CONTACTS 
0201 - Dep Natrl Rscrs & Consvn           406 444 6699 fax 6721
020101 - Mr. Wayne Wetzel
020102 - Mr. Walt Anderson; Hydro Power Section Supervisor =406 444 6659
020103 - Engineering Bureau  fax 406 444 0533
020104 - Ms. Sarah Ann Bond, Esquire
020105 - Department Counsel =406 444 6660; Legal Division

SUBJECTS
Voith Contract Closeout
Engineering Management, 911011

0604 -    ..
0605 - Summary/Objective
0606 -
060601 - I met with Wayne and encouraged the Department to send Voith notice to
060602 - confirm the discussion on Friday, ref SDS 4.  Wayne indicated Walt has
060603 - some edits on the proposed draft, ref DIP 2, he will make later today.
060604 -
060605 - Sarah indicated later she has prepared an alternate draft for Walt to
060606 - edit in Wordperfect, ref DIT 1.  I took a look and it seems okay.
060607 -
060608 - Later in the day, Walt produced ref DIT 2 which is also okay except
060609 - the delay in sending it out means Voith does not get it until tomorrow
060610 - and that makes the timing a little more cramped.  It does not appear
060611 - DNRC sent the memo of Wayne's telecon with Greg and further, the
060612 - letter was signed by Walt.
060613 -
060614 -    Comment on Signature
060615 -
060616 -    This is a milestone issue in the contract.  On matters involving
060617 -    executive decisions, I would recommend letters be signed under the
060618 -    Deputy Director's name to elevate the status of the document,
060619 -    particularly since it confirms a telecon placed by Wayne.
060620 -
060621 -
060622 -    Comment on Timely Notice
060623 -
060624 -    The elements in the memo of the telecon that was not sent were
060625 -    intended to position the Department to obtain the performance it
060626 -    seeks from Voith and to recover DNRC claims from Voith.  The chance
060627 -    of succeeding with these objectives is diminished when Voith is not
060628 -    given timely notice of the DNRC management positions set out in the
060629 -    memo.
060630 -
060631 -
060632 -
060633 -
0607 -

SUBJECTS
SDS record procedures
Discovery, Advantages and Restraints on saving the Record
Correlates all MI - who, what, when, where and why
Meeting Notes, confirm understandings
Theory (save ideas to develop)
SDS Guides Performance, Maintains Shared
Meetings What was Said What Does it Mean
What Did We Say, What Did We Hear, What Did
Law has Communication Requirements to Align
Writing Complete, Clear, Concise, Needs
Notice Legal Requirement Align Understanding Discovered over Centurie
Good Management Defined Intelligence Memory Organization Analysis Ali
Organizational Memory Command & Control of the Record, Context Report

2316 - Discussion
2317 -
231701 - Scope of Telecon Notes
231702 -
231703 - Sarah suggested adding some language to the notes about technical
231704 - discussions between Walt Anderson and Greg Snyder.
231705 -
231706 - I explained the purpose of the SDS record is to reflect Wayne's
231707 - executive management perspective rather, than to address detailed
231708 - engineering issues.  Thus, the notes seek merely to show that:
231709 -
231710 -     1.  Voith's allegations that DNRC has delayed progress are
231711 -         incorrect; DNRC has timely responded to Voith letters of Dec
231712 -         5, 1991.
231713 -
231714 -     2.  DNRC holds that Voith has delayed the work by not submitting
231715 -         shop drawings for review and DNRC will not accept an unapprov-
231716 -         ed speed increaser, per DNRC's letter of Nov 21, 1991.
231717 -
231718 -     3.  DNRC will resolve the questions raised by Voith with respect
231719 -         to transmitting documents, by sending its agents to the draw-
231720 -         ings and Voith's design people.
231721 -
231722 -     4.  Voith has acknowledged withholding critical information from
231723 -         DNRC but has now agreed to submit it immediately.
231724 -
231725 -
231726 -  ..
231727 - Owner Management of Contractor Requires Timely Notice
231728 -
231729 - Ordinarily an executive would not be involved in the details of
231730 - engineering issues other than to ensure that timely action is taken
231731 - when there is a failure to perform, as involved here.  In this vein
231732 - the purpose of the phone call last Friday was solely to address
231733 - Voith's notice of a problem in coordinating distribution of informa-
231734 - tion.  That certain details may have also been discussed by engineers,
231735 - should not intrude upon the focus of management on the cental issue of
231736 - clarifying in the record who is liable for delays and what solution
231737 - was adopted in relation thereto.
231738 -
231739 -
231740 - Managing the Contractor
231741 - Engineering Responsibilities
231742 -
231743 - Additionally, it may not be sound Owner management of a contractor to
231744 - engage in discussions of technical engineering issues which are the
231745 - responsiblity of hired engineers, in this case Tudor and by extension
231746 - other specialist consultants.
231747 -
231748 -
231749 -  ..
231750 - SDS Has Relevant Information from Investing Intellectual Capital
231751 - Notice Provides Accountability in Communication
231752 -
231753 - Sarah is concerned that if the record does not cover everything that
231754 - was said, then it is incomplete and this would reflect poorly on the
231755 - efficacy of the SDS record before a fact finder.
231756 -
231757 - SDS does not intend to be a verbatim transcript of everything that was
231758 - said.  The purpose is to formulate an understanding that is relevant
231759 - to the decision process, and to provide timely notice of actions being
231760 - taken and/or demanded based on relevant understandings.  This requires
231761 - capturing organizational memory on who, what, when, where, why and how
231762 - things happen in relation to objectives, requirements and commitments.
231763 - Others are then on notice to clarify information that may conflict
231764 - with their record, which would justify not taking action or taking a
231765 - different action.  So, the aim is to influence conduct, and this
231766 - requires timely, clear, concise and complete notice on information
231767 - that impacts taking action.
231768 -
231769 - Some authorities speak of this capability as organizational memory, or
231770 - organizational learning.  SDS supports a process of investing
231771 - intellectual capital.
231772 -
231773 - In this case, Voith can object and has a pattern and practice of
231774 - objecting, when necessary, to a record with which it disagrees.  If
231775 - they do not object, that's it.  With the volume of correspondence in
231776 - the record no one will remember the detailed engineering discussions
231777 - of December 13, 1991 at 1123 AM.  No human being can do this,
231778 - particularly on subordinate issues -- they just become lost in the
231779 - ether (can anyone remember what was said June 15, 1989 at 0200 PM).
231780 -
231781 - Should it occur that on or about 1995 when this matter might be heard,
231782 - that someone remembers there was discussion on technical stuff, it is
231783 - clear from the letter that such are not relevant to the purpose of the
231784 - call and were later made further irrelevant by the work of the people
231785 - paid to decide technical matters in the pending meetings.
231786 -
231787 -
231788 - Advantages of Completeness
231789 - Knowing What is Relevant
231790 -
231791 - Sarah pointed out it would be helpful to have the technical stuff even
231792 - though it may seem ancillary at the moment.  Later on it may turn out
231793 - to be helpful to have for reasons that are not clear at this time.
231794 -
231795 - This is a good point.  We really do not know what will turn out to be
231796 - important later on.  At this time I would like to focus on the issue
231797 - of who is causing delays.  How then to handle the other.  Initially, I
231798 - suggested that Walt write a separate memo on the engineering discus-
231799 - sions he had so Wayne's memo is a clean document addressing a single
231800 - issue to support his letter, thus:
231801 -
231802 -     Wayne's position is that a coordination problem has been reported
231803 -     by the contractor, and DNRC has taken action to correct it by
231804 -     setting a meeting, etc.
231805 -
231806 -
231807 - The difficulty with this is that the amount of work required for Walt
231808 - to write a memo and associate it in SDS according to this telecon and
231809 - its subject content is too burdensome especially at this time.  The
231810 - alternative is for me to append it into Wayne's telecon notes as a
231811 - record segment on another subject.
231812 -
231813 - While figuring all this out, Sarah called.  I explained by analysis
231814 - and asked her to re-submit her notes on engineering stuff on a com-
231815 - puter disk because it is a little difficult to read her handwritten
231816 - comments.
231817 -
231818 -
2319 -
2320 -
2321 - 1430 Received Computer File
2322 -
232201 - Now that I have read the remarks Sarah proposes to add, they do not
232202 - appear to reflect the engineering discussions between Walt and Greg.
232203 -
232204 - Rather they are part of the general dialog on contract management that
232205 - is already reflected in the existing stuff.  Morover they raise ques-
232206 - tions rather than close off debate.  The basis for selecting this part
232207 - of what was said from all that was said is unclear.  It also seems to
232208 - me that to include such language as shown below is like throwing an
232209 - interception in football.  Not fatal, but definitely handing the other
232210 - side ammunition:
232211 -
232212 -
232213 -     Proposed Additions
232214 -
232215 -     Greg advised that DNRC and Voith must prevent the thing from being
232216 -     studied to death.  In response to queries why the FEM hadn't been
232217 -     supplied, Greg said Renk wasn't convinced there was a resonance
232218 -     problem.  DNRC stated Renk should be happy to share the data then
232219 -     as they had nothing to fear.
232220 -
232221 -          Comment
232222 -
232223 -          How does the above materially differ from the existing
232224 -          language or relate to "engineering" issues?
232225 -
232226 -          DNRC clearly agrees it is not a good idea to prevent the
232227 -          thing from being studied to death.  But so what?  An
232228 -          objective observer would be inclined ask questions on this
232229 -          point, where none otherwise exist.
232230 -
232231 -          Some mileage for DNRC can be gotten from Greg's comment about
232232 -          Greg not being convinced about a resonance problem, but is it
232233 -          worth the delay of hashing over language when the material
232234 -          point is that Greg admitted they withheld information and now
232235 -          promises to send it.
232236 -
232237 -
232238 -     Also Voith was concerned about whether Maritech was revisiting the
232239 -     annulus resonance issue, and whether the rap testing had been
232240 -     adequately performed.  DNRC pointed out that Voith's speculation
232241 -     that Maritech or DNRC would ultimately continue to require data
232242 -     submission and seek to run additional tests ad infinitum did not
232243 -     justify withholding the FEM.
232244 -
232245 -          Comment
232246 -
232247 -          Why would it not justify withholding information that
232248 -          engenders a practice of testing "ad infinitum."
232249 -
232250 -          Why would DNRC seek to put this into the record.  If Voith
232251 -          wishes to do it, let them and we will address it.
232252 -
232253 -
2323 -