days

% of Total Days

Cumulative %

JSCSC Advanced Command and Staff Course 210 286 60060 22.2795 22.2795JSCSC Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Land) 150 328 49200 18.2510 40.5305RCDS Royal College of Defence Studies 204 115 19469 7.2221 47.7526JSCSC Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Air) 40 311 12440 4.6147 52.3672JSCSC Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Maritime) 40 202 8080 2.9973 55.3646CMT(TD) Battlespace Technology Course 125 39 4875 1.8084 57.1730CMT(LMD) Equality & Diversity Advisors 5 740 3700 1.3725 58.5455JSCSC Junior Officers Development Programme (L) 10 324 3240 1.2019 59.7474CMT(TD) Acquisition Employment Training (weeks 1-5) 25 117 2925 1.0850 60.8324CMT(ND) Nuclear Reactor Course 125 20 2500 0.9274 61.7598JSCSC Higher Command and Staff Course 75 33 2475 0.9181 62.6779JSCSC Junior Officers Development Programme 1 5 432 2160 0.8013 63.4792CMT(ND) Nuclear Advanced Course 225 9 2025 0.7512 64.2304JSCSC Junior Officers Development Programme 2 10 169 1690 0.6269 64.8573CMT(BUS) Selection Interviewing 2 834 1668 0.6188 65.4760CMT(ACQ) Project Management Tools 3 544 1632 0.6054 66.0814CMT(TD) Information Support Officers' Course 5 321 1605 0.5954 66.6768CMT(TD) Ammunition Technical Officers 80 20 1600 0.5935 67.2703CMT(ND) Nuclear General Course 35 43 1505 0.5583 67.8286CMT(TD) Ammunition Technicians 25 60 1500 0.5564 68.3851

Table 18 - Twenty Courses with the highest number of F2F Training Days

76. The courses training the highest number of students in the reporting period are listed in Table 19 below.

Component Course Title Duration Students DaysCMT(BUS) Equality & Diversity for Leaders and Managers 1 940 940CMT(BUS) Equality & Diversity for Team Members 1 939 939CMT(BUS) Planning for Retirement 1 878 878CMT(BUS) Selection Interviewing 2 834 1668CMT(LMD) Equality & Diversity Advisors 5 740 3700CMT(BUS) Discipline and Restoring Efficiency 2 563 1126CMT(ACQ) Project Management Tools 3 544 1632CMT(BUS) Understanding & Managing Stress 1 523 523CMT(ACQ) Principles Project Management 2 515 1030CMT(BUS) Absence Management 1 441 441JSCSC Junior Officers Development Programme 5 432 2160CMT(BUS) Effective Communication 2 406 812CMT(BUS) Planning for Retirement 2 400 800CMT(ACQ) MS Project 2003 - Introduction 2 367 734CMT(ACQ) APMP EXAM 0.5 366 183CMT(ACQ) Mat & Fin Accounting Basic 1 345 345JSCSC Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Land) 150 328 49200CMT(BUS) Experienced People Manager in Defence 3 327 981JSCSC Junior Officers Development Programme 10 324 3240CMT(TD) Information Support Officers' Course 5 321 1605

Table 19 - Twenty Courses with the highest number of F2F Students


77. Table 20 shows how the 100 F2F courses delivering the most training days are split between the different components/divisions.

Component/Division

% number of courses

% of training days

JSCSC 18 62.8CMT(TD) 24 9.8RCDS 1 8.4CMT(BUS) 17 5.6CMT(ND) 9 4.7CMT(ACQ) 16 4.2CMT(LMD) 11 3.6AFCC 4 0.9

Table 20 - Percentage Split of Top 100 F2F Courses by Component/Division

78. Table 21 below lists training events with the lowest number of training days. It shows 165 courses (of the 58934 total) that together delivered less than 1% of the training output.

Division Course Title DurationStudent

sTraining

Days

% of Total Days

BUS Dip B DSC 3 11 33 0.0122BUS CIMA F3 Resit 3 11 33 0.0122BUS Inventory Manager Practioner Advanced Workshop 3 11 33 0.0122ACQ ILS Training Management & TNA 1 32 32 0.0119BUS Certificate C5 4 8 32 0.0119BUS Prof. Development for Secretarial and Personal Assistants 1 31 31 0.0115LMD Managing Defence in Wider Security Context Export- Kosovo 2 15 30 0.0111AFCC Army Synod 2 15 30 0.0111ACQ Practitioner of R&M 2.5 12 30 0.0111BUS IMPA 2.5 12 30 0.0111BUS Managing the Supplier Relationship - Team Support 3 10 30 0.0111AFCC Probation Service 3 10 30 0.0111AFCC RAF Honnington 3 10 30 0.0111ND Health Physics Nuclear Accident Response Course 5 6 30 0.0111TD Information Support Officers' Course 5 6 30 0.0111ACQ BAE SYSTEMS EXAM 2 1 29 29 0.0108ACQ BAE SYSTEMS EXAM 3 1 29 29 0.0108AFCC HQ Land Reserves 1 29 29 0.0108

LMDSenior Responsible Owners: Applying Managing Successful Programmes 1 28 28 0.0104

AFCC A Sqn KRH 2 14 28 0.0104ACQ Cert Para Pract Exam 1 27 27 0.0100LMD Equality and Diversity Advisors Refresher Course 3 9 27 0.0100TD Insensitive Munitions 3 9 27 0.0100ACQ International Acquisition Awareness 1 26 26 0.0096ACQ PowerPoint 2003 Introduction 1 26 26 0.0096BUS CIMA T4 -PC/CBA 1 26 26 0.0096

BUSINCOME GENERATION - A PRACTITIONERS INTRODUCTION 1 26 26 0.0096

BUS Defence Logistics Senior Course 1 25 25 0.0093TD Aeronautical Engineering 2 (MAAS13) 5 5 25 0.0093TD Aircraft Survivability (MAAS14) 5 5 25 0.0093TD Practical Reliability (MAASA8) 5 5 25 0.0093

34 Includes different durations of the same course



sTraining

Days

% of Total Days

AFCC TA Chaplaincy (Initial Trg) 5 5 25 0.0093ND Submarine Medical branch Part 2 25 1 25 0.0093ACQ CRISP Overview 1 24 24 0.0089BUS T4 DSC 1 24 24 0.0089BUS Appraising Staff & Managing Performance 1 24 24 0.0089ACQ Excel 2003 - Intermediate 2 12 24 0.0089BUS International Financial Reporting 2 12 24 0.0089

JSCSCBriefings for British Students Attending Overseas Staff Colleges 2 12 24 0.0089

BUS T4 DSC 3 8 24 0.0089LMD SLP Export Georgia 3 8 24 0.0089TD Blast Loading 3 8 24 0.0089TD Engineering Geology 3 8 24 0.0089BUS Dip B Re-sit revision 4 6 24 0.0089AFCC RAF Induction 4 6 24 0.0089AFCC Regular Army Chaplains Initial Trg 12 2 24 0.0089ACQ BAE SYSTEMS EXAM 1 1 23 23 0.0085ACQ CofC Examination Revision 3 1 22 22 0.0082ACQ Service Contracting Workshop 1 22 22 0.0082BUS CIMA T4 - Paper/CBA 1 22 22 0.0082BUS Joint Business Agreements 1 22 22 0.0082ACQ Excel 2003 - Advanced 2 11 22 0.0082AFCC Visiting Officers Workshop 2 11 22 0.0082ACQ Access 2003- Introduction 1 21 21 0.0078ND Radiation Protection Sup (x-ray Med) 1 21 21 0.0078ACQ Intro to Defence Acquisition 3 7 21 0.0078TD Explosives and the Environment 3 7 21 0.0078ACQ BODMS - Practitioner 1 20 20 0.0074BUS Cert CATS DSC CBA 1 20 20 0.0074BUS CIMA Certificate CATS 1 20 20 0.0074BUS CIMA F2 - Special 1 20 20 0.0074BUS Having That Conversation for SCS 1 20 20 0.0074AFCC UK Armed Forces Humanist 1 20 20 0.0074ACQ Commercial Awareness-LVP 2 10 20 0.0074ACQ MS Front Page XP 2 10 20 0.0074BUS Cert CATS DSC C1 2 10 20 0.0074TD Business Analysis Essentials 4 5 20 0.0074ACQ Introduction to HFI 1 19 19 0.0070ACQ Memorandum of Understanding 2 9 18 0.0067AFCC RAF Chaplains Mentoring 2 9 18 0.0067AFCC RAF Pre-Deployment 2 9 18 0.0067BUS Managing MOD Civilians - An Overview for US Supervisors 1 16 16 0.0059AFCC World Faith Working Grp 1 16 16 0.0059ACQ System Safety In Actiion 2 8 16 0.0059ACQ Team Solutions CMEE 2 8 16 0.0059BUS Certificate C3 2 8 16 0.0059AFCC RAF High Wycombe PHF 2 8 16 0.0059AFCC RAF Odiham BSW-JNCOs 2 8 16 0.0059BUS Strat DSC 1 15 15 0.0056AFCC Armed Forces Synod 1 15 15 0.0056AFCC RAF Widows Day Visitors 1 15 15 0.0056ND Nuclear Command Designates Course 3 5 15 0.0056AFCC Potential Army Chaplains 3 5 15 0.0056



sTraining

Days

% of Total Days

ND Senior Health Physics Nuclear Accident response Course 5 3 15 0.0056TD Data Management - Employment Training 5 3 15 0.0056TD Pyrotechnics 5 3 15 0.0056TD Risk, Hazard and Safety of Explosives 5 3 15 0.0056BUS Strat P3 Re-sit 2 7 14 0.0052AFCC RAF Pre-Deployment 2 7 14 0.0052AFCC RN Senior Chaplains 2 7 14 0.0052AFCC RN Trim 2 7 14 0.0052BUS Intermediate Command Staff Course 0.2 68 13.6 0.0050ACQ Mat & Financial Acc Prac Basis 1 13 13 0.0048ACQ Word 2003 - Intermediate 1 13 13 0.0048BUS Certificate CBA 1 13 13 0.0048BUS TOPCIMA PC/CBA 1 13 13 0.0048BUS Effective Communication 1 13 13 0.0048ACQ Flexible Resourcing in MSP2003 0.5 24 12 0.0045ACQ Access 2003 - Advanced 1 12 12 0.0045BUS Mentoring for Senior Managers 1 12 12 0.0045AFCC ATC Pirbright 1 12 12 0.0045AFCC Tri Service Listening Skills (Chaplains) 2 6 12 0.0045ACQ SC IS (Air) Workshop 3 4 12 0.0045AFCC Army Potential Chaplains 3 4 12 0.0045ND Nuclear Command Designates Course 4 3 12 0.0045TD Advanced Engineering (for Marine Engineers - AMEC) 4 3 12 0.0045AFCC Army New Entry PQO 4 3 12 0.0045ACQ IPT Engineer Post Cat 011 1 11 11 0.0041ACQ PowerPoint 2003 Advanced 1 11 11 0.0041ACQ WTMS Procedures 1 11 11 0.0041BUS Manage & Deliver Customer Service V1 - Customer Interaction 1 11 11 0.0041AFCC HQ Reserves 1 11 11 0.0041ACQ Hazardous Materials 0.5 21 10.5 0.0039BUS Management of Business Risks 1 10 10 0.0037BUS Dip C E2 Re-sit revision 2 5 10 0.0037AFCC Tri Service Listening Skills 2 5 10 0.0037

TDDesign, Durability and Integrity of Composite Aircraft Structures (MAASA4) 5 2 10 0.0037

TD Introduction to Aircraft Structural Crashworthiness (MAAS11) 5 2 10 0.0037TD Mechanical Integrity of Gas Turbines (MAASA1) 5 2 10 0.0037TD Systems Analysis Workshop 5 2 10 0.0037ACQ Access 2003 - Intermediate 1 9 9 0.0033ACQ Ranging and Obsolescence 1 9 9 0.0033ACQ Word 2003 - Advanced 1 9 9 0.0033BUS Having That Conversation 1 9 9 0.0033BUS Introduction to Oracle Discoverer for HR Business Partners 1 9 9 0.0033BUS Strat F3 Re-sit 3 3 9 0.0033ACQ Outlook 2003 1 8 8 0.0030BUS Certificate Intro 1 8 8 0.0030LMD Defence Executive Leadership Programme 1 8 8 0.0030ACQ Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 2 4 8 0.0030ACQ Repair Procedures 2 4 8 0.0030BUS CIMA P2 Resit 2 4 8 0.0030LMD Strategic Leadership Programme -South Africa 2 4 8 0.0030AFCC New Entry PQO Course 4 2 8 0.0030ACQ Flexible Resourcing in MSP2003 1 7 7 0.0026



sTraining

Days

% of Total Days

ACQ INDEPOL (HTR) & Templates 1 7 7 0.0026ACQ MDCContract Support Operations 1 7 7 0.0026ACQ Requirements Management 1 7 7 0.0026BUS Certificate C3 1 7 7 0.0026ND Radiation Supervisors Officer (WEODESG) 1 7 7 0.0026ACQ CIPS Mock Exam 1 6 6 0.0022AFCC Episcopal Council Mtg 1 6 6 0.0022AFCC Military Ministries 1 6 6 0.0022AFCC RN Moral Leadership 1 6 6 0.0022BUS CIMA E2 Resit 2 3 6 0.0022TD Ammunition Systems 1 (Warheads) 5 1 5 0.0019TD Explosive Science - Advanced 5 1 5 0.0019TD Forensic Aspects of the Effects of Explosions on Materials 5 1 5 0.0019

TDAir Transport Engineering - Maintenance Operations (MAASA3) 5 1 5 0.0019

TD Gas Turbine Fundamentals MAASA6) 5 1 5 0.0019TD Propellants, Internal Ballistics and Weapon Thermodynamics 5 1 5 0.0019TD Manufacture and Formulation of Explosives 5 1 5 0.0019AFCC Rev Moesel Mtg 1 4 4 0.0015ACQ IPT Supply Manager Post Cat 75 2 2 4 0.0015BUS Intermediate Logistics Managers Course 0.3 11 3.3 0.0012BUS CIMA E2 Resit 1 3 3 0.0011ACQ Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 3 1 3 0.0011ACQ Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 1 2 2 0.0007ACQ System Safety Management Exam 1 2 2 0.0007BUS Resource Management in the MOD 1 2 2 0.0007ACQ AM Read Post Cat 001 2 1 2 0.0007BUS CIMA P3 Resit 2 1 2 0.0007ACQ System Safety Tools&Tech Exam 1 1 1 0.0004BUS Dip A F1 Re-sit revision 1 1 1 0.0004BUS Strat E3 re-sit 1 1 1 0.0004

Table 21 – Training events which when taken together contribute less than 1% of F2F training days

SUMMARY

79. During the academic year 2010/11, i.e. between 1 September 2010 and 31 August 2011:

F2F training:a. F2F training totalled 35,659 students over 269,575 days of training.

b. CMT trained the largest proportion (84%) of students; JSCSC delivered the highest percentage (55%) of training days.

c. DefAc business decreased by 29% in terms of students and 7% in terms of training days over the previous academic year; CMT decreased the most with 33% less students and 14% less training days; the other components experienced much smaller fluctuations in their business.

d. Within CMT, the Business element of A&B Learning decreased the most, with 53% less students and 46% less training days. However, ND trained 8% more students over 30% more days and TD 30% more students over 18% more days.


e. The number of students enrolling on all PG programmes has increased by 8%, with part-time and executive MScs increased by 100% and 25 % respectively.

f. The DefAc’s primary customer in terms of students was DE&S, who provided 31.5% of student numbers. The primary customer in terms of student days was Land Forces, who received 33% of training delivered.

g. The most trained military rank was OF3; the most trained civilian grade was its equivalent of C2. This matched the most trained rank/grade in CMT during academic year 2009/10.

h. 54% of DefAc students were MOD civilians, whilst 36% were military making the ratio of civilian to military almost 1.5:1; CMT’s ratio during academic year 2009/10 was 3:1.

i. Over 99% of civilians were trained by CMT, demonstrating the military focus of the other components, particularly JSCSC and AFCC.

Non F2F training:j. The DefAc’s non-F2F training totalled 148,491 students which amounted to 111,705 equivalent

training days.

k. CMT’s A&B (Business) reported the highest totals with 130,842 students and 72,362 ETDs.

All training:l. All DefAc training totalled 185,993 students over 505,430 training days.

CONCLUSIONS

80. Assessment of the data by the Training Cell finds that the trends previously identified have largely continued during this reporting period, specifically that:

a. The figures show that CMT is increasingly feeling the effects of uncertainty within Defence, with A&B Learning’s Business division suffering the most. This could be attributed to various factors, including restrictions in T&S, staff anticipating early release/not committing to training until their future is clearer or perhaps uncertainty as to whether courses due to move to Civil Service Learning (CSL) are still currently available.

b. Due to CSL alone it is estimated that A&B (Business) F2F students will decrease over the coming year by at least a further 23% and training days by at least 19%. With other known course reductions, this translates into decreases in CMT training of approximately 11% of students and 6% of training days.

c. For A&B (Business) eLearning, again due to CSL, it is estimated that student numbers and ETDs could fall by about 80%. Assuming no other significant changes, this translates into DefAc decreases of approximately 70% in students and 52% in ETDs.

d. There have been relatively small changes in the predominantly military training data reported by JSCSC and AFCC. It is assumed that, until force numbers are reduced, they are unlikely to see much reduction in throughput.

e. Despite DE&S remaining CMT’s biggest customer there has been a 33% reduction in the number of students from DE&S trained by CMT.

f. Data recording and collection continues to improve with the protocols that the Training Cell has put in place and it is expected to improve further as all DefAc components become more familiar


with the requirements of the data collection process. It is hoped that the annual end-of-year report, to be issued in October 2011, will be comprehensive and contain an equivalent amount of information for the majority of DefAc components.

OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS

81. It is noted that with the exceptions of the Junior Officer Development Programme in JSCSC, the MK series in CMT’s Technology Division and the many courses provided by A&B Learning in CMT, all other DefAc training appears to be of the F2F type. Is there potential for other parts of the DefAc to better exploit e-learning and blended learning tools and techniques?

82. It is also noted that the number of civilian staff receiving command and staff training (CST) is almost non-existent. Given the increased need for a joined-up approach to both operations and business management, should the DefAc engage with DG HR&CS staff to increase the number of civilian staff on CST courses?

83. Noting that the DefAc offers many courses and other training events that must consume resources but seem to contribute limited DefAc output, is there a case for at least questioning the continued existence of these activities?

84. Although basic costing information has been attributed at DefAc and College level, there seems as yet to be no costing model in use within the DefAc that enables the cost per course to be established and reported. It is suggested that there is merit in such costs per course being established in a clear and verifiable manner.

85. Information related to internal validation (InVal) has not been captured centrally and thus is not reported in this paper. It is for consideration as to whether InVal should be included in future versions of the paper.

86. On a related theme, it is suggested that future versions of this paper should detail the course sponsors and that they in turn should provide some assessment of the effectiveness of DefAc training as seen from their perspective – i.e. ExVal.

87. Further work to improve the quality and accuracy of the data will continue and it is considered essential to reduce, preferably to zero, the numbers of students who attend DefAc courses and yet about whom little seems to be known.

88. The data contained in this report should be taken to be the authoritative numbers of DefAc T&E.

89. There seems to be no single, agreed duration of an e-training day. Some parts of the DefAc use 6hrs, some use 6.75hrs and other parts of the DefAc use a formula. It would be preferable if a single figure could be agreed.

90. There is no easy-to-use and centrally-held information as to whether the students who actually attend a course are actually those for whom the course is/was intended.

91. The issue of what information should be collected should be re-visited with a view to ensuring that only key, exploitable information is collected and that the collection is both complete and accurate such that it provides a validated evidence base for future decision-making.

92. Finally, it is noted that the DefAc has to contend with the calendar year and the academic year as well as the financial year. The majority of the DefAc business and the associated major contracts operate on an academic year.


RECOMMENDATIONS

93. It is recommended that the DAOG and the DAB note the statistics, assessment, observations and questions contained in this report.

Anne Reynolds and Angela FlettDefAc HQ T&E MIS Managers


ANNEXES:

A. HQ managed Postgraduate statistics

B. CMT charts

C. CMT A&B (Acquisition) charts

D. CMT A&B (Business) charts

E. CMT Leadership and Management Division charts

F. CMT Nuclear Department charts

G. CMT Technology Division charts

H. AFCC charts

I. JSCSC charts

J. RCDS charts

K. Resources, Components and Outputs Summary Financial Year 2010/11


Annex A toDefAc Training Analysis Report

Dated 8 November 2011

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES TAKE-UP AND TRAINING DAYS in AY 2010/11

ProgrammeNo of

students enrolled

Training Days

Full-time MScs (Sep 10 intake) Explosives Ordnance Engineering 14 2,940Guided Weapons Systems 12 2,520Information Management Technology 12 2,520Master in Business Administration 4 840Mechanical Electrical Systems Engineering 9 1,890Systems Engineering for Defence Capability 1 210Total 52 35 10,920 36

Part-time MScs (Sep 10 & Jan 11 intakes) Explosives Ordnance Engineering 4 168Systems Engineering for Defence Capability 22 924Military Aerospace & Airworthiness 20 840

Total 46 1,932 37

Executive MScs (Jan 11 intake)

Defence Acquisition Management 29 1,218Defence Acquisition Management PG Cert 16 672Master in Business Administration (Defence) 12 504Programme & Project Management 30 1,260Defence Leadership Studies 14 588

Total 101 38 4,242 37

Pre-2010 students enrolled on the Part-time/Executive MScs & the Modular Masters Programme (MMP) 39 878 36,876 40

MPhil/PhD 6 ~Overall Total 1,083 53,970

35 Includes 15 overseas students36 Days estimated assuming full-time MSc students undertake 210 days (42 weeks) of study during an academic year37 Days estimated assuming part-time & executive MSc students undertake 42 days study per year (42 weeks of study over a 5-year period)38 Includes 1 overseas student39 Students are given up to 5 years to complete their studies40 Average based on approximately 5 yearly intakes still studying


CMT Military/Civilian percentages

Civilian64%

Military27%

Unknown3%International

2%

External 4%

CMT Training by TLB

No TLB12.4%

Air8.4%

Navy5.0%

Land16.3%

DE&S37.7%

DE2.6%

CJO0.7%

Central14.8

Annex B toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

CMT F2F Charts

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/GradeCMT Training by Rank/Grade

MilitaryCivilian


Twenty CMT Courses with the highest number of F2F Student Days

Division Course TitleDuration

Students

Student Days

TD Battlespace Technology Course 125 39 4875LMD Equality & Diversity Advisors 5 740 3700TD Acquisition Employment Training (weeks 1-5) 25 117 2925ND Nuclear Reactor Course 125 20 2500ND Nuclear Advanced Course 225 9 2025BUS Selection Interviewing 2 834 1668ACQ Project Management Tools 3 544 1632TD Information Support Officers' Course 5 321 1605TD Ammunition Technical Officers 80 20 1600ND Nuclear General Course 35 43 1505TD Ammunition Technicians 25 60 1500ND Nuclear Reactor Course (part year only) 62.5 20 1250TD Information Managers' Course 5 241 1205TD Battlespace Technology Course (part year only) 30 40 1200BUS Discipline and Restoring Efficiency 2 563 1126ND Nuclear Introductory Course 10 112 1120TD Airworthiness of Military Aircraft (MAAS15) 5 216 1080ACQ Principles Project Management 2 515 1030ND Nuclear Warship Support Course 10 102 1020BUS Experienced People Manager in Defence 3 327 981

Twenty CMT Courses with the lowest number of F2F Student Days

Division Course Title

Duration Students

Student Days

BUS CIMA E2 Resit 2 3 6TD Ammunition Systems 1 (Warheads) 5 1 5TD Explosive Science - Advanced 5 1 5

TDForensic Aspects of the Effects of Explosions on Materials 5 1 5

TDAir Transport Engineering - Maintenance Operations (MAASA3) 5 1 5

TD Gas Turbine Fundamentals (MAASA6) 5 1 5

TDPropellants, Internal Ballistics and Weapon Thermodynamics 5 1 5

TD Manufacture and Formulation of Explosives 5 1 5ACQ IPT Supply Manager Post Cat 75 2 2 4BUS Intermediate Logistics Managers Course 0.3 11 3.3ACQ Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 3 1 3BUS CIMA E2 Resit 1 3 3ACQ AM Read Post Cat 001 2 1 2ACQ Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 1 2 2ACQ System Safety Management Exam 1 2 2BUS CIMA P3 Resit 2 1 2BUS Resource Management in the MOD 1 2 2ACQ System Safety Tools&Tech Exam 1 1 1BUS Dip A F1 Re-sit revision 1 1 1BUS Strat E3 re-sit 1 1 1


Aquisition Training by TLB

CJO0.2%

DE&S63.0%

Land4.2%

Navy2% No TLB

5.4%Central 17.4%

Air4.7%

DE3.2%

Acquisition Training by Military/Civilian

Civilian74.0%

Military20.2%

Unknown1.5%

External 4.2%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/GradeAcquisition Training by Grade

MilitaryCivilian

Annex C toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

A&B (ACQUISITION) F2F Charts


Twenty A&B (Acquisition) Courses with the highest number of F2F Student Days

Course TitleDuration

Students

Student Days

Project Management Tools 3 544 1632Principles Project Management 2 515 1030Association for Project Management Professional 5 172 860Lean Fundamentals 3 267 801MS Project 2003 - Introduction 2 367 734PRINCE2 Practitioner 5 125 625System Safety Management 3 203 609Intro to Defence Acquisition 2 238 476Commercial Practitioners W/S 2 2 215 430Risk Management Principles 2 211 422Commercial Practitioners W/S 1 2 209 418APMP Exam Preparation 2 188 376IM Practitioner Basic 3 121 363Inv Man Pract Advanced 4 88 352Mat & Fin Accounting Basic 1 345 345ILS Management & Supportability 3 100 300Lean Techniques 4 65 260Commercial Practitioners W/S 3 3 86 258Requirements Management 2 129 258Risk Management Principles 2.5 99 247.5

Twenty A&B (Acquisition) Courses with the lowest number of F2F Student Days

Course TitleDuratio

nStudent

sStudent Days

PowerPoint 2003 Advanced 1 11 11WTMS Procedures 1 11 11Hazardous Materials 0.5 21 10.5Access 2003 - Intermediate 1 9 9Ranging and Obsolescence 1 9 9Word 2003 - Advanced 1 9 9Outlook 2003 1 8 8Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 2 4 8Repair Procedures 2 4 8Flexible Resourcing in MSP2003 1 7 7INDEPOL (HTR) & Templates 1 7 7MDCContract Support Operations 1 7 7Requirements Management 1 7 7CIPS Mock Exam 1 6 6IPT Supply Manager Post Cat 75 2 2 4Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 3 1 3AM Read Post Cat 001 2 1 2Contractor Trng PC 021,127,121 1 2 2System Safety Management Exam 1 2 2System Safety Tools&Tech Exam 1 1 1


Business Training by TLB

DE3.2%

Air11.7%

Central 21.3%

No TLB13.0%

Navy3.9%

Land15.7%

DE&S29.9%

CJO1.3%

Business Training by Military/Civilian

External 3%

Unknown5%

Military14%

Civilian78%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/Grade

Business Training by Grade

MilitaryCivilian

Annex D toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

A&B (BUSINESS) F2F Charts

Twenty A&B (Business) Courses with the highest number of F2F Student Days


Students

Student Days

Selection Interviewing 2 834 1668Discipline and Restoring Efficiency 2 563 1126Experienced People Manager in Defence 3 327 981Equality & Diversity for Leaders and Managers 1 940 940Equality & Diversity for Team Members 1 939 939Planning for Retirement 1 878 878Assertiveness 3 292 876New to Managing People in Defence 5 167 835Effective Communication 2 406 812Planning for Retirement 2 400 800CIMA Diploma Residential 75 9 675Understanding & Managing Stress 1 523 523CIMA Strategic Residential 75 6 450Absence Management 1 441 441Manage & Deliver Customer Service V1 - Customer Interaction 2 179 358CIMA Strategic Residential 59 6 354Military Appraisal Writing for Civilian Reporting Officers 1 311 311From Manager to Leader in Defence 3 88 264Coaching Skills for Managers 2 129 258Can You Take The Lead? 2 127 254


Twenty A&B (Business) Courses with the lowest number of F2F Student Days


Students

Student Days

Certificate CBA 1 13 13TOPCIMA PC/CBA 1 13 13Effective Communication 1 13 13Mentoring for Senior Managers 1 12 12Manage & Deliver Customer Service V1 - Customer Interaction 1 11 11Dip C E2 Re-sit revision 2 5 10Management of Business Risks 1 10 10Strat F3 Re-sit 3 3 9Having That Conversation 1 9 9Introduction to Oracle Discoverer for HR Business Partners 1 9 9Certificate Intro 1 8 8CIMA P2 Resit 2 4 8Certificate C3 1 7 7CIMA E2 Resit 2 3 6Intermediate Logistics Managers Course 0.3 11 3.3CIMA E2 Resit 1 3 3CIMA P3 Resit 2 1 2Resource Management in the MOD 1 2 2Dip A F1 Re-sit revision 1 1 1Strat E3 re-sit 1 1 1


LMD Training by TLB

CJO0.2%

DE&S10.8%

Land24.4%

Navy11.9%

No TLB29.1% Central

12.3%

Air10.1%

DE1.1%

LMD Training by Military/Civilian

Civilian16.6%

Military56.1%

External 1.1%

International26.1%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/Grade

LMD Training by Grade

MilitaryCivilian

Annex E toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DIVISION F2F Charts


Twenty LMD Courses with the highest number of F2F Student Days

Course Title DurationStudents

Student Days

Equality & Diversity Advisors 5 740 3700Managing Defence in Wider Security Context 34 27 918Assistant Equality and Diversity Advisors 3 285 855Managing Defence in Wider Security Context - Ukraine 10 52 520Defence Security Management Zambia 5 87 435Managing Defence in Wider Security Context - Ethopia 13 27 351Defence Strategic Leadership Programme 4.5 70 315Managing Defence in Wider Security Context Export - Ethopia 10 31 310Leadership & Management Devt Programme - (MODULE 2) 5 62 310Leadership & Management Devt Programme - (MODULE 1) 5 61 305Defence Security Management: Ethopia 5 60 300Managing Defence in Wider Security Context - Brunei 11 27 297Senior Officers Equality and Diversity Awareness 1 227 227MOD Engaging Leaders 2 110 220SLP Export South Africa 4 51 204Strategic Leadership Programme 4.5 37 166.5Defence Strategic Management Programme 4.5 35 157.5Managing Defence in Wider Security Context - Serbia 10 15 150Managing Defence in Wider Security Context Export - Serbia 10 15 150Managing Defence in Wider Security Context Export - Northern Sudan 5 28 140

Twenty LMD Courses with the lowest number of F2F Student Days

Course TitleDuratio

nStudent

sStudent Days

Defence Strategic Portfolio and Programme Management 3.5 35 122.5Strategic Leadership Programme -Botswana 4 29 116Defence Strategic Commercial Course 3.5 32 112Strategic Leadership Programme -Zambia 4 28 112Regional Security Workshops for ANSF in Kabul 5 22 110DLEP - Defence Estates 5 20 100Defence Executive Leadership Programme 2 49 98SLP Export Ukraine 5 18 90Defence Strategic Support Management 3.5 24 84SLP Export Georgia 5 16 80Leadership & Management Devt Programme - (MODULE 2) 4 18 72MDWSC Minus - Georgia 5 14 70SLP Export Malaysia 3 22 66Senior Responsible Owners 1 34 34Managing Defence in Wider Security Context Export- Kosovo 2 15 30Senior Responsible Owners: Applying Managing Successful Programmes 1 28 28Equality and Diversity Advisors Refresher Course 3 9 27SLP Export Georgia 3 8 24Defence Executive Leadership Programme 1 8 8Strategic Leadership Programme -South Africa 2 4 8


Nuclear Dept Training by TLB

DE0.1%

Air7.4%

Central 3.6%No TLB

24.1%

Navy22.8%

Land20.8%

DE&S21.0%

CJO0.3%

Nuclear Dept Training by Military/Civilian

External 23.7%

Military53.2%

Civilian23.1%

Annex F toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT F2F Charts

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/Grade

Nuclear Dept Training by Rank/Grade

MilitaryCivilian


ND Course List by F2F Student Days


Students

Student Days

Nuclear Reactor Course 125 20 2500Nuclear Advanced Course 225 9 2025Nuclear General Course 35 43 1505Nuclear Reactor Course (Part year only) 62.5 20 1250Nuclear Introductory Course 10 112 1120Nuclear Warship Support Course 10 102 1020Radiation Protection Xray Course 25 23 575Nuclear Systems Support Course 15 34 510Workplace Supervisors (Radiation) 2 248 496Nuclear Accident Procedures Course 4 71 284Initial submarine Course 4 64 256Nuclear Preparation course 60 4 240Nuclear Radiological Protection Course 20 12 240Radiation Protection Supervisor (General) 4 52 208Nuclear Safety Case Writers and assessors Course 10 17 170Nuclear Site Safety Justification Course 5 33 165Radioactive Materials Accident Response Course 2 80 160Medical Assistant Submarine Pt 2 Course 25 6 150Submarine Medical Branch Phase 1 Pt 2 25 5 125Radiation Supervisors Officer 3 39 117Nuclear Radiological Protection (Medical Officers) 25 4 100Submarine Medical Branch Phase 1 Pt 1 25 4 100Medical Assistant Submarine Stage 1 Pt 2 25 4 100Submarine Medical Branch PJT 5 8 40Radiation Safety Officer Course 3 12 36Health Physics Nuclear Accident Response Course 5 6 30Submarine Medical branch Part 2 25 1 25Radiation Protection Sup (x-ray Med) 1 21 21Senior Health Physics Nuclear Accident response Course 5 3 15Nuclear Command Designates Course 3 5 15Nuclear Command Designates Course 4 3 12Radiation Supervisors Officer (WEODESG) 1 7 7


Tech Div Training by TLB

CJO0.2%

DE&S22.6%

Land44.7%

Navy6.7%

No TLB14.1%

Central 5.9%

Air5.4%

DE0.3%

Tech Div Training by Military/Civilian

Civilian28%

Military68%

Unknown1%

External 1%International

2%

Annex G toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

TECHNOLOGY DIVISION F2F Charts

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/Grade

Tech Div Training by Rank/Grade

MilitaryCivilian


Twenty TD Courses with the highest number of F2F Student Days

Course Title Duration StudentsStudent Days

Battlespace Technology Course 125 39 4875Acquisition Employment Training (weeks 1-5) 25 117 2925Information Support Officers' Course 5 321 1605Ammunition Technical Officers 80 20 1600Ammunition Technicians 25 60 1500Information Managers' Course 5 241 1205Battlespace Technology Course (Part Year only) 30 40 1200Airworthiness of Military Aircraft (MAAS15) 5 216 1080Through Life Capability Management (Practitioners) 4 244 976(Weapons,) Ordnance, Munitions and Explosives (Intermediate) 8 76 608Ammunition Technical Officers 30 20 600Civil Service Fast Stream Armed Forces 25 22 550Trials Management - Introduction 10 45 450Senior Information Officer Course 2 191 382CBRN Defence Science 10 38 380Royal Engineers Force Protection Engineering 38 10 380Information Systems Employment Training - Introduction 15 25 375Through Life Capability Management (Advanced) 5 72 360Supply Chain Management 5 70 350Intermediate Project Management Course 5 62 310

Twenty TD Courses with the lowest number of F2F Student Days

Course Title DurationStudent

sStudent Days

Practical Reliability (MAASA8) 5 5 25Blast Loading 3 8 24Engineering Geology 3 8 24Explosives and the Environment 3 7 21Business Analysis Essentials 4 5 20Data Management - Employment Training 5 3 15Pyrotechnics 5 3 15Risk, Hazard and Safety of Explosives 5 3 15Advanced Engineering (for Marine Engineers - AMEC) 4 3 12Design, Durability and Integrity of Composite Aircraft Structures (MAASA4) 5 2 10Introduction to Aircraft Structural Crashworthiness (MAAS11) 5 2 10Mechanical Integrity of Gas Turbines (MAASA1) 5 2 10Systems Analysis Workshop 5 2 10Ammunition Systems 1 (Warheads) 5 1 5Explosive Science - Advanced 5 1 5Forensic Aspects of the Effects of Explosions on Materials 5 1 5Air Transport Engineering - Maintenance Operations (MAASA3) 5 1 5Gas Turbine Fundamentals MAASA6) 5 1 5Propellants, Internal Ballistics and Weapon Thermodynamics 5 1 5Manufacture and Formulation of Explosives 5 1 5

Annex H to


AFCC Training by TLB

Air20.1%

Central 3.8%

No TLB41.6%

Navy6.3%

Land28.2%

AFCC Training by Military/Civilian

Civilian4%

Military77%

Unknown12%

External 7%

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior Rank/Grade

AFCC Training by Rank/Grade

MilitaryCivilian

DefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

AFCC F2F Charts


Twenty AFCC Training Events41 with the highest number of F2F Student Days


Students

Student Days

Visiting Officer Skills 3 221 663RAF IOT Care in Leadership 3 216 648TRiM 3 157 471Listening Skills Workshop 2 164 328Armed Forces Christian Union Ladies Weekend 3 76 228Bereavement & Loss 3 71 213TRiM Practitioners 3 68 204Sikh Faith Weekend 3 60 180Theological Students 4 44 176Armed Forces Christian Unon 3 51 153Continuing Ministerial Education (CME) 2 72 1443/4 Division CPD 4 36 144RAF Anglican CPD 4 36 144Jewish Moral Leadership 3 45 135Buddhist Annual Spiritual Con 3 44 1322 Div CPD 5 26 130Muslim Faith Conference 3 42 126CGs Leadership Forum 3 39 117Army New Entry Chaplains 29 4 116Naval Christian Fellowship Weekend 3 36 108

Twenty AFCC Training Events41 with the lowest number of F2F Student Days

Course TitleDuratio

nStudent

sStudent Days

RAF High Wycombe PHF 2 8 16RAF Odiham BSW-JNCOs 2 8 16World Faith Working Grp 1 16 16Armed Forces Synod 1 15 15Potential Army Chaplains 3 5 15RAF Widows Day Visitors 1 15 15RAF Pre-Deployment 2 7 14RN Senior Chaplains 2 7 14RN Trim 2 7 14Tri Service Listening Skills (Chaplains) 2 6 12Army New Entry PQO 4 3 12Army Potential Chaplains 3 4 12ATC Pirbright 1 12 12HQ Reserves 1 11 11Tri Service Listening Skills 2 5 10New Entry PQO Course 4 2 8Episcopal Council Mtg 1 6 6Military Ministries 1 6 6RN Moral Leadership 1 6 6Rev Moesel Mtg 1 4 4

41 It is unclear how much training is delivered by DEFAC in these events


JSCSC Training by TLB

Land22.4%

Navy15.2%

No TLB10.7%

Central 0.1%

Air51.7%

JSCSC Training by Military/Civilian

Civilian0.3%

Military89.2%

Unknown2.4%

External 1.0%International

7.1%

Annex I toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

JSCSC F2F Charts

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/Grade

JSCSC Training by Rank/Grade

MilitaryCivilian


JSCSC Course List by F2F Student Days


Students

Student Days

Advanced Command and Staff Course42 210 286 60060Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Land) 150 328 49200Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Air) 40 311 12440Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Maritime) 40 202 8080Junior Officers Development Programme (L) 10 324 3240Higher Command and Staff Course 75 33 2475Junior Officers Development Programme 1 5 432 2160Junior Officers Development Programme 2 10 169 1690Territorial Army Intermediate Staff Course 11 127 1397Pre-Course Training International Students 15 91 1365Joint Services Warrant Officers Course 10 117 1170Advanced Command & Staff Course (Reserves) 12 70 840RAF Community Support Course 5 87 435Future Commanders Study Period 5 77 385Higher Warrant Officers Course 10 33 330Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Maritime Reserves) 12 26 312RM Advanced Amphibious Warfare Course 20 15 300UK Service Attaches Course 5 40 200Intermediate Command & Staff Course (Air Reserves) 15 13 195Royal Navy Reserve Media Relations Course 3 38 114Senior Executives Partners Seminar 2 17 34Briefings for British Students Attending Overseas Staff Colleges 2 12 24

42 An additional 31 students undertook 398 training days on ACSC modules (not included here)


RCDS Training by Military/Civilian

Civilian3%

Military31%

External 13%

International53%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Number of Students

Unknown

Industrial

Other

OF1 / E

OF2 / D

OF3 / C2

OF4 / C1

OF5 / B

Senior

Rank/Grade

RCDS Training by Rank/Grade

MilitaryCivilian

Annex J toDefAc Training Delivery ReportDated 8 November 2011

RCDS F2F Charts

Training delivered by RCDS

Course TitleDuration Students

Student Days

Royal College of Defence Studies 2010/11 204 115 19469


Annex K to DefAc Training Delivery Report Dated 8 November 2011


Documents

CHAPTER 1 - data.parliament.ukdata.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2014-1147/… · Web viewReference: O:\WIP\04-Deliver\04-TrgCell\10-TrgStats\14-TrendAnalysis\02-1011\20111108-DA_TrgDeliveryRpt_v1.0