# Presentation: 831373

## A Project Management Approachto Continuous Improvement

**Steven A. Coleman, ISM Project Manager**
**November 28, 2007**

## Presentation Overview

**Introduction**
**ISM/Safety Improvement Project Conception**
- ISM Gap Analysis
- Assessment Reviews and Causal Analyses
- Integrated Project Structure
**Challenges/Institutional Buy In**
- Resources
- Communication
- Integration of new requirements
**Performance Monitoring**
- Project Reviews/Change Control
**“****Good to Great” Principles and Continuous Improvement**

## Introduction

- 	Corrective action management and continuous improvement at Brookhaven National Laboratory were elusive concepts, tangled in terms such as accountability, responsibility, enforcement and governance.
*	*
*	**This was evidenced in the ISM Readiness Review Gap Analysis (Oct 2005) *

## ISM/Safety Improvement Conception

**ISM Readiness Review Gap Analysis**
- Highly credible team assembled (Oak Ridge, Idaho, PNNL, Battelle & McCallum & Turner, Inc.)
- Inspection mirrored the process employed by the DOE Independent Oversight Office.
- Results indicated a programmatic deficiency in feedback & improvement
- Corrective action management - large percentage of actions overdue or extended  3-5 times,  major assessments conducted not addressed, etc...

**    ****Long Island –NY**

**Notes:**
The scope of the findings from the review indicated a programmatic deficiency in feedback and improvement at the institutional level.

Analyzing the information below, you can see why the existing corrective action management processes would not work and why the project plan approach was needed.  

No effective institutional processes in place to systematically prioritize, on the basis of risk and within the framework of a lab-wide annual agenda. 
ESH&Q/Operations related conditions were not being addressed in a timely manner.  Extent of condition, corrective actions, effectiveness reviews were ineffective.  Major assessments conducted were not addressed (Multi-Disciplinary Task Force [2003], DOE Chicago ISMS Assessment [2004], Focused Management Review [2005]).
A large percentage of Assessment Tracking System (ATS) corrective actions were overdue or extended multiple (3-6) times with no justification

## BNL ISM Readiness Review – Oct 2005

**Needs Improvement**

**Effective Performance**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Significant Weakness**

**Significant Weakness**

** ****Needs Improvement**

_**Core Functions of ISM**_

**CF#1 – Define Scope**
**         ****of Work**

- Accelerators
- Experimental/Small Science
- Maintenance/Construction
- Industrial Hygiene
- Institutional Programs
**BNL Overall***

_**Feedback and Continuous Improvement CF-5)**_
- BSA

**Significant Weakness**

**CF#2 – Analyze Hazards**

**CF#3 – Develop and Implement Controls**

**CF#4 – Perform Work Within Controls**

**Page 7 of 8**

**Needs Improvement**

**Significant Weakness**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement***

**Needs Improvement**

****CF#3 – Yellow / Red Monitoring***

## ISM/Safety Improvement Conception

**Causal Analyses**
- FY 04 – 06 review of assessments
- Binned findings/conditions to common categories
- Developed 5 problem statements that required further analysis
- Programmatic Deficiency causal analysis performed by Senior Management (Policy Council) - Director, Deputy Directors, Assistant and Associate Lab  Directors
**Action Development**
- Diverse group of BNL staff (science, operations, administration, etc...) identified actions to address root and contributing  causes
- An exhausting process - 6 months  for approval

**Notes:**
causal analysis was performed on each of the problem statements.  The institutional feedback and improvement programmatic deficiency causal analysis was performed by the Laboratory’s Policy Council (Level 1 Managers, Assistant/Associate Laboratory Directors) facilitated by  trained causal analysis subject matter expert.  Having the senior managers perform the causal analysis set the tone from the top and easily allowed for buy in from all departments/divisions.  It was a tough sell (several management, science, ES&H coordinator and agent group meetings to vett corrective actions and obtain buy in) and took many months to complete. 

The problem statements/areas formed the foundation and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for the ISM/Safety Improvement Project Plan

## Integrated Project Structure

## Challenges/Institutional Buy In

**Resource Needs**
- Use of contributed resources and Line Management ensuring that resources identified supported project objectives
- Level II Manager Ownership
**Communications**
- ISM Core Team – differing professional opinions
- Battelle Operations Risk Committee, Management & Science Councils, DOE Headquarters and Site Office
- Communication Plan Development
- DDO, ES&H ALD, DOE-BHSO and others – every 4-6 weeks visits to Germantown

**Notes:**
How did we address the resource needs issues?
Level II Managers had ownership for WBS sections (see previous slides) – this provided the necessary authority to make sure resources were available for the project manager as needed.

Communications
The core team was consisted of a minimum of 1 staff member from each Directorate (i.e. NSLS, C-AD, Safety & Health Services (SHS), Radiological Control, Environmental & Waste Management, Administration, Community Relations, Quality Management, Small Science [chemistry, biology, instrumentation, etc...])
Communication plan development - key objectives/messages, key actions, media/method/venue, schedule/frequency and responsible manager. analyzing information exchange efforts throughout the implementation / execution of the project plan improvements within the communications element were noted.  Although a communications plan was developed and executed, it took 12 months to finalize the plan, agree on content, key messages, methods, and management spokespersons due to differing professional opinions.  In some respects, implementation of the project plan and upcoming ES&H Evaluation was looked at as a middle management activity and Laboratory dignitary tour provided to high level DOE or political figures.  Additionally, early on some thought the communications should come from middle management and feed up to senior management.

## Challenges/Institutional Buy In

**Integration of New & Ongoing Requirements**
- Type B Arc-Flash Event
- DOE Order 226.1, Oversight/Contractor Assurance
- 10CFR851, Worker Safety & Health Rule
- Nuclear Safety Issues/Action Items
- On going corrective action plans
- WP&C and F&I Action Plans *(DOE Implementation DNFSB-2004-1)*
- Inadequate Control of procedures NTS
- Material Handling/Hoisting & Rigging
- Industrial Hygiene
- Energized Electrical Work (NFPA 70E)

**Notes:**
Although it was tough integrating all of these other action plans and managing over 200 action items.  The integration also kept senior management abreast and focus on these activities.  We were also able to minimize the duplication of activities.  Align and prioritize activities.

## Performance Monitoring

**Project Reviews/Change Control**
- Monthly project reviews – Lab Director, Deputy Director, DOE-BHSO, Assistant/Associate Laboratory Directors, Department Chairs, and others
- Level II Manager responsible for WBS sections reported status, risk, resource needs, proposed changes, etc...
- Reports to Brookhaven Science Associates (BSA) Board, Battelle Operations Risk Committee & DOE Office of ES&H Evaluations (HS-64)

**Notes:**
Reported on the following:
Current project status (e.g., cost, schedule variance)
Future status and forecast
Emerging risk  and proposed changes to the project plan
Additional resource needs

## ES&H Ratings – Oct 2007

**Effective Performance**

**Effective Performance**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

**Effective Performance**

**Needs Improvement**

**Needs Improvement**

** ****Effective Performance**

_**Core Functions of ISM**_

**CF#1 – Define Scope**
**         ****of Work**

- NSLS
- Small Science
- Maintenance
- Construction

_**Feedback and Continuous Improvement CF-5)**_
**     **SC and BHSO
-      BSA

**Needs Improvement**

**CF#2 – Analyze Hazards**

**CF#3 – Develop and Implement Controls**

**CF#4 – Perform Work Within Controls**

**Page 7 of 8**

**Needs Improvement**

**Notes:**
So after 15 months of implementing the ISM/Safety Improvement Project Plan where are we and what did it get us.  

The illustration above shows the results of the recent ES&H inspection at BNL.  

It clearly shows we are “mediocre or maybe even good”  However, the senior management vision and project approach paved the way for the remarkable improvements made in 15 months.  The fly wheel has begun to turn or move.  

The next few slides provide an overview of how the good to great principals inspired BNL to strive to be great.

## Good is not “Good Enough”What does it take to be Great?

**Disciplined People**
- Level 5 Leadership
- Self-Declared programmatic deficiency
- Policy Council Causal Analysis
- ISM/Safety Improvement Project
- First Who, Then what
- Project Manager
- ISM Core Team
- Level II Manager Ownership
**Disciplined Thought**
- Confront  the Brutal Facts
- Gap Analysis
- Institutional Feedback & Improvement
- Corrective action management
**The Hedgehog Concept**

**Notes:**
Collins (p. 11) – Good to Great in the Social Sectors “The whole point of level 5 leadership is to make sure the right decisions happen – no matter how difficult or painful – for the long term greatness of the institution and the achievement of its mission, independent of consensus or popularity.”

First who then what is about putting the right people in the right place or seat “do whatever you can do to get the right people on the bus”.  In this case, a self motivated and self-disciplined project manager was selected, ISM core team established, level II managers ownership of WBS elements and respective corrective actions.

The institutions feedback and improvement  system was broken, corrective actions management was broken.  Many Senior Managers did not believe we were as bad as the Operations and Support groups said we were.  Here is where the level 5 leadership and confronting the brutal facts were integrated. Collins (Good to Great) p. 74 – “Yes leadership is about vision. But leadership is equally about creating a climate where the truth is heard and the brutal facts confronted.”  The ISM Readiness Review commissioned by senior management (Policy Council) initiated this through disciplined thought.

## The Hedgehog Concept

**The Hedgehog Concept**

- What you are deeply passionate about?

- What drives your resource engine?

- What you can be the best in the world at?

***BNL is passionate about safety performance and improvement, and being the best science national laboratory in the research and development of advanced technologies and nurturing  the next generation of safety and scientific leaders.***

**Notes:**
The ISM/Safety Improvement Project Plan addresses those elements needed to reinforce the hedgehog concept.  The bottom line is to say no thank you to resources that drive away from the three circles.
By focusing on the hedgehog concept you build results, build the institutions brand and the flywheel begins to inch forward – this was evidenced by the 18 month turnaround from the two ISM Reviews.

## Good is not “Good Enough”What does it take to be Great?

**Disciplined Action**

- Culture of discipline
- Senior Leadership – initiated efforts to fill the culture with self-disciplined people who are willing to go above and beyond their responsibilities
- ISM/Safety Improvement project - disciplined action consistent within the hedgehog concept

**Building Greatness**

- Preserve the core?
- Delivering exceptional results time after time – beyond a leader, idea or funding cycle
- Build momentum and instill core values while stimulating change and progress

**Notes:**
An example of self-disciplined people were evidenced by the self-disciplined efforts by the ISM core team, contributed resources identified by Level II or WBS Section owners. 

In preserving the core – we need to make sure we preserve the core.  Follow ups and upcoming effectiveness reviews will tell us if we are building greatness.

I put this in blue because the jury is still out on us building greatness. Although we have implemented many new processes and programs, we need to keep an eye on the movement and consistency of the flywheel. 

## Greatness

- Collins (2005), “Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice, and discipline” (p.31).
- Collins, J. (2001). *Good to great: why some companies make the leap...and others don’t. *Harper Collins; New York. NY.
- Collins, J. (2005).  *Good to great and the social sectors. A monograph to accompany good to great . *

**Notes:**
BNL senior management made a conscious choice that in order for us to be great they made a conscious choice of ISM/Safety Improvement Project Plan implementation and creating a culture of discipline and is the initiator for getting the flywheel to inch forward.

A copy of the ISM/Safety Improvement Project Plan is available for anyone wanting a copy.