Level-of-effort

The business activity of the organi2ation dictates quaUty requirements for the LIMS. Security and regulatory requirements for LIMS data define the level of effort expended to vahdate a LIMS and the data being stored. In addition, the quahty of the hardware and software used to implement the LIMS both play a role in determining overall system quahty. 

In any case, like frequency analysis, examining the uncertainties and sensitivities of the results to changes in boundary conditions and assumptions provides greater perspective. The level of effort required for a consequence analysis will be a function of the number of different accident scenarios being analyzed the number of effects the accident sequence produces and the detail with which the release, dispersion, and effects on the targets of interest is estimated. The cost of the consequence analysis can typically be 25% to 50% of the total cost of a large QRA. 

The level of effort required for a frequency analysis is a function of the complexity of the system or process being analyzed and the level of detail required to meet the analysis objectives. Frequency analysis can typically require 25% to 50% of the total effort in a large-scale QRA study. If an uncertainty analysis is performed, the effort required for the frequency analysis can be much greater. 

Human resources, whether in-house or retained by contract, cost money, and represent either a direct or an indirect investment. In lobbying for PSM resources, be realistic about the time you think the effort will require underestimating the level of effort can raise management s expectations beyond your ability to meet them. At the same time, estimates of staff required can t ignore prevailing company priorities for example, a request for five new staffers during a hiring freeze is unlikely to be favorably received. 

The second matrix. Figure 2-9, helps you begin to estimate levels of effort and associated costs for your initial planning. Keep in mind that these can only be very preliminary estimates at this point. However, it s useful to start the process with this kind of discipline, recognizing that the results will be subject to continuous rehnement. 

Support resources more often than not directly reflect level of effort. Sometimes these can be expressed as a percentage (15 to 20 percent) of the cost of staff. 

FIGURE 2-9. Sample Level of Effort Allocation Matrix... 

Estimated level of effort for initial planning phase only. 

Do it once = do it right. The process outlined here requires a front-loaded level of effort to ensure that the solutions you determine will hold up over time. In many companies this deliberate approach to problem-solving runs counter to a more action-oriented" culture, and there is a strong temptation to fix the problem and get on with it. Keep in mind that the goal here is to develop a process, not to undertake multiple tasks, and consider the time spent in gathering this information as an investment in the longer term value of the resulting PSM system. 

One way you can help minimize such bias is to involve more facility personnel in a PSM survey than would likely participate in a PSM audit. Broad distribution of a questionnaire among facility staff does not appreciably add to the level of effort required of the PSM team, and may help provide a more balanced perspective. 

Whether you have chosen a facility-specific, a companywide, or a h) rid approach, it may be helpful to consider your priorities in terms of both facilities and PSM elements. The goal here is to help determine what needs doing, in what order, and with what level of effort. 

Once you have estimated the level of effort required for each task, you can, with some reliability, project support requirements (secretarial, administrative, etc.) at 15 to 20 percent of professional staff time. 

The level of effort required to modify PSM systems in this way will be minor compared to the original effort required for system development and initial installation. Each PSM system can be reviewed with a few staff-days of effort and many modifications can be designed with a similar amount of effort. 

A Initially a team of five or six will develop a detailed proposal. We will then select a division for a pilot study. The pilot will have a team of about 12 people, half of whom will be full-time. As the integration is rolled out in other divisions, I expect a slightly lower level of effort, as we will have learned from our earlier experiences. We will also use an outside consultant to help us develop our plans and review implementation. 

As the process branches to send the outline procedure through the organization, there is a possibility that significantly different local procedures will be developed. For example, the VP Operations Olefins passes the outline procedure to five different olefins departments where each department will develop its own procedure. It is likely that a common olefins procedure could be developed, reducing the level of effort needed to develop five local procedures. 

Having completed the assessment of the existing systems, you will now be in a position to estimate the level of effort required to design and implement new systems. You have now identified where systems, programs and elements exist and their potential value as a basis for integration. In other areas, you will have nothing to work with and will need to design completely... 

Exhibit 4-1 provides some indications of the level of effort that might be required to develop integrated systems, programs and elements. 

The level of effort estimates given in Exhibit 4-1 are for time used by the project team. Design time is an estimate of the number of person days that will be needed to develop a fully defined system program/element or management process starting with the data collected during the assessment phase. 

The selected approach was estimated to take 3-6 months for the design stage and one year to implement. The total level of effort was thought to be 2-3 person-years for the first site. Later sites on the schedule would benefit from earlier ones and would be able to see a reduction in these levels of effort to about 1.5-2 person-years, but probably not in the total calendar time required. The total level of effort for all seven locations was estimated to be 13 person-years, and the overall timing was four years, which assumed that roughly two sites would be covered each year. 

Under each level of effort are two columns. The first gives multipliers for each budget category, and the second gives subtotals and totals in thousands of dollars. 

L= low, M = medium, H = high input data requirements. In general, numerical models have higher input data requirements and calibration needs, therefore, may better represent spatial resolution of a domain. Compartment models provide an optimal compromise (see Section 4.2). The level of effort is intuitively defined here. 

A great deal of structural modification work has ensued in the subsequent years. At present, however, the level of effort and number of laboratories involved in this area are small compared to that during the 1960s and 1970s, when hallucinogens were a popular topic in the lay media. It will be easiest to describe this work by focusing on specific types of molecular modifications and how they affect activity. 

Should the process be modeled on a fundamental or empirical level, and what level of effort (time, expenses, manpower) is required for either approach ... 

Many methods have been developed that are suitable for assessing risks associated with the operation of facilities involving chemical reactivity hazards. The more commonly used methods are summarized in Table 4.9. They differ in their applicability, level of effort, and how systematic they are in identifying accident scenarios. All of the methods except layer of protection analysis (LOPA) may be applied qualitatively, and all except checklist reviews may be performed in at least a semiquantitative manner. CCPS (1992a) is a basic source of information on each of these methods. 

Method Attributes How is the analysis structured Best for analyzing what type of processes Comprehen- siveness Relative level of effort ... 

Residual hydrocarbons will continue to serve as a source of groundwater contamination thus, remediation strategies for DNAPLs should emphasize long-term control and management (i.e., source containment, pool control, and recovery) vs. short-term fixes. Regardless of an increased level of effort (i.e., additional wells, increased pumping rates, etc.), the overall time for remediation is not expected to shorten by more than a factor of five. 

An apparently high level of effort is required to report and investigate near misses. The costs of this effort are quantifiable. The benefits of these investigations are not as easy to tabulate. The actual number of accidents that have been prevented by improved near miss reporting may never be known. However, organizations that have seen dramatic increases in near miss reporting have also seen dramatic reductions in losses. The root causes of near misses of safety consequences may be the same management system weaknesses that adversely affect operability, quality, and profitability. 

A list of the individuals interviewed can be included in an appendix of the report to show the thoroughness of the analysis and the level of effort expended during the analysis. However, this can also be accomplished by indicating the titles of the personnel interviewed. This provides some anonymity for the individuals who provided data. Again, there is no reason to distribute this list widely, as most individuals should be able to determine the general level of effort by the examination of the remainder of the report. 

---