Accelerating the Whiteshell Laboratories Decommissioning Through the Implementation of a Projectized and Delivery-Focused Organization 13074

Transcription

1 Accelerating the Whiteshell Laboratories Decommissioning Through the Implementation of a Projectized and Delivery-Focused Organization Brian Wilcox, Russ Mellor and Craig Michaluk Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada, wilcoxb@aecl.ca ABSTRACT Whiteshell Laboratories (WL) is a nuclear research site in Canada that was commissioned in 1964 by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It covers a total area of approximately 4,375 hectares (10,800 acres) and includes the main campus site, the Waste Management Area (WMA) and outer areas of land identified as not used for or impacted by nuclear development or operations. The WL site employed up to 1100 staff. Site activities included the successful operation of a 60 MW organic liquid-cooled research reactor from 1965 to 1985, and various research programs including reactor safety research, small reactor development, fuel development, biophysics and radiation applications, as well as work under the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program. In 1997, AECL made a business decision to discontinue research programs and operations at WL, and obtained government concurrence in The Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program (NLLP) was established in 2006 by the Canadian Government to remediate nuclear legacy liabilities in a safe and cost effective manner, including the WL site. The NLLP is being implemented by AECL under the governance of a Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)/AECL Joint Oversight Committee (JOC). Significant progress has since been made, and the WL site currently holds the only Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) nuclear research site decommissioning license in Canada. The current decommissioning license is in place until the end of The present schedule planned for main campus decommissioning is 30 years (to 2037), followed by institutional control of the WMA until a National plan is implemented for the long-term management of nuclear waste. There is an impetus to advance work and complete decommissioning sooner. To accomplish this, AECL has added significant resources, reorganized and moved to a projectized environment. This presentation outlines changes made to the organization, the tools implemented to foster projectization, and the benefits and positive impacts on schedule and delivery. A revised organizational structure was implemented in two phases, starting 2011 April 1, to align WL staff with the common goal of decommissioning the site through the direction of the WL Decommissioning Project General Manager. On 2011 September 1, the second phase of the reorganization was implemented and WL Decommissioning staff was organized under five Divisions: Programs and Regulatory Compliance, General Site Services, Decommissioning Strategic Planning, Nuclear Facilities and Project Delivery. A new Mission, Vision and Objectives were developed for the project, and several productivity enhancements are being implemented. These include the use of an integrated and fully resourced Site Wide Schedule that is updated and reviewed at Plan-of-the-Week meetings, improved work distribution throughout the year, eliminating scheduling push mentality, project scoreboards, work planning implementation, lean practices and various process improvement initiatives. A revised Strategic Plan is under development that reflects the improved project delivery capabilities. As a result of these initiatives, and a culture change towards a projectized approach, the decommissioning schedule will be advanced by approximately 10 years. 1

2 INTRODUCTION The WL has evolved from a nuclear laboratory with comprehensive nuclear Research and Development (R&D) facilities to a mandate to decommission the entire site. In the late-1990s, AECL began to consolidate research and development activities at Chalk River Laboratories and initiated preparations for decommissioning WL. Staffing decreased from a peak of over 1100 to less than 300 as the decommissioning was initiated. Preparations for decommissioning included a formal environmental assessment under Canadian environmental assessment legislation, a prerequisite to AECL s application for a decommissioning license. In 2002 December, the CNSC issued a decommissioning license for WL, valid until 2008 December 31. The license authorized the first planned phase of site decommissioning as well as the continuation of selected research programs. The first phase of the decommissioning project achieved reasonable progress. Decommissioning is a new activity in Canada, so much effort was spent on developing processes for planning and execution of safe decommissioning. Enabling facilities were constructed, including a low-level waste storage building and waste handling and clearance facilities. Physical decommissioning included the demolition of several non-nuclear buildings. Detailed decommissioning plans were prepared for some nuclear facilities. However, the staff, structure and processes struggled to identify solely as a decommissioning project. Research programs and nuclear operations continued, often in competition with decommissioning for resources. The decommissioning project itself progressed in a research mode, partly due to the fact that former research staff had transitioned into a decommissioning role. In late 2010/early 2011, AECL undertook an effort to improve the delivery of the NLLP program with the planned outcome to achieve the WL decommissioning project faster and with improved performance. In late 2011, several key changes were initiated, including a reorganization, an identity shift towards decommissioning and away from research and operations, and the implementation of a projectized environment saw a significant improvement in the delivery of project commitments, an attitude of efficiency and process improvements have been cultivated, and the site executes its work in a team dynamic. An overall focus has begun to shift to decommissioning while still maintaining safe operations to support all site activities. IMPROVING PROJECT DELIVERY Reorganization At the beginning of the decommissioning period, the organizational structure of the WL site reflected a typical operating site along with the addition of a small team to oversee the decommissioning project. Major units included Operations, R&D, Engineering, Radiation Protection Program and General Site Services. Many groups at the WL site such as Occupational Safety and Health, Radiation Protection, Security, Fire, Procurement and IT reported to management based at Chalk River Laboratories. Decommissioning was structured as a stand-alone project. This organizational structure was not optimized for delivery of the decommissioning project and did not support the concept of the entire site as a decommissioning team. In Q3 of 2011, AECL re-organized the WL site with the objective of aligning the entire site 2

3 towards meeting the decommissioning commitments. All staff at WL now have direct managerial reporting at the WL site. The structure of the WL site has been changed to five divisions, led by a General Manager (GM) responsible for the Decommissioning Project. The new divisions include Project Delivery with responsibility to plan and execute all major projects and to supply skilled trades. Facilities Operations are responsible for the safe operation of the remaining nuclear facilities and the waste management area. Programs and Regulatory Compliance delivers key services and compliance programs such as Engineering, Environment, Radiation Protection and Occupational Safety. General Site Services provide landlord functions, site maintenance and provision of transport, stores and labour. Strategic Planning leads the strategic planning process for the decommissioning plan with a direction to identify opportunities to advance the decommissioning schedule. AECL has engaged a consulting organization with extensive experience in nuclear decommissioning and site management. The consulting organization fills the role of GM and the current individual has led decommissioning projects in the USA and the UK. The GM has responsibility for the decommissioning project and provides a focus on project delivery and performance. The reorganization and leadership by the GM and other key management roles has initiated a culture change towards a project environment and a focus on decommissioning. Creating a New Identity One of the early activities initiated by the new leadership team was the development of new Mission, Vision and Objectives and Core Value statements for the WL project. The management team began the process by drafting mission and vision statements. These statements were further refined by engagement with representatives of employee groups and unions. A joint management/union team worked through several meetings to produce a set of value statements. In the end, a clear identity has been established. VISION To be the preferred supplier of decommissioning expertise in Canada through our people, practices and innovation. MISSION To safely and efficiently decommission the Whiteshell site using sound environmental and waste management practices while optimizing value to the Canadian public. Development of a Project-Focused Organization AECL is a functional and matrix organization, which works well for managing and operating a complex facility such as a nuclear research site. However, a project-based organization is one where project managers run teams of employees, often from different departments, but all required 3

4 to get the project done. The mission of the project based organization is to generate results in response to specific client demands. The WL Decommissioning Project is evolving to a project based approach. A number of specific tools have been implemented to assist in this evolution and to provide effective control and execution of projects. This includes a site wide schedule that incorporates all planned activities for the entire WL site. Projects are carefully monitored and the performance is shared broadly through scoreboards and other means. All site activities are reviewed weekly by a team, representative of all major departments. Site Wide Schedule To assist with planning and monitoring, AECL has implemented a fully resourced schedule for the WL site. The Site Wide Schedule (SWS) includes the entire portfolio of projects, along with level of effort budgets. All activities are resourced, capturing all people, labour rates, contracts and direct costs. Relationships (links) between activities are a key component of the schedule. Activities are progressed weekly and earned value metrics are monitored. The intent is to include all work at the WL site, but early adoption was not embraced by all staff. Some people felt the SWS is a project tool and it did not apply to activities done by Operations and Maintenance. Even some project people resisted the SWS as they wanted to use their own scheduling tools and did not recognize the importance of a single site-wide schedule for planning and monitoring. Detailed planning can still be done using any project management software, but all activities and project plans must be uploaded and maintained in the SWS. Reinforcement and encouragement by the management team has dramatically improved use of the SWS. The message is that work not on the SWS will not receive resources, with the exception of critical emergent or safety significant work. Plan of the Week Meeting The Plan of the Week meeting is a weekly meeting that involves all major stakeholders at the WL site. Every department is represented and the meeting is chaired by the GM. The team reviews the SWS and each team leader reports issues and progress on their projects and activities. The focus is on accountability to meeting our planned schedule and commitments to the customer. The practice of pushing out activities to the future is not accepted unless the constraints are truly out of the control of AECL. When issues arise, get well plans are promptly developed. An action-tracking system is in place to ensure actions are dealt with promptly and correctly. Performance Metrics Earned value management is the project management technique that is used at WL to objectively measure project performance and progress. Cost Performance Index (CPI) and Schedule Performance Index (SPI) indicators are also used to identify trends towards budget issues (over or under budget) and schedule issues (behind or ahead of schedule) respectively. Performance reviews of Project Managers are directly connected to the project performance. In particular, Project Managers are measured on their ability to meet their scheduled deliverables. In the past, a fiscal year mentality existed where due dates for deliverables were not a concern. The attitude was that as long as a deliverable was completed by fiscal year end, it was acceptable. Delayed and pushed work prevented other work from being completed as projects competed for the same 4

5 resources. There was no urgency to complete missed deliverables. Metrics have been put in place to measure the timing of deliverables. Line Management and Project Managers have performance objectives to complete all deliverables and reduce the average late time for missed deliverables by 50%. Project Experience Prior to the decommissioning phase, the WL was a nuclear research site. Many Engineers, Scientists and Technologists evolved from an environment of research to one of delivering a complex, multi-decade decommissioning project. While many employees had worked on projects, few had received real training on project management and did not have real experience with standard project methodologies. Staff was suddenly put in a position to plan and lead projects, with an expectation of high performance. Some staff flourished, but others struggled. Many resisted the change to a projectized environment. As a result, performance was average to marginal for many projects. Training and mentoring have improved individual performance, but more work is required. Management has adapted a strategy of recruiting new staff with real project experience. The insertion of these resources into line management and projects teams has had a positive impact. Benchmarking of other top-performing organizations has also provided a good return on investment. RESULTS The changes described in this document have produced a dramatic turn-around in project performance at the WL Decommissioning Project. In addition, an attitude of continuous improvement and a focus on accelerating the work is taking hold. Through the NLLP program, AECL has set up contracts based on work being done at WL. Each contract has deliverables set up to mark the achievement of a given area of work. Previous years typically resulted in planning that followed a hockey stick 1 look of deliverables and completed work. At most times in the fiscal year, deliverable performance to date was poor, but spending by contrast was at or near plan. A lot of work got shoe-horned into the last quarter, creating stress and impacting quality. For fiscal year 2012/2013, the work and supporting deliverables are planned throughout the year in a more balanced approach. Progress to date has improved tremendously. Spending is forecast to be under budget, but much of that is attributed to efficiencies identified and implemented this year. Figures 1 and 2 show the schedule of planned versus achieved deliverables for fiscal years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. Analysis of FY 2011/2012 demonstrates the hockey stick shape result where 26 out of 89 (~30%) deliverables were achieved in the last month of the year. Progress throughout the year was marginal and there was a huge push at the end of the year to complete much of the work. Failure to meet deliverables as planned began in the first two months with only 6 of 11 (55%) done. A major gap formed in the summer and at the end of Q1, the deliverable performance was only 27 of 41 (66%). 1 The hockey stick refers the shape on a line graph where a large number of deliverables are achieved in a short period of time. In previous years at AECL, this typically happened during the last month of the fiscal year. 5

6 WM2013 Conference, February 24 28, 2013, Phoenix, Arizona, USA With CR: Total Planned: 89 Total Achieved : 83 (93%) 6 Deliverables missed. WL Deliverables FY11/12 - Monthly and Cumulative Planned Vs Actual % Revised Baseline with CR Baseline Cumulative (without CR) Monthly Plan Monthly Actual Apr Cumulative (No of Deliverables) 20 Monthly (no of Deliverables) May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Planned - Monthly Achieved - Monthly Forecast - Monthly Achieved - Cumulative Forecast - Cumulative Rev Basline with CR Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Planned - Cumulative Figure /2012 Planned vs Actual Deliverable Performance. The results to date for FY 2012/2013 are illustrated in Figure 2. Analysis shows much improved performance in the first two quarters. Deliverable performance to date is 60 of 67 (90%) deliverables. Performance slipped in October and November when a large amount of work was planned, but the gap of planned versus actual deliverable performance is forecast to be quite good. The year end forecast is to complete 100% of planned deliverables. Financial performance is quite good as well with spending under buget, but work at or near planned levels. Most of the budget underspend is attributed to efficiencies in delivering the work. 6

7 December Progress: Planned 2, Achieved 4 (200%) FY Cumulative: Planned 67, Achieved 60 (90%) Project Delivery - Deliverables FY12/13 Planned, Achieved and Forecast Monthly (No of Deliverables) % 113% 67% 50 80% Cumulative (No of Deliverables) 4 67% % 80% % 200% April May June July August September October November December January February March Planned Monthly Forecast Monthly Achieved Monthly Planned Cumulative forecast Cumulative Achieved Cumulative Figure /2013 Planned vs Actual Deliverable Performance. Accountability is high amongst the team. A real focus towards a planned, schedule-driven project exists. The temptation to allow schedules to slide is diminishing. Failure to complete work to plan requires a prompt get well plan. Project Leaders are managing their projects much better. Scope creep is being controlled and change requests to capture new scope, efficiencies, realized risk and other changes are prepared and submitted promptly. The addition of a Project Control Coordinator and Project Assistants to the project teams has helped improve project administration. Along with the project-focused environment, another cultural change is taking root. Many of the original staff members had trouble transitioning to the concept of a project; a body of work with a beginning and an end. The original plan to decommission the WL main campus is 30 years long. Recent work has been completed on a fresh strategic plan. The new schedule has shaved 10 years off the decommissioning plan. The mission is understood and staff are rallying around delivering the project efficiently and faster. One significant improvement in the schedule is the time planned to decommission the reactor. A team has been formed to begin the planning and the work is being advanced significantly. The most important measure for any project is customer satisfaction. Customer confidence in the WL team by the client has increased measurably. Direct feedback at our quarterly reporting meetings has indicated the customer is very satisfied. Deliverable performance is exceeding the scorecard metric. CONCLUSION The WL Decommissioning Project is successfully evolving to a projectized, performance driven organization. Management support and clear expectations has created an environment of 7

8 accountability. Staff understand the vision and mission, and a feeling of pride as a result of measured success is taking hold. New tools such as the SWS and Plan of the Week meeting provide a mechanism to monitor progress and react promptly to issues. Customer confidence in the project is growing and recent feedback has been very positive. Performance metrics demonstrate a considerable improvement in the overall performance of the team. 8