Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy: 2001 Assessment

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001. Presumed First Edition, First printing. Trade paperback. good. xi, [1],128 pages. Wraps. Illustrations. References. Appendices. Acronyms and Abbreviations. Staple holes in front cover, distribution memo laid in. Prepared under the auspices of the Committee for Oversight and Assessment of U.S. Department of Energy Project Management, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environments, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council. The Department of Energy (DOE) is engaged in numerous multimillion- and even multibillion-dollar projects that are one of a kind or first of a kind and require cutting-edge technology. The projects represent the diverse nature of DOE's missions, which encompass energy systems, nuclear weapons stewardship, environmental restoration, and basic research. Few other government or private organizations are challenged by projects of a similar magnitude, diversity, and complexity. To complete these complex projects on schedule, on budget, and in scope, the DOE needs highly developed project management capabilities. This report is an assessment of the status of project management in the Department of Energy as of mid-2001 and the progress DOE has made in this area since the National Research Council (NRC) report Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy (Phase II report) was published in June 1999 (NRC, 1999). The Phase II report findings and recommendations are reproduced as Appendix C. The findings presented in this report reiterate and expand on those given in the committee's January 2001 interim letter report, Improved Project Management in the Department of Energy (NRC, 2001), reproduced here as Appendix D. The Phase II report estimated that DOE projects costed taxpayers 50 percent more than comparable projects would cost if performed by the private sector or other government agencies, in large part because DOE did not use industry-standard best practices for project management. The Phase II report recommended, inter alia, that DOE develop policies, procedures, models, tools, techniques, and standards; train staff in their use; and require their use on DOE projects. It recommended further that DOE should develop and deploy a comprehensive project management system with clear definition of the specific roles and responsibilities of all parties associated with a project. As noted in the interim letter report, the department has taken a number of positive steps since the Phase II report. On June 25, 1999, subsequent to the release of that report, the deputy secretary, as the DOE chief operating officer, issued a memorandum announcing a project management reform initiative. This memorandum directed a number of actions to be taken to improve project management capability. These included the formation of the Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) in the office of the chief financial officer (CFO) and the formation and strengthening of project management support offices (PMSOs) in the three major program secretarial offices (PSOs). On January 3, 2000, the deputy secretary issued an interim instruction to serve as policy guidance on critical decisions by acquisition executives (AEs) and the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) and on the conduct of corporate-level performance reviews. On June 10, 2000, DOE issued Policy P413.1, which addresses project management accountability, the establishment of project management organizations, project management tools, and training of personnel. DOE Order O413.3 was issued October 13, 2000, to implement the DOE policy document. O413.3 covered department policies on project management; provision for project engineering and design (PED) funding for preconstruction planning; reestablishment of the ESAABs; and other matters related to the management and oversight of DOE projects. Finally, the Program and Project Management (PPM) manual and a companion volume, Project Management Practices (PMP), were released in draft form in October 2000. The body of this report addresses certain specific areas that the committee believes needed greater definition and follow-up since the Phase II report. Not all the findings and recommendations in the Phase II report are repeated in the body of this report, although the committee continues to endorse them, so this report should be used in conjunction with the Phase II report.