|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 67
10
Recognizing Project Management
Successes
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) initiated
an annual project management workshop and awards program in October 2000
(DOE, 2000~. The second workshop was conducted in March 2002, having been
postponed from October 2001. The first important event planned for each work-
shop was the presentation of awards by the deputy secretary. The project teams
being recognized for their achievements presented a brief synopsis of their
projects, including factors contributing to their success and lessons learned. Each
recognized project team received a plaque, and team leaders received award
certificates. There is no monetary award to individuals. Recognizing merit and
demonstrating that senior management is interested in achieving results through
effective project management procedures and principles encourage exemplary
behavior. The following summary of the 2002 awards emphasizes features of the
recognized projects believed by the committee to illustrate the lessons learned
that should be transferred to future project management efforts.
2002 PROJECT AWARDS
Any DOE employee or DOE contractor employee can make nominations,
and a panel assembled by OECM evaluates projects. For the 2002 awards the
evaluation panel comprised representatives of the OECM and one member of the
committee. Sixteen nominations were submitted in 2002, which included eight
nominations from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and
67
OCR for page 68
68
PROGRESS IN IMPROVING PROJECT MANAGEMENT AT THE DOE
eight from the Office of Environmental Management (EM). The Office of Sci-
ence (SC); Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science, and Technology; and other offices that execute projects submit-
ted no nominations. Two of the three awards went to NNSA projects, and the
third went to an EM project (DOE, 2002~.
All of the nominated projects were initiated prior to implementation of DOE
Order O 413.3, but they all used the principles and procedures that are now
required by the Order. Half of the nomination packages specifically mentioned
conformance to the requirements of the Order.
Deputy Secretary's Excellence in Acquisition Award
The top award for 2002 went to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Facilities Upgrades Project (DOE, 2002~. This
$106 million NNSA project upgraded utility and safety systems in a 550,000-
square-foot,50-year-old nuclear facility during continuous operations. Complexi-
ties of the project included extensive radiological and other hazardous material
contamination, including some contamination without existing standards for miti-
gation; system components well beyond their design lives; rigorous quality assur-
ance standards for nuclear-grade components; and a 6- to 12-week delay caused
by the Cerro Grande wildfire. The project was completed 6 months ahead of
schedule and about $12 million under budget, with no recordable worker injuries
in more than 120,000 work hours. Several factors were identified by the com-
mittee as being important to success: (1) effective teamwork and trust between
DOE and the University of California; (2) extensive involvement of the LANL
maintenance and operations contractor; and (3) work packages that subdivided
the project into 19 manageable subprojects, each with its own scope, budget,
design, risk assessment, hazard analysis, and construction schedule. Significant
cost reductions were realized by employing rigorous preproject planning to char-
acterize systems and to permit the negotiation of fixed-price agreements. Progress
was closely controlled by the use of an earned value management system (EVMS)
on each of the subprojects to track execution on a real-time basis.
Deputy Secretary's Award of Achievement
The second award for 2002 went to the Strategic Computing Complex, also
at LANL (DOE, 2002~. This $106 million NNSA project constructed a 291,000-
square-foot facility, which includes an immense, integrated system of computer
processors capable of ultimately performing more than 100 trillion floating point
operations per second. The facility will provide the capability to perform highly
complex, three-dimensional computer simulations and will provide laboratory
space for 300 scientists and engineers to certify the readiness of the nuclear
weapons stockpile without physical testing. To meet the schedule, an early
OCR for page 69
RECOGNIZING PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES
69
decision was made to execute the project under a design-build contract awarded
through a competitive best-value, fixed-price selection process. However, other
significant benefits were also realized from the design-build process. For example,
the project was completed $13 million under budget, and every schedule mile-
stone was met or bettered, including completion of the computer floor 105 days
early. The project had a good safety record, logging just one lost workday in
more than 600,000 work hours. Thorough preproject planning resulted in a
mission statement, functional and operational requirements, and roles and responsi-
bilities that remained stable throughout the project. A co-located project team
and a formal partnering process were fundamental to successful communication.
Independent risk assessment, weekly progress reporting, a tight change control
process, and EVMS enabled the project to overcome setbacks, including a 15-day
delay caused by the Cerro Grande wildfire, and to remain ahead of budget and
schedule.
Acquisition Improvement Award
The award for innovation in the acquisition process went to the Savannah
River Site (SRS) sitewide CFC HVAC/Chiller Retrofit project (DOE, 2002~. The
objective of this $55 million EM project was to eliminate the use of ozone-
depleting substances at the SRS. It involved replacing 48 chilled water units in
31 facilities extending over 5 million square feet and having 16,000 tons capacity;
the units had been leaking refrigerant at 43,000 pounds per year, at a replacement
cost of $500,000 annually. The challenges included replacing chiller systems
that had accrued more than 50 years of operations and working with 10 different
DOE line organizations, each having a distinct operating philosophy. The appli-
cation of lessons learned from similar work resulted in the development of a
multidisciplinary project team that divided the work into subprojects, each tailored
to the requirements of the organization operating a particular section of the
facility. The team developed a design-build ordering agreement with three lead-
ing chiller manufacturers. Installations were competitively bid among the three
manufacturers using best life-cycle cost as the basis for awarding fixed-price
subcontracts.
The project was completed $6 million under budget, and 22 major mile-
stones were completed on or ahead of schedule. No recordable injuries occurred
in more than 330,000 work hours. Front-end planning for each subproject dealt
with the technical requirements, risk and hazard management, scope definition,
and cost and schedule baselines. Buy-in and approval by subproject customers
became a contract among all parties and contributed greatly to the success of the
project.
OCR for page 70
70
PROGRESS IN IMPROVING PROJECT MANAGEMENT AT THE DOE
OTHER NOTABLE PROJECTS
The awards program did not recognize honorable mentions; however, 5 of
the remaining 13 projects nominated were considered by the awards panel to be
close contenders for awards. Of these, three were NNSA projects and two were
EM projects. The workshop included one more case study presentation on a
successful SC project, the B Factory Project at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center, which was not nominated for an award because it had been completed in
1998.
At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Contained Firing Facility
project is a 33,370-square-foot addition to an existing bunker that is designed to
contain blast overpressure and fragments from the detonation of up to 60 kg of
high-energy explosives. This NNSA project required 3,100 cubic meters of
concrete and more than 2,000 metric tons of steel, which is enough to frame a 60-
story office building with the same footprint. This $53 million project was
completed on schedule and under budget, and it experienced no lost-time acci-
dents and no construction claims. Success is attributed to early establishment of
an integrated project team, partnering during the construction process, and value
engineering to mitigate risks from unusually high building costs in the area,
unknown site conditions, skilled labor shortages, and structural steel fabrication
delays.
At the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), the Rapid Reactivation Project
was a $16 million project to upgrade the capability to produce components to
support the nuclear weapons stockpile. This NNSA project included constructing
an additional 18,000 square feet of laboratory space, reconfiguring existing build-
ings, and increasing the number of neutron generators by 225 percent. The use of
innovative analytical tools permitted linking the project and production schedules
in order to maintain production while performing facility upgrades in the shortest
possible time. Extensive preproject planning; effective teamwork and communi-
cation among the project management team, contractors, and production person-
nel; and real-time review and analysis of schedules enabled this difficult project
to be executed on time and on budget.
A series of four infrastructure line-item construction projects at the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) were executed to
upgrade two electrical distribution systems, rehabilitate 45 miles of roads, and
provide new security facilities, systems, and equipment. These four EM projects
cost $110 million, met all technical and performance requirements, and were
completed at $27 million under preliminary estimates. Effective integrated
project teams, extensive up-front planning, establishment of clear roles and
responsibilities, and active risk management and mitigation were key factors in
the successful completion of these projects.
At the Savannah River Site, an excess powerhouse was dismantled and
removed at a cost of $755,000 ($2.3 million under the preliminary demolition
OCR for page 71
RECOGNIZING PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES
71
estimate) through an assets-for-services contract that credited the value of dis-
mantled equipment to the project. Through extensive front-end planning and
close coordination with all involved parties, this EM project was completed
3 months ahead of schedule and with no recordable or lost-time accidents.
A processing and environmental technology laboratory at SNL was com-
pleted on time and for less than the budgeted $49 million. This 151,000-square-
foot facility provides laboratory space for research and analytical support for the
production, maintenance, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. Front-end
planning, tight scope control, and customer involvement contributed significantly
to the success of this NNSA project.
COMMON FACTORS
Several factors contributed to the success of the projects discussed above.
Most notable among these is front-end planning and a well-functioning project
team that demonstrated teamwork and excellent communication. Active risk
management and mitigation and tight schedule and scope control were in place
for each of the successful projects. Extensive acquisition planning and the use of
innovative acquisition strategies were also common factors. It was evident that
lessons learned in the early phases of the projects were incorporated into planning
and were used in dealing with issues that emerged during execution of the project.
Finally, a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of the project team and
close coordination with the end user throughout the project were frequently cited
as critical to project success.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding: DOE has executed several recent projects successfully and on or ahead
of budget and schedule, as indicated by its 2002 project management award
program.
Finding: While all projects considered for 2002 awards were initiated prior to
the publication of DOE Order O 413.3, the principles and procedures required by
the Order and outlined in this and prior committee reports were important factors
in successful completion.
Finding: Lessons learned from briefings by award recipients have application to
project personnel who did not attend the Project Management Workshop.
Recommendation: Copies of briefings by the 2002 award recipients should be
distributed to all field offices that have project personnel.
OCR for page 72
72
PROGRESS IN IMPROVING PROJECT MANAGEMENT AT THE DOE
Finding. NNSA and EM were the only program offices that participated in the
2002 project management awards program. Other DOE offices that execute
projects had no nominations.
Recommendation: DOE should determine why the other program components
did not participate in the awards program. DOE should encourage full participa-
tion in the future.
Finding: The Project Management Workshop is a step forward in recognizing
exemplary projects and project managers and in building a sense of professional-
ism among project personnel.
Recommendation: DOE should continue and even expand this workshop in
future years.
REFERENCES
DOE (Department of Energy). 2000. Proceedings, Program and Project Management Workshop
2000, October 17-19, 2000. Washington, D.C.; Department of Energy.
DOE. 2002. Proceedings, Program and Project Management Workshop 2002, March 19. Washing-
ton, D.C.; Department of Energy.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
management workshop
