© Mahindra Satyam 2009

Process Performance Baseline Summary – 2009 H2

2

© Mahindra Satyam 2009

Projects identified: Development (development –closed projects, and major enhancements) Maintenance (minor enhancement) projects Maintenance and Production Support Production Support

Criteria applied to arrive at eligible projects (Development) Projects closed between July 1st 2009 to December 31st 2009 Projects that have NOT been closed due to OD migration Delegation Status <> “Full Delegation” Actual Peak Team size > 3 Delivery Ownership = “Satyam Managed” Execution Model = “Offshore” or “Onsite – Offshore” Pricing Model <> INTERNAL

Criteria applied to arrive at eligible projects (Maintenance and Production Support) Actual Team size > 3 Delivery Ownership = “Satyam Managed” Execution Model = “Offshore” or “Onsite – Offshore” Pricing Model <> INTERNAL

Software Services Delivery Performance- Approach for Metric Data collection

2

3

© Mahindra Satyam 2009

Application Development and Major Enhancements

S. No Metric Unit of Measure Goal USL LSL Mean Previous Mean Trend SD Count

1Effort Variance Percentage 1.00 4.16 -4.31 1.57 1.24 7.40  38

2 Schedule Variance Percentage 0.08 6.43 -6.27 0.08 2.33 6.62  38

3 Review Efficiency Percentage 78.54 96.19 78.54 52.98 61.82 31.11  38

4 CDRE Percentage 95.65 95.65 62.33 87.97 98.25 20.13  38

5 Defect Rate Defects/Person Day 0.47 1.10 0.08 0.44 0.69 38

6 DDR Defects/Person Day 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.32 0.18  38

7Code Review Defect Rate Defects/Person Day 0.49 0.69 0.03 0.23 0.37 0.48  38

8 Code Review Rate Defects/Person Day 23.45 31.28 0.02 9.88 16.07 22.30  38

9 Test defect Rate Defects/Person Day 0.38 0.41 0.01 0.15 0.19 0.27  38

10 Test Rate Defects/Person Day 0.69 1.53 0.05 0.60 0.86 0.97  38

11 Testing Efficiency Percentage 87.18 87.18 51.95 78.59 26.64 38

12Defect Injection – Coding Defects/Person Day 0.32 1.01 0.02 0.77 0.13 3.23 38

* 1 Person Day = 8 Hours

4

© Mahindra Satyam 2009

Maintenance (Minor Enhancements)

S. No Metric Unit o Measure Goal USL LSL Mean Previous Mean Trend SD Count

1 Effort Variance Percentage 0.81 4.23 -5.95 -0.86 1.29  5.303 222

2 Pre-release Defect Rate

Defects/Person day 0.21 1.18 0.01  0.21 0.02 0.323  157

3 Delivered Defect Rate

Defects/Person day 0.01 0.05  0.01 0.012 0.00  0.041  156

4Cumulative Defect Removal Efficiency

Percentage 96.24 96.24 87.50 96.24 98.56  11.54  151

5 Review Efficiency Percentage 99.16 99.16 80.00 72.57 97.60 27.696  131

6 Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) Percentage 1.48 2.60 0.58 1.23 1.08  1.674  105

5

© Mahindra Satyam 2009

Production Support

S. No Metric Unit of Measure Category Goal USL LSL Mean Previous

Mean Trend SD Count

1 Adherence to 

Turnaround Time 

Percentage High98.80 98.80 91.86 98.80 98.25 7.23 256

Medium96.35 97.90 90.03 97.90 98.25 8.20 413

Low 97.69 97.69 96.90 97.69 98.25 10.97 323

2 First Time Right

Percentage High99.50 99.50 93.26 99.50 6.49 256

Medium97.16 97.16 81.99 97.16 15.79 413

Low99.80 99.80 97.96 99.80 1.91 323

6

© Mahindra Satyam 2009

mahindrasatyam.net

Safe Harbor

This document contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of section 27A of Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The forward-looking statements contained herein are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking statements. Satyam undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of the risks associated with our business, please see the discussions under the heading “Risk Factors” in our report on Form 6-K concerning the quarter ended September 30, 2008, furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission on 07 November, 2008, and the other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time. These filings are available at http://www.sec.gov

Thank you