Integrated Performance
& Risk Management -
How Leading Enterprises
Manage Performance and Risk
D&B Seminar
May, 2012
PwC
Agenda
1. Introduction and objectives of today‟s session
2. Insights from the Annual PwC CEO survey indicate a need for
integrated Performance & Risk Management
3. Current state of integration between Performance & Risk
Management shows room to improve
4. Case example: Using Strategy maps to explicitly integrate
Performance & Risk Management
5. Summary and wrap up
2
May, 2012
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
Introduction and objectives
May, 2012
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage
PwC
Introduction and objectives
•
Provide insights in
what CEO’s say about risk
today and how that
drives the need for integrated Performance and Risk management
•
Provide insight in the
current state of integration
between
Performance and Risk management and to discuss how to improve
•
Provide a an
example of a practical approach
to strengthen the
focus and alignment of Performance and Risk management
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
4
May, 2012
Insights from the Annual PwC CEO
survey indicate a need for integrated
Performance & Risk Management
May, 2012
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage
PwC
What CEO’s say about risk
Results from our Annual Global CEO survey
•
Risks have bigger impact
The interconnection of markets and
people and speed of communication and
information make that risk has more
widespread effects on companies, sectors
and general economic activity.
•
A lack of transparency
Managers miss important signals of
threats to Risk Resilience. Performance
reports need to include risk factors as well
as financial and non-financial indicators.
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
6
May, 2012
What CEO’s say about risk
Results from our Annual Global CEO survey
Risk management continues to fail
The financial and economic crisis has
brought to the surface in many instances a
lack of preparedness or effective
response…. and failures continue. A
culture issue?
A need to adjust approaches to risk
Not surprisingly, understanding risk has
become a boardroom issue. Business
leaders have had to re-adjust to the new
risk environment to strengthen Risk
Resilience.
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
May, 2012
PwC
Risk management is high on the Board agenda
Results from our Annual Global CEO survey
Of CEOs in our 15th Annual Global CEO Survey
said uncertain or volatile economic growth was
a potential threat to their business.
80%
67%
51%
8
May, 2012
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
Of CEOs say they're planning changes to their
risk management approach.
Of CEO‟s wants to spent more time personally
on setting strategy and managing risk
How do CEO’s plan to become more Risk Resilient?
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
May, 2012
PwC
Integrated Performance & Risk Management
Increased predictability as a result of:
1. Improved and extended risk radar; proactive responses
Risk management practices must evolve from designed a separate processes to a
process that is embedded in all strategic and performance management processes.
2. Makes the invisible visible; better decision making
Reliable risk information and better information to understand the sources of and
interconnections between risks is vital.
3. Sets a target and price on things we value; better behavior
Individual and corporate behaviors can be changed, through reward and market
mechanisms when applied fairly.
4. Facilitates collaborative risk mitigation models; efficient
and effective responses
Collaborative risk mitigation among independent business units of a single
organization as well as with supply chain partners confronted with same challenge.
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
10
May, 2012
Current state of integration between
Performance & Risk Management
shows room to improve
May, 2012
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage
PwC
Performance Leadership is simply driven by
strategic focus & alignment…
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
12
May, 2012
Rigorous
focus
on the
strategic value drivers
delivering your
objectives
and
key
risks
involved in doing so
Full
alignment
of structure,
processes, people and
technology with strategy
Focus
A
lignment
low
high
low
hi
gh
Individual
Going nowhere
Clueless
Performance
Leadership
“Performance leaders” steer on both Performance
and Risks
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
May, 2012
Performance
Management
Performance Management
is about „Performance
Leadership‟ – structurally
meeting strategic objectives
and being the best in your
field of expertise/market.
Risk Management
Risk Management is about
„Conscious risk taking‟ -
structurally assess risks in
relation to your strategic
objectives, developing
appropriate responses and
the execution and
monitoring of those actions.
PwC management model for integrated
performance & risk management
Mission & Vision
Strategic Objectives
… incl. …
Risk Tolerance
Strategy
… in light of …
Risk Appetite
… as well as …
Plan, Budget & Forecast
Reporting & Analysis
Accountability
Do
Act
Performance
Management
Management
Risk
(including
Controls)
KPIs
KRIs
… and related…
PwC
Most companies manage performance and risk
independently
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
14
May, 2012
Results of a PwC Management
survey highlighted that of the
participating companies:
•
45%
do not link risk and
performance at all
•
15%
are uncertain if their
companies link risk and
performance
Mission & Vision
Strategic Objectives
… incl
. … Risk Tolerance
Strategy
… in light of …
Risk Appetite
… as well as …
Plan, Budget & Forecast
Reporting & Analysis
Accountability
Do
Act
Performance
Management
Management
Risk
(including
Controls)
KPIs
KRIs
… and related…
Value drivers
Value drivers
… and related…
Key risks
Key risks
Mission & V
ision
Strategic Obje
ctives … incl. …
Risk Toleran
ce
Strategy … in l
ight of … Risk
Appetite
… as well as …
Plan, Budget &
Forecast
Reporting & A
nalysis
Accountability
Do
Act
Performanc
e
Management
Risk
Manageme
nt
(including
Controls)
KPIs
KRIs
Please indicate whether your organization integrates performance and
risk management:
1. Yes
2. No
3. I don‟t know
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
May, 2012
PwC
Strategy is the basis
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
16
May, 2012
Common barriers to integrating risk and
performance
•
Unclear and/or inconsistent
goals
•
No explicitly appointed
ownership
•
Organizations maintain
multiple processes
for performance and
risk reporting
•
Management information
residing in
multiple disparate
systems
and prohibiting linking performance and risk indicators
PwC
Case: Using Strategy maps to
explicitly integrate Performance &
Risk Management
18
May, 2012
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage
A Strategy Map “tells the story” of your strategy,
showing cause and effect relationships between
value drivers and strategic objectives
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
May, 2012
Financial
To succeed financially, how should we appear
to our shareholders?
What is critical for our shareholders?
Customer
To achieve our vision, how should we appear to
our customer? How do customers perceive us?
What is critical to the customer?
Internal Processes
To satisfy our shareholders and customers,
what business processes must we excel at?
What is critical in our business processes?
Future
Past
Current
External
Internal
Strategic objective
Strategic objective
Strategic objective
Value driver
Value driver
Value driver
Value driver
Value driver
Measurable factors that impact
strategy execution and create value
Strategy Map
-Learning & Growth
To achieve our vision, how will we sustain our
ability to change and improve?
PwC
Using Strategy Maps to create focus on value
drivers and key risks
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
20
May, 2012
Risks mapped to the strategy map
Fina
nce
Custo
me
r
Inn
o
v
a
tion
& Le
a
rning
P
roc
e
s
s
Operational Leadership:
We enable the shortest aircraft turnaround times
Cost Leadership:
Our cost base = < 95% of our closest competitor
EBIT growth of 10%
Minimization of unit costs
costs / seat
costs / passenger
Training
% of staff that has finalized
the yearly curriculum
Working with our clients
on process optimization
number of client’s flight delayed
due to our ground handling
Deep understanding of
own and client’s processes
•
% of clients attending one or more of the
ground handling innovation discussion sessions
Staff involvement in
innovation
number of staff ideas
on possible innovation
Minimizing turn
around time
average turn around
time
Replacing costly process steps
with less costly alternatives
number of process steps remaining to
be replaced by a cheaper alternative
Employing the best
% of targeted competitors top
performers that we signed up
Satisfying our client’s needs
customer satisfaction
number of complaints
time to handle complaints satisfactory
Efficient asset
deployment
asset utilization
Minimization of working
capital
working capital / aircraft seat
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
2
13
8
9
5
1
6
6
7
7
12
12
12
No risks related to value drivers:
is the risk identification
complete ?/ Is this really a value
driver?
Objectives
Value
Drivers
Key Risks
Risk tolerances
•
> 10 %
•
≥ 8.% < 10%
•
< 8%
Indicators
for each
Value
Driver
and Risk
Strategy maps are used to align performance and
risks management across the organization
Integrated Performance & Risk Management - How Leading Enterprises Manage Performance and Risk
21
May, 2012
2. Horizontal alignment:
cooperate
around the
strategy, objectives, value
drivers and key risks to
ensure optimal cross
organisational synergies
are effectuated
1. Vertical alignment:
cascade
the strategy,
objectives, value drivers
and key risks to all levels
of the organisation
Fina
nce
Custo
me
r
Inn
o
v
a
tion
& Le
a
rning
P
roc
e
s
s
Operational Leadership:
We enable the shortest aircraft turnaround times
Our cost base = < 95% of our closest competitor
Cost Leadership:
EBIT growth of 10%
Minimization of unit costs
costs / seat
costs / passenger
Training
% of staff that has finalized
the yearly curriculum
Working with our clients
on process optimization
number of client’s flight delayed
due to our ground handling
Deep understanding of
own and client’s processes
•
% of clients attending one or more of the
ground handling innovation discussion sessions
Staff involvement in
innovation
number of staff ideas
on possible innovation
Minimizing turn
around time
average turn around
time
Replacing costly process steps
with less costly alternatives
number of process steps remaining to
be replaced by a cheaper alternative
Employing the best
% of targeted competitors top
performers that we signed up
Satisfying our client’s needs
customer satisfaction
number of complaints
time to handle complaints satisfactory
Efficient asset
deployment
asset utilization
Minimization of working
capital
working capital / aircraft seat
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
2
13
8
9
5
1
6
6
7
7
12
12
12
Fina
nce
Custo
me
r
Inn
o
v
a
tion
& Le
a
rning
P
roc
e
s
s
Operational Leadership:
We enable the shortest aircraft turnaround times
Our cost base = < 95% of our closest competitor
Cost Leadership:
EBIT growth of 10%
Minimization of unit costs
costs / seat
costs / passenger
Training
% of staff that has finalized
the yearly curriculum
Working with our clients
on process optimization
number of client’s flight delayed
due to our ground handling
Deep understanding of
own and client’s processes
•
% of clients attending one or more of the
ground handling innovation discussion sessions
Staff involvement in
innovation
number of staff ideas
on possible innovation
Minimizing turn
around time
average turn around
time
Replacing costly process steps
with less costly alternatives
number of process steps remaining to
be replaced by a cheaper alternative
Employing the best
% of targeted competitors top
performers that we signed up
Satisfying our client’s needs
customer satisfaction
number of complaints
time to handle complaints satisfactory
Efficient asset
deployment
asset utilization
Minimization of working
capital
working capital / aircraft seat
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
2
13
8
9
5
1
6
6
7
7
12
12
12
Fina
nce
Custo
me
r
Inn
o
v
a
tion
& Le
a
rning
P
roc
e
s
s
Operational Leadership:
We enable the shortest aircraft turnaround times
Our cost base = < 95% of our closest competitor
Cost Leadership:
EBIT growth of 10%
Minimization of unit costs
costs / seat
costs / passenger
Training
% of staff that has finalized
the yearly curriculum
Working with our clients
on process optimization
number of client’s flight delayed
due to our ground handling
Deep understanding of
own and client’s processes
•
% of clients attending one or more of the
ground handling innovation discussion sessions
Staff involvement in
innovation
number of staff ideas
on possible innovation
Minimizing turn
around time
average turn around
time
Replacing costly process steps
with less costly alternatives
number of process steps remaining to
be replaced by a cheaper alternative
Employing the best
% of targeted competitors top
performers that we signed up
Satisfying our client’s needs
customer satisfaction
number of complaints
time to handle complaints satisfactory
Efficient asset
deployment
asset utilization
Minimization of working
capital
working capital / aircraft seat
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
2
13
8
9
5
1
6
6
7
7
12
12
12
actualtargetdifferenceactualtargetdifference Turnaround18.50319.000-49774.68376.000-1.317 Next gen.2.5492.00054910.0088.0002.008 UK 21.05221.000 5284.69184.000691 Turnaround17.94718.500-55371.98374.000-2.017 Next gen.1.1971.0001974.5984.000598 France19.14419.500-35676.58178.000-1.419 Turnaround18.61918.50011974.51974.000519 Next gen. 00 0 00 0 Germany18.61918.50011974.51974.000519 Turnaround12.04612.500-45448.75750.000-1.243 Next gen.1.2531.0002534.8924.000892 Netherlands13.29913.500-20153.64954.000-351 Turnaround9.6389.600 3838.49038.100390 Next gen. 0100-100 0100-100 OtherTotal9.63881.7529.70082.200-62-448327.93038.490328.20038.200290-270
OwnerVP Start dateEnd dateCompl. % Marketing
Nov. '09Jan. '10100% SVP BU 'Next Gen.'Jan.'10Jul.'1080% Action
Marketing campaign 'Seamless
service '
Launch 'Next generation turnaround '
KPI Owner Period Turnover COO April 2010 x € 1.000 April Year-to-date Observation
Turnover is still deminishing, showing a negative trend for the last 5 months now, against a budget that is actually going up month over month.
Explanation
The rising budget was based on great expectations of the introduction of 'Next generation turnaround'. However turnover of this new product is even beating that rising budget! The negative trend is entirely caused by deminishing turnover of the 'old' product 'Turnaround', and only in those countries where we already launched 'Next. gen.'. There we are loosing customers that are not switching to 'Next gen.' because our service levels on the old product are deteriorating due to the focus on perfect delivery of 'Next Gen'.
Conclusion
Although turnover of 'Next gen.' is beating the budget, we are actually loosing customers as delivery of 'Next gen.' is at the expense of our service level for the other customers (still the majority!).
Proposed action(s)
(1) See if we can do with a little less focus on delivery of 'Next gen.' freeing capacity to ensure our service levels for the other customers as well (pilot in Netherlands, rapid roll-out afterwards). (2) If this is insufficient then temporarily hire additional staff until the majority of our clients have switched to 'Next. gen.'.
Development turnover 79.000 80.000 81.000 82.000 83.000 84.000 85.000
MayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarApr
x € 1.00 0 actual target 2010 target 2009 Observation Explanation Conclusion Proposed action(s) -448-62 -100 -201 -454 -356 -553 -497 -270 -290 -100 -351 -1.243 -1.419 -2.017 -1.317 Financial Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetYTD vs. Last yearKey Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend
M++EBIT +
M−oCosts / aircraft seat o
Mo+Costs / passenger o
Mo+Working capital / aircraft seato
Process Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetLast yearYTD vs. Key Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend M+oAverage turn around timeo
M++Nbr. client’s flight delayed+
M−oAsset utilization o
M−o
Number of process steps remaining to be replaced by a cheaper alternative o
Customer Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetLast yearYTD vs. Key Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend Q++Customer satisfaction +
M−oNumber of complaints o
M+++Time to handle complaints+
Innovation & Learning Perspective
Freq.Month vs. Target YTD vs. Target YTD vs. Last yearKey Performance IndicatorForecast
vs. Target Forecast trend Mo+Number of staff ideas −n.a.
M−o% staff finalized training o
Qoo% clients attending innovation discussions o
M+o% targeted competitors top performers signed up +
Legend
++Over 5% better than target +1-5% better than target oOn target (i.e. within 1% of target) −1-5% worse than target − −Over 5% worse than target
Improving trend (improvement of =>1%)
Stable trend (less than 1% deviation)
Worsening trend (worsening of =>1%) n.a.Not available or not applicable
actualtargetdifferenceactualtargetdifference Turnaround18.50319.000-49774.68376.000-1.317 Next gen.2.5492.00054910.0088.0002.008 UK 21.05221.000 5284.69184.000691 Turnaround17.94718.500-55371.98374.000-2.017 Next gen.1.1971.0001974.5984.000598 France19.14419.500-35676.58178.000-1.419 Turnaround18.61918.50011974.51974.000519 Next gen. 00 0 00 0 Germany18.61918.50011974.51974.000519 Turnaround12.04612.500-45448.75750.000-1.243 Next gen.1.2531.0002534.8924.000892 Netherlands13.29913.500-20153.64954.000-351 Turnaround9.6389.600 3838.49038.100390 Next gen. 0100-100 0100-100 OtherTotal9.63881.7529.70082.200-62-448327.93038.490328.20038.200290-270
OwnerVP Start dateEnd dateCompl. % Marketing
Nov. '09Jan. '10100% SVP BU 'Next Gen.'Jan.'10Jul.'1080% Action
Marketing campaign 'Seamless
service '
Launch 'Next generation turnaround '
KPI Owner Period Turnover COO April 2010 x € 1.000 April Year-to-date Observation
Turnover is still deminishing, showing a negative trend for the last 5 months now, against a budget that is actually going up month over month.
Explanation
The rising budget was based on great expectations of the introduction of 'Next generation turnaround'. However turnover of this new product is even beating that rising budget! The negative trend is entirely caused by deminishing turnover of the 'old' product 'Turnaround', and only in those countries where we already launched 'Next. gen.'. There we are loosing customers that are not switching to 'Next gen.' because our service levels on the old product are deteriorating due to the focus on perfect delivery of 'Next Gen'.
Conclusion
Although turnover of 'Next gen.' is beating the budget, we are actually loosing customers as delivery of 'Next gen.' is at the expense of our service level for the other customers (still the majority!).
Proposed action(s)
(1) See if we can do with a little less focus on delivery of 'Next gen.' freeing capacity to ensure our service levels for the other customers as well (pilot in Netherlands, rapid roll-out afterwards). (2) If this is insufficient then temporarily hire additional staff until the majority of our clients have switched to 'Next. gen.'.
Development turnover 79.000 80.000 81.000 82.000 83.000 84.000 85.000
MayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarApr
x € 1.00 0 actual target 2010 target 2009 Observation Explanation Conclusion Proposed action(s) -448-62 -100 -201 -454 -356 -553 -497 -270 -290 -100 -351 -1.243 -1.419 -2.017 -1.317 Financial Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetYTD vs. Last yearKey Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend
M++EBIT +
M−oCosts / aircraft seat o
Mo+Costs / passenger o
Mo+Working capital / aircraft seato
Process Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetLast yearYTD vs. Key Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend M+oAverage turn around timeo
M++Nbr. client’s flight delayed+
M−oAsset utilization o
M−o
Number of process steps remaining to be replaced by a cheaper alternative o
Customer Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetLast yearYTD vs. Key Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend Q++Customer satisfaction +
M−oNumber of complaints o
M+++Time to handle complaints+
Innovation & Learning Perspective
Freq.Month vs. Target YTD vs. Target YTD vs. Last yearKey Performance IndicatorForecast
vs. Target Forecast trend Mo+Number of staff ideas −n.a.
M−o% staff finalized training o
Qoo% clients attending innovation discussions o
M+o% targeted competitors top performers signed up +
Legend
++Over 5% better than target +1-5% better than target oOn target (i.e. within 1% of target) −1-5% worse than target − −Over 5% worse than target
Improving trend (improvement of =>1%)
Stable trend (less than 1% deviation)
Worsening trend (worsening of =>1%) n.a.Not available or not applicable
actualtargetdifferenceactualtargetdifference Turnaround18.50319.000-49774.68376.000-1.317 Next gen.2.5492.00054910.0088.0002.008 UK 21.05221.000 5284.69184.000691 Turnaround17.94718.500-55371.98374.000-2.017 Next gen.1.1971.0001974.5984.000598 France19.14419.500-35676.58178.000-1.419 Turnaround18.61918.50011974.51974.000519 Next gen. 00 0 00 0 Germany18.61918.50011974.51974.000519 Turnaround12.04612.500-45448.75750.000-1.243 Next gen.1.2531.0002534.8924.000892 Netherlands13.29913.500-20153.64954.000-351 Turnaround9.6389.600 3838.49038.100390 Next gen. 0100-100 0100-100 OtherTotal9.63881.7529.70082.200-62-448327.93038.490328.20038.200290-270
OwnerVP Start dateEnd dateCompl. % Marketing
Nov. '09Jan. '10100% SVP BU 'Next Gen.'Jan.'10Jul.'1080% Action
Marketing campaign 'Seamless
service '
Launch 'Next generation turnaround '
KPI Owner Period Turnover COO April 2010 x € 1.000 April Year-to-date Observation
Turnover is still deminishing, showing a negative trend for the last 5 months now, against a budget that is actually going up month over month.
Explanation
The rising budget was based on great expectations of the introduction of 'Next generation turnaround'. However turnover of this new product is even beating that rising budget! The negative trend is entirely caused by deminishing turnover of the 'old' product 'Turnaround', and only in those countries where we already launched 'Next. gen.'. There we are loosing customers that are not switching to 'Next gen.' because our service levels on the old product are deteriorating due to the focus on perfect delivery of 'Next Gen'.
Conclusion
Although turnover of 'Next gen.' is beating the budget, we are actually loosing customers as delivery of 'Next gen.' is at the expense of our service level for the other customers (still the majority!).
Proposed action(s)
(1) See if we can do with a little less focus on delivery of 'Next gen.' freeing capacity to ensure our service levels for the other customers as well (pilot in Netherlands, rapid roll-out afterwards). (2) If this is insufficient then temporarily hire additional staff until the majority of our clients have switched to 'Next. gen.'.
Development turnover 79.000 80.000 81.000 82.000 83.000 84.000 85.000
MayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarApr
x € 1.00 0 actual target 2010 target 2009 Observation Explanation Conclusion Proposed action(s) -448-62 -100 -201 -454 -356 -553 -497 -270 -290 -100 -351 -1.243 -1.419 -2.017 -1.317 Financial Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetYTD vs. Last yearKey Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend
M++EBIT +
M−oCosts / aircraft seat o
Mo+Costs / passenger o
Mo+Working capital / aircraft seato
Process Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetLast yearYTD vs. Key Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend M+oAverage turn around timeo
M++Nbr. client’s flight delayed+
M−oAsset utilization o
M−o
Number of process steps remaining to be replaced by a cheaper alternative o
Customer Perspective
Freq.Month vs. TargetYTD vs. TargetLast yearYTD vs. Key Performance IndicatorForecast vs. TargetForecast trend Q++Customer satisfaction +
M−oNumber of complaints o
M+++Time to handle complaints+
Innovation & Learning Perspective
Freq.Month vs. Target YTD vs. Target YTD vs. Last yearKey Performance IndicatorForecast
vs. Target Forecast trend Mo+Number of staff ideas −n.a.
M−o% staff finalized training o
Qoo% clients attending innovation discussions o
M+o% targeted competitors top performers signed up +
Legend
++Over 5% better than target +1-5% better than target oOn target (i.e. within 1% of target) −1-5% worse than target − −Over 5% worse than target
Improving trend (improvement of =>1%)
Stable trend (less than 1% deviation)
Worsening trend (worsening of =>1%) n.a.Not available or not applicable