DOE released the annual performance evaluation on LLNL this week. On the last page is some insight into what may have happened to Parney.
"NNSA has concerns regarding several management issues at LLNL. On several occasions LLNL management engaged Congress contrary to stated NNSA strategy or in open opposition to that strategy. There were also a number of issues related to a lack of transparency of operations and program management decisions regarding the ICF program. NNSA and LLNL worked for several months to meet budget challenges requiring the reprogramming of funds to alleviate impacts due to the ICF program rate changes. NIF operating costs and assumptions were not transparent or well communicated to the NNSA Program Office, which made it more difficult to understand programmatic tradeoffs with FY13 budget pressures. NNSA raised concerns regarding the ICF spend rate that resulted in an extremely low level of carryover late in the fiscal year. NIF management also expended considerable facility time and resources on two facility activities (AMP 3 and ARC) despite input from the NNSA program office that these efforts were of a lower priority. Communications with external stakeholders was a continuing issue. LLNL mismanaged external communications in several instances regarding ICF activities and budgets. LLNL attempted to mitigate some of these issues and improve communication with NNSA by making some mid-year organizational changes, and improvements were noted. Additionally, LLNL made changes to its senior management team (key personnel) as coordinated with NNSA leadership to improve performance in this area."
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/01-14-inlinefiles/Livermore%20COR-CB-12%2024%202013-554192_OUTGOING_Performance_Incentives_Performance_Evaluation_Report_for_FY20131.pdf
Comments
Ya well they sure as hell where pushing NIF at all costs. It makes you think that over last few years some of those "all things NIF are corrupt" posts on this blog may have been right all along.
January 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM
"Ya" instead of "yeah" (a dead giveaway) plus "where" instead of "were." Fess up - you are POS!
What irony. According to this, the main reason for the low annual evaluation score and the loss of the contract extension (and presumably for the subsequent departure of Parney) was that the Lab management engaged Congress. Parney was hired, in large part, because of his proven history of 'engaging Congress'. Furthermore, there are many examples of former Lab Directors that did not agree with NNSA (or its predecessor agencies) and expressed their views to Congress. What irony.
Tyler Przbylek should be made head of NNSA. Thus begins the self-destruct sequence...
So Bodman's idea of reining in the labs works. Now NNSA runs weapons science. Lookout world. NNSA is fucked... across the board incompetent. Mission selection, execution, evaluation. alll hopeless.
Kill the messenger.
Is it true HEAF has an acting "Facility Manager" with the academic credentials of a security guard?
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/INS-O-13-06.pdf
I guess the truth hurts. Written job "responsibilities" and expectations vs. FM performance and deliverables do not necessarily equate. Think.
There are plenty of non-scientist rogue managers at LLNS that pick and choose what rules they wish to follow. Sometimes they get caught and sometimes they get away with it. If challenged, it usually takes a set of complicit managers to be successful outside the rules.
February 8, 2014 at 6:30 AM
Oh heck, I thought you were going to continue telling us about the foundation of LLNL.
February 8, 2014 at 5:30 PM
Yeah, and a golden egg dropping on the head of a goose farmer in Michigan will have everybody buying geese right quick.
I guess you don't remember the "Tiger Team" efforts of the early 90s. There were eggs dropping around the complex back then but they weren't golden. Employees at some of these sites were prosecuted for environmental violations. A renewed and serious concern for the environment followed and contractors across the complex DID "find Jesus" or "enlightenment" right quick.
1. innocent through career or a new hire
2. heard of the situation but a step removed from it
3. directly aware situation but not contributing
4. enabling situation to continue
(3 and 4 are slivers apart)
5. directly involved or complicit with situation
via an overlapping process or responsibility
6. directly involved and the source of the conduct
7. threatening coworkers or subordinates to hide
conduct
An "ineffective manager" is based on ones point of reference. Please define effective and ineffective managers.
If the bar is set so high for managers and "less than factual" charges against managers will endanger their jobs, why don't we see more managers pop in and out of existence at LLNS? For most managers the worse they can expect is a lateral move with their salary intact. I'm not sure your observation is as grave as you make it out to be.
February 11, 2014 at 12:28 PM
Exactly my point. Thank you.
"Effective manager" defined:
Answer 1. "...Exactly my point. Thank you..."
Very funny but dodges the question
Answer 2. "... Become perceived as someone who is
not 100% behind the bigger manager, and
you get left behind, which is the worst
possible thing for that personality type..."
Bingo! We have a winner!
You have just defined a "Borg" manager that cares not about employees or written policy. His only concern is protecting the "hive" management structure. This is why LLNS needs a "directive" reset.
"Directive reset" meaning managers swiftly and publicly bounced out of their managerial functions and into "low impact" assignments or fired.
February 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM
Yeah, that'll happen. Just who will do the "bouncing"?? I bet it will happen sooner if you hold your breath. Or stand on one leg. Or just keep saying "LaLaLaLaLaLa..." Any one of those should work like a charm.
February 12, 2014 at 7:39 PM
Oh, I'm not a manager, far from it. I was just chuckling in amazement about your juvenile fantasy. It is very interesting that for all the employee-vs-management whining that goes on on this blog, no one ever proposes any kind of solution other than continued, ever increasing acrimony. Don't you guys ever actually talk to your supervisors/managers, in a professional, courteous manner seeking mutual benefit? No? Must suck to be in that kind of a job. I happen to think that the absolute best job to have is one where everyone, employees and management, works willingly and diligently to support the goals of the organization, knowing that that is the road to career fulfillment and success. If you can't bring yourself to do that, or if that isn't your idea of success, why do you stay in a job where you so obviously do not fit? Why keep up this giant self-deception that the employees should be the ones to determine the goals of the organization? Don't the windmills in your neighborhood have enough tilt-marks in them?
You are a little naive but have the right concept. As 2-13-14 5:19am said, there is no such manager employee unified goal. It is an exclusive club. Employees are not included as you dream of but perhaps your dream will yield an A grade in your next High School economics essay.
February 13, 2014 at 7:32 AM
I never said there was. I talked about unified *effort* towards the goals of the institution. The naive idea is to think that those goals must necessarily be ones you agree with. If they are, fine. If they aren't, then you have some decisions to make. Is it better for you to be unhappy and therefore lose the opportunity for fulfillment and success, or is it better for you to seek employment somewhere that can happen?