<h2>Workforce productivity update</h2>
During the past month some people have chosen to redefine the objectives of our Workforce Productivity Project. I want to set the record straight and reiterate the principal objectives, as well as comment on where we go from here.<p>
Let me first state that this really is all about increasing our scientific productivity! It's not primarily a reaction to a budget shortfall. It's not, as some would have you believe, about just singling out our support personnel or about disenfranchising any segment of our employees or our local communities. <p>
All around us in this country we witness intense efforts to reengineer organizations to increase productivity. Over the past year we have talked to many people representing a broad cross section of organizations. Industrial organizations have a wealth of experience. Governmental organizations are off to a slow start but the intensity is mounting. Even universities have begun the process of reengineering to increase productivity in education and research. The driving forces for each are different. Industry can articulate the driving force most clearly because most companies have faced a crisis -- increase productivity or go out of business. They say there is nothing like the sight of the gallows to concentrate the mind. <p>
Governmental organizations have been pressured over the past two years by the Clinton administration's "reinventing government" focus and by the intense cost-cutting pressures faced in Congress. However, the driving forces are typically not as clearly defined as those in industry. Few governmental organizations ever go out of business although Congress has threatened to abolish some agencies, including the Department of Energy. A variety of studies has pointed out gross inefficiencies in government, prompting some serious responses from the government.<p>
One of the most influential studies was conducted on the DOE laboratories by the Galvin Task Force. Following up on the Task Force, Bob Galvin recently summarized the problem rather succinctly in the fall 1995 "Issues in Science and Technology." He wrote, "Mircomanagement, oppressive oversight, compounding regulations, contradictory directives, audits upon audits, layers of bureaucracy, and isolated 'stovepipes' of authority are suffocating the labs. The result is excessive overhead, poor morale and gross inefficiencies."  Mr. Galvin has told Congress that the scientific productivity at the laboratories could be increased by 20 to 50 percent. <p>
That sounds pretty serious to me. Secretary O'Leary also has taken this seriously. She committed to an overhead reduction of $1.7 billion at DOE and another $1.4 billion at the laboratories over five years. I don't know about you, but I certainly feel the heat. We decided to take bold action with our Workforce Productivity Project. We are not alone. Last week I had the opportunity to compare notes with three other DOE laboratory director colleagues. The actions taken at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory are very similar to ours. <p>
Nevertheless, numerous people question our actions and our motives. They wonder what the crisis is. We are, indeed, not about to go out of business. Our crisis is more subtle but, nevertheless, just as serious. I believe that unless we follow through with our productivity project, we will go out of business as a world-class scientific institution. All that may survive is a "Jiffy Lube" for nuclear weapons, rather than a great scientific laboratory that can live up to the challenge of science-based stockpile stewardship and one that can serve the nation with distinction in other critical areas. <p>
Our crisis more closely resembles that of universities. In early September, I had the opportunity to compare notes with Charles Vest, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is reengineering MIT to take $40 million out of the overhead and administration of MIT because he believes that he has to demonstrate that universities can be more cost effective and productive. MIT does not face a crisis of going out of business. What concerns Charles Vest is the danger of "drifting toward mediocrity" and how this will impact the nation's security and well-being. <p>
In the short term, my greatest concerns are internal to the Laboratory. Years of relentless administrative pressures, so graphically described by Mr. Galvin, have increased our overhead to alarming proportions. We have had to place too many people into support positions to keep the doors open. Our costs have increased to unacceptable levels for many of our customers. We lost the balance between science and support. We dealt with budgetary shortfalls by reducing the scientific and technical staff too quickly and too deeply. Consequently, morale suffered and we were in serious danger of losing our best and in "drifting toward mediocrity." This is why we moved so swiftly and so aggressively with the Workforce Productivity Project. I did not want to face another budget cycle by cutting into the scientific heart and soul of the Laboratory. <p>
So, what the Workforce Productivity Project is all about is saving and renewing this great institution of ours. We have a compelling national mission -- helping to reduce the global nuclear danger. This mission is firmly grounded in science and technology, and we will use its capabilities selectively to contribute to other important national problems. To be cost effective, we will not only strive for the best scientific and technical workforce but also for world-class professionals to carry out the necessary support functions. <p>
However, we will have to do the job with fewer people while still safeguarding the health and safety of our workers and the public, and while being environmentally responsible in the process. I want the Laboratory to be the employer of choice for the best scientific and professional personnel, and employees will be attracted and retained based on their skills and their performance. Our workforce will be excellent. It also will be diverse because that is the only way to attract the finest talent in the world to solve the tough problems ahead of us. If we accomplish all of this, then the Laboratory still will be an engine for economic growth and development for New Mexico, offering high-quality, high-paying jobs in northern New Mexico. <p>
During the first phase of the productivity project we focused on increasing the ratio of people contributing directly to science and technology compared to people supporting them from 0.94-to-1 to 1.1-to-1 as one step toward increased scientific productivity. During the next phase we will move carefully but deliberately toward a ratio of 1.3-to-1, while concurrently working on other measures of productivity. It is clear that we will have to reengineer many of our work processes and work closely with the DOE to take redundant work out of the system. We will have to monitor closely how our scientists, engineers and technicians spend their time to make certain that their administrative burden is also decreased. We currently are working to define how to accomplish all of this. I will keep you informed.<p>
Let me end by reminding you what Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the "Making of the Atomic Bomb" said to a Los Alamos audience during the 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of our Laboratory: "I believe the world owes you, and those of your colleagues who are gone now and no longer among us, an immense debt of gratitude. ... You saved civilization." We should settle for nothing less over the next 50 years. Let's do what's best for our Laboratory and for the nation. Let's not hang on so desperately to the past and refuse to change. Let's not divide our Laboratory and the community in the pursuit of self-interest. I ask for your full support and participation. It's time to unite and strengthen the foundation for the Laboratory to remain a world leader for science and <p>technology.