"A prior Office of
Inspector General report ... found that planning and execution of that
project was not effective and resulted in a system that did not meet
pre-established goals and objectives. In addition, a prior Government
Accountability Office report identified NNSA project management as an
area of high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
These issues were attributable, in part, to ineffective project planning practices related to the development and implementation of the 2NV initiative. For instance, essential components of a well-developed project management approach, such as charters, business cases, alternatives analyses, and implementation schedules, were often inadequate, outdated, or had not been developed in a timely manner. In addition, monitoring and oversight activities were not always sufficient to ensure success and hold project managers accountable for delivering the project within cost, scope, and schedule."
http://energy.gov/ig/downloads/audit-report-doe-oig-16-05
These issues were attributable, in part, to ineffective project planning practices related to the development and implementation of the 2NV initiative. For instance, essential components of a well-developed project management approach, such as charters, business cases, alternatives analyses, and implementation schedules, were often inadequate, outdated, or had not been developed in a timely manner. In addition, monitoring and oversight activities were not always sufficient to ensure success and hold project managers accountable for delivering the project within cost, scope, and schedule."
http://energy.gov/ig/downloads/audit-report-doe-oig-16-05
Comments
I didn't say Energy had no issues, just that Defense has had some whoppers, too.
The Cold War is over. Congress doesn't care about the weapons complex as long as certification occurs.
Think of all the started and stopped plutonium facilities in the DOE: MPF, IESL, CMRR, PDCF, APSF, MFFF. They get written up by the GAO and the DOE-IG as Decades lost and billions spent with little to show but paper. Too big to succeed is the management mantra that underlines our nuclear security. We have lost our way as science and engineering; common sense and the acceptance of risk is replaced with design build, poor budgeting and execution, zero risk, failure to manage consequences, and a lack of leadership. Thus our security rests in a 40 year old facility that is currently paused for operations because of paper, and a workforce managed by a for profit entity that has no equity in the survival or future of the institution.
January 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM
"as we know them"
Security failures that make the front page (and lots more that don't)
Safety lapses that put lab employees in hospitals
Cost overruns that gut the federal budget
Project schedules that expand from years to decades
Environmental destruction on a grand scale
Ethical scandals among the most senior lab leadership
Shutdowns of key nuclear facilities for years at a time
Yes, as a mater of fact "the end of the labs as we know them" would be a most welcome change.