The most effective organizations are constantly evaluating how well their processes work and looking for ways to improve them. The NRC uses many different tools to measure its organizational effectiveness. When we identify improvements that can be made, we try to find the best way to put those changes in place — and then we measure their effectiveness.
In 2006, recognizing the need for standardization to replace procedures that varied by office, the NRC created an agency-wide “non-concurrence” process. The process encourages employees to bring different views to management related to policy papers, technical and administrative determinations, and other agency actions. And to do it as the supporting draft documents make their way through the management approval chain. The process is meant to promote the airing of views before final management decisions are made—in an effort to empower everyone involved and reach better decisions.
The NRC is fortunate to have so many talented, dedicated professionals–who may not always agree–and we appreciate their willingness to speak up. We encourage critical thinking and a questioning attitude not just among our licensees, but throughout our agency. As a safety regulator, the NRC recognizes the importance of an open, collaborative work environment, where people can raise concerns and differing views without fear of reprisal. Having an environment where people feel comfortable making varied views known supports our safety mission and makes for better decision-making.
My office recently evaluated the effectiveness of our non-concurrence process and used the results to revise the procedure for professional disagreements on draft documents. We feel confident these revisions will improve the process and allow the NRC to make the best possible decisions.
Our assessment provided encouraging feedback, but also identified areas where we have more work to do. On the positive side, we are encouraged NRC employees see the process as a way to be heard, understood and responded to. It’s also gratifying to see that most employees are aware of the process and would be willing to use it. On the other hand, some users of the process felt they faced negative consequences, or that their views were not reflected in final decisions. In many respects, the negative feedback was the most useful because it helps us target the areas where further improvement is needed.
For one thing, we are looking at ways to provide better training and clarify through that training and the revised procedure what is expected of supervisors who receive differing views, such as providing positive feedback for raising concerns. We are also working to make information on non-concurrence experiences (both positive and negative) more widely available.