Skip to main content

View on 200 re-classification

Image
By scooby
Contributed by the Pooper Scooper:

I recently posted about the changeover from discipline based job classification to the MTS classification at LLNL.
See

http://dogchurch.blogspot.com/2010/02/mts.html

Feel free to link to it from your LLNL the True Story blog.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It would have been nice if they could have beefed up the "D" without sacrificing the "R". I would argue that the two parts of R&D take different kinds of people and organizations. The Lab did some great research but could not develop products.
3/30/2010 2:39 PM
Anonymous said…
2:39 PM,

I would agree with you. Historically LLNL has not been effective at product development - this is really the mission of Sandia Labs and why it was originally established. When SNL was broken off from LANL, this was specifically done to bring in engineering management to run the lab. I've always thought of LLNL as a Research and "Science" lab. Project management skills needed for development were never the strong points of LLNL - although UCOP lead some major project management improvement initiatives at all 3 UC national labs after the NIF headaches associated with the management of the project (and others at all 3 labs).

The whole idea/justification behind LLNS and LANS was to allow Bechtel to bring in real "engineering" project management skills to the overall operations side of the 2 labs. I would argue that this has not been as successful - or really needed - as NNSA thinks. Done more for show, and getting a higher management fee.
3/31/2010 5:53 AM
Anonymous said…
The idea that people are interchangible is a myth from management who really don't understand what they are doing.

And it can result in great harm to progress, to the organization, and especially to people.
LLNL has for years be squishy about getting people with proper qualifications, politics was always more important.

Unfortunately Hazards Control was one of the worst offenders.
Do "Leaders" still want to promote techs because of their sex, without regard for whether they can do the work?
They are writing standards that permit only one or two of a flock of people to be qualified, even though all do the same stuff.
Some of those upper "Leaders" were taken out to the side by the Bectel folks when they first started- what has happened to them since?
4/04/2010 7:10 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more