National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25392.
×
Page R9

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Report 3 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 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. ISBN-13: 978-0-309-49037-5 ISBN-10: 0-309-49037-5 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25392 Copyright 2019 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. 2019. Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25392.

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 900 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.

PANEL TO TRACK AND ASSESS GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT REFORM IN THE NUCLEAR SECURITY ENTERPRISE JONATHAN D. BREUL, NAPA, 1 The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Washington, D.C., Co-Chair DONALD LEVY, NAS, 2 The University of Chicago, Illinois, Co-Chair ALLAN BURMAN, NAPA, Jefferson Solutions, 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 WILLIAM C. GREENWALT, NAPA, Brinkley Greenwalt Capital Partners, Washington, D.C. ROBERT HALE, NAPA, Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia BARBARA ROMZEK, NAPA, American University, Washington, D.C. 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 SHENAE BRADLEY, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ADAM DARR, National Academy of Public Administration LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, National Academy of Public Administration MARIA RAPUANO, National Academy of Public Administration MICHELLE SCHWALBE, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine AMANDA ZINK, National Academy of Public Administration 1 Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration. 2 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 3 Member, National Academy of Engineering. vi

LABORATORY ASSESSMENTS BOARD ROSS B. COROTIS, NAE, 1 University of Colorado, Boulder, Chair WESLEY L. HARRIS, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge JENNIE S. HWANG, NAE, H-Technologies Group, Cleveland, Ohio W. CARL LINEBERGER, NAS, 2 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, University of South Florida, Tampa Staff JAMES P. McGEE, Board Director ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer EVA LABRE, Administrative Coordinator AZEB GETACHEW, Senior Program Assistant 1 Member, National Academy of Engineering. 2 Member, National Academy of Sciences. vii

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: David S.C. Chu, Institute for Defense Analyses, Jared Cohon, NAE, 1 Carnegie Mellon University, T.J. Glauthier, TJG Energy Associates, LLC, Miriam (Mim) John, Independent Consultant, Richard Mies, The Mies Group, Ltd., Julia Phillips, NAE, Sandia National Laboratories (retired), and Elizabeth Robinson, 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. viii

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PANEL’S INFORMATION GATHERING 6 Pulse Checks with Leaders Across the Enterprise, 6 Budget and Reporting Classification Codes and Other Budgetary Controls, 8 Examination of the Approval Process for Management and Operating Contractor Annual Compensation Increases, 9 Relations Between the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Defense, 10 Headquarters Discussion Groups, 11 Site Visit to the Kansas City National Security Campus, 13 3 PROGRESS AND CONTINUING CONCERNS 15 Progress in Addressing Long-Standing Concerns of Governance and Management, 15 Other Signs of Progress, 20 Continuing Concerns, 21 APPENDIXES A Summaries from the Study’s First Two Reports 27 B Individuals Interviewed for This Report 34 C Biographical Sketches of Panel Members 39 D About This Study 43 ix

Next: Executive Summary »
Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $35.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The congressionally mandated report A New Foundation for the Nuclear Enterprise (the “Augustine-Mies” report), released in November 2014, concluded that “the existing governance structures and many of the practices of the [nuclear security] enterprise are inefficient and ineffective, thereby putting the entire enterprise at risk over the long term.” Following the release of the Augustine-Mies report, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 called for DOE to develop an implementation plan for responding to the recommendations in that and similar reports. The NDAA also called for a 4 1⁄2-year study, joint between the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Academy of Public Administration, to evaluate the implementation plan, to track the actions proposed in that plan, and to assess progress. This report is the third in a series of reports to be issued over 2017–2020 as part of that study.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!