Difference between revisions of "Knowledge loss risk assessment in NPP's"

Revision as of 12:35, 12 August 2013

,

Template:Links

Definition

One sentence definition. A template can be used for definition.

Summary

One paragaph summary which summarises the main ideas of the article.

Description

The following processes and tools can be used by nuclear power plants to identify and mitigate knowledge loss threats. Management can adapt or modify these processes and tools to meet the specific needs of their organization.

Attrition related knowledge loss risk assessment

Attrition related knowledge loss threats can be identified, prioritized and addressed using the following process to determine a total risk factor for each employee in the organization. This total risk factor is based on a projected attrition date, which could be retirement, transfer, or other attrition (attrition risk factor), and criticality of knowledge and skill (position risk factor). This three step process has been succesfully implemented by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the USA. Figure 1 is a flow diagram of the critical knowledge retention process. Knowledge retention roles and responsibilities are outlined in Annex I.

Fig 1. Critical knowledge retention flow chart

The three step process

Step 1 Conduct of a knowledge loss risk assessment

Conduct of a knowledge loss risk assessment The knowledge loss risk assessment is designed to identify positions/ individuals where the potential for knowledge loss is greatest and most imminent.

The attrition risk factor is based on the expected retirement or other attrition date. The date can be provided by the employee or calculated according to age and tenure data. Table 1 lists the criteria used to assign an attrition risk factor.

The position risk factor is initially assigned by the department level manager using criteria listed in Table 2. The position risk factor criteria are based on the unique/critical knowledge and skills possessed by the employee and an estimate of the difficulty or level of effort required to refill the position. In assigning the factor the manager should consider each employee’s responsibilities and background, formal and informal roles, collateral duties, recurrent assignments (e.g. outage related duties, problem solving or trouble shooting assignments) and other factors suggesting that the employee may have unique/ critical knowledge and skills. Department managers may want to consult other work group members, key plant customers, or interested parties when determining ratings.

The total risk factor of an employee is determined on the basis of the guidelines provided in Table 3. The total risk factor provides an overall assessment of attrition related risk for knowledge loss. The total risk factor is computed by multiplying the attrition risk factor by the position risk factor (see Table 4).

Each nuclear power plant management team should collectively review of the results of the risk assessment. Experience has shown that a critical review of the position risk factor assigned by the department manager is important in ensuring accurate ratings. Often there is a tendency to rate high performing employees as having unique and critical knowledge and skills. A high level of performance is not the basis for a high position risk factor (5 rating) and such ratings should be changed. After completing the collective review, the management team identifies where a knowledge retention plan is needed and assigns responsibility for plan development (typically, to the employee’s supervisor or manager).

Step 2 Determination of the approach needed to capture critical knowledge

Once the risk assessment is complete, the next step is to address the potential knowledge loss for each high priority (20–25 total risk factor) employee. In many cases this will involve an interview with the employee (the elicitation process) utilizing a trained elicitor. The knowledge and skills in question may be of many different types — task and equipment related knowledge and skills; facts or information about specific people, vendors, projects and locations; and unique pattern recognition knowledge and problem solving skills. The interviews employ questionnaires designed to assist the elicitor and employee in identifying the specific areas where critical/unique knowledge may exist. Guidelines for conducting interviews and suggested questions are contained in Annex II.

On the basis of the results of the interviews, knowledge retention plans (Annexes III and IV) are developed and implemented. The process for determining and implementing the most appropriate method(s) for addressing this potential loss involves:

• Inventory of the specific knowledge and skills of the identified employee;
• Assessment of the importance to the organization (criticality);
• Assessment the consequences of loss (e.g. operational, financial);
• Review of the mitigation options (e.g. codification, alternative resources, re-engineering);
• Development of knowledge retention plans as needed;
• Implementation of knowledge retention plans;
• Coordination and review of knowledge retention plans.

The first priority is to identify, capture and retain critical knowledge held by employees nearing retirement. However, it is also important to develop and implement a knowledge retention plan for any employee with a position risk factor of five. These employees may be promoted, transferred, or may leave the organization for other reasons, resulting in the loss of critical knowledge.

Step 3 Monitoring and evaluation

Periodic reviews should be conducted to monitor the status of implementation of the knowledge retention process. Specifically, this step should:

• Review previous knowledge retention plans and progress.
• Identify any positions/incumbents requiring reassessment or knowledge retention plan development.
• Identify related emerging issues or points of coordination.
• Review knowledge retention metrics, including:
  • Future attrition projections;
  • Number of high priority positions;
  • Number of positions targeted for knowledge retention plan development;
  • Status of knowledge retention plans (complete, on-track, etc.);
  • Knowledge related organization metrics (human performance, safety, etc.);
  • Consideration of the impact of other activities on the risk assessment (e.g. emerging work).
• Evaluate the success of knowledge retention plans in accomplishing stated goals.

Additional information about the TVA knowledge retention process is available on the TVA web site: http://www.tva.gov/knowledgeretention/

Employee self-assessment–knowledge retention process

Often the expert employee who has undocumented knowledge is critical to day-to-day operations of the plant and therefore their time is valuable and limited. Processes such as the one outlined in Section 3.1 are effective, but may require significant resources and time. The following process (detailed in Annex V) can be much less time consuming when utilized by nuclear power plants to allow for self-assessments in order to identify specific ‘at risk’ knowledge. This approach can be used to address potential knowledge loss when employees are being terminated, transferred, promoted, etc. The process can facilitate the gathering of additional information pertinent to the individual’s knowledge, skills and duties to support the continued safe and efficient operation of the plant.

The self-assessment consists of two steps — the employee self-assessment and the employee task assessment. The employee self-assessment is geared to obtaining general information from the employee on their current job tasks as well as information regarding meetings they attend, emergency positions they hold, etc. The employee task assessment provides more specific information about 1–5 major tasks performed by the employee. These major tasks may include activities they perform as part of their everyday job or they may be collateral duties such as outage assignments.

The critical knowledge held can either be apparent, where the individual is recognized as ‘the’ expert in a task or area, or it may be deep seated, where critical steps are so ingrained in the individual that they may or may not recognize them as critical. This method of knowledge retention is a selfelicitation method that may need to be followed up with a more detailed review of the employee’s information (e.g. the process outlined in Section 3.1.1.2).

Once the employee has completed both the employee self-assessment and the employee task assessment, department managers and supervisors should review the tasks performed by the individual and make a decision as to whether additional assessments are needed. The completed self-assessment is retained by the manager and is used to address challenges created by the pending personnel changes as well as the potential knowledge loss.

Risk management of institutional knowledge loss

Institutional knowledge is defined as the collective knowledge of all the employees working in an organization or institution. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 provide processes and tools to address specific knowledge loss associated with individual expert workers nearing retirement or employees transferring, receiving promotions or leaving the organization (or industry) for other reasons. This section will consider the impact of knowledge loss on the organization and the resulting impact on organizational competency, in other words, the ability to function safely and efficiently.

The necessity to maintain organizational competency for nuclear power plants has been widely recognized by Member States, given the nature of the business (high hazard low risk) and the life cycle of 100 years or more. They recognize the importance of continuing the safe and efficient operation of existing facilities, supporting research and development and educational institutions, and supporting the expansion of nuclear power.

The three examples of China, Germany and the USA (covered in Section 1.1) demonstrate that different situations or life cycle stages exist that may contribute to the potential loss of knowledge and skill in the nuclear industry. However, all three share the common challenge of managing nuclear knowledge to maintain and enhance institutional knowledge.

As with specific knowledge loss threats, addressed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, organizations should periodically assess the risk of institutional knowledge loss. This assessment should consider both internal (e.g. loss of experienced workers) and external (business and political) factors. Other considerations include:

1. Current work load: Provision of an assessment of the current workload in the organization or department. Consideration of current work backlogs, amount of overtime (paid and unpaid) and levels of stress in the workforce. Identification of core and non-core functions performed and the impact of non-performance. Identification of options to address any potential knowledge loss issues (e.g. process improvements, reorganization and elimination of non-core activities).
2. Future work load: Evaluation of future staffing needs based on an assessment of future workload (expanded capacity, ecommissioning, restart, major modifications, etc.). Consideration of lag time in recruitment, training and time until full competency is achieved.
3. Areas where critical knowledge and skills are at risk: On the basis of current information, identification of any areas that exist where critical knowledge and skills are at risk of being lost to the organization. These areas may be general areas (e.g. system engineering) or specific to individual experts (turbine specialist). Each area or individual should be listed and details of what is at risk included. The cause of the threat should be included (e.g. retirement, transfer).
4. Risk and impact: On the basis of workload assessments, an evaluation should be made of the risk that exists and its likely impact on organizational performance. Consideration should be given regarding what work can proceed and what will be deferred. Where possible, the impact on safety, performance and cost should be quanitified.
5. Current programmes or proposed initiatives that support knowledge management: Recognition of existing programmes and processes and their contribution to the retention and enhancement of institutional knowledge. These may include corrective action programmes, configuration control processes, or change management tools. It is important to be as specific as possible and to identify gaps where programmes or processes need to be improved.

On the basis of the assessment results, a strategic plan to address institutional knowledge loss should be developed (see Section 2).

Source: Risk Management of Knowledge Loss in Nuclear Industry Organizations

References

[1]

Related articles