Environmental Management

High Level Program Description

This report is based on an informal information exchange session.
(Participants --Environmental Management --DOE Program Manager: Susan
Johnson (EM-50) held on October 5, 1999; Collaborative Management
Environment Strategic Information Management (CME SIM) Process
Co-Leader: Kimberly Rasar). The purpose of the information exchange
session was to educate Susan Johnson about the CME and the CME SIM
process and to education Kimberly Rasar about general management
activities within EM related to the processes being evaluated as part of
the CME SIM. The discussions included the Collaborative Management
Environment, potential processes to review as part of the CME SIM, and
how the processes to be evaluated affect the CME SIM participation list.
We also discussed an existing EM project management tracking system
entitled Technology Management System (TMS). The ultimate uses of this
document are to: (1) briefly describe EM and management processes
related to the CME SIM, (2) validate the information provided by Susan
Johnson through further iteration with her; (3) educate the CME SIM
Team, and (4) aid in the development of structured interviews to capture
additional details and ensure the appropriate information about
processes is gathered and documented as part of the CME SIM.

**Programmatic Proposal Submission Process**

The TMS web interface presently queries information in an MS Access data
base and accesses the Needs Management System that houses information in
a similar MS Access data base. Both TMS and NMS will soon migrate from
MS Access to MS SQL. However, the flexibility of the system was
demonstrated and described particularly its ability to seamlessly
connect to systems on other servers and in other languages. The
nomenclature for attributes on which EM performers report has been
standardized. The technology needs are identified by the EM Field
Offices and are grouped into functional categories to which data owners
respond with potential technical solutions (technical responses).

Program Execution Guidance (PEG) information is distributed to the Field
Offices to be further distributed to targeted performers. The targeted
performers prepare a response and submit back to the Field Office. The
Field Offices submit to HQ's a "long form" Technical Task Plan (TTP).
The TTPs currently average \$100K to \$250K. Proposals for the remaining
EM offices are submitted through Activity Data Sheets (ADSs) rather than
TTPs. Electronic proposal information is not captured as part of TMS,
although TTPs are the funding mechanisms which TMS uses to track
funding.

The TTP approval process includes signatures from the Principal
Investigators, the Field Office Technical Program Officer, and Program
Manager, and the Office Director. When the approval process is complete,
and the budget has been approved, EM-23 sends funds to the Field Office
to distribute appropriately.

**Tracking Process**

Focus Area data owners in the field report tracking data (estimated
funds spent and milestones) back to TMS through TMS-based Technology
Summary Sheets, etc. A mechanism exists to enable the technology
developer to verify that the technologies have successfully been placed
into production (deployed).

**Execution Process**

An official EM data base called the Integrated Planning Accountability
and Budgeting System (IPABS) is under development and will be used to
keep track of execution data. IPABS reports data at the control level
(Project Baseline Summary (PBS)). Reconciliation between IPABS and TMS
is necessary to better track allocation data at the TTP level. IPABS is
currently being implemented by the EM CIO's Office for execution
tracking.

**Summary**

Capturing proposal data electronically and capturing IPABS data at a
sufficient level of detail to enable comparison of request, allocation,
and cost data at the TTP level by performer with a comparison check to
the CFO control level data would be a benefit to enable an integrated
project management tracking environment.