Date post: | 28-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | annabella-ball |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Page 1
NASA’s Focus on Improving PerformancePresentation to the NDIA
May 21, 2009
Sandra SmalleyActing Director, Engineering and Program/Project Management Policy
Office of the Chief Engineer
Page 2
Big Picture
• NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.
• NASA employs a strategic management approach requiring all organizations to manage requirements, schedule, and budget according to a program/project management method built on NASA’s Governance Model and NASA’s Core Values and Guiding Principles.
Page 3
Multi-Tiered approach to cost, schedule and performance assessment
• Enhanced Policy– New Agency policy for Acquisition
• Strengthened strategic integration
• Application of Joint Confidence Levels
– Existing policy for Program/project management
• Provides framework and requirements for Program and Project Management
• Established standard WBS and common project life cycle for Space Flight Projects
• Currently being revised to flow down new acquisition policy
• Enhanced Review process– Engages all levels (Project, Program, Mission Directorate, Agency)
• Key Decision Points
– Reviewed Independently
• Periodic reviews (monthly, quarterly, annually)
Page 4
Enhanced PolicyImplemented New Acquisition Policy
Maintain and enhance Existing Program/Project Management Policy
Page 52-18-09
New Agency Policy for Acquisition
Defines acquisition as the process for obtaining the systems, research, services, construction, and supplies that the Agency needs to fulfill its mission.
Acquisition—which may include procurement (contracting for products and services)—begins with an idea or proposal that aligns with the NASA Strategic Plan and fulfills an identified need and ends with the completion of the program or project or the final disposition of the product or service.
Page 6
Goal – Document Agency’s best practices and improve the Agency’s performance against external commitments for space flight and Information Technology programs/projects
Strengthened the Acquisition Process:• Added early involvement by senior management
– Acquisition Strategy Planning (ASP) meeting• Ensures consistency with Vision, Strategic Plan, and
Agency budget request• Assigns program/project to a Center • Directs major partnerships
– Acquisition Strategy Meeting (ASM), early in Formulation• Reviews make-or-buy decisions• Approves acquisition strategy
• Retained Procurement Strategy Meetings prior to release of major RFPs/contracts
• Complies with all FAR and NASA FAR requirements
Highlights of the new Acquisition Policy
Page 72-18-09
Highlights of the new Acquisition Policy Continued…
Improve estimating and performance:
• Programs and projects in Implementation are to be baselined or rebaselined and budgeted based on a joint cost and schedule probabilistic analysis.
• Programs are to have a confidence level of 70% or the level approved by the decision authority of the responsible Agency-level management council.
• As a minimum, projects are to be funded at a level that is equivalent to a confidence level of 50% or as approved by the decision authority of the responsible management council.
• Requires consistency among the approved cost estimates, funding strategy, the NASA budget, and external commitments
Page 8
8
Joint Confidence Level Overview
Policy Overview:• All space flight and information technology programs
shall develop a joint cost and schedule probabilistic analysis and be baselined or rebaselined and budgeted such that there is a 70 percent probability of achieving the stated life cycle cost and launch schedule
• Applicable decision authorities may approve a different joint confidence level
• Projects are to be baselined or rebaselined and budgeted at confidence level consistent with the program’s confidence level
• At a minimum, projects are to be funded at a level that is equivalent to a confidence level of 50 percent, or as approved by the applicable decision authority
• Programs or project’s proposed cost and schedule baselines are to be assessed by an independent review team
• Mission Directorates or Mission Support Offices are to confirm that program and projects’ life cycle cost estimates and annual budget submissions are consistent
•JCL is a…- Joint (cost and schedule) Confidence Level is the probably that cost will be equal or less than the targeted cost AND schedule will be equal or less than the targeted schedule date- Process and product that helps inform management the likelihood of a projects’ programmatic success- Process that combines a projects’ cost, schedule, and risk into a complete picture
•JCL is not a…- Specific methodology (e.g. resource loaded schedule)- Product from a specific tool (e.g. @RISK)
JCL Defined
Page 9
Existing Policy for Program/Project Management
Three program and project management policy documents governing the following portfolios of projects:
• Space Flight
• Information Technology and Institutional Infrastructure
• Research and Technology
Highlights include:
• Standardized project life cycle for Space Flight Projects
• Established key decision points
• Established review structure (dependent and independent)
Page 10
Standard Program and Project Life Cyclefor Space Flight Projects
• Provides a uniform life cycle for human and robotic missions
– Common process flow, uniform phases, and KDPs
– Disciplined review structure for technical requirements and implementation plans
• 5 key elements in execution of the life cycle:– Key Decision Points
– Decision Authority role as gatekeeper
– Required independent reviews
– Required life cycle gate products
– Center Management Councils and Governing Program Management Councils role in life cycle process
Page 11
Project Life CycleSimplified
Key Decision Points
FORMULATION IMPLEMENTATION
Major Reviews
A C D E
Project
PhasesConcept
Studies
Concept &
Technology
Development
Preliminary
Design &
Tech. Comp.
Final
Design &
Fabrication
Sys. Assembly,
Test, & Launch
CloseoutOps. &
Sustainment
A B
B
C
F
D E FPre-A
Mission Concept Review
Systems Requirements Review
Mission Definition Review
Critical Design Review
Systems Integration Review
Operational Readiness Review
Flight Readiness Review
Post Launch Assessment
ReviewDecommissioning
Review
Preliminary Design Review
Page 12
Project Assessments(Independent Life Cycle Reviews and
Periodic Reviews)
Key Decision Points
FORMULATION IMPLEMENTATION
A C D E
ProjectPhases Concept
StudiesConcept &TechnologyDevelopment
PreliminaryDesign & Tech. Comp.
FinalDesign & Fabrication
System Assembly,Test, & Launch
CloseoutOps. &Sustainment
A B
B
C
F
D E FPre-A
Independent Life Cycle Reviews
(includes independent
standing review board assessment)
Periodic Performance Assessments
(assessed monthly/quarterly/
annually at all levels: Project, Program, Center, Mission
Directorate, Agency)
Page 13
Independent Life Cycle Review Overview
The review of programs and projects at each life cycle milestone by competent individuals who are not dependent on or affiliated with the program/project to objectively assess: • The adequacy and credibility of the technical approach
(including but not limited to: requirements, architecture, and design),
• Schedule,
• Resources,
• Cost,
• Risk, and
• Management approach;
• Progress against the Program/Project Plan;
• Readiness to proceed to the next phase; and
• Compliance with NPR 7120.5 and 7123.1 requirements.
Page 14
Independent Life Cycle Assessments Process
Decision AuthorityStanding
Review Board (SRB)
Establish
Convene
Provide Terms of Reference
Program/ProjectInternal Reviews,
Baselines, Summary Packages
Report
Program/Project
Other Relevant Individuals
(e.g., Technical Authorities, Program Analysis & Evaluation)
Center Management
Council(CMC)
Decision Authority
Decision on Readiness for Next Phase
Assessment Disposition of
Findings
Program Management
Councils (PMC)
Recommendations
Page 15
Why Have A Life Cycle Independent Review Process?
To provide:
• The program/project with a credible, objective assessment of how they are doing.
• NASA senior management with an understanding of whether
– The program/project is on the right track,
– Is performing according to plan, and
– Externally-imposed impediments to the program/project’s success are being removed.
• A credible basis for a decision to proceed into the next phase.
– The independent review also provides additional assurance to external stakeholders that NASA’s basis for proceeding is sound.
Page 16
Project
Periodic Performance Reviews
Baseline Performance Review (BPR)
Mission Directorate, Program, Project, and Institutional
Mission Directorate (MD) and Center
Program and Project
Contractor Performance
Monthly(Assess cost, schedule, technical, risk,
…etd)
Agency
Level
Center Level
Project Level
Monthly/QuarterlyPerformance
(Assess cost, schedule,Technical, risk and
impact to porfolio/program/center…etc.)
Monthly/Quarterly Review
(Assess cost, schedule, technical, risk, cross cutting
technical, cross cutting institutional,…etc)
Page 1717
DRAFT V3
“Top-Level” BPR Process
Programsand
Projects Input:
TemplateQuestions,
Data and reviews
BPR Meeting
IndependentAssessment of
Programs, Projects& Mission Directorates
Actions/ Feedback
Cross CuttingTechnical &
Non-TechnicalIssues
AAPre-Brief and
Post-Brief
1st of the monthApproximately 3 weeks…
Mission Directoratesand Centers
Input:Template
Questions,Data and reviews
MissionSupportInput:
TemplateQuestions,
Data and reviews
Multiple Perspectives
Mission SupportAssessment of
Programs & ProjectsAnd Functional Area
CenterAssessment of
Programs & ProjectsAnd Functional Area
MissionDirectorate& ProjectResponse
SpecialTopics
Page 18
Mission Directorate OverviewMission Directorate OverviewMay 2009May 2009
Status: – 5 projects rated Red overall: Project Names would be provided here– 1 project rated YellowYellow overall: Project name would be provided here– Project A successfully underway; Project B successfully launched
Programmatic
TechnicalProgram A: Project Y Observatory Cryo-Thermal
performance issues.Program B : Inability to manufacture replacement boards for Project X’s S/C Single Board Computer. Project says:
"Considerable residual concern remains."Program C : Project Z actuators.
All: Continued difficulties developing instruments.
ScheduleProgram A : Project A milestones slipping; Project Z slack
margin and instrument beta and gama deliveries.Program C: Project D Instrument Alpha has consumed all schedule margin; Project X launch delay & potential for
more from SBC issues.
CostAll: Access to Space continues to be an issue: Rocket B
replacement; Rocket A failure, & impact on Project X; Very crowded launch manifest in fall 2011. Conflicts for launch processing facilities.
$47M in Project X APA reserves, needed for 70% Confidence level, was moved from FY'10 & '11 to after
Program A : Funding of Project Y slip limiting division's Program B : Project A & Project B FY'09 reserves low.
Program C : Overall division budget issues.
Watch list :Items • Project A - Difficult cost vs risk tradeoff choices. • Project C -- Cost impact on project if ULA launch delay is realized.
Y
April May
Y
EXAMPLE
Page 1919
DRAFT V3
PHASE
2009 Month COMMENTS
Program Alpha G G G
Project A Y Y Y On-orbit payload issue delayed launch to NET May 12 2015.
Project B Y Y Y Flow Control Valve flew successfully on spacecraft. Additional mitigation actions being studied for future flights.
Project C G G G
Project D G G G
Project E G G G
Project F G G G
Project G Y Y G Retention of workforce risk improving
Project X G G G
Project Y G G G
Project Z G G Y Incomplete TPA input, delay in scheduled activities
Program Beta G R R
Project H Y R R Project A successfully launched on 3/6/09. Project B/C launch delayed to NET 6/2/10 due to Partner WGS delay. Launch vehicle on Project Lon 2/24/09 failed.
Project I G G G
Program Gamma Y Y Y
Project J G G G
Project K Y Y Y PWD bacteria, SARJ Anomalies, UPA failure, ELC schedule delays, Partner ballistic re-entry (No issue could be found with returned Partner pyro bolt).
Project L G G G
Project M G G G
Project N Y Y Y Cargo transport uncertainty post Program Gamma
Formulation Implementation
PROGRAM/ PROJECT
Mission Directorate Programs and ProjectsMission Directorate Programs and ProjectsA
Feb Mar AprB
Feb Mar AprC
Feb Mar AprD
Feb Mar Apr EFeb Mar Apr
EXAMPLE
Page 20
Technical: Schedule:
Cost: Programmatic:
Status: In Formulation
Project Status:Project Status:Project XProject X YY
Y
R Y G G
• Working Thrust Oscillation concerns: active controller dropped, passive system baselined but Project
considering additional isolator (between the upper stage and service module, which could impact the
stack height) (Y)• First Stage has implemented 100% tangential x-ray
NDE on castings• Project XTower Recontact/Plume Damage (Y)
Feb Mar
Y G G• AB-1 motor test schedule moving toward August 2009
due to FSM 17 review• Delta PDR scheduled for Thrust Oscillation in Fall 2009
• Unclear as to how the Integrated PlanningMtg09 results will affect cost confidence level (Y)
• Additional $16M was provided by HQ to resolve the CR issue. Improved cost from Red to Yellow
• A number of contract actions are in worked to align elements with program guidance. Planned for
execution beginning in the March 09 timeframe• Partner rayon has become available and NASA has an
opportunity to procure the material
EXAMPLE
Page 21
BPR Benefits/ Results
21
• Focused NASA Senior Leaders as an “Execution Board of Directors”
– Quick response to emerging issues– Course corrections in implementation of PMC, SMC decisions– Identify cross-cutting issues and action plans e.g., software complexity, instrument acquisition, etc.– Resolution of organizational communication issues (Field Centers/ Programs/ Mission Directorates/ etc.)– Identify mission support issues e.g. procurement workforce
Page 22
Conclusion
NASA recognizes the following as key elements for continued performance enhancement:
– Clear policy and standards
– Engaged leadership and team members at all levels
– Review processes for periodic status checks
– Variety of tools to assess performance and address issues
– Knowledge and experience to know when to apply the appropriate tool and how to interpret the results