|
7 June 2001: Response by Suzan Elliott, NASA JPL Cassini Program Office Coordinator, to:
http://www.nasawatch.com/jpl/04.26.01.housekeeping.html NASA Watch: 26 April 2001: Faster - Better - Neater at NASA JPL? From someone@nasa.gov:I would venture to say that none of us are all too thrilled at the prospect of an audit (including the Audit Team). However, the rumors surrounding this task have been flying out of control. Constructive criticism is the most productive. It is difficult, it not impossible, to provide constructive criticism when you don't have the facts straight. The following is an attempt at rumor "damage" control: I am an employee of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Although I, and my colleagues, were supposedly hired for our engineering talent, the current fad inflicted on us by the Director's Office is one of "housekeeping."Firstly, we need to understand the driver behind this effort. On December 4, 2000, Larry Dumas issued a memorandum to Managers III. In summary, the memo informed them that instances of improper storage, excess property, and hazardous clutter had been observed during a routine NASA property audit the previous summer. In response to audit findings, the current Lab Wide Clean-Up Effort was established. This effort is CUSTOMER driven, not an exercise "inflicted upon us" by the JPL Director's Office.
At present, there has been an office-to-office inspection of state of tidiness of our individual offices. This is not associated with safety issues such as fire hazards (such as stacks of papers reaching the ceiling or cardboard boxes on the floor), but whether the inspecting committee can see clear desktops, neat piles of paper, and papers not being currently used as filed. Comments were made by the committee over things as trivial as whether bookcase covers were closed.The Lab Wide Clean-Up Effort is a multi-focused task to include: Property, Safety, Facilities, Housekeeping. Housekeeping is just one component of the audit. As a matter of fact, "open bookcase covers" (or Westinghouse flip-up doors) are a safety issue. Open storage spaces such as these will most like spill contents in the event of an earthquake. Falling contents may strike a person or block or hinder their egress from the office. It may also provide a slipping hazard for someone in a hurry to vacate.
As the general JPL management philosophy is pass the buck, it appears this policy originated from the Director's Office.Neat desk tops is, again, a requirement driven by our CUSTOMER. The guideline provided by NASA (NASA-STD=8719.11, 8/00) states: " Paper in excess of that necessary to perform a task shall be removed. Papers needed, which are awaiting actions, should be stored within cabinets until needed. " Perhaps public exposure of this outrageous use of taxpayer's money will cause JPL to institute more reasonable policies in the future and concentrate on ending JPL's recent string of failed missions.I would guess the "public's reaction" would not be as you predict. Although I've worked at the Lab for many years now, I have always thought of our casual/comfortable work environment as a perk. It is convenient not to have to conform to a dress code and comfortable to be free of the "corporate" trappings of making a living. However, most of the working "public" is not as fortunate as we are. I would guess that the "public" would not consider it a waste of taxpayer's money to audit our behavior in terms of property accountability, utilization of facilities, safety practices, and housekeeping maintenance (which is also an indicator of how we use expendable resources). I would further predict, that the "public" would not be outraged, but rather feel secure in knowing that their dollars spent on property, facilities, workman's comp issues and supplies are warranted, monitored, and well spent. The "public" has a reputation for requiring accountability for it's dollars. The audit, required by our CUSTOMER, is an effort to accomplish this. Quite frankly, this required accountability is not unreasonable. And, I do not believe that doing so will detract from our focus on completing successful missions.
I am an employee of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Although I, and my colleagues, were supposedly hired for our engineering talent,While I am sure, as JPL employees, we were hired for our professional talent, there is a bigger, yet simple, picture here. We were hired to do the job our CUSTOMER wants us to do. A clear understanding of customer/supplier relationships is essential for any business (JPL or otherwise) to succeed and ensure a healthy future. Our CUSTOMER has requested this audit. If we want to continue to work well with them, it is in our best interest to comply. I'm not suggesting that we have to agree with it or like it, but I am most assuredly suggesting that it is the right thing to do. Talent is an asset, but don't bank on it giving you license to call all the shots. There are other talented organizations in the wings just waiting for an opportunity to gather more projects. Ultimately, the CUSTOMER affords you the facility and the tools to use that talent here at JPL. So, in my book, if the CUSTOMER says, clean-up your room, my answer will be "not a problem".
Please withhold my name and address as obviously this letter would obviously negatively impact my relations with my employer.Ummm, I don't believe it is your opinions, but rather your inaccuracies that may have drawn the attention of your employer, had you signed it. I have no reservations in being accountable for my reply (which is entirely my own and not a reflection of JPL policy):
Suzan Elliott
|