The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Appendix C: Response to Past Studies
Pages 121-135

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 121... ... PAST EXTERNAL REVIEWS OF DOE AND EM The purpose of this appendix is to give some context to past studies examining project and program management practices and success within DOE's EM organization. The review will briefly cover the past 20 years starting with two NRC study teams beginning in 1998, which looked at the entirety of project and 1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Read the entire page →
From page 122... ... It will also summarize GAO reviews of EM's project management and program management practices that have occurred since 1999, with emphasis on a number of recently published documents. NRC Phase I Study In 1997, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water was concerned about project performance within DOE and directed DOE to engage a respected entity to review project performance. Read the entire page →
From page 123... ... Meeting from 2000 to 2003, it provided the Deputy Secretary a singular opportunity for independent views of project management practices within DOE to enable best possible decisions. Its scope was to review across all DOE: • Policies, Procedures, Documentation, and Reporting; including review of Order 413.3, its implementation and OECM • Project Planning and Controls • Skills, Selection, and Training of Personnel • Project Reviews • Acquisition and Contracting • Risk Management • Organizational Structure, Responsibility, and Accountability The committee was prolific in its work and evaluations, publishing the following documents: • Interim Letter Report to Secretary Richardson, January 2001 • Progress in Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy: 2001 Assessment • Interim Letter Report to Secretary Abraham, May 2002 • Progress in Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy: 2002 Assessment • The Owners Role in Project Management and Preproject Planning, 2002 • Progress in Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy: 2003 Assessment, 2004 Read the entire page →
From page 124... ... , and reviewed project information from dozens of projects. Its recommendations to DOE, as summarized in the 2003 assessment, were many: • Develop policies and procedures to define the DOE method of managing projects; • Create a project management culture across the agency that supports the consistent implementation of policies and procedures; • Provide leadership that ensures disciplined planning and execution of projects as well as support for continuous process improvement; • Provide a project management champion at the highest level of the depart ment to ensure that a focus on the importance of project management is established and maintained; • Develop competence in fulfilling the owner's role in front-end project planning, risk management, and project execution; • Apply rigorous project reporting and controls that include earned value systems, link day-to-day management data to periodic reporting, forecast time and cost to complete, and maintain historical data with which to benchmark project performance; • Document processes and performance to support benchmarking and trend analysis; • Invest in human capital by providing training and career development to ensure an adequate supply of qualified, skilled project directors; • Continue, refine, and document a program of external and internal project reviews; and • Employ innovative approaches to capital acquisition and the use of performance-based contracting. Read the entire page →
From page 125... ... It also conducted in-depth reviews on four major underperforming EM capital projects at the request of Secretary Chu: the Salt Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River National Laboratory; the Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Facility at Idaho National Laboratory; and the K-25 and U-233 Projects at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Note that these four projects were not the only underperforming projects in the portfolio but were deemed representative; the committee was specifically steered away from Hanford. Read the entire page →
From page 126... ... As the committee succinctly noted: "Appropriately constituted program offices with empowered program managers; strong line management with well understood roles and responsibilities; effective peer reviews; stability in Read the entire page →
From page 127... ... should be comprehensive, independent project assessments similar to the SC peer review model in scope, including technical, cost, schedule, management; environment, safety and health; and risk evaluations. • Establish EM headquarters program offices (geographic, site, or product line) Read the entire page →
From page 128... ... For example, EM's 2017 cleanup policy does not follow the program management leading practice of conducting risk management throughout the life of a program or the project management leading practice of requiring independent reviews of operations activities. GAO found that EM's environmental liability does not include the costs of all future cleanup responsibilities. Read the entire page →
From page 129... ... DOE agreed with GAO recommendations and responded that it intends to replace its current cleanup policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule, and independent reviews, as appropriate. EM expects to issue the new project management policy in spring 2020 and the new program management policy in fall 2020 (GAO-20-285PR) Read the entire page →
From page 130... ... 29, 33, 36) periodic reporting, forecast time and cost to complete, and maintain historical data with which to benchmark project performance Document processes and performance to support X X (NRC, 2004, pp. Read the entire page →
From page 131... ... 5) development to ensure an adequate supply of qualified, skilled project directors Continue, refine, and document a program of external and X X X (NRC, 2004, pp. Read the entire page →
From page 132... ... . EM's cleanup policy does not follow program and project management leading practices (GAO 19-460T, p. Read the entire page →
From page 133... ... https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-311SP. NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP: DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices. Read the entire page →
From page 134... ... https://www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-09-697R. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Contract and Project Management Concerns at the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office Of Environmental Management. Read the entire page →
From page 135... ... NUCLEAR WASTE: DOE's Hanford Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Project -- Cost, Schedule, and Management Issues. RCED-99-267: Published: Sep 20, 1999. Read the entire page →

From page 121...

... PAST EXTERNAL REVIEWS OF DOE AND EM The purpose of this appendix is to give some context to past studies examining project and program management practices and success within DOE's EM organization. The review will briefly cover the past 20 years starting with two NRC study teams beginning in 1998, which looked at the entirety of project and 1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Appendix C: Response to Past Studies Pages 121-135

Appendix C: Response to Past Studies
Pages 121-135