Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory STIP Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

paul
lawrence livermore national laboratory stip meeting l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory STIP Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory STIP Meeting

play fullscreen
1 / 26
Download Presentation
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory STIP Meeting
548 Views
Download Presentation

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory STIP Meeting

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. There were many important players involved 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)

  5. There are many key components of the 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”

  6. New process offers many advantages • 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

  7. Control, responsibility and accountability rest with the directorates

  8. Authors 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

  9. continued on next page External audience requires a full review SAMPLE

  10. Monthly IM stats are available for each directorate

  11. Self-assessment program is required to enforce policy • 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

  12. 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

  13. Communication is key • Directorate points of contact (POC) • IM Portal Page • IM Group Web Site • Help Desk • Monthly statistics • Quarterly meetings with POC • Self-assessment program

  14. All users enter IM using their institutional personal access code

  15. IM system offers show “navigation”and “help” tool

  16. IM is an unclassified system; author must confirm with an ADC before using the system

  17. Author cannot enter title into the IM system until ADC approval is complete

  18. Over 760 ADCs are listed in the system

  19. ADC approval is granted electronically

  20. OCEC and IPAC criteria are key to the review process

  21. Unclassified controlled information is increasing with awareness

  22. IM system allows author to upload document electronically

  23. IM system summarizes metadata and provides action pull-down bar

  24. Directorate reviewers approve thedocument online

  25. IM has had many successes • 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

  26. Many challenges are still ahead • 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