Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Amer bill steve
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Amer bill steve


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration SRB Success Story Steve Jurczyk, SRB Chair Bill Ochs, Project Manager Tahani Amer, Review ManagerProject Management Challenge 2010Independent Review in ActionFebruary 9-10, 2010 1 1Used with Permission
  • 2. Overview Independent Program Assessment Office • Project Objective • SRB Chair Perspective • Project Perspective • RM Perspective • Lessons Learned • Conclusion 2
  • 3. LDCM Overview Independent Program Assessment Office LDCM Data Needed to Address NASA Earth Mission Objectives Science Focus Areas, Questions, and Applications • Provide continuity in the multi-decadal Landsat land surface observations to study, Focus Areas Science Questions predict, and understand the consequences • Carbon Cycle, - What are the changes in global land of land surface dynamics Ecosystems, & cover and land use, and what are their causes? • Land cover/use change Biogeochemistry • Human settlement and population - How do ecosystems, land cover & • Water & Energy Cycle biogeochemical cycle respond to and affect • Ecosystem dynamics environmental change? • Landscape scale carbon stocks • Earth Surface & Interior - What are the consequences of land cover • Resource management/societal needs and land use change for human societies and the sustainability of ecosystems? - What are the consequences of increased human activities on coastal regions? Instruments • Operational Land Imager – BATC • Optional Thermal Infrared Sensor – GSFC Spacecraft • GDAIS Mission Team • NASA Goddard Space Flight Center • Dept. of Interior’s United States Geological Survey (USGS) Landsat 7 data used to aid Indonesian government with • NASA Kennedy Space Centertsunami relief efforts (David Skole, Michigan State University) LRD – December 2012 3
  • 4. LDCM Summary Master Schedule Independent Program Assessment Office BACKUP CHARTS 4
  • 5. LDCM SRB Chair Experience – Keys to Success Independent Program Assessment Office• Goal: Help the Project Succeed • Utilize board experience to communicate lessons learned & identify opportunities and issues • Make recommendations consistent with Project requirements • Use advisories and RFA’s to document opportunities and issues • Review project responses and provide feedback• SRB membership – appropriate combination of technical and programmatic experience• Extremely important to develop detailed plan for KDP’s – Begin planning several months prior to the site visit – Establish communication methodology/plan with the SRB members, Project and the Convening Authority – Develop a detailed schedule including deliverables• Accommodate Project’s Schedule to support reviews – Subset of SRB members attend lower level reviews 5
  • 6. LDCM SRB Chair Experience – Meeting the Challenges of KDP’s Independent Program Assessment Office• SRR/MDR/PNAR and KDP-B – Agreement on the SRB membership and the ToR – Reconciliation of Independent Cost Estimate with the Project (and IPAO and Division and Mission Directorate and Agency PMC) – Compliance with Agency briefing requirements – documented and undocumented – Recommended Launch Readiness Date and Budget to achieve a more reasonable level of confidence consistent with Agency policy• PDR/NAR and KDP-C – Independent verification of SRB member independence due to new policy regarding Organizational and Personal Conflict of Interest – Significant change in requirements – Added a second instrument (TIRS) – Requirement to report to Agency PMC 30 days after the “site visit’ • Held separate events for PDR and NAR/site visit separated by 3 months – New requirements of NPD 1000.5 Including Joint Confidence Level • LDCM was the first to develop a JCL prior to KDP-C • Significant learning curve for everyone, significant effort 6
  • 7. LDCM Project SRB Experience Independent Program Assessment Office• Keys to a successful SRB Experience – Board members with relative experience • ≈ 30% of LDCM SRB members have past Landsat experience • Specific GSFC-related experience (including both in-house and out-of- house experience) • Independent (of GSFC) reviewers have comparative experience – Develop a partnership based on communication and trust – Maintain a productive relationship • Work together with the SRB (board should not be treated like they are the “Review Police”) – Involve SRB members in lower level reviews Bottom Line: SRB is part of the Mission Team 7
  • 8. LDCM Project SRB Experience Independent Program Assessment Office• Meeting challenges associated with missions milestones requires working closely with the SRB exercising “Keys To Success” • Leading to KDP-B, LDCM had a over aggressive schedule mandated to it without Project-held funded schedule – Worked closely with SRB »Overcame 5 widely different independent schedules and cost estimates »Developed achievable LRD recommendation which was approved by Agency Program Management Council • Leading to KDP-C, LDCM was one of first projects to do JCL estimate – Not only did the Project have work with PA&E to overcome challenges associated with developing JCL, but had to develop an approach to working with SRB to produce Project/SRB JCL »Project developed JCL »Work with SRB on an agreed set of inputs to model (risks and uncertainty factors) »Project maintains and runs JCL model »Went forward through confirmation review process with combined Project/SRB JCL estimate 8
  • 9. LDCM SRB RM Experience – Keys to Success Independent Program Assessment Office• Goal: ensure Project success through the independent reviews process – Key elements of success: • Have the right team: Chair, SRB members, and System Review Manager • Proactive Project Manager/Deputy that follow up with SRB recommendations and RFAs • Communicate with SRB members, PM, and PE • Understand the review requirements and Agency policies • Unburden the Chair and the SRB members • Partnership with PE, PM, and SRB members • Understand the issues and consequences • Accommodate Agency senior management schedule • Document the result at every level • Make it happen! 9
  • 10. Lessons Learned Independent Program Assessment Office• Project Lessons Learned – Start SRB process early – SRB members with relative experience is extremely important – Involve SRB in lower level reviews – Follow-through on commitments• SRB Lessons Learned – Detailed planning with Center/Project and early involvement of SRB critical to successful reviews – document schedule in ToR – Adequately developing and reconciling/reviewing independent cost and schedule assessments takes significant time and effort – Meeting requirement to report to Agency PMC 30 days after the site visit extremely challenging • Separate PDR and NAR by at least 3 months • Review JCL methodology and results prior to NAR 10
  • 11. Conclusion Independent Program Assessment Office • The summary key elements of the success are: – Great cooperation between the SRB and the Project – SRB members with appropriate expertise and experience – Understanding the review requirements and policies – Development of approach to reconcile independent cost and schedule assessments including JCL – Can- Do” attitude from both sides - Just do it! 11
  • 12. Independent Program Assessment OfficeBack up 12
  • 13. New Requirements (SRR/MDR & PDR) Independent Program Assessment Office • Review – Independent Policy – NPR 1000.5 & JCL – Reporting Cycle • Project – New Instrument 13
  • 14. LDCM PDR/NAR Schedule Independent Program Assessment Office • ToR Submission for Approval May 27, 2009 • Cost & Schedule SRB Chair and IPAO w/ Project – Set expectations GSFC May 27, 2009 • CADRE Delivered by Project June 15, 2009 • Project begins putting data in PBMA June 15, 2009 • SRB – PDR Kickoff Meeting NASA-HQ June 16, 2009 • All Data in PBMA July 2, 2009 • PDR charts available July 7, 2009 • LDCM PDR Maritime Institute July 14-17, 2009 • One- Pager Project lead July 30, 2009 • SRB Risk List Inputs July 27, 2009 • Cost & Schedule JCL Meeting w/Project GSFC August 27, 2009 • Cost and Schedule Meeting w/ Project GSFC October 7, 2009 • SRB- NAR Site Visit Maritime Institute October 14-23, 2009  Programmatic Analysis w/SRB October 16, 2009  SRB Deliverables (Inputs to Steve & Tahani) October 16, 2009  SRB Discussions & JCL Model Run w/SRB Risks October 19-22, 2009  One Pager SRB/Project to CA Telecon (3:30- 4:30) October 27, 2009 • SRB Telecon to discuss result of JCL November 4, 2009 • SRB Project Pre-brief November 5, 2009 • IPAO Dry Run LaRC November 6, 2009 • Briefing to GSFC CMC GSFC (12:30-4:00) November 10, 2009 • Briefing to ESD HQ (1:00-2:30) November 17, 2009 • Briefing to SMD PMC HQ (1:00-3:00) November 30, 2009 • PA&E AA Pre-Brief HQ (9:00-9:30) December 3, 2009 • Submit draft briefing package to APMC Electronically December 3, 2009 • AA Pre-Brief Telecon December 4, 2009 • Submit final briefing package to APMC Electronically December 11, 2009 • Briefing to APMC KDP- C HQ December 16, 2009 14
  • 15. SRR/MDR Review Schedule Independent Program Assessment Office ToR Development: Submit for Approval April 1, 2008 Review products and documentation (PBMA) Available April 24, 2008 SRB Kick-Off/Planning April 29, 2008 Project Documentation Re view April-May, 2008 Site Review(Conference Center at the Maritime Institute) May 20-23, 2008 SRB Discussion and Project/Program Out-brief May 23, 2008 SRB Deliverables/Inputs to Steve & Tahani June 10, 2008 Chair/RM Compiled first draft of report and distribute to SRB June 30, 2008 ICE Reconciliation with Project Complete July 8, 2008 ICE complete July 9, 2008 Inputs/changes for SRB Final Report Due July 10, 2008 IPAO Dry Run July 18, 2008 Issued SRB Final Report July 20, 2008 Briefing to GSFC CMC July 25, 2008 Briefing to ESD August 13, 2008 Briefing to SMD PMC August 22, 2008 Submit briefing package to APMC September 2, 2008 Briefing to APMC September 23, 2008 15
  • 16. SRB Members Independent Program Assessment Office Steve Jurczyk LaRC LDCM Chair Tahani Amer IPAO- HQ Review Manager Barbara Stone-Towns IPAO- HQ Cost Analyst Dave Amason GSFC I&T Deane Charlson GSFC Communication System Scott Croomes MSFC System Engineering Harry Culver GSFC C&DH Carolyn Dent GSFC Ground System/ SRM Mike Gazarik LaRC Instrumentation Dan Helfrich GSFC Mechanical System Robert Hodson LaRC C&DH Landis Markley GSFC GNC/Software System Ron Mueller KSC Launch Vehicle Ops Lyn Oleson USGS Ground System/Software Phil Sabelhaus GSFC Mission Design/Project Mgmt. Steven Scott GSFC Spacecraft System/Mission Ops 16
  • 17. SRB Consultants Independent Program Assessment Office Name Organization Discipline Area Bjorn Eng JPL System Engineering Dennis Hewitt Bay Engineering Thermal Structure Innovations (BEI) Sylvia Shen Aerospace Scientist Michele King Acumen Schedule Analyst • GSFC, HQ, LaRC, KSC, MSFC, USGS, and Expert Support. • This SRB is Civil Service Consensus with Expert Support Board, CS2. 17