1. CMBG Performance Indicator Workshop
Facilitated By:
Keith Harvey- Wolf Creek
Keith Reinsmith- Susquehanna

2. CM P.I.’s CM P.I. Background and History
P.I. Development requested by CMBG attendees
Steering committee commissioned a team to develop
Developed P.I.s around CM Equilibrium diagram
Defined P.I.s to measure effectiveness, timeliness, and cost of each CM sub-process (CM001- CM004)
Also created P.I.’s for overall program effectiveness

3. Facilities Using CM P.I.s (6 Generator and 2 DOE)
Cooper
“Program Health” P.I.
Other P.I.s focused on FCI
Wolf Creek
P.I.s in development
Don’t have proper capability to bin yet
Modeling P.I.s after Duke
Fermi
Use CR process for problem I.D. Low tolerance level for identification
Use cause codes for trending
Don’t have overall CM P.I.

4. Facilities Using CM P.I.s (6 Generator and 2 DOE)
Susquehanna
P.I.s developed for some of NEI CM P.I.s
Several focused on mod process effectiveness
Have overall CM Process effectiveness P.I. (Roll up of seven CM indicators)
Columbia
KPIs based on INPO
5 CM P.I.s based on INPO OEOs. These align with CM P.I.s
Use CRs with cause codes

5. Facilities Using CM P.I.s (6 Generator and 2 DOE)
Bruce
Have CM P.I.s as part of site wide P.I. System
Track obvious backlogs
Yucca Mtn
Fully functional P.I. System
Focused now on requirements mgt not CM
Use CRs to identify
Los Alamos
Getting facilities to implement CM program
Have same P.I.s across all fac. Some are CM.

6. Performance Comparison
Important to enable industry benchmarking of performance (apples to apples)
Agreement to identify a subset of CM P.I.’s to focus on and share across industry
Use as pilot for broader application over time
Would normalize to account for program and facility differences (e.g.; use % vs. actual numbers)
Would require plant profiles to aid in comparison
Would focus on trends

7. Performance Comparison
Identified a list of 5-6 common “easy” P.I.s
5 volunteers agreed to work as a team to develop detailed description of each P.I.
Team will share results with others from workshop
Each plant would capture data periodically (monthly, quarterly?) and send to common place for publication
Discussed putting on CMBG website
Would revisit effectiveness at ’05 conference