1 / 10

Performance Metrics Subgroup Meeting DeWitt L. Beeler, Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C.

Performance Metrics Subgroup Meeting DeWitt L. Beeler, Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C. Gail Jernigan, Westinghouse Savannah River Company October 23, 2002. Background.

novia
Download Presentation

Performance Metrics Subgroup Meeting DeWitt L. Beeler, Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C.

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. Performance Metrics Subgroup Meeting DeWitt L. Beeler, Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C. Gail Jernigan, Westinghouse Savannah River Company October 23, 2002

  2. Background... • Senior DOE leadership has asked EH-1 to provide regular reports on the status of DOE sites against a set of top-level performance metrics or “Focus Areas”. • They desire this process to be similar to the “annunciator panel” approach used by the commercial nuclear utility industry. • The EFCOG ISM Working Group has been requested to coordinate the response to this request, and has assigned its Performance Metrics Sub-Group the task of leading this effort. • Three meetings have been held (SR, Albuquerque, Atlanta) where agreement was reached on principles, format, and desired outcomes.

  3. Goals... • Develop a set of top-level Focus Areas around which the reports to DOE-HQ will be structured. • Develop a standard reporting format, a standard set of color codes and definitions, and a standard process through which reports will be developed and submitted by DOE Field Offices. • Provide leadership and assistance to contractors and key DOE organizations to implement the standard process across the complex. • Key point: The task of the sub-group is not to design a new, comprehensive performance metrics system for the DOE complex.

  4. Principles... • The primary purpose of gathering and analyzing performance data is to help managers make management decisions. • The use of an “INPO-type” format for reporting performance information is a useful approach for DOE. • The number of Focus Areas against which DOE Field Offices will report should be small and generically applicable across DOE operations. • The planned performance metrics reporting process will be based on standardized “format” features but will not require standard “content” features. • Overall: the desired approach is to get something workable in place, then improve as needed based on experience.

  5. Features... Standardized: • Focus Areas • Process and schedule for report submittal. • Format • Colors and Definitions Not Standardized • Performance Indicators below the “Focus Area” level • Decision process for assigning color codes to performance

  6. Focus Areas, “Special Emphasis Areas”, and sample Level 1 PIs

  7. Sample Supporting Page...

  8. Colors and Definitions... • Blue: “Outstanding”. Performance which significantly exceeds expectations. • Green: “Good”. Performance which meets or exceeds expectations. Generally requires only normal management attention to maintain performance. • Yellow: “Marginal”. Yellow can be used to denote either of two conditions: • Borderline or declining performance, which needs increased management attention and resources to achieve desired performance or to reverse a negative trend. • Acceptable performance that relies on a set of conditions which could change and quickly send performance into the “Red” category. • Red: “Poor”. Performance which clearly does not meet expectations, and which needs significant management attention and resources to achieve desired level of performance. • White: “No Data”.

  9. Remaining tasks... # Action Due By: 1. Publish final revised Point Paper and begin implementation at sites. 10/4/02 (Beeler/Jernigan) 2. Send letter to EFCOG advocates and points of contact (Beeler/Jernigan) 10/11/02 3. Meet with PSOs to explain system and expectations. (Pedde, Beeler, Yanek, 11/15/02 et al) 4. Discuss status and progress at EFCOG ISM WG meeting. 10/23-24/02 5. Optional roll-up reports submitted to PSOs for data through September 30, 12/1/02 2002 (“Dry Run” of the system). 6. Report results at ISM Conference in December. (Beeler/Yanek/Pedde) 12/5/02 7. First required roll-up reports submitted to PSOs for data through December 2/15/03 2002.

  10. Issues that could be addressed... • Dictionary. • Eliminating overlaps between Focus Areas and “required” Level 1 PIs • “Reporting Cycle” description and dates • PSO information and involvement • Field Office information and involvement • Collecting and transmitting Lessons Learned

More Related