Skip to main content

Is LLNL positioned for success?

This post is a comment under the post "How long will he last?". I am moving it here in the hopes that ULM (or their intelligence) see it and are reminded of the problem.

I thought it sums up the fundamental problem of LLNL

--- scooby --


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 overhaul 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. Barring a true national emergency, we will never again be able to gain our previous status.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Its NNSA management - particularly LSO that is killing WFO at LLNL. NNSA is charged with nuclear weapons science, not doing basic science or advance research for others. Its like having the Dept of Transportation doing research work for the CDC - why? NNSA should keeps focus on what Congress created it to do... the DOE Office of Science should focus on what it is suppose to do. And with LLNL's NNSA mission getting smaller, a very strong case can be made that LLNL should be moved back under DOE Office of Science.
Anonymous said…
You are right that NNSA is the cause of many of our problems, but the lab upper level management(ULM) often interprets their directives in ways that make things worse. Take computer security for example, the lab's go them one bureaucratic step farther attitude is killing the small and medium size programs.

The sad part is that ULM seems completely clueless about this, but I don't think NNSA is. I think they have an evil plan to make LLNL so expensive and tied up in red tape that they have to close the place and give all the work to beltway contractors that say "how high" when they say "jump".

This used to drive me crazy, until I started taking it as a challenge. Each day I arrive at LLNL ready to take on NNSA and ULM's latest nutty plan to try and prevent us all from from working. Its like a new and unpredictable puzzle, and then I try to overcome or work around it(legally). So far I am still getting work done. In fact it is my new motto: "Annoy NNSA: accomplish work".
Anonymous said…
NNSA is a problem (incompetent people, poorly structured organization, etc.), but the problem does not stop there. The safety cancer that has been growing at the Lab since ISMS and many other bureaucratic processes (e.g., DEARS) have their roots in DOE Headquarters, not NNSA.

The Department of Energy needs to focus on energy. There are so many issues there to address; having DOE focus on other areas just detracts from its real mission.

Chu needs to work with Congress to restructure his Department and get many of his incompetent, wasteful bureaucrats out pounding the pavement looking for new jobs.
Anonymous said…
It appears to me for other national labs DOE works okay. Yes, there are problems, but not at the magnitude seen at LLNL and LANL. Makes me thinks its partly NNSA and mostly us (LLNL and LANL).
Neko said…
My answer to this question is . . . who's success? LLNS is making millions.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...