Did we throw out that Fogbank stuff - no probs - we will make some more - oops.

I came across this story in Slashdot the other day ...

US FORGETS HOW TO MAKE TRIDENT MISSILES.

I was incredulous and had always assumed that military types save lots of records ... in the last year we had been issued with my father's World War II Australian Army service records. And thinking back to TV shows like Cold Case and documentaries on the 1919 Influenza Pandemic tends to lull you into a belief that the USA has enormous records repositories with nothing thrown away.

The story was released to Slashdot by Hugh Pickens on March 9 2009 and within a day was relayed across over 500 web pages globally presumably via RSS feeds and blog following. The situation is astonishing - and indicates the cost of not maintaining good archives ... it was hard to believe, but then more conventional news sites were also running the story, including Fox News on March 9 2009 . Within 3 days the 500 web pages had to grown to over 1500 covering the story. In fact initially the story seemed to be just a beat-up & re-run of a New Scientist story covered a year earlier in its March 8 2008 issue and the UK's Guardian also on March 6 2008. However those aspects did not seem to feature in the US Congressional Defense FY 2009 Expenditure Hearings transcripts.

Hugh Pickens wrote "The US and the UK are trying to refurbish the aging W76 warheads that tip Trident missiles to prolong their life and ensure they are safe and reliable but plans have been put on hold because US scientists have forgotten how to manufacture a mysterious but very hazardous component of the warhead codenamed Fogbank. 'NNSA had lost knowledge of how to manufacture the material because it had kept few records of the process when the material was made in the 1980s, and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency,' says the report by a US congressional committee.

Fogbank is thought by some weapons experts to be a foam used between the fission and fusion stages of the thermonuclear bomb on the Trident Missile and US officials say that manufacturing Fogbank requires a solvent cleaning agent which is 'extremely flammable' and 'explosive,' and that the process involves dealing with 'toxic materials' hazardous to workers.

'This is like James Bond destroying his instructions as soon as he has read them,' says John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, adding that 'perhaps the plans for making Fogbank were so secret that no copies were kept.' Thomas D'Agostino, administrator or the US National Nuclear Security Administration, told a congressional committee that the administration was spending 'a lot of money' trying to make 'Fogbank' at Y-12, but 'we're not out of the woods yet.'"

And it might have all seemed like a conspiracy story by the Anti-Nuclear Fraternity ... however in fact it is all officially reported in a March 2009 US GAO (Government Accountability Office) Report - viz

"At the beginning of the W76 life extension program in 2000, NNSA identified key technical challenges that would potentially cause schedule delays or cost overruns. One of the highest risks was manufacturing Fogbank because it is difficult to manufacture. In addition, NNSA had lost knowledge of how to manufacture the material because it had kept few records of the process when the material was made in the 1980s and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency. Finally, NNSA had to build a new facility at the Y-12 plant because the facilities that produced Fogbank ceased operation in the 1990s and had since been dismantled, except for a pilot plant used to produce small quantities of Fogbank for test purposes.

To address these concerns, NNSA developed a risk management strategy for Fogbank with three key components:

(1) building a new Fogbank production facility early enough to allow time to re-learn the manufacturing process and resolve any problems before starting full production;

(2) using the existing pilot plant to test the Fogbank manufacturing process while the new facility was under construction; and

(3) developing an alternate material that was easier to produce than Fogbank.

However, NNSA failed to effectively implement these three key components. As a result, it had little time to address unexpected technical challenges and no guaranteed source of funding to support risk mitigation activities."

Ultimately a new facility was built at the Y-12 National Security Complex near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to begin production of Fogbank once again, but was delayed by poor planning, cost overruns and a failed effort to find an alternative to Fogbank, and so the project overran by a crucial year costing at least an extra $US69 million according to the GAO report.

Interestingly, some sort of solution must have been found as one refurbished W76 has just gone back into the stockpile, according National Nuclear Security Administration's February 23 2009 media release.

It is interesting that there is little widespread coverage of the story at all in the international mainstream media and that the story has been largely passed on by bloggers and sites like Slashdot. And there seems to have been no coverage from the Australian mainstream media here, at all... only by Australian bloggers. Is it a surprise that more are turning to their favourite blogs/RSS feeds-Readers and web sites to locate the news they wish to read ?

In fact the March 2009 GAO report of the whole saga provides a good case study for students of Project Management 101 & Knowledge Management 101, on the pitfalls of managing large projects. Plus why lessons learned need to be not only captured, but deployed and implemented.

Posted via web from kerrieannesfridgemagnets's posterous

Cloud Computing - Heads in Sand - Governance Issues

It started as trickle, but like a dripping tap, the flow kept up ... for the last few weeks Cloud Computing keeps dropping into my email inbox ... something to do with Microsoft's Blue Sky Horizon, Windows Azure. Like the dripping tap, I tried to ignore it as just more IT geek jargon. Realisation dawned .. I'd been a fledgling Cloud Computing user for a few years without realising ... as I paid my EBay bills using PayPal, used Amazon Books payment system, Google maps, Blogger, Google Reader for RSS feeds, LinkedIn, Yahoo Groups, Web based email, etc etc.

In the end I found Robin Hastings' (Missouri River Regional Library) slideshare presentation on "Cloud Computing" & the Cloud Computing Glossary the most non-geek friendly.

But like the rest of Web 2.0 applications, rather than head in the sand, avoiding Cloud Computing issues, those with governance roles, need to be asking questions of those with their heads in the clouds, looking to blue sky horizon possibilities. Those questions need to be fully answered, and not treated dismissively.Starting with ... Will Cloud Computing storage providers guarantee access to your information & records for as long as statutory regulations require, regardless of whether done in house or outsourced ... sometimes decades ? Then would Private Clouds & Virtual Private Clouds be better approaches ? Gartner predicts a future in this approach for large organizations. If IT departments were worried about managing security concerns with Web 2.0's Microsoft Sharepoint, they must be agonising over Governance and the full ramifications of Cloud Computing applications, eg Chieftech.blogspot. Perhaps, looking at it from Web 2.0 experiences, if companies & quality management professionals have their heads in the sand, then the horses will bolt.

MORE

Cloud Computing - detail Heads in the Sand on Governance

It started as trickle, but like a dripping tap, the flow kept up ... for the last few weeks Cloud Computing keeps dropping into my email inbox. Probably something to do with Microsoft's Blue Sky Horizon, recently announced, venture into the field, with Windows Azure.

Like the dripping tap, I tried to ignore it as just more IT geek jargon. Finally curious enough, I clicked on one of the email hyperlinks ... a new unintelligible taxonomy aka jargon emerged. It meant turning to Wikipedia, to get a plain English understanding of "Cloud Computing"....and a bit more at "How Stuff Works". Funny how many Orgs frown on using Wikipedia, just like my old uni professor frowned on the Plain English style metallurgy textbook, used at the TAFE across the road, despite its friendlier "Gunning Fog" readibility ranking. In the end I found Robin Hastings' (Missouri River Regional Library) slideshare presentation & the Cloud Computing Glossary the most non-geek friendly.

Realisation dawned .. I'd been a fledgling Cloud Computing user for a few years without realising ... as I paid my EBay bills using PayPal, used Amazon Books payment system, Google maps, Blogger, Google Reader for RSS feeds, LinkedIn, Yahoo Groups, Web based email, etc etc. Many say Cloud Computing is the next disruptive computing technology, just like the IBM Mainframe, Apple 2 computer and internet - Web 1.0/Web 2.0.

And why did I go to Google Reader for RSS feeds ? Probably because my Org didn't seem to provide Readers for RSS feeds, or it was too hard to find out how, or its use was discouraged. Many other employees looked at me blankly when I asked about RSS feed? So it was easier just to go outside the system. If I found anything worthwhile, then I'd just archive it, email it around internally or capture really useful bits onto a Sharepoint Wiki Page.

Another stage for the Microsoft vs Sun Microsystems paradigm debacle, with Microsoft's catch up commercialisation plans in offering a fee per use. "Cloud Computing" seems headed to SME's, so they don't have to outlay the capital for huge IT systems. Some commentators liken it to electricity and water utilities access and usage charging - where you don't need your own generator, windmill or well. Consumers expect reliable and safe supply at rates that are not exorbitant. But what about governance ? After all it was a utility, Enron, that led to the Sarbanes Oxley legislation in the USA.

It was dawning that, like the rest of Web 2.0 applications, rather than head in the sand, avoiding Cloud Computing issues, those with governance roles, need to be asking questions of those with their heads in the clouds, looking to blue sky horizon possibilities. Those questions need to be fully answered, and not treated dismissively.

Starting with ... Will Cloud Computing storage providers guarantee access to your information & records for as long as statutory regulations require, regardless of whether done in house or outsourced ... sometimes decades ? A good question and one being posed on How Stuff Works - Cloud Computing Security Concerns page. Very pertinent in an era of increased regulatory constraints, following the financial global meltdown. But then Key IT decision makers fret about the cost of software licensing and what they may perceive to be excessive and unnecessary data storage, ... forgetting the ramifications of not having data storage. Systems, which businesses need in order to operate, ie QMS, EMS, OHSMS, CRMS, FMS, have requirements to keep records for a very long time. Breach those and it could be a very costly threat to your business's longevity. Some commentators seem to be recognising this concern.

What about production history systems - no matter if managed in-house or via "Cloud Computing" applications ? If your product identity codes are re-used in a "wrap around" situation, it might be tempting to cut costs and not archive the records of each wrap around sequence separately. But how do you know if the data is for item "Awxyz" produced in 2006 or for item "Awxyz" from 2009. 3rd Party quality auditors certifying your Quality Management Systems, and Factory Production Control Systems, could take a dim view of your cost cutting - not good, especially if you plan to export into the EU in Europe.

There's the challenge - in line with James Robertson's view of two uses for a wiki - to ensure governance, "command and control" rules where they're needed - as well as to encourage collaborative environments with enabling support, hints and tips, to capture lessons learned, preventing key knowledge loss (refer egov.vic) . I decided to ask the "significant other", one of the aforementioned IT geeks, about his exposure to Cloud Computing & governance issues, a pause, then he explained how it was being adopted by some organizations, as a Virtual Private Cloud to enable collaboration with external users, and yet maintain security. Gartner predicts a future in Private Clouds/Virtual Private Clouds approaches for large organizations.

If IT departments were worried about managing security concerns with Web 2.0's Microsoft Sharepoint, they must be agonising over Governance and the full ramifications of Cloud Computing applications, eg Chieftech.blogspot. And again, despite all the proclamations, it will be a behavioural issue. Perhaps, looking at it from Web 2.0 experiences, if companies & quality management professionals have their heads in the sand, then the horses will bolt.