Frank, aka Pinky and the Brain, has invited me to participate on his LANL, The Rest of the Story blog. I told him that I wasn't at all sure about providing a public target to all those anonymous "contributors" again. Being in the public eye is not all that it's cracked up to be.
Isn't that right, Kevin?
In spite of my better judgment, however, I told Frank I'd consider a limited gig here, perhaps as picker of Comment of the Week, a feature I used to occasionally run on the old LTRS blog.
So, let's give it a try. Each week one comment will be selected for this special recognition. The selected comment will have demonstrated a noteworthy LANL-related observation, picked from these categories:
- brilliant, in-depth insight or observations about LANL and it's workings,
- Corporate Corruption,
- extreme, beyond the norm stupidity,
- integrity,
- lack of integrity. This category will, of course, include the following sub-category:
- Anonymous Blog Commenter Cowardice,
- an old favorite, "poor little me" whining,
- extraordinary geekiness,
- extraordinary (meaning, *way* beyond the norm for anonymous comments on this blog) ignorance,
- dedicated, selfless, hard-working staff member,
- good common sense (admittedly, a sparsely-populated category), and
- humor.
With that, here's my pick for Comment of the Week from Frank's LANL, The Rest of the Story blog. This one came from the Nuclear Work in Danger post, and falls squarely into the first category, above.
-
The big problem with WFO is that you have a customer who actually wants some work done for the funds provided. This is not consistent with a work-free safe and secure place.
Now, I'm sure that will set some teeth grinding, if not in the Director's Office, then at least over in Public Affairs (or whatever they call that office these days).
--Doug Roberts
LANL, Retired 2005
Welcome back, Doug. Your first pick for Comment of the Week would be really funny (Humor Category), were it not so true.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of reasons why there is little WFO, and work-free safe-zone is only one of them.
ReplyDeleteHere are some other reasons.
In my experience, the scientists treat WFO like LDRD, or something to be milked for publications rather than as projects with deliverables and budgets.
LANL scientists do not have the fire in the belly required to obtain WFO. This requires the commitment to find out what customers want and what the solutions are worth to them. And to seek solutions based on market pull rather than technology push (sometimes referred to as answers seeking problems).
LANL does not deploy staff to Washington in ways that lead to additional WFO.
Welcome back Doug! We gonna get you good :)
ReplyDelete2/15/09 2:03 PM wrote "LANL scientists do not have the fire in the belly required to obtain WFO."
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to blame the scientists, but I don't for a minute believe this to be true. As a PI that has brought in tens of millions of WFO funding in the last 15 years, I see the principle factors making it increasingly difficult for LANL to win WFO projects are LANL's increasing costs and declining productivity.
It doesn't take a genius to see skyrocketing costs per employee resulting from management costs rising from $8m per year under UC to over $200m per year under LANS. Add to that the ever increasing burdens on the employee (Concur, Oracle, training, safety, security, declining facilities and services, and the endless series of unproductive management-directed meetings) and you get unacceptably poor performance per dollar as seen by WFO sponsors.
Hell, all you have to do is read LINKS to know what's wrong. These factors are the fault of extremely poor management under LANS and not at all the fault of LANL scientists.
Exactly as 3:38 states, soon WFO will be gone, especially when potential sponsors are having financial problems themselves.
ReplyDelete"It doesn't take a genius to see skyrocketing costs per employee resulting from management costs rising from $8m per year under UC to over $200m per year under LANS."
ReplyDeleteLook, it's just NNSA's way of saying - yes, you're smarter than us but we're superior. We're the Feds & you work for us. (BBA's's,non-hands-on eng/sci.grads) Got it?
Great! That was my comment about the WFO. Is there a monetary award that can be added to my bonus?
ReplyDeleteMIKEY
Anonymous at 2/15/09 2:03 PM blames the scientists for "treating WFO like LDRD."
ReplyDeleteClearly this commentor has never ever had anything to do with WFO!
S/he probably has never been employed at LANL!
Sorry, Mikey.
ReplyDeleteYour reward is the continued, unwavering, undying adoration from all the staff whom you lead at LANL.
No more, no less.
--Doug
In truth, the effective LANL overhead rate is much higher than what is shown by the tax rate. We are forced to charge a lot of things that should be in overhead directly to WFO projects.
ReplyDeleteFor example, we have to charge nearly all non-management activities to a program code, not to an overhead account. So, whatever project you are working on at the time, gets the bill for whatever activity: training, performance review, group meeting, etc.
Now, if you have but one project for the entire year, that may not be so bad. BUT, if you (as I do) have a half-dozen smaller WFO projects throughout the year, then a few of them get screwed by the cost of these activities.
Note that during Admiral Butthead's shutdown, we were able to charge the first week's effort to overhead. After that, all of that time sitting on our asses doing nothing productive had to be charged to a project. This was clearly unethical and a number of sponsors recognized that and pulled their funding.
Anonymous at 2/15/09 2:03 PM blames the scientists for "treating WFO like LDRD." That is bullshit. The main impedement to our getting WFO projects is the malfeasance of management as desribed above!
Doug,
ReplyDeleteI think you left out an important category: Corporate Corruption.
How right you are, 6:14. I've added it to the category list: right up there at position number 2.
ReplyDelete--Doug
Suggestion for one more category: Dedicated, selfless, hard-working staff member.
ReplyDeleteOk, 6:41. In the interests of completeness, I've added that one, too.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your service, 6:41.
ReplyDelete"In truth, the effective LANL overhead rate is much higher than what is shown by the tax rate. We are forced to charge a lot of things that should be in overhead directly to WFO projects."
ReplyDeleteThis is part of the institutionalized dishonesty of the LANS move. What used to be overhead costs, e.g. a management position, are "salami sliced" across a bunch of projects. The overhead looks lower but is in fact higher, as the manager contributes nothing to the projects but additional cost.
Bechtel will claim that overhead is reduced, but it is a big lie -- the fact is, overhead is shifted to make it look like work is being done.
I'd add "A habit, or preference, of operating in a Domenici-influenced organization." I remember a seemingly endless series of non-peer-reviewed programs, protected by a misuse of secrecy.
ReplyDeleteI'd be grateful for a succinct phrase that describes those, now long gone, conditions. In addition, I fear that those outside scientists and managers that witnessed improper funding have long memories.
So what is this all about? Frank has his vendetta about the spill in TA-55, but you Doug had your hour of fame with having Admiral Butthead leave. What's your agenda? Having an encore with Mikey and the Rechtel guys? Or is retirement too boring?
ReplyDeleteSSPed
The support LANL provides for helping staff obtain and perform WFO work is very poor. Most employees have never worked on a WFO project and have no idea what's involved: visiting potential sponsors, making the pitch, writing a good proposal and then getting it through a burdensome NNSA and LANS bureaucracy, seeing "program managers" swoop in and take a cut as soon as the funding arrives, paying off a healthy dose of the incoming funds for taxes to cover for LDRD, LANS "handling" fees, DOE's "handling" fees, etc.
ReplyDeleteWFO work is also not a recommended path to take if you hope to raise your performance scores at LANL. It is is not seen as being "real science" by most LANL managers and can keep you from spending time helping out with things that are more valued at this lab, such as serving on lab committees, joining in on brain-storming sessions and attending various lab related conferences. It's hard to do this type of stuff when you have to make deliverables on time and on budget to an outside paying customer.
WFO work also puts an lab employee at risk, as the funding can run out and leave you high and dry at the wrong time of the year. It can take many months before an outside sponsor is able to gather up additional funds and send it to LANL to continue a project. During this period, you'll have to find some other project that is willing to let you charge to their codes while you await the arrival of more WFO funding. Given the possibility of future lab layoffs, this can be a dangerous game to play.
Given all this, I see little can hope for much growth in the amount of WFO work that is performed at this lab. There are much safer and easier ways to make a living while you work at LANL and I am confident that LANS has no desire to change things to make the the present WFO environment more inviting to the staff.
Most of the key people working on NISAC left for Virginia Tech several years ago. Roger Johnston took his world famous "tagging" project with him over to ANL. Others who work on various DOD and DHS projects have given up on LANL and moved their work to other DOE labs were the environment was far more supportive.
ReplyDeleteIt's not impossible to do WFO projects at LANL, but it is not easy and it's definitely not recommended.
8{05 pm: "I'd add "A habit, or preference, of operating in a Domenici-influenced organization." I remember a seemingly endless series of non-peer-reviewed programs, protected by a misuse of secrecy. I'd be grateful for a succinct phrase that describes those, now long gone, conditions. In addition, I fear that those outside scientists and managers that witnessed improper funding have long memories."
ReplyDeleteDoug, I nominate this post as qualifying for your "Anonymous Blog Commenter Cowardice" category.
2/15/09 9:09 PM,
ReplyDeleteVendetta? An answer to a very reasonable question would satisfy me. What spilled out off that pipe?
You want vendetta? I should be demanding the head of the person withholding the answer. He should be out on the street, for cause. Real justice would be if he took a good deep whiff of what I did.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I'll settle for an answer.
On the subject of Program Managers and WFO: I had a ~$500K WFO project a few years ago. I had gone out and gotten the money with no assitance at all from management. As soon as the money came in, a program manager was assigned and he took a 5% tax. So, right from the start, I had a budget cut. About halfway thru the fiscal year, I got an Email from the program manager that stated that another 5% would be required because he was short on funds to cover his salary.
ReplyDeleteOf course, throughout the duration of the project, the program manager did absolutely nothing at all in support of the project. I was required by the sponsor to send in a monthly report. I never sent a copy to the program manager and he didn't seem to notice.
"So, right from the start, I had a budget cut. About halfway thru the fiscal year, I got an Email from the program manager that stated that another 5% would be required because he was short on funds to cover his salary."
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that programs managers do? It seems like some kind of kick back you have to pay someone who got placed in the position as a favor. Maybe there are some program managers that do work and do help with the program goals but I have not seen one.
"As soon as the money came in, a program manager was assigned and he took a 5% tax." - 5:44 AM
ReplyDeleteThis happens all the time at LANL. You would think that it would be consider charge code abuse by LANS. Didn't everyone at LANL just go through an online class about this subject? If that is what you thought, you would be wrong. ;-(
There are apparently two sets of rules when working for LANS. One for the general staff and another for those within the ranks of management. We've all seen this over and over during the last 2 years as LANS has generated a never-ending stream of strict, new policies.
Anonymous at 2/16/09 11:58 AM writes:
ReplyDelete"You would think that it would be consider charge code abuse by LANS."
This anonymous person is clearly not a LANL employee. Abuse is what is done by employees, not by management!
"As soon as the money came in, a program manager was assigned and he took a 5% tax." - 5:44 AM
ReplyDeleteThis could be a LANL career limiting event, but hasn't ever some LANL PI asked the WFO sponsors for "clarification" in this case? An innocent request to WFO sponsors how to deal with personnel (with name of course) who use project funds but who were not listed on the proposal budget should be helpful. The term "fraud" comes in my mind.
"This could be a LANL career limiting event, but hasn't ever some LANL PI asked the WFO sponsors for "clarification" in this case?" - 1:20 PM
ReplyDeleteYou might get 5% more to spend on your little WFO project over the next year, but payback could be a bitch. It would also key the WFO sponsor in on just how incredibly burdened their incoming funds are with the various types of stealth lab charges.
For example, anyone holding an SCI clearance at LANL is required to fork over several thousand dollars each year to pay for the SCIF facilities, whether they need to use the facilities or not. Time spent writing proposals are also suppose to be charge to current projects, whether those proposals involve the current sponsor or not. Lab travel and purchases are subjected to high rates of additional taxation on top of the original cost of the items. LANS LLC (Bechtel and BWXT) even get about a 2% profit fee off of incoming WFO funds. It goes on and on, but you get the idea.
Just make the WFO sponsors think you are extremely bright and well worth the nearly $500K per year that they are paying for your time. It's best not to open cans of worms that you don't really wish to consume.
Anonymous at 2/16/09 1:20 PM writes:
ReplyDelete"This could be a LANL career limiting event, but hasn't ever some LANL PI asked the WFO sponsors for 'clarification' in this case? An innocent request to WFO sponsors how to deal with personnel (with name of course) who use project funds but who were not listed on the proposal budget should be helpful. The term "fraud" comes in my mind."
Yet another comment by a person who very clearly is NOT a LANL employee.
Yes, indeed this would be a career-limiting event. But not for the thieving Program Manager but rather for the poor PI who attempted to prevent the theft.
And, the Program Manager covers his/her tracks by NOT charging to the project's program code. Instead, the money is taken as a tax and thereby laundered.
There are some suggestions of waste, fraud, and abuse by Program Managers in some of the comments.
ReplyDeleteIs anybody in the DOE or the GAO reading this blog?
Will this affect Mikey's bonus?
Will this affect Mikey's bonus?
ReplyDelete2/16/09 3:30 PM
Nothing will affect Mikey's bonus. NNSA strongly believes Mike is "getting the job done" at LANL.
I think many people working at LANL are becoming increasingly tuned in to what this "job" entails. The concept of Work Free Safety Zones comes to mind.
Team leaders illegally charge well-funded codes for their management costs when they should be charging their time to an overhead cost code.
ReplyDeleteStaff are told to charge their "regular" cost code for things like group meetings, safety training etc., fine for those who only work for one sponsor, but illegal for staff that split time amongst multiple sponsors.
Everyone knows about the free-for-all that happens with recodes at the end of the fiscal year; when the project worked runs out of money work is recoded to other projects that are unrelated to the work actually done. I've seen instances of off-site personnel charging to projects that they have never worked on for a single minute.
Groups charge well-funded projects directly for materials and services that are used by the the entire group, and as others have written, more and more overhead functions are being pushed down onto the technical staff on direct codes to hide the ballooning overhead rate.
Waste, fraud, and abuse seems rampant under LANS, yet DOE auditors seem to look the other way. Either they're incompetent, or they don't want to ruin Mikey's bonus - for whatever reason.
Slush funds are the norm. That is for sure. I don't know how you would even begin to audit the trail of bread crumbs that LANS claims is their charge code system. It was always a joke but at least the work got done. Now, since there is no measurable productivity, or meaningful milestones, the system is essentially a criminal fraud perpetuated by Bechtel on the American taxpayer.
ReplyDeleteIn my early time at LANL, reporting of time was done by the group office. All that employees did was tell the group secretary when they took a day off for sick, vacation, etc. We worked on what we were told to work on but had no clue as to where our time was charged.
ReplyDeleteThose were the good old days. I remember having a need for expertise in some area. I would find a person, give him a call, schedule a sit-down, and discuss the matter. Often the expert would say that he needed to work the issue for a few days. That would be done a valuable information would be provided. There was never any discussion of a program code.
Since then, accounting for time has become much more strict. I am not sure that has resulted in any improvement in productivity or accuracy.
Since then, accounting for time has become much more strict. I am not sure that has resulted in any improvement in productivity or accuracy.
ReplyDelete2/17/09 5:33 AM
Yes, we are now told to slice it up into 15 minute increments, and woe to anyone who makes a mistake with any of the account codes that they charge. Just entering T&E each month has become a stressful activity as budgets run out of money and projects are cut back.
"For example, anyone holding an SCI clearance at LANL is required to fork over several thousand dollars each year to pay for the SCIF facilities, whether they need to use the facilities or not."
ReplyDeleteI'll bite. Where are you doing your work that requires an SCI, if not in a SCIF?
I'll bite. Where are you doing your work that requires an SCI, if not in a SCIF?
ReplyDelete2/17/09 8:46 PM
Many, if not most, of the scientists who hold SCI level clearances at LANL only need use of the SCIF to hold occasional SCI related discussions and don't have an office or lab within the facility.
time charging is an interesting topic. I have made the observation that what would get someone fired without much discussion at several other DOE labs (PNNL and ORNL, for two) is done routinely, maybe weekly, at LANL. I love the comment about the problem with having to account accurately for your time because projects run out of money. DUH. Project Management 101. Watch the costs vs the budget as the project moves forward. Even a PhD nuclear Physicist can figure it out, if they try.
ReplyDelete2/17/09 11:41 AM wrote "Just entering T&E each month has become a stressful activity ..."
ReplyDeleteWhy? This should not be stressful if you are being honest. Of course, if you are being dishonest and charging your T&E to say ... vacation or sick leave, then you have something to worry about. But only if someone turns you in. Now, if your management knows you are being dishonest and approves your T&E ... well then they should be fired along with you!
Doing your T&E becomes stressful when you are told to charge a code that you know damned well that you did not work on.
ReplyDeleteI once objected and the GL told me that I had best be looking for another job if I was not going to cooperate!
Incompentence and abuse of employees will not get a GL into trouble but having too many employees charging overhead is professional suicide.
At LLNL, they have this thing call EBA: "Employee Betweeen Assignments." Very clearly each employee is a profit center and is reponsible to get himself funded. Management has no resonsibility to fund their subordinates.
This is close to the situation at LANL.
This, by the way, is something that they don't tell you during the job interview.
At LLNL, they have this thing call EBA: "Employee Betweeen Assignments." - 10:28 AM
ReplyDeleteAt LANL, the new policy will be to simplify this task and refer to it as "Your Fired" (YF). Your friendly Oracle T&E system will accept this YF charge code and you'll get your paycheck... with $0.00 in pay.
My experience as a former project manager was that even if I was very careful about tracking/verifying charges against my codes, at the end of the year everything was turned over to budget people who moved money to codes that were overspent so that it all balanced. The lesson learned was it doesn't pay to be fiscally responsible as they will take your money and give it to someone who was not.
ReplyDeleteWhat Anonymous at 2/19/09 2:27 PM
ReplyDeletewrites is correct. And then, after that was done it was my job to figure out how to get the work done with a big hunk of the money gone!
Doug, you and Frank should consider a "Mary Neu and all the corrupt things she has done while at LANL post". I thinkg since every AD gets a $1 M + bonus each year, we should have a weekly "what has your AD done for you" or under the guise of corruption "what had your AD done to f*ck you and the organization over?" post. Just a couple of suggestions to make these "leaders" accountable to some extent ... or not!
ReplyDeleteAn apology
ReplyDeleteI do not work at the Lab. I have read the posts here and the comments for years.
I did not believe many of the negative comments about the new people brought in by LANS. It seemed that a profit making company could not possibly act as badly as was claimed and so much against their own interests.
I was wrong. They do.
Sorry.
5:46 AM, thanks for your honesty. Many of us have had trouble believing it too. But why would we expect LANS managers to care about anything other than raking in as much individual profit as possible over the course of their 7-year contract? Nearly all of our senior managers are either <5 years from retirement, or simply checking a box before they move onto their next assignment within their respective company. Long term sustainability is not part of LANS mission.
ReplyDelete