CMBG Performance Indicator Workshop Facilitated By: Keith Harvey- Wolf Creek Keith Reinsmith- Susquehanna
CM P.I.’s • CM P.I. Background and History • P.I. Development requested by CMBG attendees • Steering committee commissioned a team to develop • Developed P.I.s around CM Equilibrium diagram • Defined P.I.s to measure effectiveness, timeliness, and cost of each CM sub-process (CM001- CM004) • Also created P.I.’s for overall program effectiveness
Facilities Using CM P.I.s(6 Generator and 2 DOE) • Cooper • “Program Health” P.I. • Other P.I.s focused on FCI • Wolf Creek • P.I.s in development • Don’t have proper capability to bin yet • Modeling P.I.s after Duke • Fermi • Use CR process for problem I.D. Low tolerance level for identification • Use cause codes for trending • Don’t have overall CM P.I.
Facilities Using CM P.I.s(6 Generator and 2 DOE) • Susquehanna • P.I.s developed for some of NEI CM P.I.s • Several focused on mod process effectiveness • Have overall CM Process effectiveness P.I. (Roll up of seven CM indicators) • Columbia • KPIs based on INPO 03-004 • 5 CM P.I.s based on INPO OEOs. These align with CM P.I.s • Use CRs with cause codes
Facilities Using CM P.I.s(6 Generator and 2 DOE) • Bruce • Have CM P.I.s as part of site wide P.I. System • Track obvious backlogs • Yucca Mtn • Fully functional P.I. System • Focused now on requirements mgt not CM • Use CRs to identify • Los Alamos • Getting 17-18 facilities to implement CM program • Have same P.I.s across all fac. Some are CM.
Performance Comparison • Important to enable industry benchmarking of performance (apples to apples) • Agreement to identify a subset of CM P.I.’s to focus on and share across industry • Use as pilot for broader application over time • Would normalize to account for program and facility differences (e.g.; use % vs. actual numbers) • Would require plant profiles to aid in comparison • Would focus on trends
Performance Comparison • Identified a list of 5-6 common “easy” P.I.s • 5 volunteers agreed to work as a team to develop detailed description of each P.I. • Team will share results with others from workshop • Each plant would capture data periodically (monthly, quarterly?) and send to common place for publication • Discussed putting on CMBG website • Would revisit effectiveness at ’05 conference