1 / 7

CMBG Performance Indicator Workshop

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

cliff
Télécharger la présentation

CMBG Performance Indicator Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CMBG Performance Indicator Workshop Facilitated By: Keith Harvey- Wolf Creek Keith Reinsmith- Susquehanna

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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

More Related