20130430%2BSUMO%2BWCM15%2Bfinal (1)

7/28/2019 20130430%2BSUMO%2BWCM15%2Bfinal (1)

1/28

SUMO ProjectSupply Chain Management

andInventory Optimisation

Working Committee #15 (6/2013)

30 April 2013


2/28

SUMO Working Committee Meeting #15 (6/2013)

Agenda for Today

Topic Lead TimeDecisions and

Input Required

Matter Arising

- BTU Policy Study (Update 2)

- To study and manage CPEO (way forward)

- STB Issues

- HR Matters

Fazlee

Hilmi & T&I

Noraini

Chan Seet Mui

~ 30 mins Discussion

Blueprint Progress Hilmi ~ 90 mins Discussion

HSBB Sustainability

- Results of Variance

- Unmatched Records

- Error Analysis Progress

- First Quarter Stock Count Result

Rosli ~ 20 mins Discussion

Non Fault Found (NFF)

ISDN NT Recovery Program

Ahmad Rozian /

Safian


SUMO


3/28

BTU Policy Study: Update 2

Telekom Malaysia Berhad (TM)

Technology & Innovation, IT&NT

30 April 2013

CONFIDENTIAL


4/28

Content

Background

Multiple and Shared BTU at the same address

Potential savings

Recommendations

BTU Mounted to the wall POC test scenarios

POC Findings

Cost comparison to mount BTU

Major challenges & recommendations

4


5/28

5

Background : Concerns on BTU policy

BTU Mounted to

the wall study

Info/Action

ST has completed the POC for mounted BTU To share findings and challenges Recommendation on moving forward plan

Current policy for Unifi will require new BTU to beinstalled for subsequent Unifi service at the same

service address.

To review the above policy and to propose newpolicy to address multiple/shared BTU environment.

Status

Completed

To be presented

1

2

Multiple/shared BTU

policy review

To be presented


6/28

To date(as of end March 2013), there are 12,815 addresses that have more than 1

BTU (which represents 2.5% of 530k total addresses with Unifi/HSBA services).

Source: NOVA (GIT)

0.27%

0.27%0.84%

2.72%

10.18%

85.73%

7-18

6

5

4

3

2

0.05%3.36%

96.59%

2

4

3

No of accounts at

same address - same BTU

No of BTU at same

address

And there are 2,201 addresses that have multiple accounts(Unifi/HSBA) being installed on

the same BTU(which represents 0.41% of 530k total addresses with Unifi/HSBA services)

1

No of BTU FTTH VDSLTotal

addresses

Total

accounts

1 340281 170283 510564 510564

2 7359 3629 10988 21976

3 920 385 1305 3915

4 270 78 348 1392

5 90 18 108 540

6 18 16 34 204

7 to 18 23 9 32 274

348,961 174,418 523,379 538,865

No ofaccounts/

BTU

FTTH VDSLTotal

addresses

Total

accounts

1 357,106 177,376 534,482 534,482

2 1,204 922 2,126 4,252

3 38 36 74 222

4 1 0 1 4

Total 358,349 178,334 536,683 538,960

12,815 addresses

with multiple BTU

2,201 addresses

with multiple

services


7/28

7

Multiple BTU policy

New BTU will be installed for 2nd Unifiservice at the same address

Pro Single ownership per BTU Easier BTU access during restoration.

Cons Additional BTU cost Waste on port Infrastructure (GPON) cost Fiber termination cost

Shared BTU policy

BTU will be shared for subsequent HSBAservice at the same address

Pro Cost saving to TM In line with HSBA agreement

Cons BTU has to be placed at common

area for multiple services.

Some business customer demandnot to share BTU for security reasons

To change current Unifi

process

- to share BTU for the

subsequent Unifi service

at the same address.

1Potentially TM will to save over RM3.3mil(over 5 years) if we change our current Unifi

rule to sharing BTU policy (as per HSBA implementation)

1.06

1.44

2013

-0.48

2018

-0.62

1.75

1.11

2017

-0.59

1.17

2016

-0.56

1.841.59

2015

-0.53

1.011.23

1.67

2014

-0.51

0.96

1.52

Cost Saving (RM mil)

Cost (RM mil) shared BTU

(2 Cust/BTU)

Cost (RM mil) multiple BTU

(2 Cust/2 BTU)

Notes:

Saving is based on

material and BTU cost

Forecast was based on2.5% of customer

forecast from 2013-2018

with multiple BTU.


8/28

8

1 Recommendations

Process change for

Multiple Unifi

services at thesame address

New process: To share same BTU for

subsequent Unifi service at the same address.

Estimated CR cost by GIT 300 man-days

TM to recover system cost within 2 years

To establish new WI

to address multiple

BTU request by

business customer

WI has to be developed to address multiple

BTU request by business customers that

shares the same premise address.

2nd service order has to be returned in system

for new address creation. 2nd BTU will be commissioned onto the newly

created address

To introduce BTU charge for subsequent BTU

installation.

TMW to address new charges and estimated

CR cost

Improvement on

current guidelines

on common area

definition for BTU

installation

For multiple Unifi/HSBA services installation on

the same address, guidelines has to be

improved to address BTU installation to be at a

common area.

The guidelines has to deliberate more on the

definition of common area and customer has

to be well informed during installation of service.

Who When

TNI PD

Q2 2013

TOP TBD

TMW TBD

TNI PD

Q4 2013


9/28

BTU Mounted to the wall: POC test scenarios

9

Mounted using

bracketMounted In Box

2


10/28

10

Findings

Pro & Cons

Mounted Using Bracket Mounted in Box

POC findings2

BTU installed closer to a power wall

socket (1 meter).

Cable trunking is required.

Drilling is required to mount brackets tohold the BTU.

All BTU LED not visible - BTU has to bemounted vertically.

The presence of cable trunking from BTU

to RG may be seen as an eyesore bycustomers.

The mounted box not necessarily near to

a power source. Cable trunking is required.

Drilling is required for wall mounting.Wall plugs and screws used are

dependent to box type (plastic or metal).

BTU LED not visible due to theconcealed BTU- may introduce

troubleshooting issue. The presence of cable trunking from BTU

to RG may be seen as an eyesore bycustomers.

Pro

Lower cost to install

Cons

Need to be near to power socket . Aesthetically, mounted in a box is more

presentable.

Cabling: Trunking to RG and subsequentsubs is also a challenge.

Pro

Aesthetically neat and well presented. Address most cabling issue except cable

trunking to RG or subsequent subs.

Cons

Higher cost


11/2811

Cost estimates based on Group

Strategy/TOP Study(2012)

Reviewed cost B

based on POC by ST

Cost Items Current SetupMounted

(Bracket)

Mounted

(Bracket)

Mounted (In

Box)

BTU Mounted Box/Bracket 0 17.00 70.00 190.00

BTU Cost 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00

Cable Trunking 7.44 14.88 14.88 14.88

Cabling Cost 287.73 179.95 179.95 179.95

FTB/FWS 33.61 20.40 20.40 20.40

Other Materials 4.40 5.12 5.52 5.52

Installation cost 186.33 186.33 223.60 242.23

Total Cost 869.51 773.68 864.35 1,012.98

Total Savings 0 95.83 5.16 -133.47

Cost comparison to mount BTU2

Notes:

From the comparison, the two significant cost factors are the mounted box/bracket costand installation cost.

Current average installation cost = RM186.33.

An additional of 20% installation cost is applied mount BTU using bracket and an additional 30% to mount BTU

in a box.

!

!


12/28

Major challenges and recommendation

12

Use Existing power wall socket Power tapping from the existing power supply

Power

Require 1 permanent wall power

socket to be sacrificed for the BTU.

Customer can easily turn off the BTU.

Require an electrical chargeman to wire the

existing power socket and lay the power cables

to the BTU. High installation cost with specific

technical skills.

Cabling Cabling from the BTU to RG remains the biggest concern

in terms of customers acceptance of the presence of

cable trunking throughout their premise.

In case of second Unifi and/or HSBA service, the cable

trunking would need to be re-opened to lay the new RJ-

45 from the BTU to the RG.

Based on the above challenges, it is recommended that mounted to the wall(inbox) setup is to be

implemented in smart partnership greenfield area only.

ST to provide guidelines on inbox mounted BTU for Smart Partnership program by Q3 2013.

Recommendation

Cable trunking

2Cost savings

Based on both POC scenarios, there is insignificant or no cost saving to TM.

Additional cost is mainly contributed by material (brackets or mount box) and

additional installation cost.

Both power supply options have different challenges:


13/28

53,51

2

56,27

3

58,12

5

59,87

1

68,220

64,650

66,826

139,845

137,056

140,114

146,387

144,016

159,813

163,073

1

09,595

116,594

11

6,418

122,328

137,334

140,2

44

161,86

6

19,635 21,651 23,81621,953

21,87920,729

19,619

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Jul'12 Aug'12 Sep'12 Oct'12 Nov'12 Dec'12 Jan'13

Not Installed

In Active

Active Free

Active Paid

Unifi Active Paid, STB Not Installed, HyppTV In-Active and Active Free

Jul'12-Jan'13

Background

UNIFI biz rules: Orders shall be post complete if all 3 services successfully tested

Contractually, installer gets payment if all orders post completed.

Cases of customer has no TV or refused IPTV, contractor still tick DONE in Seibel even-

though IPTV is not installed.

Hence, data discrepancy between Huawei IPTV platform and Seibel.

Action Taken Deployment of RCA to USB Cable kitmid Oct 2011.

CR for a toll-gate functionality for the STB installation. CR deployed in Dec 2011.

Next Step Issue is discussed in Consumer Lab.

As of 28 Feb 2013, plan to conduct IVB but cost is an issue, i.e IVB and STB.

19K ++ STB not installedArising Matter


14/28

HR Matters

SUMO

Information

Gathering

Staff Sourcing

and AllocationSustainability

Staff Requirement

Study

To gather informationas follow:

i. Number of stores

ii. Number of

dedicated store

keepers

iii. Number of non-

dedicated

storekeepers

01 April 2013

We Are Here22 April 2013

Calculate

recommended

manpower based on

formula: 1.5

storekeeper X Number

of stores

Tabulate number of

additional staffs

required to commit asdedicated storekeeper

Feedbacks

Sustainability tracking

Staff sourcing from:

i. Pool GHCM

ii. Promotion List

iii. Leasing

iv. SL1M

v. Practical

vi. ZFT Pool Concept

vii. Absorb Non

Dedicated

Storekeeper asdedicated

Staff allocation

25 March 2013 13 May 2013


15/28

HR MattersA total of additional 27 personnel required

to commit as dedicated store keeper

SUMO

Region ZoneNumber of

Stores

Ideal Number of

Dedicated Storekeeper

(Number of Store x 1.5)

Total Number of

Store Keeper

Dedicated

Store Keeper

Non Dedicated

Store Keeper

Required

Dedicated

Store Keeper

Central

KL 29

4 4 0 0

MSC 4 5 5 0 0

Selangor 13 20 17 17 0 3

Northern 4 6 5 2 3 4

Southern 7 11 7 0 7 11

Eastern 2 3 2 1 1 2

Sarawak

Stampin (Kuching) 1 2 1 1 0 1

Sibu 1 2 1 1 0 1

Bintulu 1 2 1 0 1 2

Miri 1 2 1 0 1 2

Sabah 1 2 1 1 0 1

Total 37 59 45 32 13 27


16/28


Agenda for Today


Input Required

Matter Arising



- STB Issues

- HR Matters

Fazlee

Hilmi & T&I

Noraini

Chan Seet Mui



HSBB Sustainability


- Unmatched Records






Ahmad Rozian /

Safian


SUMO


17/28


Agenda for Today


Input Required

Matter Arising



- STB Issues

- HR Matters

Fazlee

Hilmi & T&I

Noraini

Chan Seet Mui



HSBB Sustainability


- Unmatched Records






Ahmad Rozian /

Safian


SUMO


18/28

more than 5%

between 2% to 5%0% to less than 2%

Did not submit report

Result Analysis

VarianceReported on

WCM#14

As of 22nd Apr

2013.

Less than 2% 69% 78%

Less than 5%* 75% 86%

More than 5% 22% 11%

Did not

submit report3% 3%

Tighten physical Control : Stores achieved variance less than 2% and 5% slightly

increase compared to previous report

Physical vs SIMS

PTT No. Main Store 25.3.2013 01.04.2013 08.04.2013 15.04.2013 22.04.2013

PJ 1 Subang Jaya 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

PJ 2 TTDI -58.31% -70.26% -52.59% -56.98%

PJ 3 Sungai Way 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

PJ 4 Kuala Pauh 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%S'gor Timur 5 Keramat -5.07% -4.54% -4.99% -3.81% -4.93%

S'gor Timur 6 Gombak 3.90% 9.59% -11.59% -0.46% -0.40%

S'gor Timur 7 Batu -0.25% -0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

S'gor Timur 8 Cheras -2.46% -3.90% -3.74% -2.42% -3.36%

S'gor Timur 9 Kepong -40.70% -41.34% -34.96% -28.08% -18.45%

S'gor Barat 10 Sg Renggam 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

S'gor Barat 11 Bukit Raja -49.47% -49.47% -17.57% -16.65% -11.28%

S'gor Barat 12 Klang 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

KL 13 Duta 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

KL 14 San Peng -14.70% -12.06% -12.62% -10.16% -3.65%

MSC 15 Putrajaya -2.29% -2.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%MSC 16 Puchong 0.00% -2.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MSC 17 USJ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MSC 18 Kinrara 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Southern 19 Senai 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 1.52%

Southern 20 Skudai 98.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Southern 21 Tampoi 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Southern 22 Pelangi 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Southern 23 Pandan 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Southern 24 Malim -0.96% -0.88% -2.15% -2.13% -0.23%

Southern 25 Labu (SNW) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Northern 26 Bkt. Mertajam -1.93% -2.81% -2.26% -1.86% -1.30%Northern 27 Jelutong 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Northern 28 Sungai Petani 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -0.11% 0.00%

Northern 29 Tasek -5.32% -3.34% -4.64% -5.76% -5.47%

Sabah 30 Kota Kinabalu 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Sarawak 31 Kuching 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Sarawak 32 Sibu 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Sarawak 33 Miri 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Sarawak 34 Bintulu 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Eastern 35 Teruntum 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Eastern 36 Chukai 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

S t i bilit t ki ( kl i ) Th h i l i i d i


19/28

Sustainability tracking (weekly variance) - The physical variance is reducing

and very small in quantity showing the day to day operation has stabilized. We

decided to extend the show cause letter issuance to June to allow variance

clearance.

19

TDI variance is still high due to CPE coordinator is on medical leave for 2 months. New CPE

coordinator from SWY is assigned to cover and manage the daily operations of TDI store and time to

stabilize the operation

For SPE store, variance is due to past variances (before Sept 2012) and they are in the midst of

clearing the past variances.

For BRA and KE the operation has just stabilized beginning April and will be discussed in the next slide.Reduced Increased n/aLegend:

11-Mar-13 18-Mar-13 25-Mar-13 01-Apr-13 08-Apr-13 15-Apr-13 22-Apr-13

StoresVariance

(Qty)

Variance

(%)WoW

Variance

(Qty)

Variance

(%)WoW

Variance

(Qty)

Variance

(%)WoW

Variance

(Qty)

Variance

(%)WoW

Variance

(Qty)

Variance

(%)WoW

Variance

(Qty)

Variance

(%)WoW

Variance

(Qty)

Variance

(%)WoW

KRT 32 8% -4 32 6% 0 46 5% 14 39 5% -7 43 5% 4 45 4% 2 43 5% 0

CRS 24 4% -3 24 3% 0 24 2% 0 24 4% 0 13 -4% -11 13 2% 0 13 3% 0

MAM 1 1% 0 1 1% 0 1 1% 0 1 1% 0 2 1% 0 1 1% 0 1 1% 0

BM 42 3% -15 41 2% -1 34 2% -7 34 3% 0 31 2% -3 30 2% -1 26 1% -4

TSK 152 19% 4 107 8% -45 63 5% -44 30 3% -33 46 5% 16 42 6% -4 41 5% -1

TTDI n/a n/a n/a 247 15% n/a n/a n/a n/a 607 58% n/a 716 70% 109 721 53% 5 935 57% 214

KE 492 42% 56 486 48% -6 479 41% -7 480 41% 1 480 35% 0 301 28% -179 200 18% -101

BRA 357 40% -92 558 48% 201 602 97% 44 611 49% 9 165 18% -446 140 17% -25 90 11% -50

SPE 125 25% -5 116 18% -9 107 15% -9 83 12% -24 78 13% -5 69 10% -9 76 4% 7


20/28

0% Unmatched Analysis Hudson vs. Interface for the month of April 2013

9,929

21,865

31,970

9,929

21,865

31,970

0

0

0

Week 3

0

Week 4Week 2Week 1

Hudson

Interface

Week 1: 1-7 March

Week 2: 8-14 March

Week 3: 15-21 March

Week 4L 22-28 March

Enhancement for Swap orders:

Deployed on 15 April 2013, to ensure validation of CTT with certain resolution code,

allowed to be closed if Swap Order completed.

Up to 17 Apr only


21/28

Q1 2013 live-to-date reconciliation result (RM mil)

20.7RNO Store BalanceSAP Closing

Balance

Manual

reconciliation

GEMS / NOVA/

ML ReturnItems

5.0Live-to-Date (LTD ) Q4 2012

Unaccounted

12.5Balance after adjustment

7.5Physical Stock Count

(1.4)1. Interface Error

(4.0)*2. Replacement Not

Recorded

(2.6)3. Records pending

processing

(0.2)4. Unmatched Data

(Data recovery)

(8.2)Total Adjustment

Qtr 12013

24.3

1.3

10.5

9.2

(10.6)

(2.9)*

-

(0.3)

(13.8)

Qtr 4 2012

0.2Total Provision 4.8

Note:

* Return Items @ML minus (SWAP Order -as at 31/12/2012 + 2011 adjustment + returned by TM Point + items re-issued back to RNO)

Snapshot of Q1 2013 manual reconciliation & adjustment

3.7 mil

Variance increment analysis

A

Q4 2012 Interface Error

B Lower Physical stock count

Only RM 8.9 mil was successfully

charged due to:

Duplicate orders in the file

Records/ orders already

charged before

Prior to Q1 stock count, there was

one stock count done on 15th Mar

with given the value ofRM10.4 mil.

To ascertain the Q1 2013 stock

count value, another stock count

was done on 26th Apr that showed

the balance ofRMxx mil

Monthly stock count is plan to

gauge the actual RNO physical

balance at store & in-hand team

A

B

C Other factors

Inaccurate SAP balance extraction

To identify possible data not

captured/ interfaced


22/28

Analysis of Q4 2012 interface errorafter completing error correction in Q1 2013

CPE

BTU

Total Records:

42,821

6.0

10.6

TotalBTU

4.6

CPE

Expected posted value

Total Interface Error in Q4 2012 (RM mil)

5.6Successful

Charged

Expected

Amount

(RM mil)

4.8

Posted

Amount

(RM mil)

0.4Un-

Successful

Charges

-

Charged with lowervalue due to duplicate

records in the error file(0.8)

Variance

(RM mil)

(0.4) To be investigated

potentially due to

previous orders

were re-interfaced

6.0

Total

4.8 (1.2)

4.1

Expected

Amount

(RM mil)

4.1

Posted

Amount

(RM mil)

0.5 -

-

Variance

(RM mil)

(0.5)

4.6Total

4.1 (0.5)

4.1

8.9

BTUCPE

4.8

Total

Actual posted value Successful

Charged

Un-

Successful

Charges

To be investigated

potentially due to

previous orders

were re-interfaced


23/28


Agenda for Today


Input Required

Matter Arising



- STB Issues

- HR Matters

Fazlee

Hilmi & T&I

Noraini

Chan Seet Mui



HSBB Sustainability


- Unmatched Records






Ahmad Rozian /

Safian


SUMO


24/28

Notes:

No Fault Found ( NFF ) BTU / CPE Status YTD March 2013

Started utilizing in SBJ since mid July 2012. Now already rolled

out in all exchanges in Klang Valley (18 stores).

0

1000

2000

3000

Qty

BTU/CPE Type

Deployed NFF BTU/CPE (5948 units)

FH ONU RG Dlink STB HW

ZTE VDSL ALU ONU HW ONU

DP TP1 DP TP2 DP Pan

0

500

1000

1500

Qty

BTU/CPE Type

NFF BTU/CPE Utilized (2693 units)

FH ONU RG Dlink HW STB ZTE VDSL2 ALU ONU

HW ONU DP TP1 DP TP 2 DP Pan

Out of a total of 23.9K CPE return from suppliers, 18.9K passed the test,3,879 found faulty and 1,019 rejected due to physical appearance.

5948 units have been deployed to RNO stores since mid July. 2,693 units utilized.

% NFF Utilization is 14.2%

Fault rate is 0.87% vs 1.13% ( in Feb 13)

136 units return NFF sets until today but only 52 units verified faulty0

10

20

30

40

Qty

BTU/CPE Type

Faulty NFF BTU/CPE (52 units)

FH ONU RG STB ZTE VDSL2

0

5000

10000

1

Qty

BTU/CPE Type

NFF BTU/CPE Tested (23,819 units)

FH ONU ZTE VDSL2 RG DLINK

STB ALU ONU DECT


25/28

BTU/CPE Type

Cannot

On

Internet

Cant Up

Wireless

Failure

Power

Adaptor

Port

Failure

LAN Hang

Service

Not Up

Display

Panel

Faulty

Total by

Type

RG D Link 5 3 4 3 11 10 0 4 40

ZTE VDSL 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3

HW STB 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 7

FH ONU 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Total

(by cause code) 6 4 4 3 5 8 3 3 52

CAUSE CODE FOR CPE FAILURE - Mar 2013

NFF CPE D l


26/28

26Source : SUMO

Activities

Briefing to CPE

Coordinators

and RNO

Assurance

teams

Deploy NFF CPE at

sites

Utilize NFF CPE

Monitor and control

the utilization

NFF CPE Deployment

Mar 5 13 2013Jan 9 18, 2013

1 day8 days 7 days 1 day

Jan 22, 2013

Briefing to

Selangor Timur(KRT, GBK,

CRS, KE & BAT)

& Selangor Barat

(SRG & BRA) &

SWY

Deployment toSelangor

Timur,

Selangor

Barat & SWY

Briefing to KL /MSC

(SPE,DTA,

PUJ,PCG,

USJ & KIN)

Deployment to

KL / MSC

zones

Sustainability

Mar 15, 2013

Briefing to CPE

Coordinators

and RNO

Assuranceteams

Deploy NFF CPE at

sites

Utilize NFF CPE

Monitor and control

the utilization

Rolled Out in All Zones in Klang Valley We are here


27/28

ISDN NT Status Update as of 31st March 2013

At Nationwide, current stock balance are as follow:

Current stock can sustain for 13 months based on assumptions of 122 NI + TR per month.

Jan Mar 2013 TR + NI = 365

Returned New @ ML Refurbished @ ML RNO Stock in hand Contract Balance TOTAL

358* 434 86 486 580 1586

Note:

Total 1586 exclude 358 returned CPE in the process being verified and refurbished by T&I,

486 RNO stock in hand excludes some refurbished CPE

SUMO


28/28

28

Thank you

Documents

20130430%2BSUMO%2BWCM15%2Bfinal (1)