anlak storytelling
All kinds
Document kinds
Loading document kinds...

Primary corpus lens for browsing and insights. Selection lives in the URL.

All formats
Orientation
Loading formats...

Landscape, portrait, square, or unknown document geometry.

Unlock
slides · global inventory

All filtered slides

Global slide inventory for the active corpus filters, with each row opening the slide detail view.

Search Insights JSON Unlock
Corpus coverage

319,975 slides

319,974 are described (100%), so the treemap can explain the corpus instead of just counting files.

Total slides
319,975
Described
319,974
Pending
1

Slide type composition

dynamicclickable
Slide type

Showing 319,974 described slides — 100.0% of 319,975 rendered pages

+Context & problem43,76713.7% · 6,592 docs+Data & charts72,62022.7% · 8,666 docs+Meta & navigation45,93614.4% · 9,739 docs+Recommend & act67,04121.0% · 9,324 docs+Cases & evidence31,2569.8% · 6,067 docs+Frameworks2,1230.7% · 1,232 docs+Appendix35,68211.2% · 6,614 docs+Other21,5496.7% · 5,566 docs

Tile area is proportional to slide count. Click a category to open its subtype map.

all document kinds · all orientations
18 30 60

Slide collection

22,981-23,040 of 319,975

filter-aware
58
The slide highlights the trade-off between administrative simplicity (including all causes) and risk management (excluding specific, clearly defined causes).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
59
The slide presents a framework for incentive alignment in cost/revenue sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
60
The slide uses a two-row table-like structure to contrast two specific cost categories (Freight access charges and EC4T) and the resulting operator engagement.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
61
The slide presents two side-by-side tables comparing TOC and Network Rail financial data for CP4.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
62
Contains two data tables showing profit impact in £m and PPT.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
63
The slide discusses risk mitigation strategies (caps, re-openers) in the context of UK rail industry financial structures.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
64
The slide uses a bulleted list to build a logical argument from problem (uncertainty/risk) to solution (soft caps).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
65
The slide uses a bulleted list structure to categorize secondary users, existing protections, and specific concerns regarding new sharing arrangements.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
66
The slide uses a comparison table structure to evaluate policy options for secondary users.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
67
The slide uses direct quotes from stakeholders to illustrate the sensitivity around information sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
68
The slide highlights the misalignment between current management structures and the proposed geographic reporting requirements.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
69
The slide discusses the practicalities of a cost and revenue sharing mechanism in the UK rail industry.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
70
The slide uses a hierarchical list structure to define roles and responsibilities within the proposed governance framework.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
71
The slide uses a two-part structure to address two distinct governance concerns raised by the ORR.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
72
The slide uses a bulleted list to detail stakeholder feedback and specific concerns regarding regional cost/revenue sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
73
The slide references a previous L.E.K. report from 28 January on Alternative Railway Structures.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
74
The slide evaluates 'Gradual roll-out', 'Big bang introduction', and 'Combined' approaches.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
75
The chart illustrates a cumulative growth curve of re-franchising activity.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
76
The table provides a clear mapping of contractual vs. assumed timelines for rail franchises, highlighting specific regulatory or operational reasons for deviations.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
77
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
78
The table acts as a decision matrix for the 4 selected options.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
79
The slide details specific assumptions for each of the four options, with Option 1 being the most detailed.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
80
The slide is a continuation of a previous list, focusing on options 5 through 8.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
81
The slide serves as a methodology disclosure for the evaluation framework.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
82
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
83
The slide uses a scoring system of ++, +, 0, -, -- to evaluate criteria.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
84
The slide uses a color-coded table to map categories and criteria to scores and mitigation actions.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
85
The slide outlines a specific implementation strategy (phased approach) to mitigate risks associated with a proposed policy option.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
86
The table uses a qualitative scoring system (+, 0, -, --) to assess criteria across two states.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
87
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
88
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
89
The slide discusses the asymmetry of risk in an outperformance-only incentive scheme compared to a symmetrical one.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
90
The slide details how L.E.K. applied Oxera's findings on cost expenditure standard deviations to estimate EBS payment impacts.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
91
The slide uses a normal distribution curve to quantify financial risk/volatility.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
92
The chart illustrates the breakeven points (1.8% and 3.7%) for two scenarios of train operator contribution to NR performance.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
93
The slide explains the statistical basis for cost volatility aggregation using standard deviation and covariance formulas.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
94
The slide compares two scenarios based on regional vs national level mechanisms. The data shows how volatility and correlation affect financial outcomes.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
95
L.E.K. consulting slide discussing rail industry cost and revenue sharing mechanisms.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
96
The table uses a color-coded qualitative scale (+, 0, --, -) to compare Option 1 (symmetrical) and Option 2 (upside only).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
97
The slide uses a structured table to map specific criteria (A-F) to their performance scores and proposed mitigation actions.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
98
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
99
The slide outlines a specific strategic option for industry cost/revenue sharing, highlighting the trade-off between revenue exposure and fixed cost reduction.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
100
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
101
The slide uses a table to compare four scenarios (No sharing, Full sharing, TOC pax and sch 8 revenue shared only, TOC pax revenue shared only) across 'Before', 'After', and 'Change' metrics.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
102
The slide details specific feedback from TOC representatives and mentions Network Rail's stance.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
103
The slide uses a qualitative scoring system (+, ++, 0, -) to evaluate specific criteria for a proposed revenue-sharing mechanism.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
104
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
105
The slide discusses the implications of including TOC performance in a sharing mechanism, specifically noting risks of gaming and the need for open-book accounting.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
106
The slide uses qualitative feedback from industry stakeholders to argue against a specific policy option.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
107
The table uses a scoring system (++, +, 0, -, --) to evaluate specific criteria.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
108
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
109
The slide discusses the mechanism of Clause 18.1 and provides a quantitative rationale for a 25% exposure model.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
110
The slide discusses specific issues related to Network Rail (NR) cost base, FTAC allocation methodology, and the potential for adversarial relationships between operators and infrastructure managers.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
111
L.E.K. consulting slide regarding rail industry cost and revenue sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
112
The table uses a scoring system of ++, +, 0, -, -- to evaluate criteria.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
113
The table uses a scoring system of ++, +, 0, -, -- to evaluate criteria across categories A-F.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
114
The slide uses a scoring system (++, +, 0, -, --) to evaluate criteria across categories A-F.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
115
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
116
The slide discusses the financial and operational disincentives for Network Rail to add capacity and suggests adjusting VTAC as a solution.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
117
VTAC stands for Variable Usage Charge (implied context). NR stands for Network Rail.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit