ISM Core Function Team

1
ISM Core Function Team 5Cycle I Briefing to the
Directors Safety Council

• February 29, 2008

2
Core Function Team 5

• Team Members
• Neil Wilson
• Brian Bevins
• Tina Menefee
• Richard Williams
• Cindy Saban
• Brian Kross

3
Core Function Team 5

• Feedback and Continuous Improvement Focus Areas
• Conduct post job reviews (worker feedback)
• Collect and distribute lessons learned
• Conduct independent, management, and
  self-assessments

4
Core Function Team 5

• Summary of Assessment Activities
• Personnel Interviewed 36
• Divisions Not Assessed During Cycle I
• FMs Procurement
• Accel. SRF
• Examples of Programs or Processes Assessed
• Accel. Daily, Weekly PD and Weekly SAD
  scheduling/planning meetings.
• FELs 3x a week meetings.
• Pansophy, e f log entries, ATList, FEList, etc.

5
Core Function Team 5

• JLab Compliance With This Core Function
• Overall JLab does not meet the criteria for
  Feedback and Continuous Improvement as defined
  by the HSS CRAD 64-20.

6
Core Function Team 5

• Noteworthy Practices
• Accelerators system of tracking machine
  operations and its performance covers all
  aspects of the working of the machine including
  feedback. It is well documented and metrics are
  defined and available.
• Trends are monitored. Action plans are developed
  and implemented. The results of these actions are
  monitored, evaluated and amended as required.
• There are regular meetings that update personnel.
  
• The information is available.

7
Core Function Team 5

• Findings
• No standard formal feedback process in place
  (HSS CRAD 64-20).
• There is no real formal process for providing
  feedback for continuous improvement in place at
  the lab that is widely recognized or understood
  as such. This function is not planned, budgeted,
  or scheduled. It is not part of the structure
  or culture of the lab.
• Many line supervisors and managers do this
  within their own organizations. However, it is
  not what could be termed a lab wide formal
  process and it is typically reliant on the
  personnel who did the work previously being
  present the next time or the individual
  supervisors memory and/or personal
  documentation.
• The labs manpower levels have been reduced to
  the point where the groups are continually
  stretched and feel that there is no time to look
  back.

8
Core Function Team 5

• Findings (cont.)
• No Acceptance Criteria or inspection process
  for all equipment or parts arriving at the lab
  (10CFR 830 Sub Part A DOE Order 414.1 C).
• No Differing Professional Opinions program or
  process (DOE M 442.1-1)
• Lessons Learned program not effectively applied.
  (DOE 210.2 (1)(c)(1-7))
• Not all DOE Lessons Learned are reviewed.
• LL are not routinely consulted in work planning.
• LL are not routinely flagged for corrective
  action tracking.

9
Core Function Team 5

• Opportunities for Improvement
• Work Planning Systems
• Uniform and consistent work planning systems
  should be implemented across all organizational
  units and accessible in a single unified
  interface.
• Work planning/work order systems should require
  closeout observations to be entered and stored.
• Improved interdivisional communication would
  significantly remove barrier to lessons learned.

10
Core Function Team 5

• Corrective Actions
• Establish the requirement for a Formal Feedback
  process lab wide.
• Establish a Acceptance Criteria for all
  equipment and/or parts arriving at the lab.
• Establish a Differing Professional Opinion
  process/procedure.
• Consolidate the labs Lessons Learned programs to
  improve its effectiveness and use.
• Establish a process similar to the Accel. Ops for
  the Exp. Halls to track experiment progress and
  problems. Document any problems, corrective
  actions and their effectiveness. Disseminate
  this information.

11
Core Function Team 5

• Comments, Personal Observations, and Impressions
  from Interviews
• There is the perception that the EHSQ field
  staff is being withdrawn back into their home
  group and not as actively involved with the day
  to day activities in the field.
• There is an impression that senior management is
  more concerned about perception than reality when
  it comes to safety. Paper Safety
• Personal or Divisional practices take preference
  over JLabs policies.
• Budget Schedule do influence safety.
• Work observation/DuPont STOP program losing
  momentum.

12
Core Function Team 5

• Two Benefits of the Assessment Process
• Much clearer understanding of what the DOE will
  expect to see when the real review happens in
  June 08
• Recognition of how much work has to be done by
  June 08
• Two Recommendations for Cycle II
• Prior to starting the Cycle II interviews, the
  team should reach a consensus by reviewing the
  interview questions. This is to better understand
  what we should be looking for.
• Develop a better plan or system before going into
  the field. Who, when, where, what how. Dont be
  rigid, stay flexible and follow the answers.