director’s report fra admin and ops review

Director’s Report FRA Admin and Ops Review

Pier Oddone, FermilabAugust 3rd, 2009

Pier Oddone, FRA Admin and Ops Review, August 3rd, 20092

Outline

• Science program: progress since last year

• Strategy and briefings to new administration

• Operations:

IT restructuring ES&H and Take Five Campaign Cyber-security audit and Tune It Up Campaign Implementation of IQA Implementation of EVMS Engineering Manual Focus groups conclusions

• Budgets: FY09, FY10 and ARRA


Progress: Tevatron

Progress: Tevatron

• Continued vital collaborations with many results

• Achieved 1.8 fb-1, same as last year but in only 8.5 months

• Have made the case to run in FY11, provided additional funding of $27M compared to previous plan


Pier Oddone, FRA Admin and Ops Review, August 3rd, 20095 5

Progress: Higgs at the TevatronSensitivity Projection (Region favored by Mtop, MW, … meas.s)

Higgs Mass (GeV/C2)

Pier Oddone, FRA Admin and Ops Review, August 3rd, 20096 6

Progress: double Tevatron data

Luminosity Performance and Projection

We are here

Real data for FY02-FY08

9.3 fb-1

7.8 fb-1

Inte

grat

ed lu

min

osity

(fb-1

)

---------

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

~12 fb-1

Data Analysis (~3 fb-1)~100 Publications / Year

~60 Ph.D.s / Year

4-5 fb-1 Results

Summer Conferences


Progress: LHC


Progress: LHC

• All magnets in the damaged sector are back in the tunnel

• New circuits and wiring for the quench protection system: quenches will be detected much earlier

• Two review committees: analysis and recommendations Quench Protection System (half Fermilab members) Overall Risk

• Many more “bad splices”, especially in copper-to-copper splices in interconnecting busbars (suggested by QPS review committee)


Progress: LHC

• Additional sector (4-5) warming up: “to verify measurements at 80 K” – they check out

• Two more leaks in two cold sectors found and understood. Partial warming to fix them means ready for injection in mid- November at best

• Important for detectors to get some collision data at any energy

• Fermilab’s contributions recognized by Bertolucci at the Users Meeting, Rolf Heuer at the European Physical Society meeting

10CMSPier Oddone, FRA Admin and Ops Review, August 3rd, 2009

Progress: neutrinos

• Successful runs for both MINOS and MiniBooNE

• First results on electron appearance for MINOS

• No low energy excess in antineutrino running of MiniBooNE

• MINERVA first detectors taking data

• ArgoNeut first pictures



Progress: neutrinos

Minos Far Detector

Progress: MiniBooNE


Approaching 1021 POT

Progress: MINOS


Progress: MINOS e-appearance


With 3*1020 POT

Progress: what is q13?

• Above: recent global fit to world data by Fogli et al. (arXiv:0905.3549)

• q13 = 0 disfavored by ~2 s• Central value sin2q13 = 0.02 or sin22q13=0.08

16 Pier Oddone, FRA Admin and Ops Review, August 3rd, 2009

Progress: NOvA groundbreaking


The NOvA Collaborationat Argonne National Lab, 25 April 2009

180 Scientists and Engineers from 26 InstitutionsArgonne National Laboratory - University of Athens - California Institute of Technology - University of California, Los Angeles - Fermi National Accelerator

Laboratory - Harvard University - Indiana University - Lebedev Physical Institute - Michigan State University - University of Minnesota, Duluth - University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - The Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow - Technische Universität München, Munich - State University of New York, Stony Brook - Northwestern University - University of South Carolina, Columbia - Southern Methodist University - Stanford University - University of Tennessee - Texas A&M University - University of Texas, Austin - University of Texas, Dallas - Tufts University - University of Virginia, Charlottesville - The College of William and Mary -

Wichita State University


• NOvA is optimized for the detection of νμ→νe and νμ→νe

oscillations

• NOvA is: An upgrade of the NuMI beam

intensity from 400 kW to 700 kW

A 14 kt “totally active” tracking liquid scintillator calorimeter sited 14 mrad off the NuMI beam axis at a distance of 810 km

A 215 ton near detector identical to the far detector sited 14 mrad off the NuMI beam axis at a distance of 1 km

2.5 GeV νe + p →1.9 GeV e- + 1.1 GeV p + 0.2 GeV π+

20 cm

20 c

m

MIPs

MIPs

NOvA


MINERvA prototype takes data


First ArgoNeut LAr TPC events


Progress: all other fronts

• Particle astrophysics going well, both projects and new ideas. DES is on track

• Key strategy to develop beamline to Homestake and high intensity source at Fermilab recognized in DOE

• Will the funding be available over the next decade?


Briefings to the new administration

• Two hour briefing to Undersecretary Koonin and Office of Science Director Brinkman on general laboratory planning in April

• One and half hour briefing to Director Brinkman last week specifically on the development of the neutrino program globally and at Fermilab

• We have made needs clear: now administration has to decide what roadmap



Ten-year plan at the three frontiersPrograms / Projects FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Energy FrontierTevatron CDF TBD

DZero TBDLHC CMS

ATLASLHC Upgrade Phase I R&D ConstructionLHC Upgrade Phase II R&D Construction

Lepton Collider R&D Construction ?

Intensity FrontierMiniBooNE TBD

MINOS TBDMINERvA CD-3b Shutdown for NOvA

MicroBooNE Conceptual Design Design/Construction Shutdown for NOvANOvA CD-2 CD-3a/bmu2e CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3a

Long-Basedline n CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3a CD-4Project X CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3a

Cosmic FrontierDark Matter CDMS (4 kg) CDMS (15 kg) CDMS (~1 ton) ?

COUPP (2 kg) COUPP (60 kg) COUPP (~500 kg) ? LAr (~1 ton)?Dark Energy SDSS

CD-3b DESJDEM Science Operation Center

UHE Cosmic Rays Pierre Auger (South) Pierre Auger (North) Engineering Design/Construction TBD

Science and Technology Development FacilitiesDetector Testbeam

Accelerator A0 Test FacilitySCRF Test Facility

Computation Lattice QCD

Facilities and experiments


TevatronLHC

LHCLHC upgrades

MinosMiniBooNE

NOvAMicroBooNE

MINERvA

LHCILC or

Muon Collider

Now 2015

LHCILC??

LBNEMu2e

Project X+LBNEMu2e

n Factory

2012 2018

P AugerDM Searches

P AugerDM: scalable?

DESJDEM

DM searchesJDEM

Ene

rgy

Inte

nsity

Cos

mic

Additional facilities and experiments


G-2Anti-hydrogenMiniBooNE II

Now 2015

NuSOnGP-pbarTev FT

2012 2018

Holog. Noise21 cm

Axions

P Auger North P Auger North

Ene

rgy

Inte

nsity

Cos

mic

Budgetary needs over the decade


-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

Project X

LBNE

mu2e

Line Item Construction (SLI)

ILC, LHC, CMS, NOvA, etc.

New Initiatives

Core Technologies R&D

Core Research

Facility Operations

FY09 With Inflation

US costs will decrease with International Contributions.

National Needs

National NeedsNational Needs

InflationThen

Yea

r $M

Operational issues

Many issues are taking a lot of attention:

IT restructuring ES&H and Take Five Campaign Cyber-security audit and Tune It Up Campaign Implementation of IQA Implementation of EVMS Engineering Manual Focus groups conclusions



Organization chart and changes

Computing S&T

Associate Director

MIS

Operations: ES&H

• Concern over increase in injuries


00.0500000000000001

0.10.150.2

0.2500000000000010.3000000000000010.3500000000000010.4000000000000010.4500000000000010.5000000000000010.5500000000000010.6000000000000010.6500000000000020.700000000000002

Running 365-Day DART Rate (Goal = <0.25)

+1s+1s

Operations: ES&H


6/18/0

7

7/16/0

7

8/13/0

7

9/10/0

7

10/8/

07

11/5/

07

12/3/

07

12/31

/07

1/28/0

8

2/25/0

8

3/24/0

8

4/21/0

8

5/19/0

8

6/16/0

8

7/14/0

8

8/11/0

89/8

/08

10/6/

08

11/3/

08

12/1/

08

12/29

/08

1/26/0

9

2/23/0

9

3/23/0

9

4/20/0

9

5/18/0

9

6/15/0

90

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Running 365-Day TRC Rate (Goal = <0.65)

+1s

ES&H: “Take Five – Goal Zero”

• Started new laboratory wide campaign modeled on other institutions

• Take five minutes to plan how to do the work - take five seconds to think of what you are going to do and take five things to reflect on when the job is done

• Web page and tools to help do jobs safely


ES&H: “Take Five – Goal Zero”


Operations: cyber-security

• DOE audit revealed several lapses:

Open offices with computers on System administrators ignoring system warnings Sloppy PII procedures in some practices

• Overall grade: marginal

• Response: major effort to get better


Cyber-security

• Tune IT Up! Campaign

Limit number of system administrators

Train remaining administrators

Implement more software controls


Operations: IQA


Operations: IQA

• Accepted IQA plan

• “As is” assessment completed

• Corrective Action Plan submitted

• Trying to fix main problems prior to Fall audit


EVMS certification

• Certification review led to three corrective actions:

Tracking “uncosted” scientific effort through hours

Procedure for “management reserve”

Charging direct cost of exempt personnel (instead of fraction of FTEs)


Engineering manual

• Following triplet failure and “root cause analysis”, established committee to write an engineering process manual.

• Final draft is nearly complete. It has been a very useful exercise and we have a product that will set the process and standards across the lab



Response to APS study

• Follow-up to findings of APS site visit in May 2008

• 23 focus groups, November through January

• 187 total participants

• Participants enthusiastic, open and constructive in their contributions


Response to APS study

• Approach:

12 categories of employees and users

Random selection from whole population

Random selection from women and minorities

Neutral facilitator, all groups confidential

Detailed summaries of each group w/o attribution

All results posted on Web

• Important conclusions to improve various systems

Focus groups

• No systemic diversity issues

• But lots of management issues No defined Fermilab culture Two tier system: physicist and non-physicists Unskilled managers Lack of employee support Lack of understanding of performance review and

salary management Policies and procedures not explained/understood Inconsistent application of family-friendly policies


Focus groups

• Held an “all-hands” meeting in June to discuss the various issues raised by the report

• All the information posted on the web. Supervisors encouraged to discuss both findings and summaries with their groups

• We will discuss broadly ideas to improve on the various issues raised and implement changes over the next year



FY09 budget

FY09 budget

• We had to live through March with very restrictive budgets due to the continuing resolution: $60M difference between FY08 enacted budget and President’s budget

• Then huge ramp up in activity due to regular budget (only $10M below the President’s request) and ARRA funding.



FY09 budget: ops & projects

FERMILAB OHEP FUNDING

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

$ M

LHC Upgrade

DECam

MINERvA

NOvA

SRF Infrastructure

BTeV

CDF / D-Zero Run Ib Upgrades

CMS Construction

LHC Construction

CDF / D-Zero Run II Upgrades

NuMI / MINOS

WH Safety Improvements

Core Programs

FY10 budget

• On the surface it appears like a good budget at $398 M, about $20M higher than FY09

• However, NOvA ramps up by about $30M and therefore the rest of the program is under stress

• The stress is ameliorated by managing carryover funds: $10M would be used in FY10 for a total budget of $408M


FY11 budget

• We don’t know about the FY11 budget

• However, the distress exercises we do for OHEP indicates that budget guidance from OMB at this point is extremely tight – probably flat-flat for Office of Science

• Initial plans do not include running the Tevatron. OHEP is making the case for an additional $27M to run the Tevatron to Office of Science



ARRA status

• President signed $787B Bill 2/17 DOE share is $38.71B SC share is $1.6B

• Secretary Chou announced $1.2B of SC projects 3/12


ARRA status - FNAL

• Total Amount for Fermilab - $152.5M• Projects

NOvA - $55M At FNAL - $15M At UMinn - $40M

General Plant Projects - $25M SRF - $52.7M LBNE - $15M High Field Magnet- $4M SRF Materials R&D – $0.8M


ARRA status - FNAL

• Total Public Announced Amount - $31.9M $31.9M – 3/23

• Received as of 6/11 NOvA - $49.5M

FNAL - $9.4M on 5/15 UMinn - $40.1M

General Plant Projects - $22.5M on 5/15

• Supposedly the rest of the funding has been released by the CFO and is working its way through the DOE system


ARRA issues

• Hold Back 10-20% now supposedly solved• Reporting Requirements

Fund must not be co-mingled Little Guidance Beyond “Transparency” Jobs Created and Retained

• Contract Requirements New Access to Records requirements for subs

implemented through new Contract clauses• Job Creation and Retention

Very few if only prime contractor counted. Exact definition needed. DOE-SC weekly reports require subs data


Fermilab ARRA implementation

• Formed ARRA task force 1/28• CFO formed reporting team• Legal Prepared Special Clauses• DOE modified contract with special ARRA

Clauses – multiple times• Legal briefed ARRA task force on Fraud,

Waste, & Abuse concerns and issues• Weekly DOE-SC, FSO and Lab telecon

briefing

Further operational issues

• Restore NOvA project good to status by re-scheduling accelerator task. A severe optics problem, not a fundamental problem. Obtain EVMS certification

• Careful human resources planning: the system is too tight to get everything done that is on our plate

• IT overall architecture for the lab and many areas of improvement


Further operational issues

• Restructuring below AD for Computing Science and Technology and AD for Research. Better alignment with strategic plan

• Improved financial planning and tracking. Held workshop with program managers to define structure. Should lead to better transparency and efficiency


FRA VISITING COMMITTEEADMIN AND OPS SUPPORT

3-5 AUGUST 2009

STATE OF LAB OPS/ADMIN SUPPORTBruce Chrisman

60

Significant Lab Events

• ES&H Trend Reversal• Diversity Council Active• Diversity Focus Groups• New Associate Director Appointed

Split in two Greg Bock Vicky White

• Created CIO position• Moved MIS to CD• New ES&H Head Appointed

Chrisman

Significant Lab Events – Cont.

• TeV running in FY10, maybe FY11• Mission Readiness• Draft “Admin” strategic plan• Mid-Year DOE-FSO PEMP review

Overall Doing well Noted the Safety Issues Minor procurement paperwork concern

• ARRA

Chrisman61

Committee’s 08 Crosscutting Recommendations• Practice routine benchmarking to validate the

effectiveness of Fermilab systems• Little Progress

• Develop a formal space management program with well-defined roles and responsibilities to handle facilities in anticipation of mission readiness program• Little Progress

• Begin strategic planning using various scenarios for Tevatron shutdown & DUSEL/Project X/NOvA/new efforts• Fully Engaged with DOE-OHEP

Chrisman62

Crosscutting Recommendations - Cont.• Negotiate phased CD0 delivery dates with DOE

• Complete• Develop formal succession planning program lab-wide

• Working with ANL on this – An FY10 PEMP item• Increase ANL collaboration and move to the next level

of cooperation and cost savings • See above• Joint Training – cost savings• Section Presentations on other actions

Chrisman63

Crosscutting Recommendations - Cont.• Establish a Workforce Restoration Review Task Force

to restore positions needed lab-wide• Considered, but not implemented beyond OHAP.

Chrisman64

FRA Visiting Committee for Administration and Operations

Martha MichelsFermilab ES&H Section August 3, 2009


Martha MichelsFermilab ES&H Section August 3, 2009

67

2008 Visiting Committee Findings

2009 FRA Visiting Committee - Finance

• Findings and Current Status

Fill the ES&H Section Head Position as soon as possible. It is important to find someone who is respected by Laboratory Management and the DOE Office of Science ES&H Community.Dr. Nancy Grossman was chosen to fill this position starting December 1, 2008. Her experience is:• ES&H Section Radiation Physicist and the Section QA

Coordinator.• Many years in project management (MINOS, MINERvA,

SNuMI, NOvA), focusing on ES&H, Document Control, QA, and Risk Management.

• Served on several Lehman Review Committees.• Well respected by Laboratory Management, DOE ES&H

Community and the Users at the Laboratory.

2009 FRA Visiting Committee - ESH

100% of ES&H PM goals were met in 2008. This includes the TRC and DART rate goals which have always proven difficult to meet in the past.

It was predicted that sustaining this level of performance (for injury rates) would not be easy and this is certainly true at present.

On other PMs in environmental and radiation protection, we are doing well, but we will not meet the DART and TRC PM.

68

Charge Question #1 – Performance Measures


2009 values are higher than we would like, but they are in line with 2006-2007.

We have tried to understand what caused 2008 to be such a “safe” year. A general thought is that fear of reprisal was a major reason.

We are working to improve our injury record by improving communication at all levels, making easier access to the correct tools for the job, providing clearer guidance on expectations – Take 5 web page and tools (http://www.fnal.gov/pub/takefive/)

It is important to note that we are doing at least as well in 2009 as we did in 2008 on all other PM’s.

69 2009 FRA Visiting Committee - ESH

We have suffered from a lack of IT resources for some time within the ES&H Section.

We are hopeful that the reorganization and consolidation of IT support services will greatly benefit us as we have many tools that need to be used lab-wide and thus a lab-wide approach to IT can only make our job easier.

We are working closely with CD to increase our IT support (they are presently our only IT support) and to make sure we are heading in a direction consistent with CD’s vision.

70

Charge Question #2 – IT Consolidation


ES&H needs to support the NEPA process for ARRA funds and we have done that successfully to date and feel we are equipped to continue to provide that support.

ES&H also needs to appropriately review ARRA projects and provide oversight. We have hired a new employee in order to allow us to have the resources to appropriately perform that task.


Charge Question #3 – ARRA Funds

We have a QA Representative who interacts with OQBMP and keeps the Section Head informed

ES&H Section representation on Assurance Council

We were the main aspect of the DOE/FSO Contractor Assurance (Order 226) Review in 2009 (CAP finalized)

Nearly all of our QA “As-Is” issues are closed out. They were items that improved our overall program (most concerned document control)


Charge Question #4 – QA Implementation

All items in the Issues Management System assigned to ES&H are closed out

We have continued to work with OQBMP on the Dashboard which we look forward to seeing as it will communicate ESH to the lab in a new manner

We have defined out major processes, are defining our 3 year review cycle of these processes and are looking to better document all of our processes – these efforts should improve the efficiency of our section.


Charge Question #4 – QA Implementation (continued)

• We have a section member as part of the Strategic Laboratory Leadership Program (SLLP) working closely with ANL, who also has people in this program.

• Division Management The respective division managers interact primarily via

phone and email.

Nancy Grossman visited Argonne in March and shared lesson’s learned and approaches to various ES&H issues.


Charge Question #5 – Interaction with Argonne

• Division Management (con’t) We have shared information/procedures relative to key current

events; a recent example is preparedness activities related to the potential H1N1 flu pandemic.

We also participate in monthly conference calls for all DOE-SC laboratory ESH Managers.

• Specific Department Interactions We collaborated repeatedly on the NOVA neutrino detector with

respect to chemical and fire issues; this is ongoing and is one of the key interactions that has had direct ties to programmatic work at both laboratories.



(continued)

• Specific Department Interactions (con’t) Environmental management activities to include assessments,

sampling protocols, and ISO 14001 certification

Radiation safety activities to include multiple assessments, site visits, accelerator safety, and instrument calibration.

Helped ANL achieve their DOELAP re-accreditation for the dosimetry program.

We participate in ANL’s Accelerator Safety Review Committee.

Fermilab will participate in the CARIBU (an upgrade to the Argonne Tandem Linear Accelerator System) readiness review at ANL in August.

Ongoing, frequent informal contacts 76 2009 FRA Visiting Committee - ESH


(continued)

• Future plans ANL ESQ to visit ANL – training/injury focus

Goal to meet face to face 3 times a year.

Looking to share injury information over the internet. Continue to work together on joint training classes – offer at

one or the other site and invite people from both sites (NEPA/EA, Dupont Training)

Emergency Response – MOU nearly complete – easy access to ANL site by FNAL personnel the remaining issue.



(continued)

Considering changing our worker’s compensation insurance to a local company (Better service? Cheaper?)

Can not cut personnel any more without cutting key services or missing some number of high level deadlines!

Main focus is on improving efficiency through our reorganization, cross training personnel, documenting processes clearly, providing easier access to tools/training to perform the work, and setting up the ESH-Docdb to facilitate this.

Many of our systems we are trying to make more user-friendly lab-wide and thus should improve overall lab efficiency and hopefully the safety record also.

ESHTRK, Lesson’s Learned, Training, ESH & Take 5 Web pages, etc.78 2009 FRA Visiting Committee - ESH

Charge Question #6 – Cost Reduction

Worked with the D/S/C ESH organizations to: Set up the Take 5 Program and web pages Get feedback on how to improve our ESH Web page (in

progress)

Provide supplemental ES&H Material at Scheduling meetings to help inform/educate D/S/C heads about a variety of ES&H issues.

Regular meetings with SSO’s, EO’s, RSO’s, D/S Heads – encouraging team work, better communication, feedback in a “no-fault” manner – both ways.

Our discussions with people in general seem to say we (ESH Organization) are doing well in this effort.


Charge Question #7 – Service Culture

Have been having on-going discussions with the ES&H Section management team concerning succession planning

Have a rough plan, but to do it efficiently it requires increased head count and money in order for people to overlap and be trained.

Annual performance reviews of all Section employees are held by management team and succession planning discussion is part of that process

Staff development issues are identified; opportunities for growth and leadership identified and included in individual performance evaluations/goals


Charge Question #8 – Succession Planning


Randy OrtgiesenFacilities Engineering Services Section (FESS)

August 3, 2009

83

2008 Visiting Committee Recommendations• Recommendations and Current Status• FESS participating in Tevatron decommissioning plans√• FESS involved in planning for new science √• Ongoing education of lab personnel on DP-18 √• Providing feedback on completed work orders √• Working with Divisions to budget equipment √• Evaluated funding mechanisms for infrastructure √• Continue matching staffing to current needs √• No findings

2009 FRA Visiting Committee - FESS

2009 FRA Visiting Committee - FESS84


FY08 Performance Results:• All 8 performance measures achieved

Scheduled maintenance √ Maintenance investment level √ Achieve GPP milestones √ TEAM executable plan developed √ GPP projects identified in Annual Lab Plan √ Electricity reliability √ Industrial Cooling Water (ICW) reliability √ Future funding for Infrastructure identified √


Charge Question #1 – Performance Measures (cont.)

FY09 Performance Results to Date:• Expect to meet all seven performance

measures Scheduled maintenance Mission Readiness process Achieve GPP milestones Achieve TEAM executable plan actions GPP projects identified in Annual Lab Plan Electrical reliability Industrial Cooling Water reliability



• Transparent to most FESS employees so far• FESS Technical support has absorbed impact

Characterized as minimal effort to date• Work tracking through CD but performed by

FESS employees• Processes are becoming more streamlined;

FESS and CD are working closely to make this work

• FESS IT coordination with CD to understand work requirements for ISO 20000



• Engineering and Construction Management for General Plant Projects (GPP) MI-8 building addition New Muon Lab extension Feynman Computing Center Power upgrade Feynman Computing Center Cooling Upgrade Wilson Hall Emergency Generator Replacement IB-3 building addition (10% GPP hold back) Horizontal Test Stand and Cryogenic building (SRF

project GPP)


Charge Question #3 – ARRA Funds (cont.)

• Management of funds: Uses well established existing lab GPP procedures Bi-weekly management status meetings Weekly project update meetings Weekly ARRA budget reporting Quarterly GPP reports

• All projects have separate accounting tasks• All projects captured in lab accounting system



• Section Head member of lab Assurance Council• FESS participant in lab IQA plan development• Assigned half time FESS QAR• Examined FESS major processes• Completed As-Is analysis of 5 major processes

and 8 cross-cutting processes• Developed 6 corrective action plans• Developed FESS policies and procedures

manual• It is an integration effort that will take time



Existing: Shared resources for project reviews National Environmental Research Park (NERP)

collaboration Land Management collaboration/best practices Janitorial contract process review Mission Readiness peer review participation

Planned: Continuation of existing Utility management information sharing Energy Savings Performance Contract direction



• Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC)• Energy purchase strategies • Public utility easement management• Building automation and monitoring• Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)• Outsourcing HVAC services • Cost Reduction is not a net cost savings

Redirected to unfunded or unplanned requirements


Charge Question #6 – Cost Reduction (cont.)

• Future plans Building consolidation and elimination strategies Continue existing initiatives

• Lessons Learned from workforce reduction Communication improvements to limit anxiety and

loss of good employees Need for education on value of FESS engineering Single shift craft work can be successfully

accomplished



• Communicate Listen Feedback Customer and Topic Specific Meetings

Division and Section Meetings • Coordinate

Critical Activity Planning and Scheduling Meetings• Educate

Face to Face meetings FESS website

• P/S Group Daily Schedules and e-forms


Charge Question #7 – Service Culture (cont.)

• Future plans Continue existing activities GIS expansion and offering Metasys expansion and offering



• Ensured “Continuity of Operations”• Created and filled Deputy Section Head position• Identified vulnerable positions• Anticipate attrition and outcomes• Recruited and hired senior engineers to meet

current workload and backfill anticipated positions as needed

• Retention of current critical workforce Workload balancing through hires and contracts

FRA Administrative Visiting CommitteeOQBP ActivitiesAugust 3, 2009

Bob GrantOQBP

OQBP Briefing – August 3, 2009Fermilab

FRA Administrative and Support Review

Office of Quality and Best PracticesEG&G Personnel

98


99


Jed HeyesQA Mgr

Kurt MohrQAE

Tom KingQAE

Tom GehrkeQAE

Ed VokounLogistics MgrFacilitator

Gary BentleyQAE

Gary LammQAE

Jim McDonaldQAE

Robert WilsonQAE



Office of Quality and Best PracticesLaboratory Personnel

100


101


Bakul BanerjeeCD

Frank CesaranoBSS

Nicole GeeWDRS Tim Miller

ES&HJim RifeTD

Don RhodeAD

Kieth SchuhPPD

Rod WaltonFESS

Jim WollwertFI


102

QARs Regularly Scheduled Meetings Defining Fermilab Processes

• High Level Complete• Next Level Under Development• Finished Product = Hierarchal View of Fermilab

Processes 2006 DOE QA Audit Review

• Review Findings and D/S/C response• V & V• POA for Each D/S/C

September 2009 DOE QA Audit




FY2008 Accomplishments Staffed QA Engineers to support QA implementation Revise SBIR/WFO/CRADA Process Pressure Vessel Coding and Design Review (i.e., assist

with a design review for a device being provided to a laboratory outside of Fermi)

Draft Engineering Manual development Wrote IQA implementation plan and schedule

• Revised IQA and modified implementation plans and schedules (several iterations) to meet financial, time, and scoping constraints identified by the Fermilab Director and DOE Site Office

103



FY2008 Accomplishments (cont.) Completed NOvA Environmental Assessment with a

“Finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) Assisted Fermilab MIS with development of the

prototype Dashboard Developed the Fermilab Integrated Contractor

Assessment Plan (FICAP) Wrote FICAP implementation plan and schedule Provided an expert to review final EVMS documents to

be used in the Fermilab EVMS certification effort and to advise on how to proceed

104



FY2008 Accomplishments (cont.) Developed QA Baseline As-Is tool to record and

archive process information, link to implementing documentation, and establish whether the associated process controls meet current requirements

Developed Suspect/Counterfeit Item system Developed Graded Approach process

105


106


FY2008 Administrative Peer Review Recommendations

Develop a QA plan that meets threshold compliance requirements for DOE O 414.1C NOW

Plan should build on and not replace the 90% effort being performed correctly currently

Find a common terminology and develop a collaborative culture between Quality professionals and laboratory staff

Phase in comprehensive plan once threshold compliance has been achieved

Do not field a QA program that relies primarily on assessments and negative input

Expand OQBP services to include process improvements


107


FY2008 Administrative Peer Review Findings

FRA is not compliant with the terms of the M&O contract and DOE orders 414.1C and 226.1A. This must be remedied as soon as possible or run the risk of forfeiting fee or contract extension


108




FY2009 Accomplishments to Date Identified and trained D/S/Cs QA Representatives in

QA processes and audits• Augmented QA staff to perform assessments• Arranged for an expert from the American Society

for Quality (ASQ) to provide audit training• Arranged for an expert to provide conflict

management training Planned, executed, and reported on the QA baseline

activity to develop a snapshot of the level of QA compliance

109



FY2009 Accomplishments to date (cont.) Developed the Consolidated Assessment Plan and

procedures integrating Fermilab assessments Developed Corrective Action/Preventive Action

program Staffed project controls and engineering personnel to

assist Fermilab with new project implementation Developed Graded Approach system tool to record

and archive application of quality controls to process risk

110



All OQBP metrics are on schedule for the FY09 PEMP (Q1) Measure 6.5.3

• By the end of this performance period, demonstrate implementation of an approved Fermilab Integrated Quality Assurance Program (IQAP) and effective compliance with DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance.

Target 6.5.3.1• Complete the lab-wide “As-Is” quality assurance baseline

activity (gap analysis) and the resultant Corrective Action Plan on an approved schedule.

Target 6.5.3.2• Appoint, train, and activate Quality Assurance Representatives

to support the implementation of the Quality Assurance Program and work toward full compliance with DOE Order 414.1C under the approved IQAP and graded approach.

111



Effects of IT Re-organization (Q2) Management Dashboard project no longer associated

with OQBP All work on the project terminated February 2009 EG&G resource supporting project re-assigned

112



ARRA Funding (Q3) OQBP has no involvement in this activity

113



IQA Plan Implementation (Q4) Implementation Plan (Pier Letter to DOE) Project Schedule

• Significant Milestones Staffing Plan

• Current Activities Document Development Automated Tool Development AS-Is Assessment DOE Relationship DOE QA Audit (Sept. 14, 2009)

114



Letter to DOEAugust 15, 2008

115


116

FRA Administrative and Support ReviewResource commitment from the Laboratory Director to DOE


117

Director’s letter to Dr. Joanna Livengood, DOE Site Mgr, dated 8/15/08 – Application of IQA Programmatic, site-wide processes (procurement,

engineering etc) TD & PPD first in-depth application New Science projects and their support processes Remaining D/S/C two at a time after TD & PPD

implemented• In the meantime participate in site-wide

implementation plans/procedures, process improvements, and address outstanding issues from the CAP

Process changes to be reflected in updates to the CAP

FRA Administrative and Support ReviewResource commitment from the Laboratory Director to DOE



IQA Project Schedule

118



119



Staffing Plan

120


Staffing

Increasing QOBP Staff Two additional QAEs

• Based on Director’s Implementation Approach– QAE Support for TD & PPD (staffed)– QAE Support – Scientific Projects (staffed)– QAE Support CD & Operations (hiring)– QAE Support AD & ES&H (planned)


121



OQBP Support Staff Eight on site and two openings

Staff Augmentation (other areas) Ten on site and three openings

122



Document Development

123



Line Document Status Responsible Party1 Fermilab Assessments Manual Draft Under Review OQBP

2 Fermilab Corrective & Preventive Action Procedure Published OQBP

3 Fermilab Design and Engineering Processes Manual In Process Pier Oddone

4 Graded Approach Procedure Published OQBP

5 Issues Management System Procedure In Process – CA Project OQBP

6 Lessons Learned Program In Process – CA Project OQBP7 Management Review Procedure First Draft – CA Project OQBP

8 Records Management Policies and Procedures In Process – COO Project COO

9 Root Cause Analysis Procedure Planned – QA Project OQBP/SME

10 Strategic Planning Open Directorate11 Suspect/Counterfeit Items Program In Use – Procedures ready for final

review OQBP/SITE12 Worker Feedback Implemented WDRS

13 Quality Guidelines for Scientific Research at Fermilab In Final Review Research Program Manager

14 Director’s Policy on Scientific Research In Final Review OQBP

15 Fermilab Integrated Contractor Assurance Program Approved OQBP

124


125

Mandated by DOE O 414.1C in prime contract ANSI/ASQ Z1.13

DOE requires a consensus standard 3 Choices –

• NQA-1• ISO-9000• ANSI/ASQ Z1.13

2 not appropriate to Fermilab Fermilab selected ANSI/ASQ Z1.13

FRA Administrative and Support ReviewWhy Did We Select a Consensus Standard


126

ANSI/ASQ Z1.13 allows a graded approach to various levels of research conducted at Fermilab: Experiments of varying size and complexity Theoretical Explorations in Physics Development of Other Supporting Technologies (e.g.

accelerator elements and systems, cryogenics, material science, detector development, computing, etc.)

ANSI/ASQ Z1.13 viewable at http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/project/standards/ANSI-ASQ-Z1-13.pdf

FRA Administrative and Support ReviewWhy choose ANSI/ASQ Z1.13?



Automated Tool Development

127


FRA Administrative and Support ReviewAs-Is Data Collection Tool Screen Shot

128



129



130



131



“As-Is” Assessment

132



133


134




135



As-Is Status – Where Are We?

As-Is implementation field work 100% complete 4/30/09

Cleanup mode Corrective Actions reviewed, approved, OQBP

concurrence CAP implementation in progress

136



137



As-Is Baseline Reports Completed CAP Report Approved by Director, Delivered to FSO

6/15/09 D/S/C Reports To Be Routed to Heads Final Report Review Complete, To Be Delivered to Director

• Executive Summary & Conclusions• Detailed Summary & Conclusions with % Yes, No, N/A on

Controls• Detailed Analysis of 2006 QA Review Status• Detailed Analysis for Four Risk Areas (Documents/Records, M&TE,

Qualification & Training, Item Control)• Detailed D/S/C Reports

138



Results & Conclusions (81 pages, w Tables, Charts, Appendices) Overall Many Requirements of IQA & FICAP Are Met (70%+)

(formally or informally – effectiveness not judged)

CAPs Initiated for GAPs Between As-Is and Expected Controls (includes “To Be” see earlier As-Is Baseline Corrective Action Report)

Four Risk Areas Reviewed:• Documents & Records• Item Control• M&TE• Qualification & Training

2006 DOE QA Program Assessment• Less Than Adequate Total 26, Closed 21, In Process 5

139



140

Yes = Applicable & Implemented No = Applicable Not Fully Implemented



141



Results & Conclusions Four Risk Areas:

• Documents & Records – (DP# 1 & 13) Inconsistent, ~ 50% of CAPs (includes elevated CAPs on Policies), different kinds & levels of controls, requirements awareness, & flowdown issues

• Item Control – (Work Processes, Inspection/Test, S/CI) Properly applied most processes, ProCard for shackles allowed? ~1% of CAPs

• M&TE – (Work Processes, Inspection/Test) No single division or group has a comprehensive program, inconsistent awareness ~ 9% of CAPs (includes elevated CAP)

• Qualification & Training – Open 2006 findings; current worker’s retirements, & subsequent knowledge loss are concerns ~ 14% of CAPs (includes elevated CAPs)

142



Corrective Action Plan Report to DOE 6/15/09 “As-Is” Full Final Report Complete

D/S/C individual reports Site-wide roll-up Review and reconciliation of DOE 2006 QA Audit Report on four risk areas

• Document Control• Training• Item Control• M&TE

143



AC attention required to abate systemic risk posed by site-wide issues

Elevated CAP process QARs/QAEs reviewed all CAPs; propose elevation CAP temporarily assigned to OQBP as AC Secretary CAP brought to AC through the Chair

• Chair decides whether they warrant AC attention• Chair assigns responsible organization and person

Chair brings CAPs to AC for concurrence with assigned actions• OQBP places in IMS for tracking

144



DOE RelationshipTypical Briefing

145



Briefing Content Review of previous brief Status of current milestones Discussion of any issues Consensus for resolution Scheduled activities

Schedule for briefing Every 60 – 90 days

146

Typica

l Slid

e


147

QA implementation is on-schedule Staffing

OQBP QA Engineers (QAEs) Hired Mid-Sept D/S/C QA Representatives (QARs) Selected Mid-Oct Ad Hoc QAEs on-board Dec-Jan


Typica

l Sli

de


Training QAEs oriented Sept – Oct QARs oriented Oct – Nov

• DOE Orders• DOE Implementation Guides• Integrated Quality Assurance Plan• Contractor Assurance Plan• Graded Approach• ASQ-Provided Assessment Training


148

Typica

l Sli

de


QARs Regularly Scheduled Meetings Detailed Planning for Next Major Event – As-Is Baseline Defining Fermilab Processes

• High Level Complete• Next Level Under Development• Finished Product = Hierarchal View of Fermilab

Processes 2006 DOE QA Audit Review

• Review Findings and D/S/C response• V & V• POA for Each D/S/C


149

Typical SlideTyp

ical S

lide


150

Key Dates: Nov 17-19 – Quality Audits for Improved Performance Course Jan 09 – As-Is Preparation Feb – Apr 09 – As-Is Baseline Activity May 09 – Corrective Action Plan to Close Gaps Sept 09 – DOE QA Program Review Oct 09 – Internal Assessments

FRA Administrative and Support ReviewSchedule

QAR Orientation

Plan for “As Is”

Perform Gap Analysis – Current to Planned Practices

Baseline Implementation Plan to Close Gaps

Application of Graded Approach

Implement Training, Assessments, and QA Program

Oct08 Dec08 Feb09 Apr09 Jun09 Aug09 Oct09 Dec09 Feb10

QAR Orientation







QAR Orientation







Typica

l Slid

e


FRA Administrative and Support ReviewQA Schedule

CAP ReportApr09 Jul09 Oct09 Jan10 Apr10 Jul10 Oct10 Jan11 Apr11 Jul11

Oct11 Jan11

CAP ClosureBuild DOE O 414.1c Self-Assessment ProgramBuild Consolidated Assessment & CAPA Program

QAR/QAE OrientationAssessment Program (1st Assessment 8/09)

Begin Continuous Improvement ProcessAutomate Graded Approach from As-Is System

Prototype Automated Graded Approach Tool and TestStartup Graded Approach Process

Root Cause Analysis TrainingS/CI Program

Establish Lessons Learned ProgramImplement Lessons Learned Program

151

Typica

l Slid

e


Key Dates: 6/15/09 - CAP Report On-Going - CAP Closure 6/09 – 8/09 - Build DOE O 414.1c Self-Assessment Program 6/09 – 8/09 - Build Consolidated Assessment and CAPA Program

6/30 - QAR/QAE Orientation 8/09 - Assessment Program (1st assessment – 8/09; ongoing thereafter) 8/09 - Begin Continuous Improvement Process 6/09 – 8/09 - Automate Graded Approach from As-Is System

9/09 – 10/09 - Prototype Automated Graded Approach Tool and Test 11/09 - Startup Graded Approach Process

2/10 - Root Cause Analysis Training On-Going - S/CI Program 6/09 – 9/09 - Establish Lessons Learned Program

9/09 - Implement Lessons Learned Program

FRA Administrative and Support ReviewQA Schedule

152

Typica

l Slid

e



DOE QA Audit 2009

153



Schedule

Document Call• August 17, 2009

Preliminary Planning Meeting• August 18, 2009

On-Site Audit Activities• September 14 – 17, 2009

154



Response to 2006 QA Audit

155



2006 DOE QA Program Assessment – *Status By Criteria

156

* Open Items in process, some may be completed



Argonne Interactions

157



Interactions with Argonne National Laboratory (Q5)

Few occurrences• Several attempts – mostly unsuccessful• Limited to Dashboard Project in past• No current activities underway

158



Cost Reduction

159



Actions to Reduce Cost (Q6)

All OQBP QA work is done by a subcontractor Use of ad-hoc committees for special projects

160



Service Culture

161



Establishment of a Service Culture (Q7)

Communication Continual offers of help

• Internal consulting services Posters Management Presentations

162



Succession Planning

163



How is succession planning addressed? (Q8)

Not addressed in the plan at this time

164



Questions?

165


Cindy Conger, CFOFermilab Finance Section

August 3, 2009

168

2008 Visiting Committee Recommendations

• Recommendations and Current Status

Restore positions to enable FI section to meet charge as well as complete planned and endorsed initiatives - one of two Accounting positions restored; one MIS position restored before consolidation with CD.

Establish a Workforce Restoration Review Task Force to restore positions needed lab-wide – BLC addressed

Investigate more serious collaboration with ANL to consolidate activities that could bring cost savings and increased efficiency for both labs – still looking


169



FI section/personnel operating at minimum sustainable level, and this section needs attention for progress on important initiatives. Any additional assignment to the section brings the risk of failure to carry out core activities. - as discussed under Recommendations

There is considerable redundancy and duplication of effort in the computing and IT systems lab-wide. Enlist external evaluator to make plan for consolidation of these systems to eliminate redundancy, which will result in savings in the cost of operation. – consolidation of MIS into CD, no external evaluator



• FY08 Performance Results: Finance received a B+ on Objective 6.1 – “Provide an Efficient,

Effective, and Responsive Financial Management System.” All 4 measures were met and no deficiencies were cited in the DOE narrative.

Objective 6.4 – “Provide Efficient, Effective, and Responsive Management Systems for Internal Audit and Oversight; Quality; Information Management; and Other Administrative Support Services as Appropriate” received a grade of B. Contributing to this low grade was the delay in completing the FTL project according to schedule due to furloughs and staff reduction.

Consolidation of MIS into Computing Division transferred responsibility for the project to the CIO in 2QFY09. The project has been reviewed and a new plan for completing the implementation has been prepared.

2009 FRA Visiting Committee - Finance170


• FY09 Performance Results to Date: Finance met all performance measures under

Objective 6.1 – “Provide an Efficient, Effective, and Responsive Financial Management System.” at the DOE Mid-Year Evaluation.

On-time vendor payment exceeded the target goal, and DOE cited it as a “Notable Observation/Positive Outcome” for Goal 6.0 in the report.

No Finance issues were cited in the “Concerns/Watch List Items” for Goal 6.0 in the report.

Finance expects to meet all performance measures and to exceed the on-time vendor payment target in FY09.2009 FRA Visiting Committee - Finance171


• Impacts to Finance of move of MIS to CD: Internal control concerns: Major change to a group

integral to the Laboratory’s internal controls over financial information requires increased scrutiny to assure that controls remain well-designed and effective.

CFO meets at least biweekly with CIO to discuss the effects of organizational, process, and system changes on the control environment.

Four-month delay in go-live date for PPD CD-MIS resource constraints has slowed some

response times for service but mostly fully supported Transfer of 26 employees and $5.6M budget


Charge Question #2 – IT Consolidation (cont.)

• Benefits anticipated from move of MIS to CD: Additional resources available to move forward

many priorities for improved effectiveness and efficiency of financial operations:

Completion of FTL implementation Labwide budgeting tool Labor planning tool (may be part of

budgeting tool) Travel reservation and settlement

system(s) Electronic invoice approval system Conversion to SGL-based chart of

accounts2009 FRA Visiting Committee - Finance173


• Issues for Finance related to ARRA funds Segregation of funds

Budget Office controls set-up of separate projects and tasks for RA funds – easy to do in our system

Required some system changes for STARS feed

Reporting requirements Weekly to DOE – began in May

Many questions at startup but smooth now Concerns: Reporting jobs created and

retained at subcontractor level; future increase in # of projects

Quarterly to OMB – to begin QE September 30th, due October 10th. Jobs only at prime level – will be small #.

Will handle with no additional staff; not expected to significantly affect delivery on Finance mission work



• Finance has participated fully in the implementation of the QA program.

• Three processes were selected for testing in the as-is review.

• Selected processes were tested on time and Corrective Action Plans have been developed.

• Most of Finance’s significant processes are documented and routinely tested as part of the A-123 assessment process.



• Respective COOs and CFOs meet together every 6 weeks or so to discuss problems and identify ways we can help each other.

• CFOs serve together on FMSIC Council and are members of SC CFO group as well as the DOE CFO’s newly-formed Lab CFO group.

• Second Finance staff person is participating in SLLP program

• As noted earlier in discussing last year’s recommendations, we are still looking for ways the labs can collaborate in the Finance arena.



• Key right now is cost avoidance – trying to accomplish additional work with current staff. ARRA funds management and reporting Increasing level of non-DOE sources of funding Increased OHEP reviews and data calls Quarterly budgeting and stepped-up monitoring

processes• IT consolidation should help eventually

Significant savings/cost reductions in Finance have generally come from IT investments


Charge Question #6 – Cost Reduction (cont.)

• Looking at employee suggestions that could yield some savings: Reduce paper (e.g. stop distributing pay stubs)

Some progress in this area in Accounting Pay non-exempt employees bi-weekly rather than

weekly• Workforce reduction lessons learned

Customer service in Travel suffers considerably with one less clerk in Accounting

Administering a furlough program consumes significant resources

Cannot reduce workforce any further without core mission work at risk



• Accounting Department has recently added Customer Service as agenda item to all department staff meetings

• Long-standing goal in Payroll to answer all questions within 24 hours

• Long-standing goal in Travel to keep voucher backlog to 2 weeks or less

• Grants & Contracts manager holds PIs’ hands through grant process

• Open-door policy across Section for “customer” visits



• CFO formed “Executive Financial Manager” group of senior financial managers across lab Major driver for forming group is to look at the financial

community as a whole to identify top performers and provide appropriate promotion and development opportunities

Subgroup currently working on review/rework of Budget job family

• Deputy Lab Financial Planning Manager (Budget Officer) position created in 2007; long-standing deputy position in Accounting

• Seven CPAs in Finance; several others at lab.• Succession planning more challenging in leanly-staffed

organizations



David CarlsonHead, Business Services Section

August 3, 2009

183


1) Aggressively pursue advance acquisition planning for new projects – Doing this. Procurement is welcomed by project managers. Procurement 101. Cycle time presentation. Attending PMG’s. Specific staff assigned to all projects in FY10, some already.

2) Proactively address succession planning See Charge Question #8.

2009 FRA Visiting Committee – Business Services

184


3) Continue to explore cost reduction opportunities See Charge Question #6

4) Continue to implement travel management improvement initiatives Great progress – new Travel website up and running Online Travel Authorization/Voucher implemented (ref: last

year’s report)

2009 FRA Visiting Committee – Business Services

#1 – Performance Measures – FY08 Results

• Objective 6.1 – Provide an Efficient, Effective and Responsive Acquisition and Property Management System(s) Grade A-

Property: “The Property function at the Laboratory is conducted in an effective and efficient manner … DOE performance expectations for FY2008 were exceeded.”

Procurement: “DOE performance expectations for FY2008 were exceeded.” DOE re-approved the Procurement System for 3 years

• Objectives 8.3 & 8.4 (BSS partially responsible) – Sensitive Property (B+) & Information (B)

Security: Property Protection Areas access and wearing of badges. “Compliance in FY2008 was 98.8%, exceeding expectations.”

Security: Support smooth transition of the current security contract to the new DOE-managed small business contractor. “The Laboratory had some success in facilitating the transition…”

Property: Protection of sensitive and technology transfer information and export control items. “Effective, slightly exceeds expectations.”

185 2009 FRA Visiting Committee – Business Services

#1 – Performance Measures – FY09 Status

• 6.2.1.1 – Procurement BSC score 90 out of 100. OK. 92, (94-96?)• 6.2.2.1 – Documents for Site Office review and/or approval are complete,

of a high quality and contain no critical issues. OK.• 6.2.3.1 – Process improvements in two procurement areas. OK.• 6.3.1.1 – Property BSC score 90 out of 100. OK. (99?).• 6.3.2.1 – Resolve concerns/issues identified as a result of DOE’s

oversight and/or internal self-assessment of Fleet Management. OK.• 6.3.2.3 – Vehicle Management reporting procedures are effectively

implemented and data submitted to DOE is accurate, complete and timely. OK.

• 8.3.2.1 – Property Protection Areas access and wearing of badges. OK.• 8.3.3.1 –Effective support toward the management of DOE’s prime

security contract. OK. Met w/ DOE & TPS; Meeting w/ DOE re: FY10.• 8.4.1.1 – Protection of sensitive and technology transfer information or

export control items. OK.• DOE S&S Survey (3/09) gave highest rating category, no Findings.


#2 – IT Consolidation

• BSS continues to receive an adequate level of support for its core business systems (Oracle eBS, ProCard, Sunflower) and desktops. Prior to, and since the reorganization until the last few weeks,

support generally came from two familiar sources:

1) BSSHELPDESK and contacts from the transferred FI/MIS department (Procurement, TeleCom, Property, Transportation, Vehicle Maintenance, Receiving, Travel, Section Office)

2) CD core support groups (Fire Department, Security, Information Resources, Accommodations.)

• Now, the mix of support response contacts is broadening somewhat as the reorganization takes deeper hold in CD.


#2 – IT Consolidation (cont’d)

• BSS has some concerns about advancing its previous plans within new Laboratory IT priorities: Vehicle Fleet Management system replacement – “must do” …

October 2009 still looks good ProCard Front End replacement project – “must do” …

schedule deferred/unknown but CIO aware of importance Online catalog ordering system – “cost savings opportunity” …

priority and schedule unknown


#3 – ARRA Funds

• BSS involvement is concentrated in Procurement. Section Office and Procurement sit on the COO’s ARRA

Planning Committee; early involvement Excellent support was received from Legal Office on new

contract requirements, flow-down requirements, new terms & conditions

Procurement is well engaged with project managers and FESS engineering

A stretch for Procurement but executing work with existing staff, systems and procedures


#4 – Q and BP Plan Implementation

• Integrated Quality Assurance program implementation: QAR appointed from Section Office, shared to Finance Processes identified Baseline sample of processes assessed, CAP’s identified &

accepted CAP development in process Preparing to respond to DOE data call for September audit BSS actions from 2006 QA audit on track


#4 – Q and BP Plan Implementation (cont’d.)

• Contributions to Other Initiatives and Commitments Director’s Council on Integrated Assurance Records Management Program Implementation Committee OHAP Strategic Planning – Administration and Operations OQBP EG&G Contract Support Using Issues Management System – all BSS issues closed


#5 – Interaction with Argonne• Information Resources

Ongoing lunch meetings with Records Management staff (>) Contacted ANL (4/16) to offer Archive and History collaboration (>) Visited U of C with ANL to discuss library collaboration (>) Invited ANL librarian to Fermilab for SCOAP3 meeting (>) Assisted ANL scientist gather SPIRES-based citation statistics (<) Added >60 ANL job postings to the HEPjobs database, 23 of these

submitted by people at ANL (>, <)• Transportation

Assisted ANL traffic/shipping to identify freight forwarders & movers (<) Provided advice and procedures to ANL for fleet management

reporting & utilization (<) Provided inspection staff to ANL for CNG vehicle cylinders (<)

Key: (>) FNAL initiated (<) ANL initiated


#5 – Interaction with Argonne (cont’d.)

• Procurement Studied ANL use of industrial partners – prime contract provisions,

internal procedures. Obtained ANL Reachback Procedure and adapted to FNAL for use of designated subcontractor, EG&G. (>)

Received Procurement and Shipping assistance from ANL regarding U.S. Department of Commerce duty-free entry application procedures for WLS fiber for NOvA; potential cost savings of $760K) (>)

• Property Electronics recycling (continuation)

Won FY2008 award Federal Electronics Challenge, Midwest medium civilian facility category. FNAL recycles ANL electronics.

• Accommodations Cafeteria – contracts not synchronized, but obtained information from

ANL’s service provider.

Key: (>) FNAL initiated (<) ANL initiated


#6 – Cost Reduction

• Accomplished: Great progress on e-commerce for procurements (RFQ’s,

Fermilab bid posting website, electronic drawings) New Electronic Travel Authorization/Voucher implemented FY2008 award, Federal Electronics Challenge, Midwest medium

civilian facility category. Working with CD on EPEAT compliance Increased the use of electronic methods for surplus disposition Exceeded annual petroleum consumption reduction & alternative

fuel usage targets


#6 – Cost Reduction (cont’d.)

• Future: Online catalog for common use stockroom and other

commodity items … stalled (IT support)

• Lesson Learned from WF Reduction: Caused a good, hard look at “required” vs. “nice to have”

functions Services that were not contractually required were valued Further sharpened awareness of performance management


#7 – Service Culture• “A strong service culture has been established. This service

culture was confirmed during the Committee’s interviews with BSS customers.” (FRA Visiting Committee, August 2008)

• However, risks exist: Complacency – Lead the resistance to this every day; praise

contributions and teamwork; share successes Succession Planning – Section level plan created, serves as

input to WPAS and OHAP, possible reformulation and integration with Lab-wide plan

Additional Staff Needs Procurement – mentioned in last year’s

report, progress Property – mentioned earlier

• Deeper integration of support staff into projects and new initiatives promotes service culture.


#8 – Succession Planning

• Bruce Chrisman addressed the crosscutting issue• BSS Staffing Plan submitted to COO 8/29/08

+1 Procurement Administrator, June 2009; +1 in WPAS for FY2010 Assistant Property Manager – new position description in process Procurement and Property Education in government practices Cross-Training



Kay Van VreedeFermilab

Workforce Development and Resources SectionAugust 3, 2009

200


• Recommendations and Current Status

Ongoing performance management of all employees is essential especially with those previously identified as marginal performers to ensure that managers don’t mistake an employee who is not performing as being better than none at all - Performance improvement plans are implemented for poor performers.

Explain why merit increases were discontinued and assist managers with other strategies for rewarding their high performers – This was communicated when merits were discontinued and it is also communicated in our management training. The system allows us to reward performance through annual increases and special award programs.

2009 FRA Visiting Committee - WDRS

201



Conduct a post-mortem regarding the communications timeline from when the initial message was conveyed to employees about the need for a layoff, whether it was voluntary or not, to point of actual implementation – The Lab determined that transparency from the beginning was the desired way to proceed.

Consider offering a voluntary short term disability program to all employees - This is currently in the procurement process.


2009 FRA Visiting Committee - WDRS202

2008 Visiting Committee Findings• Recommendations and Current Status• Consider offering long term disability to part

timers – We have researched this and decided not to offer this benefit.

• Dedicate contiguous space for education programs – Space was made available for summer programs.


Charge Question #1 – Performance Measures• FY08 Performance Results:

WDRS received a B+ on Objective 6.3 – “Provide an Efficient, Effective, and Responsive Human Resources Management System.” Both measures were met. Positives cited: the Lab was granted Compensation certification. 93% of Balanced Scorecard goals were achieved. The Lab implemented a timely voluntary separation program, a corrective action plan for the benefits value study and successfully conducted three collective bargaining negotiations. Negatives cited: a pay equity study was not completed in FY 2008. DOE did not approve the involuntary layoff plan.

WDRS did complete and implement the pay equity plan in FY09.



FY09 Performance Results to Date: WDRS expects to meet/exceed all performance measures at fiscal year end. Draft a succession plan. Will be completed. Devise an R2A2 (roles, responsibilities, accountabilities,

authorities) model and write 15% of them. Will be completed. Develop procedures to incorporate HR practices and policies

into the scientific hiring process. Completed. Staff seven Diversity Council committees. Completed. Implement two initiatives recommended by the Diversity

Council. Will be completed.


Charge Question #2 – IT Consolidation• Support for PeopleSoft now resides with the

Computing Division.• There are more resources available for

service.• They have taken time to understand our needs

and priorities. • So far we see no real differences in service.



• We do not have a role in ARRA funding.



• Major processes were identified.• We have completed the “as is” study.• We have developed our corrective action plans

and should meet all deadlines.• We will work on developing our three-year

assessment plan.



• Collaborated on development of a succession planning proposal.

• Ongoing administration and monitoring of University of Chicago Strategic Laboratory Leadership Program (SLLP).

• Argonne audited "Behavioral Interviewing" course to consider offering it at Argonne.

• Argonne employees attended one of our advanced computing courses and will attend future courses.

• Shared information on development of R2A2 ( roles, responsibilities, authorities, accountabilities) plan.

• Jointly developed strategy on presenting information to DOE on benefits value study.


Charge Question #5 – Interaction with Argonne (cont)

• Collaborated with Argonne and other Labs to develop a white paper on the benefits value and cost study DOE requirements.

• Shared our programs with ANL in order to assist them in their development of: applicant tracking system, vacation donation, day care.

• Shared information on compensation, benefits, and labor relations.

Future• We will continue to collaborate and share information. The goal is

to save time and labor when one Lab already has a program that works, share ideas that enhance our programs, work together to present consistent information to DOE, and look for opportunities to share costs particularly in the training area.


Charge Question #6 – Cost Reduction• Insurance plan design changes, cost share

shifting and aggressive negotiation resulted in an annual savings of 1.5 million.

• Change in retiree medical cost share resulted in an annual savings of 600K.

Smaller savings included:• Green initiatives • Cost sharing with Argonne on training classes• Virtual job fair• Computer generated payroll authorizations.



Future• Negotiate insurance renewals below 7%.• Increase participation in disease management

programs and wellness initiatives.

Workforce Reduction Lessons Learned• It will be difficult to reduce or eliminate

services (e.g., the swimming pool) at the Lab as many of these non-essential services are highly valued by the Lab population.


Charge Question #7 – Service Culture• Section employees have attended customer

service training.• Customer service surveys for training and

education classes and programs for employment have yielded very positive feedback.

• Rollout of new programs has included a change management model which incorporates input from clients.



We recently received some negative feedback as a result of lab wide diversity focus groups. As a result, we are in the process of developing a plan for improvement. To develop the plan we are gathering suggestions from the Lab population.

214


• Possible successors have been identified for some department manager positions.

• We implemented “stretch and grow” opportunities to further develop skills.

• We have done cross-training between departments to enhance overall cross- functional knowledge.


Information TechnologyVicky WhiteActing CIO

August 4, 2008

Information Technology - Vicky White217

1) Performance Measures

• FY08 Core Business Systems performance measure 6.4 rating of B was addressed in CFO’s presentation – largely FTL delays.

• FY08 Cyber Security performance measure 8.2 (Provide an Efficient and Effective System for Cyber-Security) earned an A-

• Network bandwidth goals were exceeded and contributed to the A- rating in 7.0 (Sustain Excellence in Operating,Maintaining, and Renewing the Facility and Infrastructure Portfolio to Meet Laboratory Needs)

218

1) FY09 Performance Measures Progress

• Business systems will not meet all of the goals unless a re-baselined schedule for the FTL project is used for the assessment But FTL will be successfully completed, taking into

account information from two internal reviews (Operational Readiness and FTL Code review), with central authentication implemented.

Also all exempt employees will be using the system by Sept. (as required for EVMS certification)

• Goals for strategic planning and customer satisfaction are expected to be met.

Information Technology - Vicky White

219

1) FY09 Performance Measures Progress

• Cyber security audit (6 findings and overall grade of marginal on a scale of Satisfactory – Marginal – Unsatisfactory) highlighted the need for tighter IT systems management and greater care in the handling of PII.

• Aggressive response in Tune IT up campaign and accelerated consolidation of IT across the lab may help grade. Certainly will make us stronger and safer

Information Technology - Vicky White


2) Reorganization and consolidation of IT

Particle Physics Division desktop support and help desk are now fully integrated (10 people)

Management Information Systems department (formerly under CFO) joined with Computing Division in February 2009

Longer transition than planned (June 1) due to significant cultural adjustments, vacations, Tune IT up, desire to make a successful organization that most people are happy with.

Fully integrated organization chart just finalized and sets the stage for

elimination of duplicate services (will take up to 1 year) bringing more resources to bear on some of the long list

Information Systems projects that are sorely needed. Technical Division (5 people) to be consolidated in

Sept/October Remaining consolidation of lab IT - TBD


2) Consolidation of IT and Information Systems• High (and somewhat unrealistic) expectations

to rapidly transform many inefficient and historical business processes, and to enable planning and management, by the use of modern information systems Several basic “plumbing” projects simply have to be

done before most of the projects that provide visible value to the lab can be executed

Peoplesoft upgrade, people and account management systems rationalized, finish FTL, chart of accounts changes, obsolete systems replacement (e.g. ProCard front-end), purchase of an EDMS for engineering docs, data warehouse of operational data and performance data.


Consolidation of IT and Information Systems• Important to continue to pursue the ISO20000 certification

project for IT service management and implement lab-wide (formal service management, change control, incident management, problem management, and all ITIL processes)

We have set a very aggressive goal for certification by the end of 2010 We set this prior to IT consolidation getting going and prior to Tune IT up

and it might slip by a few months – but I hope not• CIO will set up IT councils and IT governance, including

policies and objectives in order to Effectively manage IT lab-wide Prioritize the large number of urgent Information Systems projects that the

lab needs • Will engage outside consultants (probably Gartner) to help us

with IT governance and Enterprise Architecture


3) ARRA funds

• High Availability Computing room (in Feynman Computing Center (FCC)) is an ARRA project. Managed by FESS, with CD Slight delay while FCC underwent a structural

evaluation Milestones should be met


4) Quality and Best practices plan

• Computing Division fully participated in QA assessment and selected a number of processes to assess this year, based primarily on the division’s Activity work breakdown structure

• Four Corrective Action Plans were developed and will be completed on schedule

• Two best practices were identified Work planning and financial management Implementation of Information Technology Service

Management (ITSM) framework (IS20000 certification project)


5) ANL interactions

• Meet regularly with the CIO at NLCIO events• Frequent contacts between cyber security

experts • Discussed initiatives in cloud computing as a

potential direction White paper of NLCIO and ANL CIO visited Fermilab

and gave a presentation • Scientific computing contacts w.r.t. leadership

computing – at ANL/UC/Fermilab collab. meetings Also use of leadership computing by Accel modeling

and Lattice QCD


6) Cost-reduction opportunities

• Oracle licenses – cost containment strategy of buying additional licenses, rather than leasing

• Longer term effects of IT service management should result in cost reductions and better services

• Longer term effects of IT consolidation should result in elimination of duplicate services and cost reduction in basic IT (to apply greater resources to business process improvements and information management)


6) Cost reduction opportunities

• Using contractors more than in the past and outsourcing management of some services (e.g. Exchange mail server, Sharepoint service (soon))

• Lessons from workforce reduction preparations We would benefit from outsourcing additional core

IT services We need to work out a way to do it


7) Service culture

• We are working hard to implement industry standard IT service management processes for all IT services (including the scientific ones) This is a big change in culture We are still in the middle of this

The new service desk implementation is not yet fully functioning as a service desk – but expect it to be working well within the next 3 months

Some very sad personnel losses have not helped We design and document each standard ITIL

process and then “implement” it using an industry standard software product that supports IT service management (BMC – Remedy)

We are implementing Stage 2 of a 5 stage roadmap


8) Succession planning

• We have identified (openly) successors for four key positions Field Financial Manager Computer Facility Manager Associate Head for Facilities planning Network manager

• I have identified and offered opportunities for greater management responsibility to Individuals with potential to be CIO (2) Individuals with potential to be CD Head or AD (3) Individuals with potential in the future to lead large

organizations – now running departments

director’s report fra admin and ops review

Documents

ops review pier oddone

review committees

miniboonepier oddone

minospier oddone

arra pier oddone

pictures pier oddone

lhc pier oddone

tevatron progress