Although specific cleanup challenges, regulatory requirements, and
decision-making processes vary from site to site, The Office of Environmental Management (EM)
is steadfast in its commitment to identifying, planning and accomplishing
cleanup activities in accordance with the priorities of
DOE Order 413.3A   ,
Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.
EM manages its work at individual sites as a series of projects.
Each project has a “baseline” that clearly documents the scope of work
to be completed, the estimated cost, and the schedule by which various
aspects of the project will be completed. EM monitors the actual
progression of its projects on a regular basis against these project baselines.
Project Baseline Summaries
All of EM’s current clean up projects have near-term baselines and out-year planning estimate ranges that have been independently reviewed and approved. The baseline can be viewed as an acceptable point from which to track and control future changes throughout the duration of a project. These project baselines have been independently reviewed to verify the reasonableness of the scope, cost, and schedule. The near-term period of the baseline typically coincides with the current contract period, which is generally five years. An approved near-term baseline reflects the identified scope of work that can reasonably be accomplished for an identified cost in an identified time period. Due to the complex nature of EM’s environmental cleanup work, projects often extend beyond the near-term, which is why EM also develops out-year planning estimates (ranges of cost and schedule) that have also been independently reviewed. Completing projects within the parameters of the baseline depends on adequate funding and the availability of contingency funds during project execution.
In order to effectively manage each project, EM regularly assesses the status of its projects. Future changes to the established project baselines will be made as needed to accommodate changes in the EM complex, site priorities, and funding plans and would undergo similar independent review and approval processes. These changes could affect cost, schedule and scope both in the near-term and out-years. Such future changes may be required to comply with applicable environmental legal obligations while maintaining essential functions necessary to protect human health, the environment and national security; reflect funding different from the baseline assumptions; incorporate technological advances; realize specific programmatic risks; or implement programmatic business cases.
The baseline document itself consists of numerous pages of information that are maintained by the site project office. This information provides the basis for the cost and schedule as well as for planning the successful execution and management of the project, which includes analysis of project’s risks, safety and hazards. The project documents are kept under configuration management throughout the duration of the project.
Click here for EM Project Baseline Summaries.
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)
The EM-PDRI is a modification of a commercially developed planning tool that has
been tested by an EM team specifically for EM's projects. EM-PDRI Team members
represent a number of EM sites, and have already
used this project planning tool successfully. The EM-PDRI examines a wide range
of project factors related to cost, scope, and schedule, and develops a numerical
score as a measure of how well these factors are defined. It applies to all of EM’s
projects including Traditional/Construction; Environmental Remediation; and Facility
Disposition (including Transition, Deactivation, and Decommissioning).
Risk Management
Effective risk management is an essential element of every project. The DOE
risk management concept is based on the principles that risk management must be
analytical, forward-looking, structured, informative, and continuous. Risk
assessments should be performed as early as possible in the project life cycle
and should identify critical technical, performance, schedule, and cost risks.
Once risks are identified, sound risk mitigation strategies and actions should
be developed and documented.
As a project progresses, new information provides additional insight into risk
areas and allows the continuous refinement of the risk mitigation strategies.
Risk mitigation plans should not use contingency as the only mitigation
strategy. They should be primarily focused on reduction and prevention risks,
not on the resultant cost should a specific risk occur. Effective risk
management requires involvement of the entire project team. The project team
may be augmented, if necessary, by outside experts knowledgeable in critical
risk areas such as technology, design, and cost, to assist in risk
identification and assessment. In addition, the risk management process must
address every element of the project throughout all phases of the project. It
is important that all stakeholders participate in the assessment process so
that an acceptable balance between cost, schedule, performance, and risk can be
reached. A close relationship between the Federal project management staff and
the contractor promotes a better understanding of program risks and assists in
developing and executing the management efforts. Risk management shall be
performed on all projects throughout the project life cycle.
A formal Risk Management Plan is required for all Major System projects and for
other projects having significant risk as determined by the Acquisition
Executive. For projects where a formal Risk Management Plan is not required,
the plan for managing and mitigating risks must be addressed in the Project
Execution Plan.
Cost Engineering
Cost Engineering in EM is focused on providing tools, methods and training to
EM project/program personnel to establish and improve EM project cost
estimating and overall project/program cost management. In addition to in-house
efforts, EM has joined together with other Federal agencies that have similar
environmental remediation concerns to support the development and dissemination
of cost engineering tools and standards that address common interests. Notable
among these tools is the
Remedial Action Cost Estimating and Requirements
(RACER) System, which is used by eight Federal Agencies including
Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, EPA, NASA, DOE, and. The Department of the
Interior to prepare budget/environmental liability level cost estimates for
their environmental remediation projects. RACER currently incorporates DOE
developed Decontamination and Decommissioning Cost Estimating Models developed
specifically for EM-type nuclear projects. Cost Engineering in EM also includes
maintaining a compilation of cost management tools (such as Cost Risk, and
the Guide to Computing and Reporting Life Cycle Cost of Environmental Projects)
and provides training for EM field and headquarters staff in these and other
applicable cost estimating/cost management methodologies. The Practical
Cost Estimating and Validation Lessons Learned Workshop and its
manual were developed by EM and are used to further train project/program
managers in cost estimating and other cost engineering areas. EM has worked
with other agencies and the private sector to jointly develop the
Environmental
Cost Element Structure (ECES), which provides a common framework
for cost information for environmental remediation projects, and has developed
the Environmental
Cost Analysis System (ECAS), which is a
database for collection and analysis of costs actually incurred for various
completed EM environmental remediation projects.
Integrated Schedule
The Office of Environmental Management (EM) has required each site to develop a
Federal Baseline that reflects both contractor and Federal activities at each
site. For the EM Program to succeed, it is important that progress, issues, and
inter-site relationships are monitored so corrective measures can be applied in
a proactive manner. Each site’s Federal Baseline is under configuration control
and data is submitted monthly on progress and issues and reviewed during the
Quarterly Project Reviews (QPR’s). It is recognized, however, that the change
process can take several months and that the monthly and Quarterly reviews are
based on data that is normally 2 months old. These processes are crucial to
manage the EM program, but they do not provide the program with the information
necessary to effectively measure schedule performance, apply proactive
corrective actions, and integrate work elements between sites. In order for
management to have current information, EM is developing an EM Integrated
Schedule (EMIS) that incorporates significant site to site, site to HQ, and
external EM interdependencies. EMIS will be used for timely communication of
progress on key milestones, high level decision making, prioritization, and
identification and confirmation of impacts to EM mission.
At a minimum, EMIS will address the following basic criteria:
-
Major Federal activities (e.g., procurement decisions, critical decisions) at
both the field and Headquarters levels will be incorporated into the schedule.
-
The EMIS will cover the period from now until the end of all known EM scope and
will be integrated with each site’s execution schedule (as opposed to baseline
schedules).
-
Schedule will be updated in a timely manner that will be defined by the
Integrated Project Team (IPT).
-
It will be assembled by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) and contain sufficient
detail to:
-
Identify critical paths and major milestones
-
Perform high-level “what-if” analyses
-
Identify major risks
-
Identify disconnects with metrics, goals, and/or targets
-
Identify interfaces/deliverables between sites, decision points, and critical
need dates
Lessons Learned
The Office of Environmental Management (EM) expects all individuals performing
EM work to make decisions and execute their work based on the best available
information. Managers at all levels of EM and throughout the contractor
community are expected to ensure that decision making is founded on the best
professional and industrial practices currently available. All professional,
technical and craft personnel are expected to plan and execute their work based
on best available practices. Through their work experiences all personnel are
expected to identify opportunities for improvement and best practices and share
these with their local and professional colleagues, the broader DOE community,
and other federal agencies and contractors.
The purpose of lessons learned is to share and use knowledge derived from
experience to: 1) promote the recurrence of desirable outcomes, or 2) preclude
the recurrence of undesirable outcomes. Use of lessons learned is a principal
component of an organizational culture committed to continuous improvement. The
methods used to instill lessons learned as part of the culture vary, as do the
mechanisms for identifying, sharing and using lessons learned. The nature of
the work and the complexity of the organization are prime determinants of
cultural and infrastructure support for lessons learned. Cultural methods often
include setting expectations, providing support and incentives, monitoring and
feedback, and continuous improvement. Infrastructure mechanisms typically
include clear definition of resources, processes, procedures by which personnel
are supported to identify, share and use lessons learned. The infrastructure
mechanisms are often referred to as Lessons Learned Programs.
Lessons Learned Programs include two basic processes. The first is a
development process that includes identification, documentation, validation,
and dissemination of a lesson learned. The second is a utilization and
incorporation process that includes identification of applicable lessons
learned, distribution to appropriate personnel, identification of actions that
will be taken as a result of the lesson learned, and follow-up to ensure that
appropriate actions were taken. In addition to these elements, lessons learned
programs contain processes to measure operational performance improvement and
program effectiveness.
Lessons learned provide a powerful method of sharing good ideas for improving
work processes, facility or equipment design and operation, quality, safety and
cost effectiveness. While individual lessons may deal with narrow issues, the
overall program should be broad in scope, with lessons from many facets of an
organization– business, operations, management, and more. If an organization
focuses only on failures or non-compliance issues, their overall lessons
learned program’s effectiveness will be reduced and they will miss
opportunities to improve all their processes. Lessons learned should draw on
both positive experiences– good ideas that prevent accidents or save money, and
negative experiences– lessons learned only after an undesirable outcome has
already occurred. They should include the broad base of work effectiveness and
not be limited solely to specific areas such as safety or safeguards. The
relationships of lessons learned and other management information sources
should be clear and understood. Lessons learned should communicate only
lessons, and should not duplicate nor replace other management information
functions like self assessment or event investigation and corrective action
systems.
|
 |
