MANAGEMENT FORUM

1. MANAGEMENT FORUM Jim Krupnick Chief Operating Officer April 13, 2009

2. Topics • Strategic Plan/Initiatives • Peer reviews • HSS status • Stimulus Issues • Ops Climate Survey • Questions/Discussion re Forum Slide 2

3. Slide 3

4. Deputy COO – Gursahani EH&S – Hatayama Facilities – Ridgeway Human Resources – Potapenko Business Manager - Twohey IT – Alvarez Office of the CFO - Fernandez Public Affairs – Miller Workforce Diversity – Reed Research Integrity - Montgomery Operations Leadership RetreatDec 11 & 12 • What should be the Strategic Plan for Operations? • Are we organized most efficiently? • Is Operations communicating properly/effectively? • How should we organize & carry out top-to-bottom reviews? Slide 4

5. Updated strategic plan goals • Partnering with Science • Achieving Operational Excellence • Building Trust and Credibility Slide 5

6. Partnering with Science • Establish robust accelerator safety program • Women Scientists Initiative • LBNL/UCB online journals project • Media training for scientists Slide 6

7. Achieving Operational Excellence • Supervisor training program • Improve OCFO system applications • HR process improvements • Develop crisis communication plans/protocols Slide 7

8. Building Trust and Credibility • Create community advisory group(s) • Establish IT Scientific Systems Council • Build new internal communications network • COO’s communication initiatives Slide 8

9. Improve communication within Operations • Quarterly All-Hands meetings • Bi-weekly informal ‘brown-bag’ lunches • Open-door policy • Annual workplace climate survey Slide 9

10. Other important agreements • Leadership will model and push down through their organizations the expectation of collaborative behavior. • All Operations groups will be peer reviewed by June 2010. Slide 10

11. External Peer Reviews of Operations • Top to bottom review of organizations to evaluate our effectiveness • Scope • Staffing • Budget • Strategies • Customer satisfaction • Opportunities for improvement • Scheduled from Jan 2009 through Jun 2010 Slide 11

12. Slide 12

13. Slide 13

14. Outcomes from Public Affairs’ External Peer Review • Creation of a beat system that covers the Lab in its entirety, including science developments as well as Operations activities • Development of a new story planning process, with an eye toward the Lab's larger strategic objectives • More focus on Science at the Theater as a marketing and branding outreach event in addition to community relations and education. • Greater involvement in the early stages of important scientific initiatives to foster communications, community and government relations strategies • Reorganize and redesign LBNL’s main web page and secondary pages and the addition of more video content (new pages to debut around 4/23/09) Slide 14

15. Outcomes of Public Affairs Peer Review (cont’d) In the near term, the Public Affairs team is concentrating on: • Developing an emergency communications plan and crisis response protocols Summer 2009 • Developing a branding strategy for the Lab and a strategic communications plan for Public Affairs Fall/Winter 2009 Slide 15

16. Post HSS: Overall Objectives • Sustain and extend improvements in safety culture and implementation of ISM • Incorporate Human Performance principles and a focus on work observation into actions • Fully integrate improvement efforts with HSS Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and ISM Improvement Project Plan Slide 16

17. Key Elements • Self-assessments • Institutionalize regular safety observations • Pair-up Divisions to observe work • Bring in M-T to guide work observation activities • Incorporate results into annual Division self-assessments • Communications • Produce a short video on HSS Review Lessons Learned • Continue to develop and refresh “Our Safety” • Initiate a monthly safety message from the Director • Promote Lessons Learned Database for posting “near hits” • Transition bi-weekly “Brown Bags” to mandatory monthly - Input on draft HSS CAP • Rewards • Establish Lab-wide annual “Near Hit” awards • Establish a monthly EHS Suggestion Box award • Establish an annual Lab Safety forum for organizations to discuss their accomplishments Slide 17

18. Other science divisions: Learning from the HSS experience • Divisions involved: ESD, GEN, EETD, MSD, AFRD, NSD, PHYS • Observation team observes work at 3 sites or groups: each observation should take 60-90 minutes • Observation team: Director, DSC, experienced counterpart, and an EHS observer with HSS experience • HSS-like review • The team meets with Division Senior Staff (typically <10 people) - similar to HSS out-brief to a Division • Division discusses and identifies Division-wide concerns, develops corrective actions, and enters items into CATS • Division Director reports on major issues and improvements at DDM and incorporates results in Division Self-Assessments • Begin in April finish in June Slide 18

19. HSS Cap Status • 10 Findings • Final Problem Statements developed for each • 5 Whys Causal Analysis near completion • Majority of the Teams have completed Causal Analyses • Corrective actions are being developed • McCallum-Turner to return week of April 27 • ORO to return week of May 4 Slide 19

20. Observations • Teams are identifying requirements management as an institutional weakness • Recurring opportunities for improvement identified through causal analysis process • Clear guidance regarding requirements management • Strong self assessment programs to identify program and implementation deficiencies • Strong communication between process SMEs and process users • Accountability Slide 20

21. Completion Date Slide 21

22. Stimulus Projects • Infrastructure and research • Upwards of $200M 18 mos to obligate, 5 yrs to cost • Range in size from $2M to $70 • Rigorous oversight and reporting required • Executive Oversight Committee Ops, science, BSO FY09 Omnibus Bill: Increases in many programs Slide 22

23. Workplace Climate Survey • 85% response rate • Results received last Wednesday • Path Forward • Distributed to Leadership team; then discussion • Division and department data will be shared internally • Summary and division data will be shared w/all staff • Comments will be handled differently • Will need to develop responses and action items Slide 23

24. Q3a. I work in a group that recognizes safety as MeanCountAgree an important core value and priority 5.64 677 99% Q1c. My work is important and contributes to the achievement of Berkeley Lab's mission. 5.55 684 99% Q3c. I know and understand what my worker rights and responsibilities are as related to safety and health. 5.52 676 99% Q25a. I am glad to be working at Berkeley Lab. 5.48 674 98% Q5c. My supervisor holds me accountable for deliverables. 5.47 665 98% Q1b. My Department/group is committed to excellence that contributes to the achievement of Berkeley Lab's mission. 5.41 678 97% Q5a. I work in an environment where ethical conduct is required. 5.39 675 96% Q3b. The Laboratory's safety guidelines and practices help me conduct my work safely. 5.36 672 97% Slide 24

25. Q1a. My Division is committed to excellence that contributes MeanCountAgree to the achievement of Berkeley Lab's mission. 5.31 676 96% Q13a. I know what is expected of me in my work. 5.30 682 97% Q15c. I am given an appropriate amount of independence. 5.25 679 94% Q5b. My supervisor is concerned about improving the performance of my work group 5.23 666 94% Q17b. I am treated fairly and with respect by my colleagues. 5.21 683 95% Q23b. I am satisfied with my benefits. 5.19 679 96% Q17a. I am treated fairly and with respect by my supervisor. 5.16 682 91% Q1d. I work in an environment where collaboration with other work groups is encouraged. 5.02 679 91% Q9c. I know where to go for help in resolving disputes with colleagues and / or supervisors. 5.01 674 90% Slide 25

26. MeanCountAgree Q9a. I receive the training needed to do my work. 4.97 676 90% Q13d. I am comfortable bringing issues and problems to the attention of my supervisor. 4.95 681 87% Q13c. My supervisor stresses an appropriate sense of urgency. 4.91 662 90% Q13b. I receive clear direction from my supervisor. 4.86 672 89% Q15a. I work in an environment where my opinions and ideas are valued. 4.80 676 87% Q15b. My ideas on work process and procedure improvements are valued 4.79 673 87% Q11a. I work in a group that operates efficiently. 4.77 676 89% Q9b. I have the resources needed to do my work. 4.76 679 86% Slide 26

27. MeanCountAgree Q11b. New hires are effectively integrated into my Department/group's work priorities. 4.73 595 88% Q7c. I receive constructive and timely feedback on my performance from my supervisor. 4.66 670 84% Q7b. I have a development plan in my annual performance review. 4.58 634 83% Q19a. Morale in my work unit is generally good. 4.47 677 81% Q7a. My supervisor and I discuss my career opportunities. 4.33 660 77% Q23a. I am satisfied with my compensation. 4.29 677 77% Q21a. I work in an environment where there is a reasonable workload. 4.28 685 74% Q21b. We have enough staff to get the work done in a quality manner. 3.83 676 63% Slide 27

28. It’s not important how well each part of the organization works, but how well we work together, over time. Slide 28