NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA NPRs for project management (NPR 7120.5 and NPR 7120.8) and for systems engineering (NPR 7123.1) contain all the major requirements necessary to manage enormous programs such as the Shuttle or International Space Station. Not all requirements are applicable to smaller projects, and if unnecessarily applied, can increase cost, schedule, and complexity. Determining which requirements apply and which may be appropriately tailored for the specific project situation can be a difficult and demanding task. To most effectively and efficiently implement a wide range of flight projects, LaRC is developing guidelines and associated tools for tailoring of 7120.5 and 7123.1 requirements. The guidelines are contained in a flexible spreadsheet tool which permits the PM to review the guidelines, examples, and background information associated with each requirement while helping to determine which are most applicable to their project. This presentation will explain the process for categorization of projects, show how the guidelines for requirements have been built for each category, and demonstrate how the tool can help project managers to effectively and efficiently tailor the requirements for their projects while fulfilling the intent of NASA policy.

Biography
Keith Boadway spent 20 years between 1986-2006 serving in the United States Air Force (USAF). During his military career, he led and managed complex communications and information projects at seven different locations. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Clarkson University and a Master of Science degree in Computer Information Science from Troy State University. After military retirement, he worked for contractors providing technical consultation support to the USAF and NASA until he became a Civil Servant at the Langley Research Center (LaRC) in 2010. During his time with NASA, he has researched and analyzed the NASA Systems Engineering, Program Management, and Software Engineering procedures in providing support for the Flight Software Systems Branch.

Civilian space missions sponsored by NASA are managed in accordance with NASA NPR 7120.5D1, which defines the complete lifecycle of a project including, but not limited to, project phases, mission-level reviews (MDR, PDR, CDR et al.), and key decision points during project formulation and implementation. Subsystem- and instrument-level concept formulation, design, development, and implementation typically follow the project lifecycle to ensure that all subsystems and instruments (hereafter, for the purposes of this paper, the word ‘subsystem’ will represent ‘instrument’ as well) achieve the required level of design maturity prior to the next appropriate mission level review. Although this approach has proven to be executable, the level of design maturity, complexity of the subsystem, and critical path of the subsystem-level schedules are typically not drivers when establishing the mission level reviews. Mission level reviews are typically set early in the planning and budgeting phase to ensure that total project costs fall within the required budget constraints and result in an established timeframe at the subsystem-level for all subsystems. When subsystem-level schedules are developed to fit within the established timeframe, design, development and implementation durations for low Technology Readiness Level (TRL)/high technical risk subsystems are typically longer than high TRL/low technical risk subsystems. It has been demonstrated that TRL plays a significant role in spacecraft delivery2 and results in a longer critical path for low TRL/high technical risk subsystems and ultimately less schedule reserve than their high TRL/low technical risk counterparts. Not only is it illogical that the low TRL subsystems have less schedule reserve to accommodate their risk, it may require a major change in spacecraft planning and management methods to improve spacecraft delivery schedule performance.

The authors believe that schedule reserve should not be based on generally-accepted guidelines, but rather should be commensurate with the level of technical and schedule risk on or near the critical path of the subsystem. We also believe that development timeframes for subsystems should not be equal, but rather should be based on the subsystem TRL coupled with the technical and schedule risks that are anticipated in design, development, and implementation. We propose to develop an alternative approach to spacecraft schedule development that would constitute a paradigm shift in NASA’s current approach in project formulation and development.

Biography
Daniel (Dan) L. Dumbacher is the AAA for Human Exploration Capabilities, at NASA Headquarters. He provides leadership and management for the directorate with a special focus on space launch systems and multipurpose crew vehicle planning activities, as the Program Director for SLS / MPCV/ 21st Century Ground Systems.

The GAO Quick Look Book audit is an extensive, on-going annual process. Magnitude and complexity of types of projects included, data requests and action items has grown significantly since inception in 2008. The requested actions and deliverables have also doubled since 2009 and are now over 1000 different items. The audit involves efforts by six Centers, three Mission Directorates and many key functional offices at Headquarters (e.g. OCFO, IPCE, OP, etc.) Although NASA does exercise some control on what and how the GAO uses the data; legislatively, the GAO has a right of access to NASA’s project data. This session will walk participants through the GAO quick look book audit efforts explaining what data NASA provides to the GAO, frequency of submissions, challenges encountered along the away and some key lessons learned.

Biography
Dr. Kathleen A. Gallagher is an Operations Research Analyst in the Strategic Investments Division in the Officer of the Chief Financial Officer. In her current position, Dr. Gallagher is responsible for managing the GAO Quick Look Audit.

NASA has developed a set of Agency-level Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) requirements which cover the areas associated with safety, reliability, maintainability and quality assurance disciplines. Subsets of these requirements apply to NASA activities ranging from space exploration to aeronautics research to product quality and to the protection of NASA workers adn facilities on the ground. New programs and projects are challenged to quickly and easliy identify those requirements which will apply to improve safety, reduce risk, improve quality and meet federal regulations early in the project development to minimize impact on the program. With such a broad set of requirements, a requirements filtering process has been established to assist projects to identify those specific requirements that will be applicable to an emerging project. Additionally, requirements can be tailored to better fit the mission and project if the filtering is done early in the development. This presentation will highlight the process used by NASA SMA Technical Authority to filter the thousands of Agency SMA requirements into a concise set to reduce overall programmatic and personnel risk and cost.

Biography
Dr. John W. Lyver, IV, is employed by NASA Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance. Since 1996, he has managed the Agency-Level requirements for NASA’s Safety and Mission Assurance Technical Authority. Since then, he has served as the NASA Manager for Process Verification reviews, the development of the Safety and Mission Assurance Requirements Tracking System (SMARTS), and upgrading of OSMA’s requirements documents (NPDs, NPRs, and NASA-Standards). Dr. Lyver is the developer of the SMA Technical Authority waiver and requirements relief process (NASA-Standard 8709.20) and the associated supporting functionality contained in SMARTS. In recent years, he has developed and lead the applicability and traceability analysis of NASA-level SMA requirement to several NASA emerging programs. He also serves as OSMA’s representative to the NASA Engineering Standards Panel, and several interagency and international SMA requirements development groups. Additionally, he is NASA’s Nuclear Flight Safety Assurance Manager responsible for the nuclear safety reviews of all NASA space missions that contain radioactive materials and is the Manager for NASA’s Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Program. Dr. Lyver is retired from the U.S. Naval Reserve as an Engineering Duty Officer. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Naval Academy in Engineering-Physics, Masters of Science degrees in Computers and Electronic Engineering and also in Computational Science and a Ph.D. in Computational Science and Informatics at George Mason University. Additionally, Dr. Lyver is a licensed Certified Safety Professional.

Engineering (and social science) history books are full of detailed assessments of catastrophic operational failures exploring in detail their proximate and underlying causes. Less attention is typically focused on the morphology (immediate and contributing causes) of programs that fail because of cancellation. Program termination announcements invariably cite cost overruns and schedule slippage as causal factors with relatively little penetration beyond. On the other hand NASA space system failures are examined in great depth with formal mishap review boards established in accordance with NASA Procedural Requirements document NPR 8621, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Record keeping. Type A mishaps property damage trigger (not involving injury of people) is defined as "Total direct cost of mission failure and property damage is $2,000,000 or more." Once the Type A Mishap is declared an investigation board is established followed by months of detailed analysis, interviews, briefings, senior management reviews, and publication of formal reports. There is no such formal process parallel to NPR 8621 to address program/project cancellations which in every case far exceed a mere 2 million trigger value by one ($20 million), two ($200 million), or even three ($2 billion) orders of magnitude. This paper takes a first step in developing such a process by examining noted NASA and DoD programs that were cancelled, striving to identify the structural factors that foreshadowed termination. Criteria from the DoD Better Buying Power paradigm are employed along with a classic Fishbone Analysis approach and other methods outlined in NPR 8621 to examine several noted DoD and NASA program cancellations.

Biography
J. Steven Newman is Vice President, Technology Application ARES Corporation. Dr. Newman manages programs related to the Space Exploration Mission Directorate, integrated knowledge management, and risk management at ARES Corporation. Dr. Newman serves as a member of the Missile Defense Agency, senior Readiness Review Team providing evaluation of safety and mission assurance issues along with serving on the Board of the International Space Safety Foundation. Prior to joining ARES he worked for the NASA serving as Director of Review & Assessment in the Office of Safety & Mission Assurance, Chief Environmental Engineer in the NASA Office of Space Flight, Special Assistant to the Space Shuttle Program Director, Titan IV program manager, and Manager for OSHA and Industrial Safety. Dr. Newman has received numerous awards and honors including NASA Agency Honor Award, NASA Outstanding Achievement Award, Columbia Task Force Award, 2004, U.S. EPA Champions of the World, Vice Presidential National Performance Review, and multiple FAA special achievement awards. Dr. Newman holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, a M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Northwestern University, and a Doctorate of Science in Systems Engineering from George Washington University.

A vision lays the first cornerstone providing both direction and energy moving men’s hearts to unified action. The words ring noble but our situation is desperate. Just maybe this presentation can contribute in some small way to Code M’s new mission! Our NASA vision is reviewed and compared to the elements of “vision” from a multitude of sources. Most of these elements include a shadow side residing alongside the favorable attributes of each vision element. The vision elements reviewed are:
• High risk region
• A vision excellence standard
• Danger of a vision unfulfilled
• Hope – vision [Nietzsche, Churchill, Napoleon, Dalai Lama, Machiavelli,]
• Vision – energy – action [Several US Presidents including Regan, T Roosevelt, Harding, Buchanan]
Comparison is made of our NASA vision against the above referenced elements considering the success of a vision is judged against the success of its implementation. Examples of behaviors and organizational elements that gnaw away at the foundation of the NASA vision is presented. The above presentation is part one which upon completion, is opened for discussion. Time permitting, a 2nd part of the presentation will commence with considers the intent of a vision: change. Since President Obama ran on a vision or slogan of ‘change’, I re-looked at leadership notes and was amazed on the amount of useful and unique data on change and risk associated with change by professors, consultants and business leaders. At this volatile time in the Agency history, change needs to be reconsidered as well.

Biography
James Ortiz is the Director of the Independent Program Assessment Office (IPAO) at NASA Headquarters. He joined NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) in July 1990 from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as an electronic warfare systems flight test engineer, and the lead flight test engineer on the F-15 E fighter aircraft leading to its initial operational capability and deployment to Desert Storm. At NASA, Dr. Ortiz has held several assignments including Section Head for International Space Station Systems Training in the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) from 1992-1995; Senior NASA Research Exchange Engineer with the Air Force Research Laboratory from 1996-1998; Chief of the Advanced Projects Office in MOD from 1998-1999; Chief Engineer for project evaluation and then Manager of the JSC Systems Management Office from 1999-2006. In 2007, he was named Manager of the JSC Office of Analysis and Assessment reporting to the JSC Center Director. He later served as Deputy Manager for Integrated Avionics and Software for the Orion project. He was selected Deputy Director of IPAO in October 2008 and then Director of IPAO in September 2009. Special assignments include focal point for design certification of the Space Shuttle Fleet for return to flight after the Columbia accident in 2004 and Senior Technical Analyst in the Office of Program Assessment and Evaluation at NASA Headquarters in 2006. Dr. Ortiz was a member of the NASA team that wrote NPR 7120.5D in 2006-2007 and is participating in the current update for the E version.

Mr. Blythe is the Deputy Director of Safety for the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). In this role he provides Safety and Mission Assurance leadership for the NESC and assists the Director of NESC in maintaining Agency-wide technical capabilities in order to provide programs and projects with independent technical assessments.
Mr. Michael Blythe came to the NESC from the Office of the Administrator where he served as the Acting Assistant Associate Administrator in the Office of the Administrator. In that role, he assisted the Associate Administrator by integrating the technical and programmatic elements of the Agency and provided oversight of the Agency’s programs through the mission directorates, field centers, and Headquarters technical mission support offices. He was responsible for establishing controls over Agency activities, providing a means for evaluating mission accomplishments, and correcting deficiencies.
Mr. Blythe came to the Office of the Administrator from the Office of Chief Engineer where he served as the Director for the Engineering and Program/Project Management Division. In this capacity, he was responsible for establishing and implementing Agency engineering and program/project management policy, procedures and processes to improve the efficiency and success of NASA’s investments. He successfully led the effort to update the Agency’s program/project management policy “NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements – NPR 7120.5D” which was published in March, 2007.
Prior to coming to NASA Headquarters, Mr. Blythe spent 15 years at Langley Research Center working on spaceflight projects in various capacities including Electronics Subsystem Manager, Co-Principal Investigator, Interface and Integration and Test Manager, Systems Engineering Manager, and Project Manager. His wide-ranging assignments have afforded him the opportunity to work with managers at all facets and levels of the industry including various domestic agencies and contractors as well as several international partners including Russia, Italy, and France.

Over the past year, a software benchmarking activity was conducted to identify best practices that could be shared in NASA and potentially applied where they might be of benefit. Organizations that were benchmarked included internal NASA organizations, industry organizations, other Federal Agencies, and academia. Areas of interest were chosen so the best practices gathered might be applicable for addressing some of the issues NASA has identified as top software issues. Topics included: Software Engineering Policies, Level of Detail and Use of Industry Standards; How to Maintain Rigor for Small Projects; How to Maintain Organizational Requirements in Software Acquisitions; In-house Training Programs; Testing; and, CMMI Maturity Level Benefits and Benefits of Advancement. The questions were targeted for organizations that develop software comparable to NASA flight software (criticality A, B and C). Come and find out what we learned!

Biography
Ms. Heather L. Rarick is a Flight Director for the International Space Station, since 2006. She has served as Lead for International Space Station's Expedition 17 (April - October 2008) and the Space Shuttle/ISS Mission of STS-128/17A (September 2009). Ms. Rarick completed a 10-month rotational assignment at NASA HQ, Office of Chief Engineer during which Ms. Rarick co-led the Software Benchmarking effort. She began her career as an ascent flight design engineer for the space shuttle and supported Mission Control for shuttle launch and ascents. Prior to becoming a supervisor, she was the Software Group Lead and Software Panel Chair, responsible for developing and implementing formal software lifecycle, configuration management process, strategic plans, and a training program. In 1996, as a project manager for the chief information officer she led enterprise IT initiatives and established IT policies and directives; developed and coordinated Information Technology (IT) standards, plans and strategies for United Space Alliance and reported IT contract obligations to NASA/CIO. In 1999, she returned to Mission Control to work as the Operations Lead (Moscow) and Russian Interface Officer (RIO). Two years later, she accepted a similar role at NASA, taking on the technical lead for the RIOs. In 2004, she chaired the Russian Joint Operations Panel, which addresses U.S./Russian operational issues.

This presentation provides an overview and rationale for recent policy development affecting NASA program and project management. It will provide insight into internal and external drivers resulting in updates to Program and Project Management policy. The primary focus of this briefing will be to describe changes to the new streamlined NASA Spaceflight Program and Project Management Requirements (NPR 7120.5) and provide insight to a new companion handbook. This presentation will also address any late breaking news associated with agency engineering, program and project management policy.

Biography
Ms. Smalley has over twenty-three years experience in program management and engineering serving as a project manager, systems engineer, science manager, and business manager for various US Navy and NASA aerospace projects. She is the Director for Engineering and Program Management within the Office of the Chief Engineer at NASA Headquarters. In this capacity she establishes, maintains, updates, and implements NASA’s Acquisition, Engineering, and Program and Project Management policy and requirements. Ms. Smalley also oversees OCE compliance survey activities, Earned Value Management, PM Certification, and the Agency’s Baseline Performance Review Process.

Ms. Petze works with policy and governance in the Office of the Chief Information Officer. In this capacity, she is responsible for supporting the Agency IT Program Management Board and the Center IT Project Management Board Working Group to ensure efficient governance and oversight of OCIO programs and projects. She also works with the IT programs and projects to ensure successful project management is implemented. Prior to joining NASA, Ms. Petze worked for 16 years as a Cisco Consultant and an IT Specialist with NOAA under the Department of Commerce. During this tenure, Ms. Petze was responsible for almost all aspects of IT. She has extensive experience with IT policy and planning, with an emphasis on IT Security, including certification and accreditation, and Project Management. She has earned a Master's Degree in Computer Science from the University of Maryland and a Master's Certificate in Project Management from George Washington University. Ms. Petze served as Speaker Manager, and member of the key planning team, for the NASA IT Summit 2010 and 2011.

Ms. Ellen Stigberg is an Engineer Program Manager in the Office of the Chief Engineer, Engineering and Program Management Division at NASA Headquarters. In this capacity she manages NASA's Program and Project Management policy and requirements. Ms. Stigberg came to NASA Headquarters from the Kennedy Space Center Shuttle and Space Station Processing Directorate in 1998 to work in the Office of Biological and Physical Research, which later merged into the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). Ms. Stigberg has twenty years experience in NASA systems engineering and integration, project engineering and program executive management spanning Shuttle, Space Station and Exploration Systems programs. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from Wayne State University, Detroit Michigan, and a Masters Degree in engineering management from the University of Central Florida, Orlando Florida.

The recently updated Baseline Performance Review (BPR) is the Agency’s forum for performance management of its programs/projects and mission support functions and is results oriented. This new iteration of the BPR continues to serve as NASA’s senior management monthly review of performance integrating vertical and horizontal Agency-wide communication of performance metrics, analysis and independent assessment.

The BPR encompasses all mission activities including, the new HEO mission directorate, aeronautics, technology and science. The forum is designed to be actionable, supporting the Agency decision-making Councils. Specific BPR activities include the following:
a. Establishing key performance metrics and display of the measurement to provide senior management actionable information.
b. An independent assessment of program and project performance, presented monthly with inputs from all perspectives.
c. An in-depth performance view of a single mission area on a quarterly basis.
d. Review of progress at addressing Agency risks and issues impacting performance, both technical and non-technical.
e. Tracking the status of relevant program/project baseline documents including PCA, Program Plans, Project Plans as well as key review milestones.
f. Mission support reports, in finance, infrastructure, human capital management, acquisition, information technology, small business, diversity and equal opportunity, security and FOIA, which highlight key institutional aspects that impact program and project performance.
g. Center management summaries of programs and projects and key institutional issues.
h. Presentation of special topics in program and project performance, and/or key performance management activities.

Biography
Mr. Woods is a senior consultant supporting the NASA Headquarters Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE). Being the lead, serving Chris Scolese for the State of the Agency process, now the Baseline Performance Review (BPR), he serves as the BPR Process Lead for the Agency, coordinating all aspects of the process Agency-wide. Mr. Woods has over 20 years of experience in the metallurgical and aerospace industries. His experience in industry includes being a program and project manager. Mr. Woods has extensive experience in performance measurement both with NASA and previously in industry with the Missile Defense Agency.

Mr. Lee Edwards is a senior consultant in the office of the Office of the Chief Engineer, NASA Headquarters. Lee supports the Baseline Performance Review (BPR) process and is responsible for the BPR Tool, a web-based software data entry and assessment product.

Mr. Edwards is a retired U.S. Navy Captain whose warfare specialty was in nuclear submarines. After retiring from active duty, Lee’s experiences in industry included being a Program Manager with Lockheed Martin, nuclear weapons production site remediation at the Department of Energy, as well as eight years on the Professional Staff at the Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory. Lee is a graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy and completed two Masters Degrees. Mr. Lee Edwards is a senior consultant in the office of the Office of the Chief Engineer, NASA Headquarters. Lee supports the Baseline Performance Review (BPR) process and is responsible for the BPR Tool, a web-based software data entry and assessment product.

Mr. Edwards is a retired U.S. Navy Captain whose warfare specialty was in nuclear submarines. After retiring from active duty, Lee’s experiences in industry included being a Program Manager with Lockheed Martin, nuclear weapons production site remediation at the Department of Energy, as well as eight years on the Professional Staff at the Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory. Lee is a graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy and completed two Masters Degrees.