Performance-Based MetricsBased Metrics - … 2003.pdfPerformance-Based MetricsBased Metrics Using Unclassified Examples from the Newport project INCOSE Meeting October 30, 2003 PdbPresente

Performance-Based MetricsPerformance Based MetricsUsing Unclassified Examples from the Newport project

INCOSE MeetingOctober 30, 2003

P d bPresented by:

Scott S. Haraburda, PhD, PEAssistant Project ManagerNewport Chemical Agent Disposal FacilityE-mail: [email protected](765) 245 6097 ( i )

INCOSE Presentation – October 30, 2003

(765) 245-6097 (voice)(765) 245-5980 (facsimile)

Agenda

N t Ch i l D t (NECD) I f ti

g

• Newport Chemical Depot (NECD) Information

• Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (NECDF) Information

• Performance-Based Metrics Overview

• Data Variation Concerns

• Risk Management Tool

• Haraburda Project Leadership Rulesj p

• Questions ???


History 1941 Est. Wabash River Ordnance Works

1943-46 Manufacture RDX Explosives

y

1943-44 Constructed Facility For Heavy Water

1944-46 Heavy Water Productiony

1951-57 Manufacture RDX Explosive

1952-57 Heavy Water Production

1958-61 Built VX Facility

1961-68 Manufactured Chemical Agent VX

i d i 1969 Moratorium on VX Production & Shipment

1968-73 Construction of TNT Facility


1973-74 TNT Production

1993 Lost TNT Mobilization Mission

Mission

Safe and Secure Storage of Agent VXg

Environmental Compliance & StewardshipCh i l T t C liChemical Treaty Compliance Program

Chemical Stockpile Disposal Programg

Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program

Train Soldiers


Maintain Plant Facilities

NECD Features

7,097 Acres – 4,000 Leased for Agriculture g– 1,900 Standing Timber– Wildlife

Security/Fire yDepartment

3 Installation Wells -- 7 Mil Gal ReservoirMil. Gal. Reservoir

Sewage Treatment Plant (3,000 pop.)


Personnel GOCO - Government Owned, Contractor Operated

– Mason & Hanger Corporation, (Day & Zimmermann)Mason & Hanger Corporation, (Day & Zimmermann) Philadelphia, PA.• Fourth-largest Employer in Vermillion County• Operating Contractor Since 1986Operating Contractor Since 1986

Gov’t Staff - 2 Military, 13 DoD Civilians1 IMA– 1 IMA,

– Additional Population:• Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility• Chemical Stockpile Defense Force (CSDF)• Chemical Stockpile Defense Force (CSDF)• Tennessee Valley Authority• SAIC


Chemical Agent VXProd ction

Four step process

Production

Four step process manufactured in campaigns (step 0,I,II,and III)

• Process Steps 0 - II P d dProduced precursor chemical used in Step III

• Process Step III produced chemical


warfare agent VX

Chemical Agent VXg

– Organo Phosphate • O-Ethyl-S-(2-

Diisopropylaminoethyl) MethylDiisopropylaminoethyl) Methyl Phosphonothiolate

• Persistent Liquid• Unitaryy

– High Evaporation Point– Persistent– Clear- to Straw-Colored– Consistency of Mineral Oil


– Highly Toxic

Non-Stockpilep

Demolition of the Former VXProduction Facility

Step IIIAugust 2000 - 2007Steps 0,I,II


p , ,Completed 2002

Newport Community Outreachp y

••Location in Newport CommunityLocation in Newport Community••Integrated NECD/NECDFIntegrated NECD/NECDFOutreach Strategy Outreach Strategy gygy••Speakers’ BureauSpeakers’ Bureau••School ProgramsSchool Programs••Public Availability SessionsPublic Availability Sessions••Public Availability SessionsPublic Availability Sessions••Information RepositoriesInformation Repositories••Information Exchange With Information Exchange With E i D l A iE i D l A iEconomic Development AgenciesEconomic Development Agencies••Presence at Fairs, Festivals and Presence at Fairs, Festivals and ExhibitsExhibits


NECDF HistoryNECDF History

1997 A l d l i h l 1997 – Approval to demonstrate alternative technology –caustic neutralization

1999 – Design/Build/Operate Contract awarded to Parsons1999 Design/Build/Operate Contract awarded to Parsons (Parsons partners include Alion for laboratory operations and Perma-Fix for hydrolysate disposal)

2000 – Construction begins Terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

11 M 2002 A i iti D i i M d (ADM) 11 May 2002 – Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) signed authorizing the accelerated destruction of the stockpile


p

Genesis of Project Speedy Neutralization

Adjunct to additional security measures adopted by the Army following the September 11, 2001, terrorist

tt kattacks– On-site relocation of stockpile– Deployment of National Guard soldiersp y

Goal is to accelerate the disposal of bulk agents– Mustard (HD) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD – VX nerve agent at Newport Chemical Depot, IN


Accelerated Ton Container Destruction

• Drain containers manually using glove box system

i d i d i• Rinse drained containers, return to appropriate storage

• Neutralize agent in reactorNeutralize agent in reactor vessels

• Ship neutralized by-product (hydrolysate) to off-site commercial treatment facility

• After agent neutralization, complete decontamination of containers and recycle


and recycle

P f B dPerformance-Based Metrics

As of August 2002

Project Metrics Overview

Bottoms-up Approach – Developed by government technical leadsp pp p y g

Government-Only Use (with input from Parsons)

Reduction of over 100 metric to 16 “vital few”

Single metric for each area of the project use existing ones if possible Single metric for each area of the project – use existing ones if possible.

Use “dashboard” to view all metrics together (see example)– Use R (red), A (amber), G (green) status

Use “4 block” to anal e each met ic (see e ample) Use “4-block” to analyze each metric (see example)– Prioritization of work within area– Identification of issues / concerns (leading to project-wide issues)– List action plan (who? what? when?)p ( )

Used by Government Site Project Manager to assess project status.

“Vital Few” AreasArea Government LeadConstruction HarrisContracting MarsCost KlewickiDesign SchankeEnvironmental ShonkwilerDeliverables: Laboratory HrastichManagement HaasOperations HaraburdaPost Treatment Rudduck

Deliverables:1. Metric Developed2. 4-Block3 M i D i i F Public Outreach Arthur

QA CrislerSafety PhillipsScheduling Wright

3. Metric Description Form4. Metric Goals / baseline5. RAG Criteria g g

Security KieferStaffing WeiseSystemization Bennett

NECDF Dashboard - DRAFTNECDF Dashboard - DRAFT

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

No.

of A

ctiv

ities

Design QA Scheduling Cost

CV

% C

UM

- Percent

Bull's -eye Chart - AS OF: JUL 01 Name: NECDF Project

BEHIND SCHEDULE, UNDER COST AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, UNDER COST

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

10C

V%

CU

M

-Percent



40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

1002468

10121416

RAG

GG R R

0

1

2

3

August September October November December

N

Completed PlannedDate: August 31, 2001

Operations Laboratory Post Treatment Staffing

of Dollars

SV% CUM - Percent of Dollars

BEHIND SCHEDULE, OVER COST AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, OVER COST

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

of Dollars


BEHIND SCHEDULE, OVER COST AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, OVER COST

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

3/00-8/01

Metric Area Status

G GA ASDT/ ACWA Test

TSDF/ Pre-Treatment

Hydrolysate Storage HBST

Full-Scale SCWO Design

Operations, Safety, Environmental & Laboratory CDRL's

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cum

ulat

ive

Tota

l

Item Standard Rating

Last Period Rating

This Period Rating

Communications

Quality & Design Intent

Issue Resolution

Teamwork

Trust / C ti

NECDF - Home & Site Office Manpower - Parsons OnlyFTE's @ 36 Hours per Week (i.e., an avg. of 156 hours per FTE per month)

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

Man

pow

er

G GA A

Safety Environmental Construction Systemization

ScheduleOn or Ahead of Schedule

Behind-

Pre

01

Jan-

01

Feb-

01

Mar

-01

Apr

-01

May

-01

Jun-

01

Jul-0

1

Aug

-01

Sep

-01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Planned

Submitted

Accepted Exceptions to Submittals: None

Cooperation

Paperwork

Total Partnership

Rating Period

0

25

50

75

Feb-

99

Apr-9

9

Jun-

99

Aug-

99

Oct

-99

Dec

-99

Feb-

00

Apr

-00

Jun-

00

Aug

-00

Oct

-00

Dec

-00

Feb-

01

Apr-0

1

Jun-

01

Aug-

01

Oct

-01

Dec

-01

Feb-

02

Apr

-02

Jun-

02

Aug-

02

Oct

-02

Dec-

02

Feb-

03

Apr

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

Oct

-03

Dec

-03

Feb-

04

BCWS (Current Period) ACWP

G G A A

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Day

s of

Rev

iew

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Cub

ic Y

ards

400

600

800

1000

1200

Cub

ic Y

ards

1

2

3

Day

s to

Res

olve

Fin

ding

s

2

4

6

8

10

Num

ber o

f Fin

ding

s/10

0 C

raft


0

20

40

60

C1/

001

C1/

003

C1/

005

C1/

007

C1/

009

C1/

011

C1/

013

C1/

015

C1/

017

C1/

019

C1/

021

C1/

023

C1/

025

C1/

027

C1/

029

C1/

031

C1/

033

C1/

035

C1/

037

C1/

039

C1/

041

D

Review Complete Review Ongoing

IDEM Review Goal Review AverageDate: August 31, 2001

No

Appr

oval

0

1000

2000

3000

May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Per. Plan Per. Act Cum Plan Cum Act

0

200

Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02

Per. Plan Per. Act Cum Plan Cum Act

0

4-Au

g-01

11-A

ug-0

1

18-A

ug-0

1

25-A

ug-0

1

Week Ending

0

N

Average Time to Resolve (Days) Number of Findings divided by 100 Craft

Schedule - DraftSchedule - Draft4-Block Metric Page



40.0

30.0

SPI^-1 by CLIN

2.001 Metric from Dashboard 2 Pareto Analysis of

CV

% C

UM

-Percent of Do

20.0

10.0

-10.0

10

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.001. Metric from Dashboard 2. Pareto Analysis of sub-Areas within Metric

ollars


BEHIND SCHEDULE, OVER COSTAHEAD OF SCHEDULE, OVER COST

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

0.80

1.00

1203

1600

1950

1401

1403

1506

1507

1302

1504

1505

1402

1990

1202

1510

1503

1509

1508

1301

1501

1201

1502

1910

Issues/Concerns1. Resolve IMS review comments

Action Plan1. (Ulbright/CJ) Oct. 1, resolve 80% of the

2. Resolve MOA issues3. Establish common ground/terms for

WSR

items and the remainder by Nov 1st.2. (Berg/CJ) Sept 28, Revise, delete or

comply.3 (B /CJ) C d P3 W k h


WSR 3. (Berg/CJ) Conduct P3 Workshop3. List of top 5 Issues or Concerns for this Area

4. List of WHO? WHAT? & WHEN?

Performance Metric Types• Inputs.

Resources. This refers to the amount and quality of the items used by the project, such as staffing materials equipment tools utilities etcstaffing, materials, equipment, tools, utilities, etc.

Controls. This refers to the methods and means by which the project leader influences the way work is done. Example of this would include operating procedures, standards, and schedules.

• Work. Process This refers to the way work is done for the project This includes the efficiency of the Process. This refers to the way work is done for the project. This includes the efficiency of the

work and the compliance with the project’s operating procedures / standards. Output. This refers to the amount, quality and timeliness of the products & services provided by

the project. This is typically supplied to the customer of the project.• Results• Results.

Feedback. This refers to the perception of the customers in how they view the project as determined by their demands placed upon the products (output) The use of surveys (proactive)products (output). The use of surveys (proactive) could be used in addition to customer complaints (reactive).

Outcome. This refers to the customer’s benefits from the products & services resulting from the


“Know where the metric fits in the overall process”

from the products & services resulting from the project.

Effective Metrics• Accurate – In order for the data to be accurate, it must be valid and reliable. Valid data

refers to data that can be directly related to factors being measured. One aspect of valid y g pdata being collected is that of causality. One must take special care to ensure that the data being collected caused the effect to occur. Reliable data refers to data that would be consistent regardless of the data collection technique. Need to eliminate or minimize errors in data collection due to rater bias data collection administration and wordingerrors in data collection due to rater bias, data collection administration, and wording.

• Relevant – In order for the data to be relevant, it must be credible and important. Credible data refers to data that will be believable by the people making the decisions. Make sure that there is a plan or baseline to compare with (include the goals).Important data refers to data that addresses the important items associated with the factors being measured.

• Practical – In order for the data to be practical, it must be timely, simple, economic, and unchangeable. Timely data refers to data that can be measured in enough time to be effectively used. Simple data refers to data that is easy to understand. Economic data


refers to data that can be obtained within the budget constraints for data collection. Unchangeable data refers to data that cannot be easily distorted to provide different information.

D t V i tiData Variation(i h d ?)(is the data accurate?)

An example using height measurement for NECDF employees


Problem Example

The NECDF site members can be characterized by Hypothesis:people’s height. Specifically, ALL people with heights between 50.25 and 90.75 inches are members of the NECDF site with a 95% confidence level [70 5 +/- 3*6 75NECDF site with a 95% confidence level [70.5 +/ 3 6.75 inches]

The error of the data used is a function of instrumental Data Error:error, sampling process, and the representation of the population.

2population

2process sampling

2instrument

i

2i total


Instrument and Sampling Error

These three charts were constructed using the known height for Harris of 79 inches.

1 Chart 1 is a representation of the old method for

These three charts were constructed using the known height for Harris of 79 inches.

Average Standard Deviation87 3 22 911. Chart 1 is a representation of the old method for

measuring things, using the thumb to indicate inches. An old process of measuring height directly on the person is used. This chart graphically displays the errors involved in the measurement instrument

87.3 22.91

errors involved in the measurement instrument (thumb).

2. Chart 2 is another representation of the old method for measuring things, using the thumb to indicate inches.

83.9 22.20g g g

However, the measuring process (sampling) is improved by using a wall instead of the person for the height. Some improvement in the measurement is noted.

Note: Using just one thumb type can yield a standard deviation less than 1.0 and can result in an erroneous analysis.


3. Chart 3 is a representation of the new method for measuring things, the tape measure. Dramatic improvements in the measurement system is obtained.

78.9 0.22

Old Method Using Different Size Thumbs - Harris

Small Thumb(Earl’s – about 0.75”)

Combined Thumbs(average about 1”)

St ti ti Statistics:Average: 109.0

Standard Dev: 0.79

Statistics:Average: 87.3

Standard Dev: 22.91

Large Thumb(Bosley’s – about 1.25”)

Statistics:Statistics:Average: 65.6

Standard Dev: 1.78

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Height (Inches)

1

New Method Using Different Size Thumbs - Harris

Combined Thumbs(average about 1”)

Large Thumb(Bosley’s – about 1.25”)

Statistics:


Standard Dev: 22.20


Standard Dev: 0.42 Small Thumb(Earl’s – about 0.75”)


Standard Dev: 0.79

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Height (Inches)

2

New Method Using Tape Measure - Harris

Statistics:A 78 9Average: 78.9

Standard Dev: 0.22

78 78 2 78 4 78 6 78 8 79 79 2 79 4 79 6 79 8


78 78.2 78.4 78.6 78.8 79 79.2 79.4 79.6 79.8

Height (Inches)

3

What about Population Error?


Population Errorp

These three charts were constructed using the known height for various NECDF employees.

4. Chart 4 is a representation of a sample of the NECDF j ki h l i i I hi ll

Average Standard Deviation76.7 2.93

project taking the people in a meeting. Is this really a representative sample of the data in that all of them are male members?

5 Ch 5 i h i f l f h 74 9 3 205. Chart 5 is another representation of a sample of the NECDF project taking the people in another meeting. Even though we have both male and female members, is this really a representative sample of the d t i th t ll f th t ll b ?

74.9 3.20

data in that all of them are tall members?

6. Chart 6 is yet another representation of a sample of the NECDF project taking random sample people. Is

70.5 6.75


this now a representative sample of the data?

New Method Using Tape Measure - Bosley, Haas, Haraburda, and Harris


Standard Dev: 2.93

60 65 70 75 80 85 90


60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Height (Inches)

4

New Method Using Tape Measure - Bosley, Cheesman, Haas, and Haraburda


Standard Dev: 3.20

60 65 70 75 80 85 90


60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Height (Inches)

5

New Method Using Tape Measure - Bosley, Cheesman, Earl, and Mars

Statistics:Statistics:Average: 70.5

Standard Dev: 6.75

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100


50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Height (Inches)

6

Confidence Analysis

Data Set Analysis Conclusion Probability of Conclusion*

1. Jim Harris is a member of NECDF (using Bosley’s thumb). 2.6 x 10-12 %Jim Harris is a member of NECDF (using Earl’s thumb). about 0%

Sharon Earl is a member of NECDF (using combined thumb). 16.2% **2.

Sharon Earl is a member of NECDF. about 0%3.

Sharon Earl is a member of NECDF. 2.6 x 10-5 %4.

Sharon Earl is a member of NECDF. 2.8 x 10-3 %5.

Sharon Earl is a member of NECDF. 10.4 % **6.


* - area under the normal distribution curve that is equal to and more/less than the value.** - probabilities of 2.5% or greater fall within the 95% confidence limit range.

Data Variation Conclusions1. Data is meaningless without measurement errors identified.

2. Data with just instrument error identified does not tell the whole story [ie having real data of measurement for Harris of 62.9 +/- 0.42 inches does not tell about his real height of 79 inches].

3. Data with accurate instrument error misses the whole story if the data measured is not representative of the population [ie having real data of measurement for NECDF sample of 74.9 +/- 3.20 inches does not capture the entire population of the NECDF site accurately]not capture the entire population of the NECDF site accurately].

4. Using statistics to identify confidence limits does not always tell the correct story [ie using the example provided, there were five completely different probabilities ranging from 0 – 16% for Earl being a member of the NECDF population].

5. Understanding the capabilities of the measurement system is very important [ie using the example provided, there were seven completely different averages and standard deviations for the height of Harris indicating differences in measurement – which one is the real one: 62.9, 65.6, 78.9, 83.9, 87.3, 105 0 and 109 0 inches?]105.0, and 109.0 inches?].

6. Even though the hypothesis testing was not tested for this example, the data supporting the hypothesis SHOULD BE tested. For example, the some of the data in this example can be used to prove that Earl is not a member of the NECDF site (when in fact that she is). Furthermore, using the height of Kevin Fl thi d t t th t h i b f th NECDF it ( h if f t th t


Flamm, one can use this same data to prove that he is a member of the NECDF site (when if fact that he is not). As such, the stated hypothesis can be proved to be NOT valid for characterizing the membership of the NECDF site.

DATADATAMeasurementData

Harris

Five sets of data for each

Old Lg Thumb Old Sm Thumb New Lg Thumb New Sm Thumb Tape Meas65 109.5 62.5 105.5 78.7563 108.5 63 104.5 79.25

67.5 108 63 104 79

Harris

65.5 110 62.5 106 78.7567 109 63.5 105 78.75

Haraburda Haas Bosley Cheesman Mars EarlTape Meas Tape Meas Tape Meas Tape Meas Tape Meas Tape Meas

74.5 73.5 80 72 68 62


74.25 73.25 79.75 71.75 67.75 62.2574.25 73.75 80.25 71.75 67.75 61.7574.25 73.25 80.25 72 68 61.7574.5 73.5 80.25 71.75 67.75 62.25

PopulationData

Risk Management Tool(which area should I focus upon?)

l dAn example using NECDF design and construction activities


Risk Management ToolNECDF

RISK ASSESSMENT OF SCHEDULE

RISK AREA WEIGHTEDDuration (Months)

Probability (%)

Duration (Months)

Probability (%)

Duration (Months)

Probability (%) Months

DESIGNHVAC System 0 90% 1 5% 2 5% 0 2

MED IMPACT HIGH IMPACTLOW IMPACT

HVAC System 0 90% 1 5% 2 5% 0.2FPS/FCS System Hardware 0 90% 1 5% 2 5% 0.2FPS/FCS System Software 2 20% 4 60% 6 20% 4.0Safety Hazards Analysis 0 80% 1 10% 3 10% 0.4Procurement Issues 0 90% 1 5% 2 5% 0.2CHATS / Tox Cubicle Interface 0 90% 1 5% 2 5% 0.2CRB Documentation 0 80% 1 10% 2 10% 0.3Added Scope 1 30% 2 40% 3 30% 2.0New Scope / DX's 0 50% 1 25% 3 25% 1.0

CONSTRUCTIONDesign / Schedule Development 0 20% 1.5 60% 3 20% 1.5Design / Schedule Development 0 20% 1.5 60% 3 20% 1.5Weather 1 40% 2 50% 3 10% 1.7Craft Productivity / Slowdown 0 60% 1 30% 2 10% 0.5Vendor Provided Equipment and Material 0 50% 1 40% 2 10% 0.6Labor Relations 1 50% 2 40% 3 10% 1.6

Identify the tasks (risk area) with low medium and high impacts including


Identify the tasks (risk area) with low, medium, and high impacts, including probability for each. This gives a weighted duration that can be used to prioritize the risks.

Risk Management Tool (cont)gPareto of Largest Risk Impacts

4 04.5

ths)

2.02.53.03.54.0

urat

ion

(Mon

t

Top Five Areas

0.00.51.01.52.0

Wei

ghte

d D

u

FPS/FCS System

Software

Added

Scope

Weat

her

Labor

Relatio

ns

n / Sch

edule

Dev

elopm

ent

New Sco

pe / D

X's

ed Equ

ipmen

t and

Mate

rial

ft Produc

tivity

/ Slow

down

Safety

Hazards

Ana

lysis

CRB Doc

umen

tation

ATS / Tox

Cubicl

e Inte

rface

FPS/FCS System

Hard

wareHVAC Syst

em

Procure

ment Is

sues

W

F

Design

Vendo

r Prov

ided

Craft

CHAT FP

Area


A Pareto chart can be used to prioritize the largest risk impacts. For example, one can use the top five impacts and divert resources to those areas to mitigate the risks.

Risk Management Tool (cont)

S SS SS O SCNECDF

RISK ASSESSMENT OF SCHEDULEMitigation Actions

Area PriorityFPS/FCS System Software 1Added Scope 2Weather 3

Mitigation ActionAdequately resource w/qualified people.Identify and add adequate resources.Use more shifts now. Get out of the ground quickly Use tarps during inclement weather

Labor Relations 4Design / Schedule Development 5 Lock in design now & implement change mgmt.

quickly. Use tarps during inclement weather. Get inside building before Winter.Maintain commo with local and national people.

This is the most important step in the risk management, that of taking the top risks


and developing mitigation actions. One could also indicate the person tasked and the delivery date for completion of the mitigation action.

Haraburda’s ProjectL d hi R lLeadership Rules

Projecto Cannot have all three: cheaper, better, faster.

Communicationo Consensus usually results in “weakest

d i ” d i io Accomplishing the task is more important than the tool used.

o Plan and sacrifice now for the sake of the future.o A poor plan implemented is much better than the best

plan that is not implemented

denominator” decisions.o Meetings should be short, infrequent, and value-

added.o Communicate the results, both the good with the

bad.plan that is not implemented.

DataM i h ld b d if l i (f

o Sell the good statements, not the bad, even though it is easier for the bad ones.

Problem Solvingo Toda ’s problems come from esterda ’so Metrics should be used if one plans to use it (for

decisions).o Understand the source of the data.o Meaningless goals, even if easily obtained, should not

be used.

o Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions.

o The cure can be worse than the disease.o Dominate technology – do not let it dominate

you.o Challenge Your Assumptions (CYA).

Peopleo A project begins, ends, sinks, and swims with people.o Reward good performers; coach or remove bad ones

o Solve the problems, not the symptoms.

Decision-Makingo Doing the right thing is better than doing things

right


o Reward good performers; coach or remove bad ones.o Train your successor.o Do not try to please everyone, someone will not like it.

right.o Better is the enemy of “good enough.”o Resources mean nothing if not used.o If it “ain’t broke,” either maintain or improve it.

Q ti ????Questions ????


R A P H YI O GB R A P H YI O GBSCOTT S. HARABURDA, PhD, PE

Lieutenant Colonel, US Army

Lieutenant Colonel Scott S. Haraburda has given over twenty-two years to thepeople of the United States as both an Officer and an Enlisted Soldier in theUnited States Army. As an army reserve officer, he is currently the commanderof the 472nd Chemical Battalion. His other reserve assignments includeengineering and contingency contracting positions within 8th US Army, researchand development positions for Army Material Command, and admission related

iti f th U it d St t Milit A d t W t P i t Li t tpositions for the United States Military Academy at West Point. LieutenantColonel Haraburda served on active duty for 9 years, with assignments inadvising about chemical warfare at Fort Hood, Texas and teaching chemistry atWest Point, New York. In 1991, Lieutenant Colonel Haraburda was one of threeofficers nominated by the Army to become an Astronaut Candidate for NASA.

In addition to being both a branch qualified chemical and engineer officer,Lieutenant Colonel Haraburda is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps

He earned a BS in chemistry in 1983 from Central Michigan University(CMU), a MS in chemical engineering in 1990 and a PhD in chemicalengineering in 2001 from Michigan State University (MSU). As aDistinguished Military Graduate of the ROTC program at CMU he receivedLieutenant Colonel Haraburda is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps

(AAC). As part of his training within the AAC, he has completed several dozencourses from the Defense Acquisition University. With his training andexperience in the acquisition field, Lieutenant Colonel Haraburda hascertifications in the following fields: 1) Program Management; 2) Contracting; 3)Systems Planning, Research, Development and Engineering; 4) InformationTechnology; and 5) Test & Evaluation Engineering. Additionally, he successfullycompleted the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer Certificate

Distinguished Military Graduate of the ROTC program at CMU, he receivedhis commission as an army officer in 1983. He is also a graduate of theChemical Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Engineer Captains CareerCourse, the Combined Arms Services Staff School, the Associate LogisticsExecutive Officers Course, the US Army Command and General Staff College,the US Naval Command and Staff College, and the Defense Strategy Course atthe US War College. He is currently enrolled in the Air War College.

p pprogram from the Information Resource Management College.

In his civilian life, Dr. Haraburda worked at Bayer Corporation for 4 years inPennsylvania and West Virginia, as a process engineer. In addition to Bayer, heworked at G.E. Plastics for 4 years as a production engineer in Mount Vernon,Indiana. Since June 2000, Dr. Haraburda has been working as a civilian for theUS Army as the assistant project manager for the Newport Chemical AgentDisposal Facility in Indiana where several tons of VX nerve agent will be

For his exemplary accomplishments and dedication, Lieutenant ColonelHaraburda has received the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak LeafClusters, Army Achievement Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, ArmyReserve Component Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, NationalDefense Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Bronze Hourglass,Army Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbonwith Numeral Three, Air Assault Badge, and German Armed ForcesP fi i B d i B


Disposal Facility in Indiana where several tons of VX nerve-agent will bedestroyed. He is a registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of Indiana.Dr. Haraburda wrote 11 technical articles, wrote 6 management articles, wrote 1chemical engineering handbook, and presented 7 international electric propulsionconference articles. He has also filed 10 patent applications.

Proficiency Badge in Bronze.

Documents

Performance-Based MetricsBased Metrics - … 2003.pdfPerformance-Based MetricsBased Metrics Using Unclassified Examples from the Newport project INCOSE Meeting October 30, 2003 PdbPresente