From: Hutch Neilson [hneilson@pppl.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:44 AM
To: wreiersen@pppl.gov
Subject: Comments on the SEMP

Wayne,

My comments on the SEMP are attached. My overall comment is that this 
is very good. I would like to see the SE responsibilities of key 
people (you, me, Bob, WBS managers, at least) spelled out. I think 
the SIT does not have "responsibilities" per se but is an excellent 
vehicle for helping the members meet their responsibilites.

I saw Rich's comments and discussed it with him yesterday. He 
stressed overall that he found it much improved. Other points 
mentioned in the discussion:

Overlap with project control. The SEMP wanders a bit into Project 
Control functions. The worry is that to the extent that such overlaps 
exist, it raises the potential for conflicts between our documents 
(red meat for DOE bureaucrats and auditors) and more documents to 
revise if something changes. I think some amount of this is OK to 
help explain how our SE plan will be implemented.

Need more on design reviews. I think we agree that design reviews are 
a critical part of our process, and the SEMP would be a logical place 
to address it in more detail. One thing that might be useful is a 
checklist of what is expected as inputs for the various types of 
review, which of course would be tailored for each review. There is a 
checklist of needed analysis in PPPL's work planning procedure that 
Rich identifies with and should be reviewed. In the conversation, 
reviews and work planning forms got mixed together somewhat but I 
guess the point is to make sure that somebody has thought through 
what analysis is needed and not needed and making this evaluation 
part of the review process. We can discuss, but that was the thought.

Heierarchy of SE-related documents. Rich thought it was not clear how 
the PEP, SEMP, CMP, DMP, etc. relate to each other, and wondered 
whether there was too much overlap in our plans. The chart in the CMP 
that Bob has been drafting may be helpful as a start.

Hutch