Application of Systems Engineering to U.S. Department of Energy Privatization Project Selection at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Page: 3 of 8
This article is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
of the key identification criteria was a substantial
budget (greater than $1 million). Because the process
of contracting for major service contracts is very
expensive, the potential for savings had to be present
for a candidate to be viable.
The list of candidates went through a macro screening
process that eliminated projects that were core to the
operations of the Hanford Site or were not available
for privatization due to other contracting activities.
All identified stakeholders participated in the review
of candidates.
SELECTION AND WEIGHTING
OF CRITERIA
The team for criteria selection was chosen from
identified stakeholders. A brainstorming of potential
criteria was conducted and both "musts" (required
criteria) and "wants" (desired criteria) were
identified.2 The criteria are provided and described in
Attachment A.
Weighting of "wants" criteria was performed using a
pair-wise comparison. The team compared one
criteria against all others. A total score for each
criteria was developed.
As a result of the weighting process, criterion 12,
Better Application of Proven Technology, was
eliminated. This criterion was weighted below all
others and found to be insignificant in the selection
process. In addition, criteria 6, 10, and 11 were found
to be related. A combination of these three criteria
was elected because the individual criteria had fairly
small weights. This decision helped to reduce the
total scoreing process. The results of the weighting
process is shown in Figure 1.
CRITERIA WEIGHTING PROCESS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1311
B B3 R4
=3 =2 =2B1=
22 B3 B2 B5 B2 B2 B2 0 0 B2= 0
=1 =1 =1 =2 =3 =1 2
3 B3 0 B3 B3 B3 0 B3= 0 0
=2 =3 =3 =3 2_ _ _ _
4 0 B4 B4 B4 0 B4= B4= 0
=1 =2 =2 1 1
Phase /Analysis of Current and Planned
Hanford Site Functions for Possible Privatization,
U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Field
Office, October 15, 1992.
2 The decision analysis process used followed
the guidelines provided in The New Rational
Manager by Charles H. Kepner and Benjamin B.
Tregoe, 1981.BI B B I B5 B5= f 0
=3 =2 =2 =2 1 30=No
Preference
1=Mild Preference 7
2=Moderate Preference
3=Strong PreferenceB6 B6 R9
=1 =1 =10
9B9
=2
R9
=1
10B1=15 B7=0
B2=9 B8=00
B10
=2
B10
=2
0
11B6=
1
B11
=1
-11
=2
0
12B13
=2
B13
=2
B13
=2
B13
=1
B13
=1
B13
=2B3=16 B9=4
R4=9 R12- DROPPED
R5=14 R13=10
B6 + B10+B11=11
Figure 1, Criteria Weighting Process Results
SELECTION OF FIRST ROUND
CANDIDATE PROJECTS
After the macro screening process, a list of 150
activities to be considered remained. Using this list, a
formal AGA study was conducted and documented.
This process served to further reduce the number of
candidates and then rate remaining candidates.
The 150 potential candidates were judged against a
set of "must" criteria. These criteria evaluated
candidates in areas that were essential for
privatization to succeed. These criteria were:
* Well Defined Work Scope,
* Industry Capability, and
* Significant Potential Cost Savings.
Eighty potential candidates passed the "must" criteria
and were judged against a set of "wants" criteria.
One particularly useful technique was recording the
scores real-time on a computer spread-sheet and
displaying those results by projection onto a screen.
Once all scores were entered, the process of finding
the highest rated alternatives was as simple as sorting
the spreadsheet.
One error in the scoring process was to allow the
candidate project selection team to view the results of
the weighted score for each candidate project as the
alternative was being scored. This allowed team
members to adjust particular scores to help
alternatives they felt were more suitable. It is
recommended that the weights of criteria not be
applied until after all alternatives are scored. This
recommendation will allow the preferred alternatives
to rise to the top without adjustments to scoresB13 B1 B1 B1 B1
0
B1=
3
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Layman, John Scott. Application of Systems Engineering to U.S. Department of Energy Privatization Project Selection at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, article, June 1, 1999; [Idaho Falls, Idaho]. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc883862/m1/3/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.