Tripartite Tokyo September 2007 Procedural 4.3 Common Performance Indicators Tor E. Svensen Det Norske Veritas IACS Council Chairman

Purpose and methodology To set and report IACS quality and technical performance benchmarks and targets To publish results Methodology Annual results are reviewed CPI’s effective from 2008 CPI’s organised under: Port State Control IACS Audit Performance Internal Fleet Quality Tracking, and Resources

Port State Control CPI 1 Members included in Paris and USCG high performance lists Members ranked in two out of three years to be included CPI 2 IACS and Member’s Paris, Tokyo MoU, and USCG class related detentions as a percentage of inspections and vessel arrivals CPI 3 IACS and Member’s Paris, and Tokyo MoU, total detentions as a percentage of inspections Figures include non-class related detentions

IACS Audit Performance and Internal Fleet Quality Tracking CPI 4 Continuous improvement in relation to significant audit trends Performance targets applied to predefined categories Selected ”Audit focus issues” to be included Internal Fleet Quality Tracking CPI 5 Members are to have an effective method of targeting potentially sub-standard ships to a performance benchmark Replacement CPI to be developed for 2008

Resources Developed to demonstrate IACS commitment to maintaining the industry’s safety, quality and technical performance standards IACS will start collecting information on resources internally, but the use of the quantitative information as CPIs needs to be further developed/considered before they can be published externally.

Resources CPI 6 Number of Surveyors CPI 7 Research, Rule and Procedure Spend CPI 8 IACS Common Spend CPI 9 Member’s Training Spend

Thank you For your attention