Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

FY 2013 Workforce Summary Lessons Learned Proposal Peter H. Garbincius & Young-Kee Kim November 5, 2012 – updated after meeting Director’s Senior Management.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "FY 2013 Workforce Summary Lessons Learned Proposal Peter H. Garbincius & Young-Kee Kim November 5, 2012 – updated after meeting Director’s Senior Management."— Presentation transcript:

1 FY 2013 Workforce Summary Lessons Learned Proposal Peter H. Garbincius & Young-Kee Kim November 5, 2012 – updated after meeting Director’s Senior Management ++ Group filename: Management_5nov2012-phg-ykk.pptx 1

2 What are our goals for this meeting? Information we gathered in the past What we learned and how we used it FY 2013 staffing info from 9/12 Budget Uploads requests vs. allocation for major projects What staffing projection info do we need? Over what timescale? Brainstorming on Lessons Learned and Proposal for FY2013 2

3 OHAP (Organization and Human Asset Plan) 10 year projection – 3 years in details (tier 1 skills ~ 22 Functional Categories) – High level projection beyond 3 years (tier 1 skills) to identify potential skill gaps in the future – 5 year plan for scientists (via annual survey) Distribution of OHAP roles – latest 9/30 FTEs from FTL for FY 2011 – haven’t done FY 12 Budget Upload for FY 12, 13, 14 – Jan 2012 removed: – Age Distribution 1/1/2008, 5/15/ Peter H. Garbincius, Dean Hoffer, Bridgette Fricks first presented 5/14/2012, latest rev 6/15/2012

4 4 7 Functional Disciplines, 20 Functional Categories – Tier 1, 150 Functional Roles – Tier 2 (plus Guest Scientist & Guest Engineer)

5 OHAP Study – last in FY year study – give funding profile for decade! Fermilab budgets & plans are not stable over decade Ask for personnel requirements for both projects and regular “operations” Focus on “needs to get the job done” not on balancing the budget especially for large future projects – Regular operations including accelerators and support functions by sections: constant level – Projects need to meet their budget guidelines. Some budget guidelines (e.g. long-term projects) are not realistic except the current year and the following year 5

6 6 reference: peterg$\SC Planning FY 2012\Completed elements\OHAP stuff\Solid Plot 19dec2011… results are only as good as the long-term guidance provided

7 7 The 800 pound gorillas: LBNE & Project X When do these guys really start?

8 8 these numbers are plotted below UPDATE THIS FOR FY13

9 identifying the gaps 9 15% shortfall update Census to 13aug2012

10 10 example: expand Administration 3 year gaps – 7a update Census to 13aug

11 11 update to 13aug2012 census surplus shortage

12 Concentrate on “key” capabilities Prior Concerns Cryogenic Engineers RF Engineers Target Engineers – no such category! Project Managers Project Controls – use contractors Procurement New Concerns Electrical Engineers Mechanical Engineers – guest engineers? – effectiveness? – just graduate students? Electrical Technicians Mechanical Technicians can contractors help here? 12 No idea even how many Visitors from US institutions under Purchase Orders – not in PeopleSoft

13 “key” capabilities 13 Update to 30sept2012

14 lessons learned? Should we ensure agreement with SWF budgets? – These, too, are inadequate to do the job! Is a 10 year projection too ambitious? – Industry typically does 3 (or 5) year projections Large projects such as LBNE would need a ~10 year plan. – Based on the DOE’s budget guidance, we need a staffing plan: between now and 2022 for R&D and construction and ~2023 for operations (required for CD-2). Carl S: in era of reduced workforce, gotta move specialization => generalization (cross-training) of skills and capabilities for individuals Would compiling Tier 3: experience & abilities of individuals be useful? PCz for Engineers. → information inflation! 14

15 at beginning of FY2013 WDRS FNAL-FTE Analysis – heads & FTEs 99.3% not all counted below (e.g. Children’s Center) Budget upload for FY2013 & FY 2014 Deployment of Staff → total = 1725 – OHAP Group (14) * OHAP Group (20 + Guest Sci & Eng) Budget office recently asked projects staffing needs for FY 14 and FY 15 – complete negotiations with D/S/C and upload by November 20,

16 16

17 17 Trends FY 2012 → FY 2014

18 18

19 19 FY2013 OHAP Group vs. Category

20 20

21 21 ad infinitum … by projects, activities, job types, D/S/C, etc.

22 for Sept 2012 Budget Presentations Major Projects: NOvA, Project X, CMS, LBNE, Mu2e, SRF, (and I also asked PIP) were asked to also compare their requested staffing level for FY 2013 by OHAP Category with that which D/S/C could allocate. 22

23 OHAP Categories for Projects for FY

24 Project FY 2013 Staffing Summary 24

25 What did we learn? Need good long term model of activities/funding 25 for FY2013 Scientist Survey

26 What did we learn (2) ? Easy to document the past and the present difficult to prepare for the future D/S/C Heads don’t take 10 yr OHAP very seriously Projects, however, have formal multi-year plans Tension between D/S/Cs and Projects: Projects have definite needs, but finite $ D/S/Cs must secure funding for their staffs FY13 study has not addressed gaps for D/S/C D/S/C too need staff to do their job Won’t get useful information unless we ask for it: gaps: needs vs. availability for D/S/C (not Projects) FY14 (asking projects for FY14-15, but not gaps) Existing data for FY2013 is very incomplete. Is it even useful? 26

27 OHAP: Proposal (2013) Projections for the next three years – Combine budget meetings and workforce planning – Budget meetings: Present budget and workforce for the next three years instead of one year Projections for the next five years – Continue the 5-year scientist survey Projections for the next ten years – Analyze workforce needs for large projects such as LBNE (based on the DOE budget guidance) and Project X and identify future “skill set” issues 27

28 Participants’ Discussion & Suggestions: Do we have a healthy overhead rate? – Cindy C: Consistent with OHs for other DOE science labs Separate next year specifics (in September) from following 2 year projections (in January) ask D/S/Cs Ask for the gaps, isolate signal from the noise Leave identification of staffing gaps to D/S/C heads – CarlS would advocate this approach In the past, we haven’t acted on indentified gaps Some people you can hire, some you must grow! 28

29 Participants’ Discussion & Suggestions (2): AD: Engineering Physicists provide flexibility OHAP has Eng Phys = Technical/Other Technical not as Engineers Should include contractors in staffing mix, since we can switch between contractors and staff. We might learn something from this exercise. Jack A: these are really “staff augmentation”. Include US University Visitors, paid as M&S What has been correlation between projected OHAP needs and actual FTL? Someone should do this study, we have the OHAP and FTL data ready for FY


Download ppt "FY 2013 Workforce Summary Lessons Learned Proposal Peter H. Garbincius & Young-Kee Kim November 5, 2012 – updated after meeting Director’s Senior Management."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google