0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

Implementation of the Best in Class Project Management and Contract Management Initiative at the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management

[+] Author Affiliations
Scott G. Van Camp

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC

Michael G. Deiters

Project Time & Cost, Inc., Atlanta, GA

Jeremy S. Stevenson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, Huntington, WV

Timothy P. Jamison

Project Time & Cost, Inc., Arlington, VA

Paper No. ICEM2009-16062, pp. 779-787; 9 pages
doi:10.1115/ICEM2009-16062
From:
  • ASME 2009 12th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management
  • ASME 2009 12th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, Volume 2
  • Liverpool, UK, October 11–15, 2009
  • Conference Sponsors: Nuclear Engineering Division and Environmental Engineering Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-4408-3 | eISBN: 978-0-7918-3865-X
  • Copyright © 2009 by ASME

abstract

Since its creation in 1989, the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management (EM) has struggled with a legacy of inadequate project management and contract management. This has been manifested in recurring scope changes, cost overruns and schedule delays, and has been documented in multiple internal and external reviews. EM has committed itself to improving project performance and undertaken a number of proactive management initiatives including the development of a “Best in Class” Project Management and Contract Management organization (i.e., the BICPM Initiative). During 2007, EM assessed the status of project management and contract management at 15 EM sites. These assessments evaluated strengths and weaknesses in 12 key project management capabilities and three contract management benchmarks. The January 2008 Compilation Assessment Report showed that EM faces significant challenges in its mission execution due to staffing shortages, project and contract management integration, insufficient project-oriented culture, and lack of a clear role for Headquarters in BICPM. EM then formulated a strategy to meet their objectives in the March 2008 Corporate Implementation Plan. It summarizes BICPM efforts, introduces the vision for BICPM, identifies the strategy for achieving BICPM, and describes a process for implementing BICPM. That is, it acts as a roadmap to address EM’s challenges. It also documents 18 Recommended Priority Actions (RPAs) that are the key to correcting these challenges. These RPAs provide a clear path forward that can be communicated to the entire EM organization and provide the foundation upon which a BICPM culture can be built. EM has since gained considerable momentum and progress towards institutionalizing BICPM. This paper provides a discussion of the BICPM Initiative and its implementation.

Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In