Lawrence livermore national laboratory stip meeting
Download
1 / 26

Information Management at LLNL - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 516 Views
  • Updated On :

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory STIP Meeting Information Management Nicole Rantz April 28, 2004 This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.

Related searches for Information Management at LLNL

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Information Management at LLNL' - paul


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Lawrence livermore national laboratory stip meeting l.jpg

Lawrence Livermore National LaboratorySTIP Meeting

Information Management

Nicole Rantz

April 28, 2004

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California,

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.

UCRL-PRES-203700


Llnl review and release process needed to be streamlined l.jpg

New information management

Current document

process

review and release process

Directorate

controls review path

To various

Information

audiences

Faster

More flexible

Byzantine!

Easier to track

LLNL review and release process neededto be streamlined

Your control of your information

means a streamlined path to its release


The review and release process was reengineered in two years l.jpg
The “review and release” process was reengineered in two years

  • Spring 2002: Workflow analyzed and benchmarked with other national laboratories

  • Summer 2002: Rewrote IM policy and steering committee was formed

  • Fall 2002: Electronic “interim solution” implemented, system requirements determined

  • Winter 2002: Pilot organizations selected and trained

  • Spring/Summer 2003: All directorates trained, IM staff reduced from 8 to 3 full-time employees

  • October 2003: Official IM system rolled out to Laboratory

  • March 2004: All directorates were using IM system


There were many important players involved in the project l.jpg
There were many important players yearsinvolved in the project

  • Steering Committee (30)

  • Directorate Points of Contact (15)

  • Subject Matter Experts– Classification and Export Control, Patents, and Operational Security (17)

  • Programmers (3)

  • Dept. Manager, Project Manager, and Group Leader (3)

  • Support Staff – Editor, Designer, Admin. (3)

  • IM Staff (3)

  • Help Desk (2)


There are many key components of the im system l.jpg
There are many key components of yearsthe IM system

  • Technology

    • Java-based Web application

    • Oracle database

    • activePDF for document conversion

    • Livelink for document storage/retrieval

  • Effort/Cost

    • Two-person years effort from requirements to deployment

    • Ongoing maintenance and enhancements

    • Software licensing costs variable, hardware costs ~30K

  • Portability

    • Built for LLNL: Requires customizations and consulting work

    • Oracle, Livelink, ActivePDF components are “swappable”


New process offers many advantages l.jpg
New process offers many advantages years

  • Web-based “smart form” is accessed through MyLLNL portal

  • Tracking number is assigned to form

  • Directorates control the review path

  • Review cycle is streamlined

  • Administrative documents don’t need extensive reviews

  • Recharge costs are reduced



Authors must ensure the information they generate is properly reviewed l.jpg

Authors directorates

Authors must ensure the information they generate is properly reviewed

Ensure appropriate management, protection,

and dissemination of information generated

Consult with ADC when appropriate

Screen for information that could:

• Be misinterpreted

• Impact operations security

• Cause legal problems for the author, LLNL, DOE, UC, or NNSA

Follow directorate review procedures


External audience requires a full review l.jpg

continued on next page directorates

External audience requires a full review

SAMPLE


Monthly im stats are available for each directorate l.jpg
Monthly IM stats are available directoratesfor each directorate


Self assessment program is required to enforce policy l.jpg
Self-assessment program is required to enforce policy directorates

  • IM group leader will meet every quarter with OCEC, IPAC, and OPSEC

  • Minimum of 75 documents will be reviewed each quarter

  • SMEs may elect to review additional documents by title or special circumstances, such as unclassified controlled information (UCI) or hand-carried documents


It is important that self assessment results are communicated l.jpg
It is important that self-assessment results are communicated

  • Will report findings to directorate POC

  • POC are expected to disseminate the findings through out their directorate

  • Provide “lessons learned” rather than blame

  • Work with authors and reviewers if repeat findings occur


Communication is key l.jpg
Communication is key communicated

  • Directorate points of contact (POC)

  • IM Portal Page

  • IM Group Web Site

  • Help Desk

  • Monthly statistics

  • Quarterly meetings with POC

  • Self-assessment program













Im has had many successes l.jpg
IM has had many successes bar

  • Reduced cycle times: From 7-10 days to 5.6 days

  • Reduced costs: From $185-240 to new rate $72

  • Provided over 100 training classes Lab wide in thirteen months

  • Increased awareness resulting in 20% more reviews

  • System tracks cycle time for reviewers and SMEs

  • Quality of reviews has improved: Over 359 directorate reviewers have been trained and 760 authorized derivative classifiers (ADCs) are available


Many challenges are still ahead l.jpg
Many challenges are still ahead bar

  • Goal: Have Lab wide cycle time = 3 days

  • Enhance feed of documents from IM system to Library system

  • Implement “Remedy Service Console”

  • Develop reporting tools in IM system

  • Design quick search feature in IM system

  • More training on UCI documents

  • Revisit source code policy and procedures

  • Develop customer-satisfaction metrics

  • Continue to educate and communicate


ad