Report 2 on Tracking and Assessing
Governance and Management Reform in the
Nuclear Security Enterprise
Panel to Track and Assess Governance and Management Reform
in the Nuclear Security Enterprise
Laboratory Assessments Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
A Consensus Study Report of
and
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by Contract No. DOE DE-NA0003381 with the Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25040
Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Academy of Public Administration. 2018. Report 2 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25040.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, non-profit, and non-partisan organization established in 1967 and chartered by Congress in 1984. It provides expert advice to government leaders in building more effective, efficient, accountable, and transparent organizations. To carry out this mission, the Academy draws on the knowledge and experience of its over 800 Fellows—including former cabinet officers, Members of Congress, governors, mayors, and state legislators, as well as prominent scholars, business executives, and public administrators. The Academy helps public institutions address their most critical governance and management challenges through in-depth studies and analyses, advisory services and technical assistance, congressional testimony, forums and conferences, and online stakeholder engagement. Learn more about the Academy and its work at www.NAPAwash.org.
This page intentionally left blank.
PANEL TO TRACK AND ASSESS GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT REFORM IN THE NUCLEAR SECURITY ENTERPRISE
DONALD LEVY, NAS,1 University of Chicago, Illinois, Co-Chair
ROBERT SHEA, NAPA,2 Grant Thornton, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, Co-Chair
JONATHAN D. BREUL, NAPA, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
KEITH COLEMAN, Boeing Phantom Works, St. Louis, Missouri
DONA L. CRAWFORD, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired), California
MARTIN C. FAGA, NAPA, MITRE Corporation (retired), Falls Church, Virginia
PAUL A. FLEURY, NAS/NAE,3 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
DAVID GRAHAM, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia
ROBERT HALE, NAPA, Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia
KATHLEEN A. PEROFF, NAPA, Peroff and Associates, LLC, Washington, D.C.
BARBARA ROMZEK, NAPA, American University, Washington, D.C.
TAMMY P. TAYLOR, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington
MERRI WOOD-SCHULTZ, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired), New Mexico
JOAN WOODARD, Sandia National Laboratories (retired), Albuquerque, New Mexico
Staff
SARAH JAGGAR, NAPA, National Academy of Public Administration, Staff Lead
SCOTT WEIDMAN, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Staff Lead
ADAM DARR, National Academy of Public Administration
EMILY FAY, National Academy of Public Administration
RODNEY HOWARD, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, National Academy of Public Administration
MARIA RAPUANO, National Academy of Public Administration
MICHELLE SCHWALBE, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
2 Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration.
3 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
LABORATORY ASSESSMENTS BOARD
ROSS B. COROTIS, NAE,1 University of Colorado, Boulder, Chair
C. WILLIAM GEAR, NAE, Princeton University, New Jersey
WESLEY L. HARRIS, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JENNIE S. HWANG, NAE, H-Technologies Group, Cleveland, Ohio
ROBERT S. LANGER, NAS2/NAE/NAM,3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
W. CARL LINEBERGER, NAS, University of Colorado, Boulder
C. KUMAR N. PATEL, NAS/NAE, Pranalytica, Inc., Santa Monica, California
ELSA REICHMANIS, NAE, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, NAE, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (retired), Arlington, Virginia
Staff
JAMES P. McGEE, Board Director
ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer
LIZA HAMILTON, Associate Program Officer
EVA LABRE, Administrative Coordinator
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
3 Member, National Academy of Medicine.
Preface
The Panel to Track and Assess Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise was jointly established by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Academy of Public Administration to carry out a 4½-year assessment of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA’s) responses to longstanding problems affecting the nuclear security enterprise. This is the panel’s second interim report.
The primary message of this report is that NNSA must quickly create two plans: (1) an integrated strategic plan for the entire nuclear security enterprise, focused on mission execution, and (2) a more complete and better-grounded implementation plan to guide the ongoing program of governance and management reform. With the release of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review and the appointment of a new NNSA Administrator, such a move is entirely appropriate and represents a great opportunity to set effective direction and pace for the enterprise.
NNSA has a history of launching actions without adequate planning. In the course of our study, we were provided with a letter dated July 2, 2012, from NNSA Administrator Thomas D’Agostino to the Chair of the House Committee on Armed Services (Howard McKeon) and the Chair of the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces (Michael Turner). They had written to President Obama regarding proposed legislation related to NNSA’s governance, management, and oversight of the nuclear security enterprise. The D’Agostino letter recounted a long list of reforms that NNSA was undertaking to address governance and management concerns that had been raised by external reviews. We were struck by the similarity between this letter and the Department of Energy-NNSA report to Congress from December 2016, titled Governance and Management of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Both describe multiple processes and activities with no analysis of what problems will be solved, what success would look like, and how progress is to be tracked.
Apparently, Representatives McKeon and Turner had the same response, because their subsequent letter of July 26, 2012, said, in part, “Your response contains a litany of efforts that you indicate will fix these problems—but many of these efforts have been tried in the past or are now several years old. We do not see in your response evidence of a coherent strategy with a vision of the expected end-state, nor do we see mention of how the individual efforts you outline will help achieve that end-state [emphasis added].”
Owing to the persistence of governance and management problems in the nuclear security enterprise, and the failure of past attempts to address them, this report calls strongly for a more strategic approach. We encourage the incoming NNSA Administrator to recognize that ongoing activities, while promising in many respects, are insufficient and that a new level of concerted planning, with leadership engagement, is urgently needed.
We are grateful to NNSA and the Department of Energy for their generous assistance and openness in helping the panel conduct its study. We also thank the National Academy of Public Administration and the National Academies’ staff for all of their contributions to this study. The panel would like to thank the individuals listed in Appendix B for providing input to this study.
Donald Levy and Robert Shea, Co-Chairs
Panel to Track and Assess Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Dan E. Arvizu, NAE1/NAPA,2 Stanford University,
David S.C. Chu, NAPA, Institute for Defense Analyses,
Jared L. Cohon, NAE, Carnegie Mellon University,
T.J. Glauthier, TJG Energy Associates, LLC,
Miriam E. John, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore (retired),
Richard W. Mies, The Mies Group, Ltd.,
C. Kumar N. Patel, NAS3/NAE, Pranalytica, Inc.,
Julia M. Phillips, NAE, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque (retired), and
Elizabeth M. Robinson, NAPA, Air Line Pilots Association.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Stephen M. Robinson, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration.
3 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Five Serious Concerns Leading to This Study
The Panel’s Tracking and Assessment of Progress Since Its First Report
2 A STRATEGIC PLAN IS NEEDED FOR THE NUCLEAR SECURITY ENTERPRISE
Laboratory Strategic Planning Has Improved
Expanding Strategic Planning to Cover the Entire Enterprise
3 PROGRESS, BUT CONTINUING CONCERNS
NNSA’s December 2016 Governance and Management Implementation Plan Is Inadequate
Some Promising Developments on Which to Build
Operating Concerns Identified from Site Visits and Interviews
The Need for Data and Other Objective Evidence
This page intentionally left blank.
