1 / 11

Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities, and Accountabilities (R2A2) Working Group

Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities, and Accountabilities (R2A2) Working Group. May 23, 2007. R2A2 Working Group Members. Sandra Waisley (HQ) Shirley Olinger (ORP) Dave Brockman (RL) Bill Taylor (Ohio) Dae Chung (HQ) Kurt Gerdes (HQ) Vernon Daub (CBFO) Ron Smith (HQ). Charter.

kasi
Télécharger la présentation

Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities, and Accountabilities (R2A2) Working Group

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. Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities, and Accountabilities (R2A2) Working Group May 23, 2007

  2. R2A2 Working Group Members • Sandra Waisley (HQ) • Shirley Olinger (ORP) • Dave Brockman (RL) • Bill Taylor (Ohio) • Dae Chung (HQ) • Kurt Gerdes (HQ) • Vernon Daub (CBFO) • Ron Smith (HQ)

  3. Charter • To address issues associated with R2A2 of the current EM organization: among offices within EM Headquarters (HQ), and between HQ and Field sites. • Experience has demonstrated that lack of clear R2A2 leads to inefficient operations, conflicting/incomplete feedback, unclear HQ and Field expectations, rework of assigned activities, and unclear communications with stakeholders. • This effort is a key component in EM’s goal of becoming a highly performing organization. • NAPA review has identified concerns with lack of clarity and ambiguity of R2A2 in current EM organization.

  4. Project Action Plan • Purpose: To address issues associated with R2A2 of current EM organization to support EM’s goal of becoming a highly performing organization • Four Major Tasks: • Identify Existing EM/HQ R2A2 Management Systems WHAT? • Survey EM/HQ and Field Management for Perspectives WHY? • Document EM/HQ R2A2 and Update Existing Systems HOW? • Develop Communications Strategy and Plan WHEN? • Action Plan Activities: coordinated with ongoing NAPA study and EMAB R2A2 findings and recommendations

  5. Task Plan #1Identify Existing EM/HQ R2A2 Management Systems A. Collect Current R2A2 Documents B. Identify Systems/Documents Owners C. Perform Gap Analysis to Identify Voids, Gaps, and Inconsistencies in Coverage D. Identify Changes to FRA and ISMSD Estimated Completion Date: April 2007

  6. Task Plan #2Survey EM/HQ and Field Management for Perspectives A. Conduct Survey to Identify Areas of Confusion, Ambiguity, Barriers, or Show Stoppers B. Identify the Near Term Significant Systems that Require Clarification of R2A2 C. Identify Specific R2A2 Issues for EM-1 Resolution (will be incorporated into Task #3C) Estimated Completion Date: July 2007

  7. Task Plan #3Document EM/HQ R2A2 and Update Existing Systems A. Update EM/HQ FRA and ISMSD to Reflect Current Reorganization B. Clarify Delegations of Authorities C. Identify Specific R2A2 Issues for EM-1 Resolution D. Recommend an EM R2A2 Systems Owner E. Identify SOPP(s) Needed for HQ as Necessary/Appropriate F. Ensure Development of System that Tracks Actions to Closure G. Develop an EM/HQ RAM (w/ WBS) Estimated Completion Date: August 2007

  8. Task Plan #4Develop Communications Strategy and Plan A. Develop EM/HQ Manual to Institutionalize and Implement R2A2 (with configuration controls) B. Establish a Clearinghouse or Arbiter for R2A2 Conflicts in EM/HQ or Between HQ and Field Sites C. Develop Communications Plan and Rollout Schedule D. Establish a Feedback System and Success Metrics Estimated Completion Date: January 2008

  9. Expectations for EM HQ and Field Staff(Completing Project Action Plan) • NAPA Study Decisions (EM-1,2,3) • Survey Task Completion: Hanford, Savannah River, Carlsbad Office (WIPP), and HQ (ALL) • FRA, ISMSD, Delegation of Authorities Update (EM HQ) (ongoing) • Standard Operating Policies and Procedures Development (EM HQ) • Communications Task Completion (ALL, Communications Working Group)

  10. Project Risks and Challenges • Adequate EM Resources Are Not Provided to Develop, Implement and Communicate Project Action Plan to Meet FY 2007 Milestones; • Resources From HQ and Field Sites Do Not Allocate Specific Blocks of Time to Work on This Non-Project Work Item; • Recommended Improvements Not Supported by EM/HQ and Field Organizations, and/or Stakeholders; and • Unforeseen Higher Priority EM Activities Supersedes This Effort (e.g.., new Congress provides new direction that affects EM’s current mission priorities).

  11. Project Schedule See Attached

More Related