ML20099L173
| ML20099L173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1984 |
| From: | Bauser D GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Buck J, Edles G, Kohl C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#484-357 SP, NUDOCS 8412010038 | |
| Download: ML20099L173 (32) | |
Text
-.
RELATED CURM.SFONDENCf SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNER $Mip OF PROFES$50NAL CORpORATeONS 1800 M $TREET, NT W.
_ ~'
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036 -
STEu RT.
AN.
C.
EpH S'
UT R
C.
ORGE A L B RI'G T. J R *
- wENDEON A WMiTE DAv8D J. CYNAMON STANLEY M GARG GEORGE r yRowgm.oGE.pC.
w'NTHROp N mRowN,PC.
,3 fo gig %u"g"yggwg NR$((,a g m'y,"g g oo g L COM R E A CMA OF. p ld.
RAND Le mEL p C.
"M'LLip D.SOSTw ROBE RT E zangg R, p C.
(202) 8224099 & S22 H99 S ETM,g,. MOOG A,Si AN T"ATMM N P M
CHEfa GEO'MOTMv NANLO'CM. p C.
- T N P C.
ROBE RT s. Rose NS. P C.
gug uce w Rvgy Raves 7.eROwN,JR STE p**E N e ME M ANN FRED A. LITTL E P C.
DAvs0 M RueENSTEtm p C.
DELISSA A. RiDowAv SANDRA E BRu'SC A RGE M ROGERS,JR.PC.
STEVEN M LUCAS.pC.
JOMN 3. RMsqE L ANDER. p C.
M ATI A S F. TRAveE SO Ot A Z. p.C.
"E N'*E TM J. Maut MA g D AVID L A*RENCE MILLgm EeLE EN L. SRO*NELL p uCE w. CMuRCMrLL. p C.
VeCTCR A J DE RatN S. p C.
Rap *F AR 100 rRE DEReCK L. mLEIN PAMELAM ANDERSON S'EVEN p p'TLg m ALE x 4NDE R D. TOM ASZC2um LESL'E A. NaCMOLSON. JR p C.
JOMN M O NE sLL. J R.. p C.
E LLE N A. FRE DEL'No fur" ENC w.'bMEN MasrTtN D. mRALL, P C.
JAv 4 E DSTIE N. p C.
(202)824s072
- RicMARD J
- RR JAv E. SegggRo, o c gg rrE RY L. V ABLON. p C-
- f. E, ;
DE REE
L SA M M E NOLETON E
D LANO'
""[g."g, "O"w$$ R g
MARRY M. GL A S Sp E GEL YTLEx THOM AS C. MsLL FRE D ORASNER. p C.
R. KE NLY wE S STE R. F C.
TMOM AS M. McCOR' Mica DIANE E. SummLEV' 4 %,yn g. r,%.irr ggggggggn g ggyg,%
[NwDO "T"N AIN ARE A ENS iCm, 9 A LE S M ONTANGE
~
M' MAEL M MADOEN Eit'!TOh "ah"S" p"C "5'?,"1'n **
c^^*
5"^*'^*
"^ o 'T**tS",&*E!""'"
c'"v,c a^rs',".',,~,.
A S ia~^ "'#E'.UNC.
~~M" 1 ". 'G"J ;O~
^~A"A"oi t'3
~
^no,Ci'a*GM70 J
O T
" "e"M'3 GC",'M.C. C.
"80!o a fMR,'AM AN
<'R*N> A Orr'c'
'*375*fsTE"'"""
C'J"w $5n".
c" 5
^
C MA
~
TE'A!,'s iu"'C',7'!"C " *-
Sta?v"1"A". A'.E !G" e' F^aM cREo oa~<
T W O'4""'"'
'M to ",.". E C. E R "JOa'b ","S.... p C.-
E**.h.an'S Mc'raN. v'RmN' A az'on
- "N;."#3'.,' "?.*^""
- &#JT",7E*^ $"#CTA" 'A C
.._v.t.
- ao**'TTa o im v'*G'= a e SCOTT CUSTE R. JR-ReCM ARD S. BE ATTv COJNSEL w AITE R S DeRECT Osak Num.SER November 28, 1984 (202) 822-1215 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J.
Edles, Chairman John H.
Buck Atomic Safety and License Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)
Docket No. 50-289 @
Dear Chairman Edles and Administrative Judges Buck and Kohl:
In accordance with our practice of notifying the Appeal Board, the Licensing Board, and the parties of changed circum-stances or new information on issues of interest, Licensee hereby provides a copy of a recently issued report prepared by Andrew J. Miller Associates for GPU Nuclear.
The purpose of the report was to identify ways in which the Technical
%[h j
0 gx n
SH AW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSMIR OF RROFESSIONAL CORRORATIONS Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles Administrative Judge John H. Buck Administrative Judge Christine N. Kohl November 28, 1984 Page 2 Functions Division of GPU Nuclear could enhance its contribu-tion and effectiveness in carrying out its mission.
Respectfully submitted, Deborah B.
Bauser Counsel for Licensee DBB:jah Enclosure cc:
Service List 4
)
t l
l t
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C000tISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-209
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John N. Buck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeai i
Board i
Thomas M.
Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Board d
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrativa Judge Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Lando W.
Zech Jr., Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appesi Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
x
1.
O Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C.
20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt office of the Secretary R.D.
5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety & Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 10ll Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.
20555 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20002 Washington, D.C.
20555 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
^
Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq. (4)
Pr ct Office of the Executive Legal
.f55 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D.C.
20036 U.S Nuc ear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R.
Weiss, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Thomas Y.
Au, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.,
Suite 430 Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.
20003 Department of Environmental Resources Michael F.
McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael W.
Maupin, Esq.
Huncon & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 William T.
Russell Deputy Director, Division of Human Factors Safety Office of NRR Mail Stop AR5200 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 0
C "c
NOV 13 G84 Management Successon Planning Organizatonal Development Management Training Andrew J. Miller Asuchtes November 9, 1984 R.F. Wilson, Vice President / Technical Functions G.P.U. Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, NJ 07054
Dear Mr. Wilson:
During June of this year, we began an effort directed toward identifying ways in which the Technical Functions Division could enhance its contribution and effectiveness in carrying out its mission.
Phase one, which focused on you and your directors, was completed during July.
Phase two, which was recently completed, focused on interviewing a cross section of Technical Functions managers, supervisors and engineers with a view toward developing avenues for achieving the goal cited above.
The attacned report covers the results of the interviews conducted during phase two, compares the results of phases one and two, and outlines suggested courses of action for enhancing the contribution and effectiveness of the Technical Functions Division.
This report is presented in several sections, as follows:
Section I
Executive Summary Section II Scope and Method of Data Collection / AnalysisSection III Findings in Common Section IV Unique FindingsSection V
Comparison of Results between Phases One and Two Section VI Summary Conclusions / Recommendations Appendix 1 Exhibits People interviewed were forthcoming with their responses to the interview questions and approached the interviews from a positive frame of reference.
The project was important to those interviewed.
There was a concensus among those interviewed that this was a positive step which could indeed lead to improved individual and group contribution.
978 Baron Dnve. Yardley. PA 19067 (215) 493 8575 n
l 1
Mr. R. F. Wilson November 9, 1984 1
I was challenged by.this important assignment and appreciate being invited to participate in this collaborative project with you.
Sincerely,
(b at.
('- &
r q
Andrew J.
iller, Jr.
s Enclosure
[/
cc:
Richard P. Coe, Ph.D.
4
r2 G.P.U. NUCLEAR TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS DIVISION A Report on Identifying Ways In Which The Division Can Enhance Its Contribution And Effectiveness i
l Submitted by:
l Andrew J. Miller Associates November 9, 1984 I
r
c.
-)
i 7
'SECTION I Executive Summary Findings in Common Unique Findings Comparison of Phases One and Two Results Recommendations
SECTION I Executive _ Summary This section provides overview comments in four areas:
A.
Findings in Common B.
Unique Findings C.
Comparison of Phases One and Two Results D.
Recommendations Those interviewed included managers, supervisors,.and engineers from Parsippany, TM1, Oyster Creek, and Reading.
A.
Findings in Common The comments which follow apply to areas mentioned by 20% or more of the total sample and by, at least, 10%
or more of the samples at three of the four locations.
Job clarity is not an issue from the respondents perspective.
The top three measures of success are client satisfaction, meeting schedules, and quality of work.
There is a lack of clarity about what gets rewarded /
discouraged.
Collaboration / coordination needs to be improved within Tech. Functions.
Plant interactions are not what they should be.
procedures are voluminous and difficult to interpret and implement.
Unrealistic schedules are set.
More time needs to be spent on planning.
The workload is too heavy.
Management gets too involved in details and engineering.
B.
Unique Findings The comments which follow apply to areas cited by 20%
or more of the sample (s) at one or two locations only.
Parsippany engineers need more freedom to do their jobs.
Management feedback tends to focus on negatives within three departments.
Parsippany departments felt a need for more direction on goals / priorities and " big picture" meetings.
Startup and Test felt engineering quality at Oyster Creek should be improved.
Interfaces needing improvement are EP&I/Eng.Proj.;
Plant Eng.(0.C.)/Eng kDes.; Chemistry (0.C.)/ Reading;
}
O.C.&TMI/Eng.Proj.
l i A
SECTION I C.
Comparison of Phases One and Two Results The comparison of results between Phase One (Vice President and Directors) and Phase Two (nfanagers, Supervisors, and Engineers) indicated a fair amount of agreement between the two groups.
D.
Recommendations Ten recommendations will speak to the following areas:
1.
Clarifying what is to be rewarded within the organization.
2.
Feeding back the results of Phase Two to all employees.
3.
Improving planning within and between sections, departments, locations, and the division.
4.
Fostering a collaborative approach to problem solving and opportunity identification.
5.
Providing assistance to managers and supervisors on how to conduct effective planning meetings.
6.
Strengthening managerial skills in the areas of interpersonal relationships and group dynamics.
7.
Delineating goals and priorities.
8.
Developing improved plant interactions.
D.
Resolving intradivisional and plant interface issues. t r
SECTION II Scope and Method of Data Collection / Analysis 1
l SECTION II Scope and )tethod of Data Collection / Analysis The data for this report was gathered through interviews conducted with 55 Technical Functions managers, supervisors and engineers.
The distribution of those interviewed is shown in Tables 1 and 2 below:
Table 1
}f arlacemen t Level Department Pfanager/ Supervisor Engineer Engineering Services 7
2 Licensing and Regulatory Affairs 2
4 l
Engineering and Design 8
8 l
Systems Engineering 6
7 l
Engineering Projects 3
4 Startup and Test 2
2 H
TI Table 2 Pfanagement Level
(
Location Department
)!anager/ Supervisor Engineer Parsippany Eng. Services 6
2 Licensing & Reg.
1 2
Eng. & Design 6
5 Systems Eng.
2 4
Eng. Projects 3
4 TE T7 Oyster Creek Eng. Services 1
Licensing & Reg.
1 Systems Eng.
2 2
Startup & Test 1
1 l
7 7
T.M.I.
Licensing & Reg.
1 1
l Eng. & Design 1
Systems Eng.
2 1
Startup & Test 1
1 7
7 Reading Eng. & Design 2
2
(
l l
~_____-____-_-__________________________-__________--___--___-_______---____1
SECTION II Each interviewee was asked nine questions (See Appendix 1).
The answers to these questions provided the data base for a four-step analysis.
Step 1. - The responses from all questions were analyzed to identify " Findings in Common" which are covered in Section III.
" Findings in Common" is defined as those areas cited by 20% or more of the total sample and by, at least, 100 of the samples at three of the four locations.
Step 2. - The responses from all questions were analyzed also to identify " Unique Findings" which are covered in Section IV.
" Unique Findings" is defined as those areas cited by 2Di or more of the samples at one or two locations only.
Step 3. - The results of the interviews conducted during Phase One (V.P. and Directors) were compared with the results of the interviews conducted during Phase Two (Managers and Engineers) to determine where similarities and differences existed.
Step 4. - Conclusions were drawn from the foregoing analyses, and a series of recommendations were developed for identifying ways in which the Technical Functions Division can enhance its contribution and effectiveness in carrying out its mission. r
.o SECTION III Findings in Common f
SECTION III Findings in Common
" Findings in Common" is defined as those areas cited by 20% or more of the total sample and by, at least, 10% or more of the samples at three of the four locations.
Ten areas fell into this category; these are listed below.
Across from each area listed are the percentages of interviewees commenting on the area.
Also, contained in this section are reviewsof each of the areas listed below.
These reviews focus on highfighting the central theme (s) of each area and other pertinent observations.
Summary conclusions and recommendations are not covered in this section, but are presented in Section VI.
Percent of Sample Commenting Areas Total Pars.
TMI O.C.
Readinc 1.
Job Clarity 100 100 100 100 100 2.
Measures of Success 100 100 100 100 100 3.
What tends to get Rewarded / Discouraged 100 100 100 100 100 4.
Technical Functions -
Collaboration / Coordination 45 43 62 50 25 5.
Plant Interaction 40 46 25 38 25 6.
Procedures 31 37 25 12 25 7.
Schedules 25 26 25 25 25 8.
Planning 24 26 25 12 25 9.
Workload 24 26
-12 25 25 10.
Management Interface 22 28 12 25 (Mgt. gets too involved in details and doing engineer-ing work) 1.
Job Clarity Information regarding this area was gathered from the l
responses to question 1; "What do you understand your job to be?"
Ninety-one percent of the interviewees were able to explain in clear terms what their jobs were; both in terms of accountabilities and contribution.
Job clarity is clearly not an issue from the interviewee perspective.
2 Heasures of success Information regarding this area was gathered from the responses to question 3; "What are your measures of success?" _n
I SECTION III The measures of success, along with the percentages of respondents citing them, are listed below.
Percent of' Sample Commenting Measures of Success Total Pars.
TMI O.C.
Reading Clients, primarily the plants, are satisfied with our work 51 54 12 50 100 Schedules are met 49 57 50 38 Quality of work 29 28 38 25 50 c
Technical Functions Mgt, 25 25 is satisfied 18 20 Horale & motivation of my people 16 11 25 12 50 Meeting costs 15 23 Backlog of work 11 11
- All responses by Managers / Supervisors Meeting costs was primarily a measure of success for the Engineering Projects Department.
They accounted for 63% of the total responses for this measure of success.
3.
What tends to get Rewarded / Discouraged Information regarding this area was gathered from question 8; "What tends to get rewarded / discouraged within your organization?"
Interviewees were more unclear than clear about this area.
Forty-four percent of the total sample indicated that they were not clear about what is discouraged within their organization.
There was a better awareness of what was rewarded; however, a significant number of people were unclear about this.
A breakout of comments on this area is listed below.
Percent of Sample Commenting Comments Total Pars.
TMI O.C.
Reading Not clear about what is discouraged 44 43 25 88 Doing a good job, i.e.,
the boss & clients like it; is rewarded 34 26 25 38 50 Not clear about what is rewarded 34 37 25 50
-- r
SECTION III No other comment was cited by 10% or more of all those interviewed.
Supervisors and engineers made each of the above comments in approximately equal percentages.
4.
Technical Functions Collaboration / Coordination Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 4, 5. 6, and 9 (See Appendix 1).
Forty-five peteent of the total sample commented on this area.
While no one or two comments stood out, the follow-ing comments tend to capture the themes of what was being said.
"It's difficult to get support from other departments and sections because of differing priorities."
" people aren't clear about how to get help within the division."
"I need to meet and interface with those I work with at parsippany."
" Departments tend to solve their own problems without examining the impact on other departments."
" planning and scheduling is done within departments without much mutual planning."
"There is duplication of effort within my department."
"Often, we have two groups working on the same problem and they don't know it."
"I'm not kept abreast of work impacting on me."
"There seems to be a general feeling that when my job is done, I'm done; rather than, thinking about the general users."
" personal contact between departments is lacking--
a lot of work is done by paper with no human contact."
"We need to start some effort to get people together, so the parts can start to understand what each does and how we can help each other."
The percentage of each subsample commenting on this area was:
Pars. 43% -- TMI 62% -- 0.C. 50% -- Reading 25% --
Mgr./Supv. 46% -- Eng. 44% -- Eng.Syc. 33% --
Lic. 50% -- Eng kDes. 38% -- Sys.Eng 62% --
Eng.Proj. 43% -- S/T 50%.
This clearly is an area affording opportunity for improvement. r
SECTION III 5.
plant Interaction Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9.
(See Appendix 1)
Torty percent of the total sample commented on this area.
The comment listed below was made by 64% of those who cited this area.
parsippany engineers and managers need to interact more, other than through paper, with the plants; and they need to spend more time at the plants.
The percentage of each subsample making this comment was:
pars. 26% -- TMI 25% -- 0.C. 25% -- Reading 25% --
Mgr./Supv. 32% -- Eng. 18% -- Eng.Sve. 11% --
Lic. 17% -- Eng.& Des. 38% -- Sys.Eng. 31% --
Eng.proj. 28% -- S/T 0%
This comment focuses on "what should be done" and applies to the plants in general.
Two reasons were given as to why engineers and managers are not visiting the plants more--workload and distance.
Managers and supervisors seem to feel stronger about increased plant interactions and visitations than do engineers by an approximate ratio of 2:1.
6, procedures Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9.
(See Appendix 1)
Thirty-one percent of the total sample commented on this area.
The comment listed below was made by 82% of those who cited this area.
Technical Functions procedures are voluminous and difficult to interpret and implement.
The percentage of each subsample making this comment was:
Pars. 26% -- TMI 25% -- 0.C. 25% -- Reading 25% --
Mgr./Supv. 21% -- Eng 30% -- Eng.Sve. 33% --
Lic. 17% -- Eng.kDes. 31% -- Sys.Eng. 15% --
i Eng.Proj. 28% -- 5/T 25%.
t r
1 l
SECTION III While it was generally felt t:1st procedures were necessary, many of the interviewees indii:sted they were spending, what they considered to be, an undue amount of time on paper work versus doing the job.
They also pointed out that the sheer volume of proctdures tended to slow down the completion of work.
7.
Schedules Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9.
(See Appendix 1)
Twenty-five percent of the total sample commented on this area.
The comment listed below was made by 64%
of those who cited this area.
We set unrealistic schedules.
The percentage of each subsample making this comment was:
pars. 14% -- TM I 2 5% -- O. C. 12% -- Reading 25% --
Mgr./Supv. 21% -- Eng 11% -- Eng.Syc. 22% --
Lic. 17% -- Eng.& Des. 19% -- Sys.Eng. 8% --
Eng.Proj. 14% -- S/T 25%.
Many people felt that setting unrealistic schedules led to frequent schedule slippages; and that these slippages tended to make schedules less meaningful and less use-ful than they could or should be.
8.
Planning Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9.
(See Appendix 1)
Twenty-four percent of the total sample commented on this area.
The comment listed below was made by 100%
of those who cited this area.
We need to spend more time planning.
The percentage of each subsample making this comment was:
Pars. 26% -- TMI 25% -- 0.C. 12% -- Reading 25% --
Mgr./Supv, 32% -- Eng. 15% -- Eng.Sve 11% --
Lic. 35% - Eng.hDes. 25% - Sys.Eng, 0% -
Eng.Proj. 71% -- 5/T 25%, ri
SECTION III Respondents felt planning should focus on setting better and more realistic schedules; problem clarifica-tion; exploring alternative ways of doing the job:
problem anticipation; and reviewing the current status of work with a view toward identifying and removing road blocks.
Heavy workload was mentioned as the key inhibitor to sufficient planning.
As might be expected, managers / supervisors expressed more of a need for increased planning time than did the engineers.
It appears that a potentially serious dilemma exists for Engineering projects, given that 71% of those inter-viewed expressed a need for increased planning time; and, also, given that this'is a key requirement if they are to do their jobs effectively.
9.
Workload Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9.
(See Appendix 1)
Twenty-four percent of the total sample commented on this area.
The comment listed below was made by 100%
of those who cited this area.
The workload is too heavy, i
The percentage of each subsample making this comment was:
Pars. 26% -- TMI 12% -- 0.C. 25% -- Reading 25% --
Mgr./Supv. 32% -- Eng. 15% -- Eng. Sve. 11% --
Lic. 17% -- Eng.kDes. 31% -- Sys.Eng. 38% --
Eng.proj. 14% -- S/T 0%
The respondents felt that with so many tasks to do, it was difficult to give each task proper attention.
As mentioned previously, this heavy workload is perceived as taking away from important planning time and was a factor in keeping people from visiting the plants as much as they should.
10.
Management Interface (Management gets too involved in details and doing engineering work)
Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 (See Appendix 1) i d
SECTION III Twenty-two percent of the total sample made the comment shown in the parenthesis above.
The percentage of each subsample making this comment was:
Pars. 29% -- TMI 0% -- O.C.
12k -- Reading 25% --
Mgr./Supv. 11% -- Eng. 33% -- Eng. Sve. 22% --
Lic. 33% -- Eng.LDes. 37% -- Eys.Eng. 7% --
Eng.Proj. 14% -- S/T 0%.
Engineers indicated that when management gets too involved in details, it makes them feel more like clerks than engineers.
They feel this behavior, on the part of their managers and supervisors, signals also that management doesn't trust them to do the job.
The response of managers / supervisors could signal that management involvement in details and engineering may be an issue with management levels higher than those interviewed.
1 l Y
"'6ECTION IV 1
Unique Findings A
i i
I C
SECTION-IV Unique Findings
" Unique Findings" is defined as those areas cited by 20% or more of the sample (s) at one or two locations only.
These findings tended to cluster into the five areas listed below.
The percentage of interviewees commenting from each locations is shown for each listed area.
Also, contained in this section are reviews of each area.
These reviews focus on highlighting the central theme (s) of each area and other pertinent observations.
I Summary conclusions and recommendations are not covered in this section, but are covered in Section VI.
Percent of Sample Commenting Areas Pars.
TMI O.C.
Reading 1.
Management Interfaces 74 12 12 25
~~
~~
2.
Plant Engineering Interface
@ O.C.
29 12 3.
EP&I Interface C Pars.
75 12 12 4.
Engineering Quality e O.C.
1 25 5.
Chemist Interface C O.C.
75 6.
Interfaces @ O.C. & TMI (While not meeting the " Unique Findings" guidelines, these interfaces were identified as needing attention by 20% or more of the Engineering Projects sample.)
1.
Management Interfaces Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
(See Appendix 1)
While all locations commented on this area, Parsippany accounted for 90% of the total respondents.
Seventy-four percent of the Parsippany sample made comments on this area.
Only Parsippany results are reported.
This area has five subsections.
These are discussed below.
la.
Thirty-one percent of the Parsippany sample made this comment.
I need more direction on goals and priorities.
Managers, supervisors and engineers commented in equal percentages.
All departments commented and the percentages of department subsamples making this comment ranged from 14% to 67%. 0
l SECTION IV lb.
Thirty-one percent of the Parsippany sample made this comment.
We need more " big picture" meetings.
Employees at all levels felt a need to see more of top management, i.e.,
the Vice President and Directors; and to be kept better informed on matters such as:
Where is GpUN headed; What is the role of Tech. Functions in the overall scheme of things; and What does this mean for the various departments.
Also, employees were anxious for more information relating to their departments.
Information such as:
What projects are we working on that require multi-disciplinary inputs and how are these going; What is the status of projects overall; What needs more attention and/or cooperation; What is the status of overall priorities, i.e., what's new or what's changing; and General information which would keep them abreast of activities within the division, department, and sections.
As one individual put it, "We ought to have more - how to work smarter meetings."
The percentages of department samples making this response ranged from 17% to 43% with all departments commenting.
ic.
Twenty-three percent of the Parsippany sample (all engineers) said:
I would like to have more freedom from my boss to do my job.
Thirty percent of the Parsippany engineers responded.
Comments were made by every department except Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
Percentages of response by engineers in these departments ranged from 25% to 75%.
Some comments which provide additional insight are:
"I can't send memos or letters without a two-level approval."
i "My manager does not give me enough freedom to plan how to achieve a goal."
"I need more freedom to respond to plant requests on short notice."
"It doesn't matter what I say, we do it the way l
the boss wants anyway.",
i n
y
- g SECTION IV 1
Id.
Twenty-three percent of the parsippany sample said:
Management feedback tends to focus on the negative.
Comments came from three departments:
Engineering Services, Engineering and Design, and Engineering projects.
The percentages of people makingithis comment within each department ranged from~14% to 37%.
Managers, supervisors, and engineers, as a whole, commented.in about equal proportions.
le.
While only,18% of the total parsippany sample commented on the following, it deserves mentioning because it is soley a managerial issue.
,I spend too much time doing engineering work.
This comment was made by 67% of the managers within Engineering and Design.
These managers felt they got involved in engineering more'than they would like because of th'e workload.
They also felt this took away from time that could and should be spent on managing.
2.
plant Engineering Interface at Oyster Creek Information regarding this area was gathered from question 7, "What are your critical interfaces and how f
are these going?"
Twenty-nine percent of the Parsippany sample cited this as an interface needing improvement.
Ninety percent of those commenting came from Engineering atid Design.
Eighty-two percent of the Engineering and Design sample cited this as an interface needing improvement.
While no theme came through, the following comments shed light on the problems with the interface.
" Plant Engineering takes the view that Tech. Functions should do everything."
"They are reluctant to work with us and don't come to e
us for help."
"Everything we do is suspect."
"There are a lot of confrontations on what should be s
done and how." :I g.
SECTION IV 3.
EP&I Interface at Parsippany Information regarding this area was gathered from question 7, "What are your critical interfaces and how are these going?"
Twenty-three percent of the Parsippany sample indicated this interface needed improvement.
Seventy-five percent of the respondents came from Engineering Projects, and Engineering and Design.
Forty-three percent of the Engineering Projects sample said this interface needed improvement and 27% of the Engineering and Design sample did likewise.
Engineering and Design said:
It's hard to get help from Ep&I.
Engineering Projects said:
Ep&I is slow to respond and often misses schedules.
4.
Engineering Quality at Oyster Creek Information regarding this area was gathered from questions 4, 5, 6, and 9.
(See Appendix 1)
Twenty-five percent of the Oyster Creek sample, wholly accounted for by Startup and Test respondents, said:
What's specified by engineering often doesn't conform to the current plant configuration.
They felt more walk downs were needed.
5 Chemistry Int'erface at Oyster Creek Information regarding this area was gathered from question 7 (see #3 above).
Seventy-five percent of the Reading sample felt:
Oyster Creek doesn't seem to accept our function and resents our help.
6.
Interfaces @ 0.C. & TMI Forty-three percent of the Engineering Projects sample indicated the Oyster Creek interface needed attention and 28% of the sample felt the same about TMI.
The problem in common was - the plants don't participate or offer comments early enough in the review cycle.
' d
SECTION V Comparison of Results between Phases One and Two i
l t
f1
1 SECTION V Comparison of Results between Phases One and Two Each of the key findings from Phase One (V.P. and Directors) is listed below.
Phase Two (Managers, Supervisors and Engineers) results are compared with each of these.
1.
The measures of success mentioned most often by the Phase One sample were:
- Projects will be of high quality, completed on time, and within budget.
(7 people commented)
- We will have an optimal backlog.,(4 people commented)
There was agreement on the part of the Phase Two sample that meeting schedules and quality of work are important measures of success.
They were listed 2nd and 3rd out of the seven measures cited.
The number one measure of success for the Phase Two sample was: " Clients, primarily the plants, are satis-fled with our work." I would think that quality and meeting schedules are implied as a part of this measure also.
Meeting costs was mentioned by only 15% of the Phase Two sample.
However, 63% of the respondents from Engineering Projects cited this measure.
This would appear to make sense; since, at the levels interviewed, Engineering Projects would most likely have overall budget responsibility.
Backlog of work was ranked 7th out of 7 for the Phase Two sample.
While all respondents on this measure were managers and supervisors, still they accounted for only 22% of the total sample at this level.
There appears to be no clear explanation for the difference in this measure between Phases One and Two.
2.
The Dhase One sample felt that more planning scheduling and decision making should be done at the first level of super-vision.
(5 people commented)
An explanation for this feeling may be found in the responses of the Phase Two managers and supervisors.
Twenty-one percent of them felt unrealistic schedules were set; 32% felt they needed to spend more time on planning; and 32% felt the workload was too heavy and i
took away from planning time.
Also, Parsippany managers and supervisors indicated they needed more direction on goals and priorities; and needed to be kept better informed on activities within the division, departments, and sections.
3.
The Phase One sample felt managers and engineers were too reactive; they wait until asked more than they should.
(5 people commented)
I..
r
3.
(continued)
The Phase Two sample also felt that Parsippany engineers and managers needed to interact more with the plants.
Twenty-six percent of the total sample, 32% of the managers / supervisors, and 18% of the engineers felt this way.
4 The Phase One sample indicated there was a lack of follow-up on being sure projects are carried out at the first level of supervision and engineer levels.
(3 people commented)
There was no way to make a direct comparison on this issue.
5.
The Phase One sample felt there was too much "we/they" and projects fall through the cracks because of differences in priorities.
(5 people commented)
I The comments made by the Phase Two sample regarding the need for more collaboration / coordination within Technical Functions lends support to this observation.
(See Section III--Findings in Common) 6 The Phase One sample felt interfaces with plants and M&C need to be improved.
(6 people commented on plant interfaces)
(3 people commented on M&C interfaces)
While M&C didn't appear to be a major issue with the Phase Two group, there was clear agreement on the part of the Phase Two sample that plant interfaces needed to be improved.
I 7.
The Phase One sample felt there was inadequate planning and goal setting.
(3 people commented)
The Phase Two sample was substantially in agreement.
Twenty-four percent of the total sample indicated that more time needed to be spent on planni!.g.
Critical division interfaces are not compared in this section, since the comparison becomes self-evident as one reviews other j
sections of this report.
In summary, there appears to be a fair amount of agreement between the populations of Phase One and Phase Two.
1 l
l.
R
l SECTION VI Summary Conclusions / Recommendations
1 4
SECTION VI Summary Conclusions / Recommendations This section is in two parts:
A.
Summary Conclusions B.
Recommendations A.
Summary Conclusions 1.
There is a lack of clarity abodt what gets rewarded /
discouraged within Technical Functions.
The reward issue is key here, since individuals tend to direct their energies toward attaining results which are rewarded by the orgcnization.
When the majority of individuals are clear about what is rewarded, the division and the departments will tend to pull in the same direction.
Lack of clarity about rewards leads to inconsistency and a diffusion of efforts; there is evidence that more of this is happening than is desired by both the Phase One and phase Two groups.
2.
Collaboration and coordination needs to be improved.
Personal contacts within departments are lacking, there is duplication of effort, getting support is difficult, there is not enough mutual planning and scheduling done, there is confusion about how to get help within the division, and there is a need for people to get together and explore how they can help each other.
Respondents appear willing to devote substantial effort toward improving collaboration and coordina-tion within the division; but, not much will be accomplished by individuals alone.
The thrust needs to be directed toward obtaining unified effort and collaboration within and amongst departments and locations so that the contribution of the division is greater than the sum of its parts.
3.
Three issues surfaced which appear to be impeding the efficient and effective completion of work within and between Technical Functions departments.
Respondents feel there is insufficient time avail-able for and devoted to planning.
Thus, not enough effort is devoted to setting realistic schedules; problem clarification; exploring alternatives; i
integrating work across and within departments l
and locations; problem anticipation / prevention; and removing roadblocks to goal achievement. l n
SECTION VI Procedures, while deemed necessary, are seen as voluminous, time consuming and difficult to inter-pret and implement.
The workload is perceived as being too heavy to give all tasks the attention they require.
4.
Management interf aces need to b'e examined; especially, at Parsippany.
A significant number of Parsippany respondents (25% or more), represented across the-departments, felt that managers and supervisors:
Get too involved in details and doing engineering work.
Need to provide more direction on goals and priorities.
Need to provide more freedom for engineers to do their jobs.
Need to have more meetings which focus on results; priorities; problems, and providing information needed by people to keep abreast of the current state of affairs within and between departments and sections.
Tend to provide feedback which focuses on the negatives.
(Primarily an issue for Eng.Svcs.,
Eng.LDes., and Eng.Proj.)
Also, them was an expressed need to see more of the Vice President and Directors and to hear more from them about items.of importance with GPUN, Technical Functions, and the departments.
5.
The key division interface cited as requiring atten-tion was EP&I.
This interface was identified as needing improvement primarily by Engineering Projects.
The problem seems to be:
EP&I is slow to respond and often misses schedules.
6.
Plant interactions are not what they should be.
There is a general sense that more interaction, other than through paper, is required.
While Oyster Creek is the primary problem, both plants can benefit from improved interactions with Parsippany.
Four inter-division interfaces clearly need improvement:
Oyster Creek Plant Engineering and Engineering &
Design.
Oyster Creek Chemistry and Reading.
Oyster Creek and Engineering Projects.
TMI and Engineering Projects.
D
SECTION VI B.
Recommendations Phases One and Two of this overall effort were directed toward the attainment of four objectives:
1 1.
To identify problems / concerns requiring attention within and outside the division.
2.
To begin resolving critical problems / concerns; and to begin developing strategies,for sustaining an ongoing problem solving effort.
3.
To identify and eliminate, or substantially reduce, organizational elements hindering division, depart-ment, and. individual productivity and effectiveness.
4.
To begin the. process of fostering a collaborative approach to solving problems, improving productivity, and enhancing intradivisional and interdivisional interfaces.
The recommendations which follow are directed toward the achievement of these objectives.
1.
Top management, i.e.,
the Vice President and Directors need to meet and:
Review the results of Phase Two.
Review the recommendations.
Identify the key items (results and behaviors) they want rewarded within the organization.
Identify organizational elements inhibiting these desired results and behaviors (some of which are contained in this report).
Plan for the feedback of results to the organization.
2.
The results of this report need to be fed back to all levels within the organization.
This feedback should not focus on finding fault or placing blame; but, rather,-should focus on clarifying the data, opening a dialogue, and outlining action steps to be taken.
Unique findings, especially if sensitive, should only be fed back to the groups to which they pertain.
A suggested sequence for the feedback follows:
Vice President to Directors.
Directors to their managers and supervisors, either together or by level (Vice President may or may not attend).
Directors to all employees - with managers and supervisors in attendance.
(This may take a series of meetings and the Vice President may or may not attend.)
The reasons for suggesting that directors handle the feedback are:
to insure uniformity of the feedback; to minimize placing blame and fault finding; and to demonstrate top management support. o
SECTION VI 3.
Planning meetings should be held at parsippany, Reading, Oyster Creek, and TMI by all levels of managers, at least once every two months.
In most. departments, this will mean meetings at three management levels throu'gh the director.
These meetings, if not already being held at the Vice president' level, are recommended.
The focus of these meetings should be on identifying barriers impeding the effective functioning of the group; developing action steps to remove these barriers; solving key group problems; and identifying and cap-italizing on opportunities for improving collaboration /
coordination within the division and with the plants.
In essence, these meetings provide for a look at the present with a view toward improving the functioning of the group in the future.
Results of meetings, including unresolved dilemmas, need to be integrated; and a bottom-up approach is recommended.
This allows managers at successively higher levels to deal more with issues in common; thus, providing a common thrust.
Decisions made at the top management level then need to be communi-cated downward.
These meetings, if properly conducted, can make a significant contribution toward resolving the planning, scheduling, and coordination / collaboration issues addressed in the " Summary Conclusions".
- Further, they put in place an ongoing process for resolving critical problems / concerns and begin the process of fostering a collaborative approach to solving problems.
They will provide, also, a vehicle for identifying opportunities for bringing together sub-groups from different departments, sections, and locations to work on issues in common.
4.
Assistance on how to conduct effective planning meetings needs to be provided to those managers and supervisors who need it.
Assistance in the form of monitoring meetings and providing one-on-one coaching is recommended.
5.
The first two levels of supervision should be exposed to management training (on an as needed basis) which provides concepts and skills in the areas of:
develop-ing effective work teams; setting clear objectives and ueasuring performance; developing win / win strategies; conducting effective performance reviews; motivating 1
people; delegation; and developing effective inter-personal relationships.
This training can make an important contribution to resolving the management interface issues outlined in the " Summary Conclusions". ~_
p o
SECTION:VI 6.
Procedures and workload issues need to-be explored further.to determine what specific actions should be taken.
The recommended feedback and planning meetings provide a forum for doing this.
7.
' Managers, supervisors and engineers need to. spend more time at the plants, especially Oyster Creek,
-performing walk; downs;' participating in tests con-ducted by Startup and. Test; and, generally building relationships with those they need to work with.-
8.
Top management (the Vice President and Directors) need to communicate more clearly to the rest of the organization their goals and' priorities.
9.
The following interface meetings need to be held to explore difficulties.and develop more effective ways of working together:
- EP&I and Engineering Projects; O.C.
& TMI (Manager level meeting)
- Oyster Creek.
Plant Engineering, and Engineering and Design (Director level meeting)
- Oyster Creek and Engineering Projects (Director level meeting)
- TMI and Engineering Projects (Director level meeting)
- Oyster Creek Chemistry and Reading (Manager level meeting)
A third party facilitator may prove helpful during some or all of these meetings.
10.
The Vice President, Technical Functions should have separate meetings with the Vice Presidents of Oyster Creek and TMI.
These meetings should precede the meetings listed above, and should focus on' paving the way for the subsequent meetings; i.e.,
gaining agreement from the plant Vice Presidents that-they support meetings of the type proposed in #9 above and will communicate this to the plant directors and managers who will be involved.
Without this agreement, meeting results are likely to be far less productive than they could be.
People' tend to support what they help create.
These recommendations have been developed with this in mind.
Respectfully submitted,
',s.A' e ! ?
l
%d(44rt'., /,l:1.r&
' Andrew J. Miller Associates p
l i
1.
.. ~.
0
f 1
I 4
W APPENDIX 1 f
The' Interview Questions.
1.-
What do you understand your job to be?
2.
What do you do?
(Expanded to include:
What should you be spending more time on and less time on?)'
3.
What are your measures of success?
4.
What are your major problems / concerns?
5.
What keeps you from being as effective as you could be?
6.
What keeps your organization from being as effective as it could be?
7.
What are your critical interfaces within and external to the division and how are these going?
8.
What tends to get rewarded / discouraged within your organization?
9.
What other suggestions do you have for improving organization effectiveness within the division? l 1
- -.