Sandia National Laboratories’ Integrated Laboratory Management System (ILMS) (our Contractor...

Sandia National Laboratories’Integrated Laboratory Management System (ILMS)

(our Contractor Assurance System)

Presented to Los Alamos National Laboratory

February 12, 2008

Topics

• Contractor Assurance System (CAS) Definition and Sandia’s Integrated Laboratory Management System

• Sandia’s Assure, Assess and Improve Process (AAIP)

• Deployment of ILMS

• SSO’s Risk Based Oversight Procedure (RBOP)

• Path Forward

CAS Definitionand

Sandia’s Integrated Laboratory Management System

What is NNSA’s definition of CAS?

• Unfortunately, there is not just one• Over the last four years, there have been several documents, ranging from

informal letters from NA-1, to the contents of DOE O 226.1, to more recent reports from the newly created LOCAS Integration Council

• A common theme is – “The single management system used by the contractor”– Note that this is much broader than just assurance

• For our purposes, SSO and we are focusing on the requirements in our contract– Emphasis is on assurance processes and transparency to SSO– Note also that, in general, these requirements are all elements of a good

quality management system– Finally, note that SSO is very focused on the functions where they have

assigned oversight responsibility (“40 functional areas”)• If asked for the “definition” or scope of Sandia’s CAS, the right answer is:

– “The requirements of contract clauses H-3, H-5, and H-6”

What is the driver for “Contractor Assurance”?

Three main clauses in Sandia’s prime contract define “Contractor Assurance.”

• Clause H-3 CONTRACTOR ASSURANCE SYSTEM

• Clause H-5 ACCOUNTABILITY

• Clause H-6 STANDARDS MANAGEMENT

Integrated Laboratory Management System (ILMS)is Sandia’s Contactor Assurance System (CAS)

Encompasses all work that Sandia does to accomplish its mission

Is the vehicle for ensuring Mission Success and Operational Excellence

Represents the complete set of policy, rules, practices, and information that establishes Sandia’s business expectations and intent

Will be the single source of management information

ILMS is deployed through fourManagement Entities.

• EO/LLT (Executive Office / Laboratory Leadership Team)

– Corporate perspective• SMGs/SMUs (Strategic Management Groups, Strategic Management Units)

– Determine what work the Laboratory is going to do– Provide the funding for accomplishing the work

• Divisions– Perform the work (only Divisions have people)

• Policy Areas– Develop adequate policy– Deploy the policy– Determine effectiveness of implementation

SMG/SMUs are represented by “Accomplish the Mission”

Achieve Mission Success Through Operational Excellence: Divisions

Achieve Mission Success Through Operational Excellence: Policy areas

The ILMS website is not ILMS

The ILMS website is a new utility we are creating to:– Facilitate understanding of the

context and structure of Sandia’s management system

– Provide contextual access to process and work management information for all employees

– Provide access to assurance information for Sandia management

– Provide access to assurance information for NNSA to satisfy requirements for Contractor Assurance

Sandia’sAssure, Assess and Improve Process (AAIP)

The core of CAS is Sandia’sAssure, Assess and Improve Process (AAIP)

Management Review is a critical process.

• All four entities will be focused on Management Reviews.– EO/LLT will dedicate a 4-hour block, each quarter,

to complete their Management Review.

• Assurance Reports have been created for each entity type.– Enables roll-up and comparison of data within an

entity type and across entity types

– Will result in fewer data requests

SARBReviews

Sub-teams’Analysis

Management Entities conduct reviews including Analysis and Trending of their data.

The Integration of Management Reviews occurs through the Sandia Assurance Review Board (SARB).

Divisions

SMGs/SMUs

EO/LLT

Policy Areas

SARB Sub-teams analyze sets of Management Entity Assurance Reports

Divisions Sub-team

SMGs/SMUs Sub-team

EO/LLT Sub-team

Policy Areas Sub-team

SARBReviews

All AnalysisIncluding

InformationFrom

SubjectMatter

Experts

SARBAnalysisProvided

ToEO/LLT

EO/LLTMgt Rev

SMGReview

AssuranceReports

EO/LLT Management Reviews

SARBMeeting EO/LLT

Mgt Rev

QuarterlyReviewTeam

Meeting

EO/LLTMgt RevAssessment

Quarterly Operational Review (Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct)

Semi-Annual Strategic Review (November & May)

Annual Laboratory Management System Assessment (January)

OGMReports

AssuranceReports

SMEReports

Additional SME Reports

Decision/Action

Decision/Action

Decision/Action

SystemInformation

Membership of SARB is made up of Directors and Senior Managers and Staff from Across the

LabsSMG/SMU• NW – Paul Shoemaker• DS&A – Paul Yourick

Division• 1000 – Paul Raglin• 2000 – Pat Sena• 3000 – Robert Petro• 6000 – Fran Nimick• 8000 – Dennis Beyer• 10000 – Roy Fitzgerald

Policy Area• ES&H – Bob Brandhuber• S&S – Barry Schwartz• Finance – Connie Wenk• Facilities – Lynnwood Dukes• HR – Char Wells

EO/LLT• Tim Knewitz

Corporate Independent• SAs – Kathleen McCaughey• PAAA – Steve Ward• Audit – Brenda DeLaurentis• NWQA – Everett Saverino• Bus. Rules – Gary Zura

Leadership & Administration• T. J. Allard• Alice Maese• Bonnie Hardesty• Keith Vigil

Deployment of ILMS

ILMS is being deployed through an expanded ILMS Working Group

• Single set of Owner, Delegate and Alternate identified for each Management Entity– Owner is a Vice-President or Director

– Delegate is usually a Senior Manager

– Alternate is usually a Senior Manager, a Senior Division Business Manager or a Manager

ILMS Working Group

Roles & Responsibilities … an active role!Promote

• Understand requirements that are driving ILMS• Assist leaders in effectively communicating

Engage• Obtain Staff and Line input for effective implementation• Facilitate ILMS implementation in your work area

Information Resource• Understand how ILMS is the framework for our work• Act as the primary contact in their work areas• Identify most effective ways to communicate in their

areas

Lead Specific Activities• Become project leads for specific changes• Seize opportunities to improve

SSO’s Risk Based Oversight Procedure (RBOP)

Risk-Based Oversight Procedure (RBOP) mapping to policy areas

• Sandia manages risk and operations through ten Policy Areas

• The Sandia Site Office (SSO) organizes its work into 43 functional areas

(SSO has to report to HQ on these 43 functional areas using NNSA’s Pegasus system.)

• Under RBOP, Sandia and SSO mapped the 40 functional areas that are not Fed-only requirements to Sandia’s Policy Areas

Policy Areas to Functional Areas Mapping• ES&H

– Contractor Training & Qualification– Conduct of Operations– Criticality Safety– Emergency Management– Environmental Management System– Fire Protection– Industrial Hygiene– Integrated Safety Management– Occupational Safety and Health– Occurrence Reporting– Packing & Transportation– Price Anderson Amendment– Quality Assurance– Radiation Protection– Radioactive Waste– Safety Basis– Startup & Restart of Nuclear Facilities– Safety System Oversight

Policy Areas to Functional Areas Mapping (cont.)• Facilities

– Facilities Management– Maintenance– Project Management

• Finance– Budget & Finance– Contractor Phase II Budget Review & Validation

• Human Resources– Contractor Human Resource Management

• Information Management– Information Management

• Laboratory Management– Contract Administration– Legal– Office of Inspector General / General Accounting Office

Policy Areas to Functional Areas Mapping (cont.)

• Mission/Program/Project– Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation– DOE Programs– Defense Programs– Weapons Quality Assurance

• Safeguards & Security– Safeguards & Security

• Strategic Environment– General Oversight (SNL Science Advisory Board)– Laboratory Directed Research & Development– Public Affairs (Public Relations & Congressional)– Technology Partnership Program– Work for Others

• Supply Chain Management– Contractor Property System– Contractor Purchasing System

Path Forward

Path forward for FY08 and beyond

What• Operate the

Laboratories with an inter-related, integrated management system

• Improve the management system and subsystems

• Create sustainable business systems that add value, foster agility, and will endure into the future

Ensure long-term customer confidence:

• Improve management performance and effectiveness

• Achieve efficiencies to enhance mission work

• Execute ILMS processes, • produce coherent

management information across the Labs

• act on business information to improve operations and mission performance

• Continuously improve ILMS processes, the ILMS information system, and ILMS execution

• Reduce complexity, simplify processes, and integrate process enablers (i.e. IT) with optimized business processes

How Why

ILMS – Current State

WebFileShare (WFS) SNL External sites

Links to other SNL web sites and information outside the ILMS framework

Links to web pages, documents and information

in the ILMS framework

Data Sources

Links to docs in WFSDisplayed in the native

app (ie Excel, Word, PDF)Data that is not in WFS

ILMS – Desired State

Data access to other structured data will be through connectors provided by EIMS (financial data, HR data, etc)

Pages displayed in ILMS will be “rendered” in ILMS, not links to external web pages

Define what the business rules and intent are and enforce those through logic in the portal.

Data that can not be incorporated under the EIMS umbrella

Structured and unstructured datathat is corporate data shouldreside in EIMS

ILMS - Long Term Vision; Nota Goal For This FY or Next

• Management has uniform understanding of ILMS

• All AAIP processes are operational• Improved quality and completeness of

information• Evidence that the assurance system

identifies problems, and they are addressed

• Lab Quality program is understood and drives quality in programs

• Improved assurance information created in accordance with CPRs and available on ILMS

• Gaining process efficiencies

• Progress toward usage of ILMS at all levels within the labs (executives > managers > other MOW)

• Common tools and processes for creating and understanding assurance information

• Enhanced IT infrastructure to support ILMS

• Progress toward less complex processes and business rules

• Integrated, multi-year ILMS/Transformation plan

• Progress toward ISO registration

Where do we want to be at the end of FY08?

OPERATE IMPROVE

ILMS has resulted in significant accomplishments.

• Improved Sandia Board of Directors governance structure• Corporate-wide deployment of assurance processes• Significantly improved operational and mission performance• Development of the ILMS information system for management

information• Application of Lean Six Sigma techniques for efficiency gains• Modifications to standards and application of best practices• Cost savings/avoidance of $166M since FY04

– $90M in FY07– $20M in FY06– $14M in FY05– $42M in FY04

ILMS is making a significant impact on improved operations and efficiency at

Sandia

Sandia Management is committed to setting a standard of management excellence and continuous improvement through ILMS

Backup

New Policies and Procedures

– July 2003- ILMS CPSR issued– January 2004 - Security Roles and Responsibilities CPR issued

• CSO, CI and DSP responsibilities and authorities refined wrt insider risk

– September 2004- Enterprise Risk Management process created– January 2005- Corporate Issues Management CPR issued– April 2005- Corporate Self Assessment & Corrective Action CPRs

issued– June 2005- ILMS CPSR- Enhanced Roles & Responsibilities, Describe

Lab-Level Mgt System, require SMU Assurance Models, Plans, Reports– September 2005- ILMS CPSR- Expanded LLT Responsibilities– July 2006- ERM CPR issued– August 2006- ILMS CPSR- Updated CAS description– January 2007- Work Planning & Control CPR issued– September 2007- Management Assurance CPR issued

• Self Assessment, Corrective Action, Risk Management, & Issues Management CPRs revised

– October 2007- ILMS CPSR revised

New Implementing Programs

– Since 2003 training and awareness has improved, e.g., ES&H, S&S, ethics, counterintelligence

– 2003- Security Stand down– August 2004- ACREM Stand down– June 2005 – Behavior Based Safety pilot

begins in Org 10000– 2007- BBS roles out to all SNL organizations

New Oversight & Assessments

– 2005 - the Business Conduct Advisory Committee was established

– August 2003 – ES&H and Security Performance Assurance departments established

– August 2004- S&S Performance Testing extended to line

– 2006 – LLT assurance reviews established– 2006-2007 – extensive line self assessment

process designed and implemented– 2007 – Sandia Assurance Review Board

established

Improve: Results to Date ofRisk Based Oversight Procedure

• Facilities/Projects– 80 of 113 (71%) of federal requirements requesting changes – 59 of 113 (52%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight (up from 56 of 113)* – 54 of 113 (48%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight (down from 57 of 113)*– * These oversight numbers are for projects over $100M. For smaller projects under $100M, the number for

systems oversight increases to 77 (from 71) of 93 requirements and transactional decreases to 16 (from 22) of 93 requirements. The total number of requirements (113 versus 93) decreases since nuclear requirements are not included.

• Procurement– 8 of 19 (42%) of federal requirements requesting changes– 8 of 19 (42%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight (up from 6 of 19)– 11 of 19 (58%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight (down from 13 of 19)

• Property– 10 of 16 (62%) of federal requirements requesting changes – 15 of 16 (94%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight (up from 9 of 16)– 1 of 16 (6%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight (down from 7 of 16)

• Contractor Human Resources– 38 of 132 (29%) of federal requirements requesting changes– 58 of 132 (44%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight (up from 53 of 132) – 74 of 132 (56%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight (down from 79 of 132)


• Facilities Operations– 32 of 80 (41%) of federal requirements requesting changes

– 20 of 80 (23%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight (up from 2 of 80)

– 58 of 80 (73%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight (down from 77 of 80)

• Safety and Health – 58 of 146 (39%) of federal requirements requesting changes - generally to tailor and allow

contractor to perform task and allow SSO oversight of it

– 96 of 146 (66%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight – estimated increased from established practice but not yet quantified

– 50 of 146 (33%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight - estimated decreased from established practice but not yet quantified

– Yet to complete Explosive Safety Manual or Aviation Safety Orders review

• Environmental – 5 of 23 (22%) of federal requirements requesting changes

– 21 of 23 (91%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight (up from 17 of 23)



• Weapon Quality (D&P Manual)– 11 of 20 (55%) of federal requirements requesting changes

– 12 of 20 (91%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight


– 3 of 20 alter/waive

• Non Weapons Quality – 30 of 81 (37%) of federal requirements requesting changes

– 35 of 81 (43%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight

– 45 of 81 (56%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight

1

2

ILMS 3.0 Awareness from Corporate Viewpoint

1

2

3

4

ILMS 3.0 Awareness from Policy Area Viewpoint

1

2

3

4

ILMS 3.0 Awareness from SMG/SMU Viewpoint

1

2

3

4

ILMS 3.0 Awareness from Division Viewpoint

Risk Management Process Flow

Figure 1: Corporate Self Assessment Process

•Risk & Assurance matrices

•Adverse performance trends

•Audit findings

•Repeat findings from internal/external assessments

•Causal analysis from significant adverse events

•Recommendations from Annual Lab Mgmt System Assessment

•Length of time since last self assessment

•Upcoming audits

•Revised or new customer/ corporate requirements

•LESA Record

•Assessment Plan

•Final Report

Management Assessor/Team Members of Workforce

OutputsInputsPlan Assessments*•Graded approach

Review final report*

Perform Assessments*•Assure adequate controls•Perform fieldwork/data collection

Report assessment results*

Participate fully with SA activities•Identify, disclose deficiencies, non-compliances, and/or issues•Complete assessment tasks•Improve work processes

End

CPR 1.3.10 9/17/07

Analyze assessment data*

Implement improvement action*

Verify completion of improvement action*

*No finding

*Minorfinding

Major finding

CATS

* document within LESA

Responsible Manager CAR Owner

Team Members (Members of Workforce) LLT & SARB

Inputs Outputs

Mandatory for addressing:

•Findings from Indep. Assessments and Audits conducted by Sandia’s audit orgs, or any external agency

•Findings from Self Assessments that are H/M risk

•Findings identified during Mgmt Review or Analysis & Trending that are H/M risk

•Corporate Issues identified through the Corporate Issues Management Process

•External customer complaints that SNL mgmt warrants

•Internally or externally identified adverse trends that require corrective action per mgmt decision or contract requirement

Optional: Low risk self assessment findings, observations, and improvement opportunities, etc.

•CATS reports

•Objective evidence of completion in CATS

•Evidence of validation results

•CATS Metrics

Figure 1 – Corporate Corrective Action Process

Define problem & assign CAR Owner and preliminary risk rating – 2.2.1

Analyze problem & determine cause – 2.2.2

Implement corrective actions (solutions) – 2.2.4

Verify completion of corrective actions (solutions) – 2.2.5

Ensure validation by Indep team for High risk findings – 2.2.7

Review and report Corrective Action statistics – 2.3

Use Corrective Action data to direct continual improvement of the Laboratory

END

Generate corrective actions (solutions) – 2.2.3

Revised: csb/ILMS 09/20/07

Inputs

Example Potential Sources:

•Trend Analyses of performance measures S&S Incidents•LLT/Div./PA/SMU Mgmt. Reviews•Assessments•ES&H Occurrences

•OOPS Process•ES&H IssuesManagement System

•Legal Actions•CSAT•Perf. Eval. (PEAR, PER)

•Congressional Inquiries

•BOD Actions•SSO/NNSA/DOE Activities, incl.

“for cause” reviews •MOWObservations

•Ombuds, EEOActions

•Media/CommunityAction

•ES&H WeeklyReport to LMC

•Incident Commander Summaries

•GAO, IG, PAAA Findings

Issue Initiator

Mgmt. Syst. Imprv. Dept.

CIMBDecisionMaker

•Monitor Progress*•DiscussIssues*•ProvideAdvice /Guidance*

9/19/07CPR1.3.9

Output

•CorpIssuesStmts.

•DM Assign.•CATS entries & obj. evidence

VPEnterprise

Transformation

- MOWs - Process Owners- SARB - LLT - COO

Figure 1: Corporate Issues Management Process

Assign CAR

Owner; provide

resources as needed

Refine CorpIssue

Statement; make recom.

To CIMB

•Track Issues•Provide Periodic Status to:ILMS siteDecision Mkr & CA Owners

Compile and report metrics

Inform Issue Initiator

Make Initial CATS Entry

*Optional ActionsEnd

IDEvent/Issue

ImplementCorrective Action

Locally (use Corp. CA

Process)

LocalCorrective

Action?

MeetCorporate Issue

Criteria?

Y

N

N

Draft Corporate Issue Statement

Y

AssignDecisionMaker

Acceptas CorpIssue

?

Accept

CIM Board consider Issue; make

recommen-dation to ET VP.

Verify completion

CAROwner

Analyze Issue; do cause analysis; develop CAs

Enter CAs into CATS

Ensure CAs implemented and completed

Closes CAs in CATS

Reject

Refer the topic to an

executive for resolution via

Corp. CA Process

Defer

Create schedule for review, which is dependent on internal and external

influences

Collect source information

Perform analysis of the information to: determine trends, measure

performance against expectations, etc.

Analysis & Trending- Assurance Data- Assurance Information- Assurance Reports

Communicate decisions and/or assign actions

Develop Plans

Perform Assessments

Apply Corrective Actions

Manage Issues

Perform Benchmarking

Apply Lessons Learned

Sub-ProcessINPUTS OUTPUTS

Management Review Process

Performance Measures Process

No

Yes

Identify new/changed requirements and determine

performance measures [Fig B-2]

Understand interfaces, dependencies, alignment and

shared metrics

Coordinate and integrate measurements and usage

Use metrics, report work and process results

Objectives, Goals,Milestones, Issues

Work Plans and Reports

INPUTS Sub-Process OUTPUTS

Integratedand clear?

Yes

Management Review

Analysis & Trending Process

Gather Information

Perform Analysis

Determine ResultsResults of Analysis & Trending for

Management Review

Entity Management & Performance Information & Data e.g.

- Objectives, Goals & Milestones- Plans- Risks & Controls- Customer Commitments- Self-Assessment Results- Internal & External Audit Results- Injury/Illness Data- DOE Reportable Occurrences, NOTES and Near Misses- Customer Satisfaction Feedback- Benchmarking Results- Financial Results- Security Incidents & Infractions- Corrective Action Status


BenchmarkingProcess

Corporate Analysis & Trending

Reports

Entity Management

Review Information

Benchmark Plan

Internal

ExternalCompetitiveFunctional

Generic

Analyze and Review

Benchmark Activities

Collect and Conduct

Benchmark

Analyze and Take Action to

Implement Benchmark

Improvements

Process Performance

Maintenance and Problem

Resolution

Performance Measures

Entity Management

Reviews

Corporate Benchmarking

Results


Lessons Learned Process

Identify and Review sources of potential lessons learned

information

Prepare lessons learned document

SARB review

Disseminate lessons learned to Lab and/or DOE-wide

Management review data

Approved lessons learned document

INPUTS Sub-Process OUTPUTS

Analysis and trending data

Self-assessments in LESA

Corrective actions in CATS

Benchmarks

Issues in CIM

External lessons learned

Observed potential lesson or good practice

Validation Process

Sub-Process

VP for Enterprise Transformation Charters Team

Develop Method/Plan

Conduct Validation Activities

Prepare Validation Reports

Corporate Analysis & Trending

Reports

Entity Management

Review Information

EO/LLT Management

Reviews

INPUTS OUTPUTS

1.0 Planning Work

1.1 It is a requirement in the Management Assurance CPR for management entities to identify performance measures. List or provide a link to key performance measures for your Division.

1.2 Where performance is currently below expectations, list the performance measure and action underway to achieve the expected level of performance.

2.0 Risk Management

2.1 List changes to your risk matrix during this quarter.

2.2 List control activities you have changed to help manage your risks.

2.3 Please provide any feedback that you believe would be useful for the Risk Management process owner. (Optional)

Division ES&H Assurance 2.4 After reviewing the ES&H Dashboard and any other ES&H assurance information related to your Division, list any negative trends/issues for your Division for this quarter, along with any planned action to improve performance.

Example: Slips, Trips and Falls have increased. See 1.2 response for planned action.

Example: Changed #3 in Division Risk Matrix from High Residual Risk to Medium Residual Risk

Example: Could not easily locate the definition of “High Residual Risk”

Example: Days Away Case Rate is higher than anticipated. We will be providing additional Slips, Trips and Fall awareness communication throughout the Division in the next quarter.

Examples: Days Away Case Rate, Quality Technical Hires from Top 25 Colleges and Universities

Example: #4 in Division Risk Matrix. Control activities do not include adequate independent assessments.

Division Assurance

ReportTemplate

Sandia National Laboratories’ Integrated Laboratory Management System (ILMS) (our Contractor...

Documents

Transcript of Sandia National Laboratories’ Integrated Laboratory Management System (ILMS) (our Contractor...