<h2>Time's right to unburden Lab's productivity</h2>
The time is right for us to turn up the gain in our efforts to reduce costs and increase productivity at our Laboratory. We must focus more of our efforts on our product -- science and technology. <p>
This step is the logical extension of our efforts over the past four years. We laid out the general game plan at the Tiger Team outbrief Nov. 8, 1991, when it was obvious that business as usual would not do. We began our quality journey in 1992, which led to our restructuring and reorganizing in October 1993. During 1994, we developed strategic directions for the Laboratory in conjunction with the Department of Energy's Galvin Task Force examination of the laboratories. We followed that with our first institutional tactical plan, which includes a goal to increase workforce productivity. <p>
Now, with the Galvin Task Force recommendations in, the Laboratory having defined some of its own inefficiencies, Secretary O'Leary having announced the department's intent to change its operations toward a more cost-effective system of governance, and budget cuts looming on the horizon, we are ready for the next phase of our activities -- enhancing the Laboratory's productivity.<p>
I find a great sense of urgency around the Laboratory since the increased burden of our own and the government's excessive bureaucracy and oversight has driven up our costs and taken its toll on our scientific and technical productivity. This erosion was driven heavily by the Tiger Team assessment of 1991. We can identify an additional overhead burden (work that does not contribute to our technical product) of approximately $70 million annually. In addition, we believe at least as much has been lost in the technical productivity of our technical staff members and technicians because of unproductive time spent responding to increased oversight plus internal and external bureaucracy. <p>
This unproductive time, or redundant work, not only has driven up our cost of doing business and made us less competitive, it has had a terribly demoralizing effect on our workforce. The increased oversight per se has not resulted in uniformly better business practices or a safer or healthier workplace, or better protection of the environment. We have, however, learned a lot that can now allow us to design more productive operations that we believe will result in a better and more efficient workplace and one in which the public will have more confidence.<p>
We have a small team working on specific goals. I want to provide you with a broad overview of the game plan and ask for your input to the team (the team's electronic address is future@lanl.gov).<p>


<h3>What?</h3>
We want to increase the productivity of the Laboratory by shifting more of our activities to get our product -- science and technology -- out the door. We will do this by identifying and taking the redundant work out of the technical and support divisions. This will allow the technical people to focus more of their time on technical work and the support people to concentrate on the high value-added functions that support our mission. Over a couple of years this change will result in a dramatic shift toward more people at the Laboratory contributing directly to our science and technology. <p>
Reducing DOE oversight and not having checkers checking checkers will help us to take redundant work out of the system. Streamlining the entire DOE oversight process will reduce the number of DOE checkers which, in turn, would allow us to decrease the number of our people who interface with the DOE checkers and the amount of time all of our people spend on the overbearing number of audits. Closing out the Tiger Team action plans developed in 1992 will help to get a lot of redundant work out of the system. (The key actions have been incorporated in subsequent DOE audits and assessments). But redundant work results from more than just oversight. It reaches into every facet of our business practices and into our operations and technical work. Defining and eliminating redundant work and realigning our workforce accordingly will be the major focus of this activity. <p>


<h3>Why now?</h3>
For three years we have tried to move our restructuring and continuous quality improvement efforts in this direction. We have been able to target only some of the internal inefficiencies. A major roadblock has been not being able to take the redundant work out of the system. Without reducing the external burden, we achieved only modest cost savings. Yet, people had to work much harder, increasing everyone's frustration. In our tactical plan we identified changing the game in Washington as a necessity to achieving significant cost reductions.<p>
The Galvin Task Force report is helping to change the game. Mr. Galvin took his message to Congress and to the administration. He made it clear that excessive oversight hurt both productivity and morale at the laboratories. The new Congress is also much more receptive to reducing the government's burden. Within the Administration, Vice President Gore's reinventing government campaign pushes for increased efficiency. Books such as Philip K. Howard's "The Death of Common Sense" brought home the inordinate cost to the public of an overbearing and overburdensome government.<p>
The time is right for us to act now. Secretary O'Leary stepped out very aggressively to adopt the essence of the Galvin Task Force recommendations, and she recently announced a substantial downsizing of the Department of Energy. Under Secretary Charles Curtis told DOE managers and laboratory directors to decrease overhead and increase productivity as we face declining budgets. Albuquerque Area Manager Bruce Twining recently initiated several oversight pilots with us that can cut redundant work significantly. <p>
We must now run with this opportunity to help shape our own destiny. If we do not, others will do it for us. Mr. Galvin told Congress that the laboratories could increase their productivity by 25 to 50 percent if effective governance is restored and the oversight burden is decreased. That is a tall order. Secretary O'Leary is counting on significant budget savings in the future for the department and its laboratories through productivity enhancements. And, the public is expecting more for its tax dollars.<p>
Additionally, budget cuts loom on the horizon. We are already feeling a significant squeeze this year. Every indication from congressional budget actions to date is that next year will be much worse. We will be fortunate to reach 90 percent of this year's budget in fiscal year 1996. If we do not begin to get redundant work out now, we will cripple our technical capabilities in responding to future budget cuts. <p>
This is also the right time because we have clearly defined our future mission consistent with evolving national needs, and we have a tactical plan to guide us (and we have a process in place to track and update these periodically). Reducing the nuclear danger is our central compelling mission. It is supported by a sound science and technology base, and complemented by carefully selected civilian programs and industrial collaborations to round out our vision of the future. This vision provides the necessary compass to guide us as we face the difficult job of reorienting internal priorities. <p>


<h3>Who will do this?</h3>
All of us! Certainly, the Laboratory Leadership Council and I will lead. We'll have a small team of directors and staff to help prioritize and focus our efforts. We have asked the University of California and our principal customer, the Department of Energy, to join us. And, most importantly, we will need the help of each and every one of you.<p>
We will have to cut redundant work resulting from our own internal bureaucracy. But we will need DOE's help to take the externally imposed redundant work out of the system. Much of what may be considered redundant now, the customer previously considered indispensable. We can't accomplish this transition overnight but the prospects are good to make dramatic changes over the next couple of years. We must work side-by-side with our DOE colleagues to design a new approach. Secretary O'Leary's initiatives and the change in the national mood as evidenced by the last election provide us with good prospects for success. <p>
In addition, we will have to work even more closely with our stakeholders and other concerned parties. Less burdensome oversight must not result in increased risk to our workforce or to the public. Some of the increased government oversight burden was a direct response to the public's concerns about public health and safety near DOE nuclear facilities. I believe that we can both improve our stewardship of the government's facilities and deliver a better value to the taxpayer through the proposed changes. We can gain the public's trust by delivering on our social contract as a public institution -- that is, to provide science and technology of value to the nation; minimize potential negative side effects of our operations; and treat our employees and the public equitably and with respect. <p>
We also will have to work more effectively with other government oversight functions such as the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the New Mexico Environment Department, local governments and the tribal governments of the local Indian pueblos. <p>
Everyone at the Laboratory will be critical to the success of the Laboratory. You are in the best position to identify the redundant work associated with your activities and you can best suggest how to be more effective. You also will be the major beneficiary of improved morale that goes along with knowing what you do is contributing high value to the Laboratory and the nation.<p>
But we all will have to bear a lot of burden with these changes. We will face changing program priorities and funding shortfalls. Many employees will have to retrain for new assignments and, in some cases, it will mean loss of jobs for those whose skills do not match the future needs and where retraining is not practical or does not succeed. We will have to pay particular attention to retaining a diverse workforce and offer additional opportunities to underrepresented groups in the TSM and technician fields.<p>


<h3>When?</h3>
Starting now. We are working on setting specific targets. The University of California and DOE are helping us now, and we are in the process of getting our various other constituencies involved.  I want to give you this heads up now so you know what is in the works.<p>



<h3>Closing Comments</h3>
This will be the toughest challenge we have faced at the Laboratory in some time. Although we will focus on getting the redundant work out and shifting to more technical activities, we also will take this opportunity to ensure that we have a high-performance workforce -- across the board. It will allow us to do a wall-to-wall inventory of our skills and make certain that everyone at the Laboratory is aggressively supporting our scientific and technical missions. <p>
We must always strive to be the best in everything we do. Only then can we be successful in demonstrating to the government that we should receive continued support even during times of dramatic budget cutting. Only then can we ensure that the Laboratory continues to provide good, high-quality, high-paying and satisfying jobs in northern New Mexico. Only then can we ensure that we will serve the nation with the distinction displayed during our first 52 years as a laboratory. Nothing less will do.<p>
I need your help. We will keep you informed about the next steps.
<p>