Report 1 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Actions Under Way to Clarify Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities, and Accountability
2 Actions Under Way to Clarify Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities, and Accountability
Pages 10-18
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 10... ...
contractors and their federal sponsors has contributed to the deterioration in their relationship. Establishing a clear understanding of who is responsible and accountable for actions across managerial levels and institutional boundaries is a building block for other essential reforms as well, such as tackling burdensome practices and sustaining desired organizational change.
|
From page 11... ...
. Moreover, all three reports -- Augustine-Mies, CRENEL, and SEAB Task Force -- found that the lack of clarity in the respective roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountability of M&O contractors and their federal sponsors fosters distrust and contributes to the deterioration in their relationships.
|
From page 12... ...
WHAT IS NNSA DOING IN RESPONSE? To address the problems and recommendations in the Augustine-Mies, CRENEL, and SEAB Task Force reports relating to clarifying roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountability, 14 DOE and NNSA's implementation plan 15 describes a number of completed and ongoing activities, including the following: • DOE reported that it "is managing crosscutting functions through a new network of councils, boards, and working groups, such as the National Laboratory Directors' Council, the National Laboratory Policy Council, and the National Laboratory Operations Board." 16 NNSA cited other DOE-level councils and advisory bodies that "are improving alignment and functional integration throughout DOE," 17 and NNSA also cited its own hierarchy of councils and other 11 CRENEL, 2015, Securing America's Future, Vol.
|
From page 13... ...
, who now report directly to the Administrator, are designated as line managers: "In accordance with headquarters program direction, FOMs are responsible for on-site federal oversight and administration of the M&O contract." 20 • NNSA is updating its mission and function statements and has recently issued a new Management System Description21 (MSD) that delineates functions, responsibilities, and authorities of various NNSA components.
|
From page 14... ...
Officials from government mentioned the value of these crosscutting boards in fostering dialog across the entire enterprise, developing policy, sharing deviations from policy and possible remedies, and sharing best practices and lessons learned. Senior officials from the laboratories reported that they found the collaborative councils and boards valuable because these forums provide direct, two-way communications with the Secretary and the Administrator, which is valuable both for addressing specific issues and for building trust.
|
From page 15... ...
Under the directive, functional support staffs at DOE and NNSA headquarters and site offices provide information, advice, and mission support, but it is the line managers who, within the scope of their specified responsibilities, are responsible for taking account of the information and advice and making decisions. Interaction between NNSA and the laboratory directors is to be primarily through the FOMs, who are line managers responsible for making decisions and accepting risk with respect to a number of specific responsibilities assigned to them, including oversight of contracting officers (COs)
|
From page 16... ...
Laboratory officials also told the panel that they found it confusing that the FOMs are described in the documentation as line managers who make decisions and accept risk, because the laboratory directors consider themselves to be the ultimate acceptors of integrated risk and to be ultimately responsible for mission delivery. Therefore, the role of the FOMs, as described in the DOE and NNSA documentation, is confusing, at least to laboratory leaders.
|
From page 17... ...
The panel also recognizes that, while the statement of a vision for clarifying roles, responsibilities, and authorities may be relatively straightforward, the alignment of behaviors across the nuclear security enterprise is a highly complex undertaking, involving other aspects of organizational transformation such as strategic planning, the reform of M&O contract structures and incentives, and improvement in workplace culture. A useful next step might be for NNSA to issue a simple and clear "commander's intent" 32 that provides the guideposts for addressing the details of reform and shaping behaviors across the enterprise.
|
From page 18... ...
But the panel's information gathering to date is not yet sufficient to fairly assess the current articulation and implementation of roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountability (although laboratory staff expressed concerns to the panel) or to ascertain whether the current articulation and implementation are yielding the intended results.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.