Anonymously contributed:
I wonder how long he will last....
Penrose Albright, former Homeland Security Secretary, named Global Security leader at Lawrence Livermore
By Physics Today on November 5, 2009
LIVERMORE, Ca — Penrose. C. "Parney" Albright, former Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, has been named the Principal Associate Director of Global Security at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Albright will join the Lab on Nov. 30, Director George Miller announced.
The Global Security Principal Directorate applies multi-disciplinary science and technology to anticipate, innovate and deliver responsive solutions to complex global security needs, from energy and environmental security to domestic security and nonproliferation.
"Parney is extremely well qualified to assume responsibility for Global Security, an area of critical importance to our Laboratory as well as the country," Miller said. "He is internationally recognized for his homeland and national security acumen."
Albright has more than 20 years of experience in national security, holding positions in the federal government, federally funded research and development centers and the private sector. His responsibilities have ranged from research and development to conducting studies and analyses and senior leadership. He has worked in programs to counter terrorism, protect against weapons of mass destruction, protect U.S. borders, and perform systems analysis of space systems and ballistic and cruise missile defense systems.
Prior to joining the Lab Albright was at Civitas Group, a homeland security consulting group in Washington, DC. He served as an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Homeland Security; Assistant Director in the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Senior Director in the Office of Homeland Security in the White House, and Program Manager with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Throughout his career he has served in a number of capacities, from a scientist designing and executing an experiment carried out by the crew of the space shuttle to developer and manager of programs associated with special operations, intelligence collection, molecular biology, and maritime operations; and as the leader of the team that created the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, developing its enabling legislation, organizational construct, multi-year strategic planning guidance, and ultimately overseeing budget execution.
Albright has extensive experience with interagency and congressional interactions, and was a frequent spokesperson for both the White House and DHS to the press on issues associated with science, technology, and weapons of mass destruction.
Albright has a bachelor's degree in physics and applied mathematics from George Washington University, and a master's and PhD in physics from the University of Maryland.
"With his educational background and broad experience, Parney has demonstrated wide-ranging managerial and scientific capabilities and knowledge that will be essential in effectively managing the wide range of functional areas in Global Security," Miller said. "I have confidence that he will enable the Global Security organization to continue to apply multi-disciplinary science and technology to anticipate, innovate and deliver responsive solutions to complex global security needs."
Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national security laboratory that develops science and engineering technology and provides innovative solutions to our nation's most important challenges. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
9 comments:
Was he selected because he is a skilled manager or because the Lab management thinks he will bring in money with his supposed connections in Washington D.C. I'm afraid that it's the latter, I'm afraid they will be disappointed. Seen this story played out before. The Lab management never learns.
Lets give him a chance and see where things go. The last guy was clearly the wrong guy, selected for all the wrong reasons.
LANL took the very same track with the recent appointment of William Rees (a Washington "insider") as the head of Global Security at Los Alamos.
Both LLNS and LANS appear to believe that good "connections" is all it takes to win big funding bucks from the outside agencies. Maybe the good ol' boy political "connections" worked in getting Bechtel in as the prime manager at both LANL and LLNL, but it will not work to magically bring in the outside funding to the two lab's Global Security directorates.
Outside sponsors want scientific credibility and both NNSA labs are losing most of that attribute very quickly as the best staff bail out for better and saner research environments.
Can anyone name of a case where a manager brought from the outside `succeeded' ? The roadside is littered with cases where it did not. I guess the physicists in 111 don't know about empirical data -- they keep hitting themselves on the head and don't know why.
If he would reduce the number of useless managers that would help. But I don't think he will. Morale in GS is bad and every new manager they bring in seems to make it worse. People are leaving for obvious reasons that everyone gets, except the managers. They think they are doing the greatest job, while everyone below them quits. We hope he changes things but people are pretty cynical. More likely he will create a new layer of managers that will crush the WFO projects even more with the burden. Here's an idea, instead of following the lead of managers that have never even spoken to the people who do the work, why don't you get employee input on the future direction? They won't because they won't like what they will hear.
November 7, 2009 12:53 PM
You have raised a very significant question regarding the success of outside managers.
In my 30 years at the Lab, many of which were spent in WFO programs, I am not sure that I have seen any. On the other hand, I have seen numerous failures.
The underlying problem is that LLNL is not structured for WFO success. Part of the problem is internal, part is due to the DOE bureaucracy. The Lab is basically a weapons design lab. It is the best in the world in that mission, but that mission is dying.
If the Lab is ever to be successful in the WFO arena, we need to overahaul DOE or move the Lab out of that management. We cannot devote hundreds of millions of dollars to nonsense bureaucracy--IWSs, AB, etc. When we had a real enemy, political pressures keep the DOE bureaucrats at bay. Bsrring a true national emergency, we will never again be able to gain our previous status.
While DC connections are no replacement good science and analysis in GS, good science and analysis alone will not bring in business. You must have both to get around in DC.
1:52PM -- You're argument is a strawman.
Albert Einstein is reported to have said repeating the same behavior and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
Post a Comment