Finding. The combination of the OECM and the PMSOs in the three major PSOs addresses many of the issues raised in the Phase II report but not all. This organizational structure is probably workable, but it does not fully address the department-wide issues of consistency, discipline, and excellence in project management that the Phase II report felt were essential.

Recommendation. The roles and responsibilities of the OECM should be strengthened, as set forth in the Phase II report, and the OECM should be budgeted, staffed, and empowered to become the center of excellence in project management and the coordinator for project manager training and development and for oversight and approval of all capital projects in DOE.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1998. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure (DOE/EM 0362). Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy.

DOE. 2000. Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets (Order O413.3). Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy.

GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2001a. Department of Energy Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges (GAO-01–823). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office.

GAO. 2001b. Department of Energy: Follow-up Review of the National Ignition Facility (GAO-01– 677R ). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office.

NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC. 2001. Improved Project Management in the Department of Energy. Letter report, January. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Rath & Strong, 2001. Six Sigma Pocket Guide. Lexington, Mass.: Rath & Strong/Aon Management Consulting.

U.S. Congress. 2001. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2002 (HR 107–112). Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives.