Report 3 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Observations from the Panel's Information Gathering
2 Observations from the Panel's Information Gathering
Pages 6-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 6... ...
leadership from six sites: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Nevada National Security Site, Kansas City National Security Campus, Y-12 National Security Complex and Pantex Plant, Savannah River Site, and Sandia National Laboratories. The panel as a whole carried out a pulse check with the Los Alamos National Laboratory director and his associated FOM on January 7, 2019.
|
From page 7... ...
Cross-Enterprise Relationships and Trust All sites reported a good working relationship between field offices and M&O personnel. For example, one laboratory director emphasized the value of the field office providing an "independent set of eyes" on laboratory activities that can help the laboratory identify needed course corrections.
|
From page 8... ...
Enterprise-Wide Strategic Planning All interviewees except one reported being engaged to some extent in the enterprise strategic planning process, with two field offices being very engaged, including participating in working groups. Most of the M&O partners noted that their site strategic plans had been used to inform the strategic vision, and most reported seeing and commenting on Strategic Vision drafts.
|
From page 9... ...
The panel decided in spring 2018 to review these changes as an example of how effectively NNSA is working with its M&O partners to identify and address burdensome practices and unnecessary oversight and, in this instance, to determine whether "laboratory authority for decision making" was restored. To perform this assessment, the panel reviewed directives and guidance issued by NNSA and DOE, analyzed data and results of the 2017 and 2018 increase plans by site, and conducted interviews with NNSA officials in the acquisition and procurement office who are responsible for the annual CIP approval process.
|
From page 10... ...
4 See Appendix B for the complete list of interviewees. 5 Some selected examples include "Procedural Guideline for the Phase 6.X Process"; the Federal Program Managed Weapon Acquisition Guidebook; NNSA's "DP Program Execution Instructions"; DoD Instruction 5030.55, "DoD Procedures for Joint DoD-DOE Nuclear Weapon Life Cycle Activities"; AFI 63-103, "Joint AFNNSA Nuclear Weapons Life Cycle Management; Development, Production, and Standardization of Atomic Weapons Agreement"; "Interagency Agreement between Department of Navy, Strategic Systems Programs, and DOE, NNSA"; and a memorandum of understanding between the Energy Research and Development Administration and the DoD on Nuclear Weapons Development Liaison Procedures.
|
From page 11... ...
Some participants were vaguely aware of the NNSA's Special Directive on Site Governance (SD 226.1B) and the site governance peer reviews, while others had detailed knowledge of these and other governance and management directives and initiatives.
|
From page 12... ...
Some HQ offices communicate regularly with field offices through institutionalized and informal pathways, including annual planning meetings, biweekly and monthly calls, and sharing of lessons learned. Others have no formal ties with field offices and little to no informal communication.
|
From page 13... ...
SITE VISIT TO THE KANSAS CITY NATIONAL SECURITY CAMPUS The panel made a 1-day site visit to the Kansas City National Security Campus (KCNSC) in early July 2018.
|
From page 14... ...
To protect this relationship, the field office tends to write up self-identified problems in a positive light; for example, if a cell phone is inadvertently brought into a secure area, it may be reported as an "incident" rather than as an "infraction" to encourage staff to feel free to report minor lapses. One field office official relayed that when the Honeywell Model was implemented, the field office realized quickly that it must celebrate, rather than penalize, when the M&O contractor finds problems.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.