Friday, April 01, 2005

2004 performance appraisal for LANL by NNSA

From Anonymous:

Here is a link to the 2004 performance appraisal for LANL by NNSA:

IV. Executive Summary and Overall Appraisal Results




Conduct warhead certification and assessment actions using a common UC Design Laboratory Strategy.



Develop with NNSA and implement long-term balanced, integrated stewardship.



Develop with NNSA and implement near-term balanced weapon programs that are coordinated with the other NNSA M&O contractors.



Implement an integrated science and technology-based program aimed at preventing the proliferation or terrorist acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and other new and emerging threats.



Enhance and nurture a strong science and technology base in support of national security strategic objectives.



Achieve successful completion of projects and development of user facilities.





Utilize UC strengths to recruit, retain, and develop the workforce basis.



Maintain a secure, safe, environmentally sound, effective, and efficient operations and infrastructure basis in support of mission objectives.



Improve or maintain effective business systems and practices that safeguard public assets and support mission objectives.



Sustain and/or implement effective Community Initiatives.


What would a score card on the NNSA or DOE look like?
Have you ever been to DOE headquarters in Germantown? It reminds me of the General Motors head offices in Detroit, MI. as it was back in the mid-80's. Remember back when the Japanese were beating the crap out of the American automobile industry? The management infrastructure at GM that led to that state can be characterized as big, bulky, and completely inefficient.

Fortunately the American automobile industry was able to respond to the pressure of the Japanese threat (with the possible exception of GM) and imnprove.

Unfortunately, DOE is still the old, bulky, inefficient organanization it has always been.

In other words, DOE would have an absymal score on their card.
Let's see. The categories being managed by scientists are rated good to outstanding, while the categories not being managed by scientists have an overall rating of unsatisfactory.

The obvious solution seems to be to put scientists in charge of operations and facilities!
i Agree!
I would not take the evaluation seriously. LANL should be examined by an agency with at least a tiny claim on objectivity. Incidentally, we're looking for a link between LANL and the growing Yucca Mountain scandal. Does anybody have something to post?
Do not look for logic in an illogical processes. The scores have nothing to do with reality. They are little more than barometers reflecting the current pressure (in nanometers) coming out of Washington. For example, the scores for safety do not reflect the DOE's own metric for measuring performance. This flaw has been highlighted many times. The same goes for security.
From page 26 of the report:

"Level 1 milestone 21 (Duel axis multipulse radiograph capability available)"

No wonder DARHT had problems. The axes were fighting.
You don't have to be literate
to work for DOE.
To 5:52PM

True, and there is a huge difference between a pair and shooting at each other.
Looks like the Mission portion score is about an equally weighted average.

Looks like the Operations portion is some kind of "minimum" scoring idea.

If so, why waste time and resources on achieving a score of Outstanding in the Operations categories when it clearly carries no weight once you have a lower score? Figure out if your lowest score will be anything above satisfactory. If not, then don't waste time and money on stuff that doesn't buy you anything.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?