Search

Peer review is an essential component of engineering practice and other scientific and technical undertakings. Peer reviews are conducted to ensure that activities are technically adequate, competently performed, and properly documented; to validate assumptions, calculations, and extrapolations; and to assess alternative interpretations, methodologies, acceptance criteria, and other aspects of the work products and the documentation that support them. Effective peer reviews are conducted in an environment of mutual respect, recognizing the contributions of all participants. Their primary objective is to help the project team achieve its goals. Reviews also contribute to quality assurance, risk management, and overall improvement of the management process. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts different types of peer reviews at the different stages of a project, including reviews to assess risks and other factors related to design, safety, cost estimates, value engineering, and project management. Independent project reviews (IPRs) are conducted by federal staff not directly affiliated with the project or program and management and operations (M&O) contractors. External independent reviews (EIRs) are overseen by the Office of Engineering and Construction Management and conducted by contractors external to the department. EIRs are the primary focus of this report. However, the committee found that, in many cases, IPRs are explicitly used as preparation for or as preliminary reviews prior to EIRs. Thus, because IPRs are integral to the review process in DOE, they are also discussed because they might have an effect on EIRs. In October 2000, DOE issued Order 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets (DOE, 2000). The order established a series of five critical decisions (CDs), or major milestones, that require senior management review and approval to ensure that a project satisfies applicable mission, design, security, and safety requirements: approve mission need, approve alternative selection and cost range, approve performance baseline, approve start of construction, and approve start of operations or project closeout. Assessment of the Results of External Independent Reviews for U. S. Department of Energy Projects summarizes the results.

In 1997, Congress, in the conference report, H.R. 105-271, to the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, directed the National Research Council (NRC) to carry out a series of assessments of project management at the Department of Energy (DOE). The final report in that series noted that DOE lacked an objective set of measures for assessing project management quality. The department set up a committee to develop performance measures and benchmarking procedures and asked the NRC for assistance in this effort. This report presents information and guidance for use as a first step toward development of a viable methodology to suit DOE's needs. It provides a number of possible performance measures, an analysis of the benchmarking process, and a description ways to implement the measures and benchmarking process.

Effective risk management is essential for the success of large projects built and operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), particularly for the one-of-a-kind projects that characterize much of its mission. To enhance DOE's risk management efforts, the department asked the NRC to prepare a summary of the most effective practices used by leading owner organizations. The study's primary objective was to provide DOE project managers with a basic understanding of both the project owner's risk management role and effective oversight of those risk management activities delegated to contractors.

In 1997, Congress, in the conference report, H.R. 105-271, to the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, directed the NRC to carry out a series of assessments of project management at the Department of Energy (DOE). This report, the 2003 Assessment, is the final one in that series. It presents an examination of DOE's progress in improving program management over the past three years including the Department's response to the recommendations of the previous assessments in this series. In addition to assessing DOE's progress, the report also describes opportunities for further improvement and gives a prognosis for future developments.

In 1997, Congress, in the conference report, H.R. 105-271, to the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, directed the NRC to carry out a series of assessments of project management at the Department of Energy (DOE). This report, the 2002 Assessment, is the second in that series. It presents an examination of DOE's progress in improving program management over the past two years and offers recommendations regarding project management methodology and project oversight.

Recurrent problems with project performance in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the 1990s raised questions in Congress about the practices and processes used by the department to manage projects. The 105th Committee of Conference on Energy and Water Resources directed DOE to investigate establishing a project review process. Many of the findings and recommendations in this series of reports identified the need for improved planning in the early project stages (front-end planning) to get the project off to the right start, and the continuous monitoring of projects by senior management to make sure the project stays on course. These reports also stressed the need for DOE to act as an owner, not a contractor, and to train its personnel to function not as traditional project managers but as knowledgeable owner's representatives in dealing with projects and contractors. The NRC Committee for Oversight and Assessment of Department of Energy Project Management determined that it would be helpful for DOE to sponsor a forum in which representatives from DOE and from leading corporations with large, successful construction programs would discuss how the owner's role is conducted in government and in industry. In so doing, the committee does not claim that all industrial firms are better at project management than the DOE. Far from it-the case studies represented at this forum were selected specifically because these firms were perceived by the committee to be exemplars of the very best practices in project management. Nor is it implied that reaching this level is easy; the industry speakers themselves show that excellence in project management is difficult to achieve and perhaps even more difficult to maintain. Nevertheless, they have been successful in doing so, through constant attention by senior management.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is engaged in numerous multimillion- and even multibillion-dollar projects that are one of a kind or first of a kind and require cutting-edge technology. The projects represent the diverse nature of DOE's missions, which encompass energy systems, nuclear weapons stewardship, environmental restoration, and basic research. Few other government or private organizations are challenged by projects of a similar magnitude, diversity, and complexity. To complete these complex projects on schedule, on budget, and in scope, the DOE needs highly developed project management capabilities. This report is an assessment of the status of project management in the Department of Energy as of mid-2001 and the progress DOE has made in this area since the National Research Council (NRC) report Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy (Phase II report) was published in June 1999.

A symposium titled'Serving Science and Society into the New Millennium: The Legacy and the Promise'was held at the National Academy of Sciences on May 21-22, 1997. Speakers and panelists discussed the accomplishments and future of DOE's Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program. They also discussed a variety of multidisciplinary research activities, such as developing advanced medical diagnostic tools and treatments for human disease; assessing the health effects of radiation; tracking the regional and global movement of energy-related pollutants, and establishing the first human genome program. At the end of the symposium, 13 scientists who have been associated with the BER program and who have made significant contributions to its advancements and progress were honored. The proceedings volume includes the presentations made at the symposium.