EOHHS / EOE Home Visiting Readiness Cabinet August 23, 2010.
August 2-4, 2010 - Fermilab · August 2-4, 2010 FRA Visiting ... more than two slides per question....
Transcript of August 2-4, 2010 - Fermilab · August 2-4, 2010 FRA Visiting ... more than two slides per question....
Committee
Anne Street – Chair
Jane Monhart
Betsy O’Connor
Frank Sanchez
Jonathan Silverstein
Greg Snow
Bob Stuewe
Staff
Tracey Quinn –UChicago
Ben Stauss – FRA
Tyler Przybylek – FRA
Katie Weber –UChicago
Support
Mary Ellen Tolian -FNAL
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 2
Acknowledgements
The Committee enjoyed extraordinary hospitality, cooperation, and support from FRA and FNAL
FNAL leaders, managers, and staff understood our mission and were consistently responsive to our requests
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 3
Charge to CommitteeThe Visiting Committee is asked to review and evaluate the
quality and effectiveness of Fermilab’s administrative
organizations and operations support systems, which
specifically include: Quality and Best Practices; Environment,
Safety & Health; IT; Facilities Engineering Services; Business
Services; Workforce Development and Resources; and Finance.
While the review team will have discretion to pursue questions
of interest, the format for the review will consist of
presentations by Fermilab offices/sections, and related follow
up, that specifically answer the following questions in no
more than two slides per question.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 4
Seven Questions
1. How did your functional area fare last year versus established performance measures? What steps are being taken to address deficiencies or to sustain outstanding performance? What is your assessment of your progress to date against the FY10 performance measures and your projection of outcomes for the year against these measures?
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 5
Seven Questions2. What specific achievements has your unit made in developing and
sustaining a service culture? Specifically:
Has the reorganization and consolidation of IT support services had the desired effect?
Has our ability to track and trend, especially in the ES&H area improved?
Do the compensation, employee relations and employment functions enable and support excellence in science?
Are benefits planning and administration meeting employees’ needs?
Has the performance of organizations involved in utilizing the ARRA funding been up to the task?
What improvements would you like to see?
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 6
Seven Questions3. As the activities funded by the ARRA wind down, is Fermilab,
including its subcontractors, facing, either directly or indirectly, a situation where the workforce funded by the ARRA will be facing significant layoffs? If so, what is the plan to deal with the situation and what are our expectations for its success?
4. How is your unit integrating the efforts of Office of Quality and Best Practices (OQBP)? What contact has your area had with the OQBP? What do you plan for the future? How is your unit implementing appropriate aspects of the Quality and Best Practices plan? How does this support the requirement for a Contractor Assurance Overview?
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 7
Seven Questions
5. What interaction did your unit have with counterpart operations staff at Argonne National Laboratory? What are your future plans for interaction, and what are your specific goals?
6. Last year our Days Away Restricted Transferred and Total Recordable Case rates were high; this year the same rates have been remarkably low. Which year, if any, reflects the true state of our safety program and why?
7. How are you addressing succession planning for your unit?
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 8
Conduct of the Review
The Committee:
Heard presentations that were responsive to the questions in our charge
Conducted approximately 30 follow-up interviews with presenters, staff, and Fermilab Site Office
Included both service providers and customers in interviews
Reviewed numerous documents
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 9
Observations
BSS met or exceeded its FY 2009 performance measures. BSS is on track to meet or exceed its FY 2010 measures. The new IT organization has not yet had its desired effect
for BSS. Oracle iProcurement Longer response times
ARRA funding has been successfully managed without additional staff.
A service culture is well established as evidenced by customer feedback.
BSS contributes to and is engaged with the efforts of the OQBP.
Open positions have been filled with succession planning in mind.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 11
Observations
Interactions with ANL have proved beneficial for both organizations. Fermilab electronics recycling has benefited ANL ANL Procurement & shipping advice saved Fermilab
>$800k BSS has contributed to a successful ESH year for
Fermilab. DART cases Recordable cases National Safety Council Safe Driver Award EPEAT Certified computer electronic acquisitions Alternate fuel use and petroleum reduction Recycling
Overall, BSS is a good Fermilab citizen and values continuous improvement.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 12
Noteworthy Practices
ARRA procurements were successfully awarded at a very high level of performance during a record procurement dollar volume year with no additional staff and with no audit findings.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 13
Recommendations
Continue to pursue system improvements to achieve cost reduction, cost avoidance, and operational efficiencies, e.g. Oracle iProcurement or appropriate alternatives.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 14
Observations
Current benchmarking of Lab employee pay and benefits indicates they are competitive with that of companies in the selected market.
The Lab is successfully recruiting and retaining needed employees.
A consultant is working with WDRS to evaluate management of employee benefits.
There is a concern about IT service for the Education Office.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 16
Noteworthy Practices
WDRS has several initiatives to improve support to the Lab:
Improved communication with employees– Ask HR, Tell HR, new website, benefits bulletins, employee advisory group, increased frequency of meetings with employees and managers in supported organizations
Succession planning for the top Lab jobs
Curriculum committee to improve management development at the Lab.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 17
Recommendations Recommend WDRS investigate cost efficiency
opportunities of coordinating administration of medical/dental benefits with Argonne National Lab. Also recommend participation with Argonne on consultant to assess impact of healthcare reform legislation.
Recommend the Lab consider additional opportunities to increase communications with the bargaining unit regarding safety and efficiency to include WDRS, FESS, the bargaining unit and DOE.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 18
Recommendations Recommend WDRS assess recently implemented
changes to the hiring process for Lab scientists at an appropriate time to determine their effectiveness.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 19
Recommendations For Lab Management - Recommend Lab continue and
expand efforts for greater utilization of WDRS as a valued participant in Lab management decisions and execution, including: Performance management Management development Strategic planning Culture change Cost control
In view of the recent incident, recommend the Lab review processes to identify and support employees/users at risk (WDRS), and to safeguard the workforce and to protect the organization (Lab management).
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 20
Robert B. Stuewe
Betsy O’Connor
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 21
Observations
Progress in implementation of Quality Assurance is evident:
Management engaged: Individually, Assurance Council
Overall program is defined
Supporting procedures/methods are coming along:
For example: Management Assessments; Corrective and Preventative Action; Quality Assurance Guidelines for Scientific Research; Lessons Learned; ITNA
Supporting roles, e.g. QAR, QE, are active
Some As-Is Baselines have been performed, acted upon
Quality Improvement via Assessments/CAPs has begun
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 22
Observations
Integrated Quality Assurance Program is not yet providing optimal value to FNAL:
Multiple assessments reaching the same conclusions: “work documents not sufficiently managed”
QA is not well integrated, e.g. multiple FNAL methods for assessments and corrective action tracking
QA broadly applied rather than risk-focused
Lessons learned not yet effective, e.g. US Chem Safety Board recommendations for Gas Purging (high risk)
Approach to Quality Improvement is unclear
Strategic Plan + PEMP + Reviews + IQA + Problem Solving = ?
Improvement results mostly qualitative/anecdotal
Collaboration with ANL not in evidence
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 23
Observations
No unified understanding of what a Contractor Assurance System is, how it will be developed, and desired benefits for the Laboratory.
Different ideas from everyone interviewed
What is CAS, versus QA, versus ES&H, versus ….
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 24
Noteworthy Practices
Identifying major systems and key processes
Critical step for CAS as well as QA
Many orgs do not do this up front, costs them time and money
Scientific Research As-Is Assessment
Credible evidence that FNAL seriously committed to quality in science
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 25
Recommendations
Identify the primary risks to mission achievement and apply QA to the processes involved first:
Where is it critical that we get it right the first time?
What can we absolutely not afford to have happen?
Make strategic plan more actionable, accessible:
Clear Objectives with measureable goals
Actions with assigned owners and timeframes
In format and language that the workforce can understand
Use to prioritize assessment, issues, corrective action plans, resource decisions, etc.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 26
Recommendations Use Contractor Assurance (H-13) as an opportunity
to integrate what you have: Integrate assessment selection, scheduling, execution.
Integrate issue and corrective action management.
Get measures and performance targets in place for your key processes (needed for CAS) Also enables trending and analyses for CAS
Benchmark your LL Program against others in DOE.
Simplify, risk-prioritize, align with how FNAL learns.
Quickly set up a Sharepoint server, design a simple document/site hierarchy, and get a simple document management process going
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 27
Betsy O’Connor
Jonathan Silverstein
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 28
Observations
Performance Measures
Met expectations in FY 2009
On track to meet expectations in FY 2010
Reorganization of IT
No decline in IT controls identified
Concerns regarding the availability of resources
Dissatisfied with IT response time
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 29
Observations
ARRA No additional resources
Additional oversight beneficial
Reporting is still a challenge
No IG audit findings
Contractor Assurance System Leverage required A-123 Internal Controls testing
Result of A-123 is the annual Assurance Statement
Not using A-123 may degrade the A-123 program
A-123 also satisfies QA needs
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 30
Observations
New FAR Clause
Onerous reporting requirements, questionable benefits
Procurement involvement
Assure that any FAR Clause reporting is consistent with financial reporting
New Work Breakdown Structure
Enhanced usage of financial data
Improved information for management
Ability to meet ad hoc requests from management and DOE
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 31
Observations Fermilab Time & Labor
Met the PEMP requirement
But not complete
Work with vendor to fix the back office bug
Improve reporting for customer value
Concerns with hosted services provider
Responsiveness
Change management controls
Budget Job Family
Eliminated potential disparity in similar jobs
CFO participation in hiring is important
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 32
No Noteworthy Practices this year
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 33
Recommendations
Fermilab Time & Labor
Work with vendor to fix the bug
Improve reporting to enhance customer value
Possible success for management dashboard
Budget Improvements, mostly direct
Better training and/or communication of requirements
More realistic deadlines
Enhanced financial analysis with new WBS
Improved budgeting tools including labor planning
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 34
Recommendations
Travel Automation
Eliminate manual process for entire Lab
Potential savings due to improved contracting
Electronic Invoice Approval
Requires minimal IT resources
Negative certification for invoices < $100K
E-mail certification for invoices > $100K
Conversion to the DOE SGL (Standard Genl Ledger)
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 35
Observations
Commendably low number of TRC and DART incidents so far in FY2010
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 37
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009FY2010
to DateGOAL
TRC Cases 29 31 12 24 11 <12
DART Cases 7 12 3 12 3 <5
This was zero until just recently
Observations
2010 Milestones met in numerous reviews and programs
Corrective action items from March 2009 Accelerator Safety Review
Reduced environmental impact of personal computers – Federal Electronics Challenge
FNAL/FSO review of Emergency Management Program
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 38
Observations Menu of new/ongoing initiatives
Prevailing opinions are that these are leading to noticeably low injury rates. Among them: “Take Five for Goal Zero” program Safety awareness signs posted at site entrances Rewards, recognition, and safety incentive
programs Enhanced web presence and tools Porcelain Press postings Revitalized Traffic Safety Subcommittee of
FESHCOMM ESH Fairs
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 39
Observations
Menu of new/ongoing initiatives
Prevailing opinions are that these are leading to noticeably low injury rates. Among them:
Collection of data useful in leading indicator, and tracking/trending analyses, which will include first aid cases and near-miss incidents
Continuous improvements database
Traffic violations database
Lessons learned database (with OQBP)
Database analyst hired by ES&H section
Open CD functional analyst position
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 40
Observations
A “Sustainability Challenge” (Executive Order 13514) is on the horizon
Calls for noticeable reductions in:
Green house gas emission (28%)
Energy usage (30%)
Water consumption (16%)
And increases in:
Renewable energy generation/usage (7.5%)
Sustainable building practices
Over several years
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 41
Noteworthy Practices
Recent, successful renewal of ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 registrations
Deep engagement of Sections and Divisions in safety awareness, attention, and participation in ES&H programming
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 42
Recommendations “Stay the course”. By this we mean continued
dissemination of programs and successes, with focus on zero incident goals
Keep the awareness messages fresh – avoid complacency! Example: Elevate road-sharing awareness in a
creative way
ES&H has many initiatives and programs on their plate – analyze and stress those with greatest impact
Identify good behaviors that have brought us where we are
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 43
Recommendations Fill CD functional analyst position
Coordinate teaming with ES&H database analyst
Do the tracking and trending analyses, examine correlations of incidents and near-misses with a wide range of parameters and behaviors
Since there is little guidance from DOE on the Sustainability Challenge – at this time, be patient and study possible pathways
Solicit DOE clarification and expectations for FNAL
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 44
Observations
FESS staff has met the challenge of performing ARRA work without compromising delivery of traditional activities
FESS is considered to be responsive by the organizations it serves
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 46
Noteworthy Practices
Migration to an error / near miss reporting culture serves as a vehicle for improving safety
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 47
Recommendations Lab management – consider requiring building
automation in all new projects, if lifecycle cost savings can be demonstrated.
Lab management – consider charging FESS with the development and maintenance of a complete master plan for the site.
Lab management – look at the organization and purpose of FESS and PMO to clarify that they meet current vision for the Lab.
FESS – document work in the field in procedures.
FESS – consider initiating Service Level Agreements for routine maintenance services.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 48
Jonathan Silverstein
Gregory Snow
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 49
Observations Coherent IT organization assembled and functioning
IT support professionals re-organized into one organization with clarity of roles and responsibilities
Fermilab Time and Labor (FTL) Kronos installed
DOE Notable Outcome
Still active work with Finance and vendor to stabilize all functions and gain secondary use of the data
Consolidation of capabilities having some desired effects but remaining challenges from IT viewpoint
Cybersecurity more easily and completely controlled
Multiple methods of doing some tasks still creating compromises, but further standardization ongoing
frESHTRK and other databases with ES&H established
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 50
Observations Basic IT services unacceptably slow or missing to users in
multiple Sections and Divisions of Lab
Break-fix of desktops taking multiple days
Users confused regarding prioritization of requests
Ordering and configuring standard machines too slow
Basic SLAs not established or unusable in most areas
Users desire higher visibility/understanding of consolidated IT performance and prioritization
Engagement in prioritization and governance lacking
Last year’s recommendation to “establish an internal IT Management Steering Committee” was not followed
Some projects on hold due to resource constraints
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 51
Noteworthy Practices
Best practices and knowledge from MIS department, particularly in regard to financial systems, successfully integrated into central IT organization
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 52
Recommendations Basic IT services must be attended immediately
It is well understood throughout the laboratory that some decreased service performance would occur in this first year of consolidation, but that has now passed
Persistent problems in this area would raise the level of significance to a “Finding” for the laboratory next year
Strategic (long-term, project-based) prioritization of IT resources is needed, given resource constraints
A council for strategic decision-making should be established (e.g. will iProcurement be deployed? When?)
User engagement in IT operations is needed
Establish an open forum including representation from all Sections and Divisions (and open to Departments)
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 53
Recommendations Establish and maintain in depth needs assessments, and
then SLAs (formal or informal) with all Sections, Divisions, and some Departments
Some will need standard agreements to gain economies
Some will need common understanding of what IT systems will be managed locally (i.e. why and how)
Some will need only systems support on local systems
e.g. websites/servers and macintosh desktops currently self-managed in Education Office
Coherent performance measures of IT services and regular reporting to users will gain trust
e.g. Service Desk metrics provided to each Section/Division
Regularly communicate the status of IT improvements
54August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review
Observations & Recommendations Laboratory is in transition from a future vision of a
single large project (ILC) to many new initiatives.
Develop clear, crisp vision and communicate to staff and to the public.
Identify implications of new vision for Administrative & Operations Support areas in the strategic planning process.
Laboratory has institutionalized safety as a way of life.
Now you must individualize it.
Interactions with Argonne are inconsistent across the organization.
Keep seeking opportunities – the collaboration has value.
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 56
Observations & Recommendations The Sustainability Challenge appears to be virtually
impossible to achieve on an individual lab basis without impacting science mission.
Strive to convince DOE that the best solution is a reduction across all labs.
Succession planning for Lab management may become more visible under Contractor Assurance System.
Continue efforts begun by WDRS
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 57
Parent Oversight for CAS
Visiting Committee for Ops/Admin
Could easily be modified to CAS Parent Oversight
Recommend:
Annual FNAL Management (Self) Assessment for CAS
Details/quantification of implementation & effectiveness
Annual CAS Review by Committee using assessment
Board Approval
At least a few more Board members on Committee
Board formally assures DOE CAS is functioning (Letter)
August 2-4, 2010FRA Visiting Committee Administrative Peer Review 59
MeasuresAssessments
Issue & Corrective Action MgtLessons Learned
Contractor Assurance
System
Using= forSystem Assurance
Parent Oversight (+)DOE Oversight (-)