# Presentation: 515086

## Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory STIP 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

## LLNL review and release process neededto be streamlined

- Your control of your information
- means a streamlined path to its release

## 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

## 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)

## 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”

**Notes:**
Java: the industry standard programming language for developing enterprise applications.
activePDF: converts Word, PowerPoint and other document formats into PDF
Livelink: Stores and retrieves documents. Also has access control and versioning capabilities, but IM doesn’t use them. Livelink could easily be “swapped out” for a less expensive doc. storage solution

Software licensing costs:  We have site licenses for Oracle and Livelink, so the costs are diluted in those licensing fees.

Portability:  IM was built with LLNL in mind. It could be ported to another institution if the underlying business process is similar

Swappable: means these components can be replaced by other (usually cheaper) components with little effort

## 	New process offers many advantages

-    Recharge costs are reduced

-    Directorates control the review path

-    Web-based “smart form” is    accessed through MyLLNL portal

-   Tracking number is assigned to form

-   Review cycle is streamlined

-    Administrative documents don’t need    extensive reviews

## Control, responsibility and accountability rest with the directorates

## Authors must ensure the information they generate is properly reviewed

- Screen for information that could:
-    • Be misinterpreted
-    • Impact operations security
-    • Cause legal problems for the author, LLNL,      DOE, UC, or NNSA

- Ensure appropriate management, protection,
- and dissemination of information generated

- Follow directorate review procedures

- Consult with ADC when appropriate

## External audience requires a full review

- SAMPLE

## Monthly IM stats are available for each directorate

## 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

## 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

## 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

## All users enter IM using their institutional personal access code

## IM system offers show “navigation”and “help” tool

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

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

## Over 760 ADCs are listed in the system

## ADC approval is granted electronically

## OCEC and IPAC criteria are key to the review process

## Unclassified controlled information is increasing with awareness

## IM system allows author to upload document electronically

## IM system summarizes metadata and provides action pull-down bar

## Directorate reviewers approve thedocument online

## 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

## 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