1 / 55

Presented to Los Alamos National Laboratory February 12, 2008

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

curt
Download Presentation

Presented to Los Alamos National Laboratory February 12, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sandia National Laboratories’Integrated Laboratory Management System (ILMS)(our Contractor Assurance System) Presented to Los Alamos National Laboratory February 12, 2008

  2. 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 Slide 2

  3. CAS DefinitionandSandia’s Integrated Laboratory Management System Slide 3

  4. 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” Slide 4

  5. 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 Slide 5

  6. 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 Slide 6

  7. 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 Slide 7

  8. SMG/SMUs are represented by “Accomplish the Mission” Slide 8

  9. Achieve Mission Success Through Operational Excellence: Divisions Slide 9

  10. Achieve Mission Success Through Operational Excellence: Policy areas Slide 10

  11. 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 Slide 11

  12. Sandia’sAssure, Assess and Improve Process (AAIP) Slide 12

  13. The core of CAS is Sandia’sAssure, Assess and Improve Process (AAIP) Slide 13

  14. 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 Slide 14

  15. The Integration of Management Reviews occurs through the Sandia Assurance Review Board (SARB). SARB Reviews Sub-teams’ Analysis SARB Reviews All Analysis Including Information From Subject Matter Experts SARB Analysis Provided To EO/LLT Management Entities conduct reviews including Analysis and Trending of their data. SARB Sub-teams analyze sets of Management Entity Assurance Reports EO/LLT EO/LLT Sub-team SMGs/SMUs SMGs/SMUs Sub-team Divisions Divisions Sub-team Policy Areas Policy Areas Sub-team Slide 15

  16. EO/LLT Management Reviews Quarterly Operational Review (Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct) SME Reports Additional SME Reports Quarterly Review Team Meeting SARB Meeting EO/LLT Mgt Rev Decision/ Action Assurance Reports Semi-Annual Strategic Review (November & May) SMG Review EO/LLT Mgt Rev Decision/ Action OGM Reports Annual Laboratory Management System Assessment (January) Assessment System Information EO/LLT Mgt Rev Decision/ Action Assurance Reports Slide 16

  17. SMG/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 Membership of SARB is made up of Directors and Senior Managers and Staff from Across the Labs 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 Slide 17

  18. Deployment of ILMS Slide 18

  19. 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 Slide 19

  20. 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 ILMS Working Group Slide 20

  21. SSO’s Risk Based Oversight Procedure (RBOP) Slide 21

  22. 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 Slide 22

  23. 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 Slide 23

  24. 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 Slide 24

  25. 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 Slide 25

  26. Path Forward Slide 26

  27. Path forward for FY08 and beyond Why How • 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 • 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 • Ensure long-term customer confidence: • Improve management performance and effectiveness • Achieve efficiencies to enhance mission work What Slide 27

  28. ILMS – Current State Links to web pages, documents and information in the ILMS framework Links to docs in WFS Displayed in the nativeapp (ie Excel, Word, PDF) Links to other SNL web sites and information outside the ILMS framework Data that is not in WFS WebFileShare (WFS) SNL External sites Data Sources Slide 28

  29. ILMS – Desired State 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. Structured and unstructured data that is corporate data should reside in EIMS Data access to other structured data will be through connectors provided by EIMS (financial data, HR data, etc) Data that can not be incorporated under the EIMS umbrella Slide 29

  30. ILMS - Long Term Vision; Nota Goal For This FY or Next Slide 30

  31. Where do we want to be at the end of FY08? OPERATE IMPROVE • 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 Slide 31

  32. 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 Slide 32

  33. 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 Slide 33

  34. Backup Slide 34

  35. 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 Slide 35

  36. 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 Slide 36

  37. 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 Slide 37

  38. 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) Slide 38

  39. Improve: Results to Date ofRisk Based Oversight Procedure • 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) • 2 of 23 (9%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight (down from 6 of 23) Slide 39

  40. Improve: Results to Date ofRisk Based Oversight Procedure • Weapon Quality (D&P Manual) • 11 of 20 (55%) of federal requirements requesting changes • 12 of 20 (91%) of federal requirements utilize systems oversight • 5 of 20 (9%) of federal requirements utilize transactional oversight (down from 6 of 23) • 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 Slide 40

  41. ILMS 3.0 Awareness from Corporate Viewpoint 1 2 Slide 41

  42. ILMS 3.0 Awareness from Policy Area Viewpoint 3 4 1 2 Slide 42

  43. ILMS 3.0 Awareness from SMG/SMU Viewpoint 1 4 3 2 Slide 43

  44. ILMS 3.0 Awareness from Division Viewpoint 4 1 3 2 Slide 44

  45. Risk Management Process Flow Slide 45

  46. Slide 46

  47. Figure 1 – Corporate Corrective Action Process Responsible Manager Team Members (Members of Workforce) CAR Owner LLT & SARB Inputs Outputs Define problem & assign CAR Owner and preliminary risk rating – 2.2.1 Analyze problem & determine cause – 2.2.2 • 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 Generate corrective actions (solutions) – 2.2.3 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 Use Corrective Action data to direct continual improvement of the Laboratory Review and report Corrective Action statistics – 2.3 END Slide 47 Revised: csb/ILMS 09/20/07

  48. Slide 48

  49. Management Review Process Slide 49

  50. Performance Measures Process Slide 50

More Related