1 / 11

Leading Indicators FY2010 EFCOG Semi-Annual Meeting

Leading Indicators FY2010 EFCOG Semi-Annual Meeting. Roland Knapp Contractor Assurance Working Group Chair Los Alamos National Laboratory December 8, 2009. Key actions in 2009. January: presentation on draft EFCOG process for developing leading indicators Balance mission and safety metrics

pello
Download Presentation

Leading Indicators FY2010 EFCOG Semi-Annual Meeting

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. Leading IndicatorsFY2010 EFCOG Semi-Annual Meeting Roland Knapp Contractor Assurance Working Group ChairLos Alamos National Laboratory December 8, 2009

  2. Key actions in 2009 • January: presentation on draft EFCOG process for developing leading indicators • Balance mission and safety metrics • January: update to DNFSB • May: CAWG session on leading indicators joint with ISM F&I Sub-group • Presentations from 5 sites • Summer: engaged Bill Roege, DOE HS-30 andEarl Carnes, DOE-HQ

  3. Variety of perspectives(May EFCOG CAWG meeting) • Fluor (Hanford/SRS) – SPC applied to variety of personal safety data • B&W (Y-12) – facility/equipment/maintenance data related to production • B&W (Pantex) – relationship of work and external environment (weather) • URS (WSRC) – safety/radcon data • Sandia – trending lagging indicators

  4. Variety of perspectives(Other SMEs) • Winokur (DNFSB): link mission and safety; monitor people, processes, and equipment • Hopkins (ANU): personal versus process safety; need enough data to trend • Carnes (DOE): Leadership, Learning/Just Culture, and Worker Involvement • Mallory (LANL): attitude measures – safety, quality, security • Amerine (B&W): trending hierarchical KPIs • Stevens (Pantex): analyze precursor events and assessment issues

  5. Leading indicators: the lure • Identify and fix problems before • People get hurt or killed • The environment is compromised • Critical assets are lost or damaged • Organization goals are not achieved • Mission milestones are missed • Costs proliferate • Profit disappears Risk mitigation leading to improved performance

  6. Leading indicators: the challenge • Drowning in data, thirsting for knowledge • Identifying the data that’s important • Getting people to report it, accurately • Analyzing it for meaningful trends • Organizations are nonlinear, dynamic systems • Using performance measures as a management tool, NOT just a reporting tool

  7. Leading indicators: the trends! • Take an integrated approach (mission, safety, security, environment, … are linked!) • Collect data from a variety of perspectives: people, processes, facilities/equipment, external factors that affect the above • Trends are more important than absolute values – frequency of data collection is key • Using the data to manage is more important than whether it’s leading or lagging

  8. Path forward • Develop EFCOG guide to performance indicators • Form small team from CAWG to draft guide • Solicit input from other EFCOG working groups • Review by full CAWG and ISM F&I Subgroup • Focus on key questions each organization needs to ask and answer • Leads to non-prescriptive results tailored to the needs (and size) of any organization • Compare results through CAWG

  9. Outline for guide • Key is figuring out what data is relevant • Determine what you want to achieve • Identify the bad things you don’t want to happen • Look at the critical success factors • People (human performance, attitudes, training) • Processes (how work gets done) • Facilities/equipment (condition, work environment) • External environment (key factors that affect the above) • Indicators of Changing Performance (INPO 01-005) captures many of the key factors

  10. Collaboration with other WGs • Partnering with EFCOG working group members to identify and refine common operational leading indicators • Working with DOE/NNSA Headquarters functional managers to improve linkage between the Line Oversight Contractor Assurance System (LOCAS) metrics process, other metrics efforts, and the EFCOG leading indicator initiative

  11. Problems/Issues • Achieving consensus on the “correct set” of key performance indicators – needs to be tailored to organization/application • Scarcity of quantitative metrics in some areas • Establishing a demonstrable and sustainable set of metrics that have a cause-and-effect relationship to desired outcomes • Transitioning from reactionary management (i.e., responding to ORPS and IMI events) to proactive management (i.e., reviewing and adjusting based on predictive data, trends, and actionable metrics) • Active and continual engagement by management and workforce in the metric process

More Related