Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply



Published on

Published in: Technology

  • 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. Ares I-X - The Integrated Master Schedule(IMS) Keith “Indiana” Heitzman, IMS Manager Bruce Askins, Project Integration ManagerUsed with Permission Launched October 28, 2009
  • 2. Chance Encounter in The Summer of Lean Name 508 608 708 808 908 1008 1108 1208 109 209 309 409 509 Frustum Delivered to ARF 8/4/08 9/18/08 Deliver to ARF 9/2/08 9/30/08 Forward Skirt Extension Delivered to ARF 8/4/08 11/7/08 Deliver to ARF 7/28/08 10/9/08 Forward Skirt Delivered to ARF 8/4/08 10/20/08 Deliver to ARF 6/13/08 9/8/08 Forward Assembly Sub Assemble 9/18/08 1/30/09 Sub Assemble 9/30/08 11/28/08 Forward 5th Seg Sim Delivered to ARF 7/30/08 12/30/08 Deliver to ARF 9/11/08 10/9/08 Center 5th Seg Sim Delivered to ARF 7/30/08 12/30/08 Deliver to ARF 9/11/08 10/9/08 Aft 5th Seg Sim Delivered to ARF 7/30/08 12/30/08 FSAM Need Deliver to ARF 7/24/08 10/9/08 5th Segment Simulator Sub Assemble 1/30/09 12/30/08 Sub Assemble 10/9/08 11/28/08 Pwr On Launch Ground Operations Stack & Integrated Testing 4/15/09 Pwr On Launch Stack & Integrated Testing 12/1/08 2/15/09 4/15/09 2
  • 3. Ares I-X Flight Test Objectives ♦ Demonstrate control of a dynamically similar, integrated Ares I/Orion, using Ares I relevant ascent control algorithms ♦ Perform an in-flight separation/staging event between a Ares I-similar First Stage and a representative Upper Stage ♦ Demonstrate assembly and recovery of a new Ares I-like First Stage element at KSC ♦ Demonstrate First Stage separation sequencing, and quantify First Stage atmospheric entry dynamics, and parachute performance ♦ Characterize magnitude of integrated vehicle roll torque throughout First Stage flightNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 7465.3
  • 4. The Mission and The Name The Mission Evolves The Name Evolves♦Late 2005 – Team starts DFT to take shape ADFT♦Early 2006 – Scope and ADFT 1 Cost Creep ADFT 0♦Cancelled Ares 1♦May 2006 – Revived as a relevant, cost & schedule Ares I-1 effective flight test♦Apr 2007 – 1st Lean Event Ares I-X ~Feb 2007 & Project Re-org 4
  • 5. First Lean Event A Lean Team gathered at LaRC 5
  • 6. IMS Before 1st Lean Event♦ A confederation of Level 3, 4, & 5 elements♦ Complex board structure♦ The rhetoric of how to best integrate the IMS had to battle with intra- and inter-center politics • More energy expended to break through barriers than actually building a good schedule • Lack of trust♦ No mission-level margin♦ Not all elements working in Primavera♦ Proper integration of the schedule was not going to happen.♦ IMS integrations was done manually♦ Many very talented people working hard to make it work The First Lean Event was a pivotal point in schedule integration 6
  • 7. 1st Lean Event Recommendations to CxCB♦ Control Boards • Current State – up to 10 boards (from contractor to CxP) − Example: ~44 days (9 work weeks) of preparation and wait time for FTINU mod • Ideal State – only value added boards − Up to 4 boards (Contractor, Element, Engineering, and Project) − FTINU mod could have been done in significantly less time (40 – 60 %) • Benefits include increase in productivity and/or cost savings♦ Rework Cycles (expected) • Current State – high probability of rework − Examples: FTINU, T-0 umbilical, vehicle stabilization, etc. • Ideal State – eliminate rework cycles − Integration up-front leads to ½ time reduction − Eliminate rework (T-0 rework, vehicle stabilization, etc.)♦ Schedule Margin • Current State – None or risk of going over schedule • Ideal State – Add ~45 to 60 business days of margin − Provide incentives for contractors and civil service personnel♦ Priorities • Current State – unclear/everyone marching to a different drummer • Ideal State – consistent
  • 8. Ares I-X Org After First Lean Event A Level 2 Project with IPT’s Ares I-X Mission Management Office Mission Manager, Bob Ess Safety & Mission Deputy, MSFC, Steve Davis Deputy, KSC, Carol Scott Chief Engineers Assurance CxP Liaison, TBD Budget Analyst, JSC/TBD Joe Brunty/MSFC TBD/KSC (S&MA) Project Integration, TBD TBD Administrative Assistants Support Staff Systems Engineering & Integration (SE&I) Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) Ground First Upper Stage Avionics Roll Control CM/LASOperations Stage Simulator and DFI System Simulator (GO) (USS) (RoCS)Jon Cowart/KSC Chris Calfee/MSFC Vince Bilardo/GRC Kevin Flynn/MSFC Ron Unger/MSFC Brian Beaton/LaRC
  • 9. Ares I-X Organization at Launch Safety & Mission Ares I-X Mission Chief Engineers Assurance ( S& MA ) Management Office ( MMO ) Joe Brunty / MSFC Dan Mullane / MSFC Vehicle CE Bob Ess Chief S&MA Officer Mission Manager Shaun Green / KSC Jeff Hamilton / MSFC Ground CE Deputy Jon Cowart / KSC Steve Davis / MSFC Deputy Deputy Dawn Stanley / MSFC Angie Wise / MSFC Deputy Vehicle CE Deputy Bruce Askins/ MSFC John Howell / MSFC Marshall Smith / LaRC Project Integration Manager Business Manager SE&I Chief Chris Duke / MSFC Systems Engineering Business Manager Deputy Project Integration (PI) & Integration (SE&I) Bruce Askins / MSFC M. Smith / LaRC Manager Chief Ron Olsen / MSFC K. Detweiler / LaRC R. Barry Bryant / LaRC Henry Wright / LaRC Deputy Lead Systems Engineer Deputy Chief Lead Engineer Mike Bangham / MSFC Lanny Upton / MSFC Steve Richards / MSFC Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) Deputy LSE Deputy LSE Deputy LSE Ground CM/LAS First Stage Avionics Operations (GO) Simulator Tassos Abadiotakis / KSC Chris Calfee / MSFC Kevin Flynn / MSFC Jonathan Cruz / LaRC Mike Chappell, Deputy Jay Nichols, Deputy Jeri Briscoe, Deputy Vacant, Deputy Jim Bolton, Deputy Ground Upper Stage Roll Control Systems (GS) Simulator (USS) System (RoCS) Mike Stelzer / KSC Vince Bilardo / GRC Billy Stover, Deputy Bill Foster, Deputy Ron Unger / MSFC Skip Williams, Deputy Jack Lekan, DeputyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 9
  • 10. The Summer of Lean Goal: 60 Days Schedule Margin ♦ First Stage – Promontory, Utah ♦ Avionics – Denver, CO ♦ Roll Control – Huntsville, AL ♦ SE&I – Hampton, VA ♦ Upper Stage – Cleveland, OH (attended by local participants and facilitator only) ♦ Ground Ops/Ground Systems – Cape Canaveral, FL 10
  • 11. Summer of Love vs. LeanLove Lean 11
  • 12. Lean Teams 12
  • 13. The Lean MachineDeveloped a regular process for Schedule Lean Events • Before Event − Lots of pre-planning and working with facilitators − Set schedule reduction goals for each area − Scoped the event − Indentify key participants Core Team – at all events − Had local participants prepare current state • Leader – Steve Davis • Facilitator – Mark Adrian • At the Event – Monday Noon – Friday Noon • Integrator – Ron Olsen − Kick-off and set the tone and pace • Scheduler – Keith Heitzman − Informal report-outs mid-day & end of day • Strategic Participants − Current state − Ideal state − Future state − Incorporate IMS changes and verify savings ASAP − Document key enablers for improving the process − Final report out to champion • After Event − Incorporate changes to IMS and baseline − Confirm that the detailed IMS matches the savings identified. − Follow-up on enablers (tracked as action items for the project) 13
  • 14. Primavera Pilot – It Works ♦ Primavera kicked-off by Constellation Program (CxP) in early 2006 ♦ CxP wanted 3 projects to test Primavera • Schedule – Primavera Project Management (PM) • EVM – Primavera Cost Management (CM) ♦ Some growing pains early in implementation • Primavera consultants provided to help get it going • Most PM issues due to how it was set-up in ICE − Deleted activities resurrected − Printers disappeared − Trouble developing reports • CM issues seemed to be a combination of network and software issues − CM was Abandoned ♦ Required training and a culture change ♦ The Schedule Tool (PM) worked as expected ♦ Had some issues with integration – KSC used their own Primavera DatabaseA real-time integrated schedule would have been impossible without Primavera 14
  • 15. Schedule Architecture & Reporting Examples2006 2007 2008 2009O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J STS-119 STS-125/127 STS-128 STS-130SRR PDR CDR 1 CDR 2 Post Flight Analysis Design Hardware Fabricate & Assemble Design Impl & Mod HMF ORR MLP/VAB/CCC ORR Ground Systems PAD ORR SIL Testing FTINU Fwd Assy & 5SS Egineering Fwd Assy & 5SS Fabrication 14 FSAM Fwd Assy & 5SS Processing 30 05 04 RoCS USS 29 CM/LAS 19 Motor Segments 01 5th Seg Sim Fwd Assy VAB High Bay 4 - Offline Stacking 23 Aft Skirt RPSF Processing 26 VAB High Bay 3 - MLP Stacking & Testing Roll to Pad Pwr On Mate Review 30 FTRR 21 Pad Ops Ares I-X Flight Aug 30, 2009 15
  • 16. Schedule Architecture♦ Used Internet-based schedule environment that allowed the entire mission to work in one logically tied, integrated, and live schedule • Max - 15 primary schedulers with 9 in Primavera • 9 companies • 6 geographic locations • 1 IMS covering entire scope of mission♦ Schedules – 3 Levels of Detail: • Detailed IMS (Primavera) – detailed integration (~2,800 lines) • Summary IMS (Primavera) – logically tied to the Detailed IMS and is where the MMO manages schedule (~600 lines) • Executive Summary IMS - 1 page quick-look♦ Two versions of Summary IMS: • Baseline Version • Current Version♦ Summary IMS Developed by MMO from a Mission Perspective Managed IMS to the Right Level 16
  • 17. Example of Detailed IMS to Summary IMS links Activity ID Activity Nam e Start Fin ish Flight Tes t Vehicle Ares I-X F 08-Aug-06 A 29-Aug-08 A3000 ATVC K ic koff 08-Aug-06 A A18120 ATVC DE T IO P W A Elec . Des ign 13-Sep-06 A 01-O ct-07 A3020 ATVC FPG A DET Design 18-Sep-06 A 01-O ct-07 A3030 ATVC Design - Breadboard 20-O ct-06 A 18-Apr-07 A A18140 ATVC DE T Pwr Sply I/F (PS I) PW A Elec. D... 01-Nov-06 A 01-O ct-07 A18150 ATVC Chassis Design 02-Nov-06 A 12-O ct-07 A18160 ATVC DE T MIB Design 07-Nov-06 A 01-O ct-07 A3080 ATVC Design - Proto-board 11-Dec-06 A 24-Jul-07 A A18130 ATVC S RR/PDR 13-Dec-06 A A18170 ATVC P roto Bd Tes t (MSFC) 15-Jun-07 A A18180 ATVC CDR 25-Jun-07 A 26-Jun-07 A A18190 ATVC Det Board Build & Test 06-Aug-07 A 10-O ct-07 A18210 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr & S hip DE T 1 (Denver ... 04-O ct-07* 31-O ct-07 A18240 ATVC (DE T 1) SIL Unit Delivery 31-O ct-07 A18220 ATVC Q U Board Build & Test 05-Dec-07* 16-Jan-08 A18200 ATVC Flight Board Build & Test 05-Dec-07* 11-Feb-08 A18260 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr - Q ual 30-Jan-08* 07-Jul-08 A18230 ATVC Q ual Tes t Readines s Review (Q TRR) 01-Feb-08* A18250 Q ual Test Start 01-Feb-08* A18270 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr & S hip - DFT-1 02-May-08* 31-Jul-08 A18280 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr & S hip - DFT-1 Spare 28-May-08* 29-Aug-08 A18300 Q ual Test Completion 07-Jul-08 A18290 ATVC Flight Unit 1 (Ares I-X) Delivery 31-Jul-08 Ares I-X S mary Sche dule Sum 13-Sep-06 A 30-Jul-08 A23830 ATVC Design, Fab, Tes t 13-Sep-06 A 30-Jul-08National Aeronautics and Space Administration 17
  • 18. Schedule Management and Baseline Control Summary IMS♦ There are three reasons to propose a revision to the Baseline IMS to the XCB: • When a controlled milestone slips and cannot be recovered • When there is a major scope change (+/-) to the mission • When the Baseline IMS and Current IMS have diverged to the point that warrants a complete re-baselining♦ Proposed Baseline Changes were analyzed by the Schedule Working Group (SWG) and then brought to the XCB by the SWG♦ The Current IMS was statused weekly. • Variances quickly calculated • Baseline variances more than 10 days are analyzed and documented. • Any change to controlled milestones analyzed first♦ Higher level control milestones such as the FTRR and Launch Date taken to Level 2 - CxCB and Level 1 - DPMCDiscipline and Control managing Baseline and Current IMS 18
  • 19. Sample IPT Status in Summary IMS (RoCS)A ctivity ID A ctivity Nam e S tart Finish V ariance - V ariance - B L P roject B L P roject ARES I-X-SUM A s I-X Sum m ary Sch ed ule Are 19 -Se p-07 A 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d ARES I-X-SUM.S Su m ma ry 19 -Se p-07 A 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d ARES I-X-SUM I-X-SUM.S.4 0 Ro CS 19 -Se p-07 A 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d AR ES I-X-S UM .S .2 Ro CS Rev iew s .S.40 03 -D ec-07 A 12 -Se p-08 0d 0d A8 27 0 CD R Boa rd - R oC S 03 -D ec-07 A 0d 0d A8 46 0 Ro CS - Pre -Sh ip / Ac cep tan ce Re vie w 12 -Se p-08* 0d 0d AR ES I-X-S UM .S .3 Hardw a re A cq uis ition .S.40 19 -Se p-07 A 17 -Ja n-0 8 A 0d -6 d A8 44 0 Un it 8 D isas sem bled (fo r en gin e) 19 -Se p-07 A 10 -O ct-07 A 0d 0d A1 30 10 Un it 9 D isas sem bled (fo r en gin e/o ptio n) 14 -N ov-07 A 06 -D ec-07 A -2 d 2d A1 30 20 Un it 1 0 D isa sse mb led (for e ng ine/option ) 18 -D ec-07 A 17 -Ja n-0 8 A -6 d -6 d AR ES I-X-S UM .S .4 Ro CS Bu ild .S.40 03 -M ar-08 12 -Au g-08 -8 1d -2 3d A8 45 0 Ro CS Bu ild - Q ua l Un it 03 -M ar-08* 26 -M ar-08 -8 1d -3 6d A8 33 0 Ro CS Bu ild - F ligh t U nit 1 17 -M ar-08* 10 -Ju n-0 8 -8 1d -8 2d A8 34 0 Ro CS Bu ild - F ligh t U nit 2 17 -M ar-08* 10 -Ju n-0 8 -3 1d 21 d A2 10 80 Ro CS Bu ild - F ligh t U nit 3 (S pa re Unit) 28 -M ay-08* 12 -Au g-08 -8 2d -2 3d AR ES I-X-S UM .S .5 Tes t .S.40 31 -M ar-08 19 -Se p-08 -3 8d -1 0d A8 49 0 Ro CS Q ual Un it P yro Te st 31 -M ar-08* 04 -Ap r-0 8 -3 8d -3 8d A8 50 0 Co ld Flow T est 31 -M ar-08* 04 -Ap r-0 8 -3 8d -3 8d A8 52 0 Ro CS De liv er Q ua l U nit for Fit Ch eck at GR C 02 -Ju n-0 8* 0d 0d A8 51 0 Ro CS - Acc eptanc e T es ting - F ligh t U nit (1) 11 -Ju n-0 8* 09 -Ju l-0 8 -8 2d -6 2d A2 10 90 Ro CS - Acc eptanc e T es ting - F ligh t U nit (2) 11 -Ju n-0 8* 09 -Ju l-0 8 21 d 41 d A2 11 00 Ro CS - Acc eptanc e T es ting - F ligh t U nit (3) 22 -Au g-08* 19 -Se p-08 -3 0d -1 0d AR ES I-X-S UM .S .7 Delive r to SIL (LM - D en ver) .S.40 05 -O ct-07 A 05 -O ct-07 A 0d 0d A2 43 80 Sh ip/ De live r to Lo ck hee d for SIL Te stin g (RoC S Valve... 05 -O ct-07 A 0d 0d AR ES I-X-S UM .S .6 Delive r to KS C .S.40 22 -Se p-08 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d A8 53 0 Ro CS Arriv al a t K SC (Direc tly to H M F) 22 -Se p-08* 0d 0d A8 56 0 Ro CS - RoC S Unlo ad ing / R ece ivin g / In spe ctio n 23 -Se p-08 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d 19
  • 20. Sample Stoplight Chart 20
  • 21. Communicating Total Float – Sample 1 Ares I-X 2008 2009 Total Float Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Sub-AssemblyGround Ops High Bay 4 1/12 10/3 Stack and TestSystem Integration Float to Stack High Bay 3 Pad 27 DaysRoCS RoCS Arrives at KSC Float to 27 DaysUpper Stage USS Arrives at KSC 14 Days FTINUCM/LAS CM/LAS Arrives at KSC 120 Days RSRM Arrives at KSCFirst Stage 27 Days Mission Fwd Assy Delivery ARF to VAB 12 Days 0 Days Float 5th Seg Simulator Delivery ARF to VAB Aft Skirt Delivery ARF to RPSF RPSFGround Stack and Integrated 21 DaysOperations Testing 21 Days Ready For FTINU Apr 15Avionics FSAM Arrives at KSC 20 Days Flt FTINU Arrives at KSC Ready To Launch 3/27 21
  • 22. Similarities: A Development Flight Test to a Development IMS♦ Needed to stand up an IMS before CxP had established processes♦ Scope creep – The IMS had to resist or adopt change much like the rocket • Rocket − Added requirements from CxP − Sensor additions/deletions − Established processes from Centers − Requests to “try out” new software tools or processes • IMS − CxP wanted to try new processes out on us or even impose requirements − Primavera Pilot wanted us to use more of the tools than we needed − Centers had process that may have been incongruent with needs of I-X♦ Had to be successful – but still learn something A proving ground that had to be successful 22
  • 23. Monte Carlo – Use With Caution♦ Started using Monte Carlo a few months after CDR♦ Can approach diminishing returns – K.I.S.S. • Use a separate, high level network (no open ends, no constraints) • Keep it simple and do not burden the whole team • Do analysis in small team, close to Project Manager♦ Focus on Top Critical Paths & Risky Paths♦ Results – May learn more in the journey than the destination♦ Attack the tasks with most uncertainty (Tornado Chart) • Success Story – Integrated Testing  Duration 2 wks to 8 wks a e au c 0.22 1.0 0.20 0.9 Cumulative Probability 0.17 0.8 0.7 Garbage In  Garbage Out Frequency 0.15 0.6 0.13 0.5 0.10 0.08 0.4 0.3 It’s a tool and not an exact science 0.05 0.2 0.03 0.1 Thu 9/24/09 Mon 10/12/09 Sun 11/1/09 Completion Date 23
  • 24. Raw Data2005 2006 2007 2008 2009N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N CxCB ATP SRR PDR CDR 1 Launch 1st Baseline CxCB ATP SRR PDR CDR 1 CDR 2 Launch Actual ♦ 18% schedule growth after CxP Authorization to Proceed ♦ Managed to the 4/15 Launch date for 2 years • Started with 0 Margin 24
  • 25. IMS – Good Practices♦ The IMS is owned by the Team – not the schedulers♦ Schedulers should have a technical background and engineers should understand scheduling♦ Manage the margin & float at as high a level as possible • Discourage use of margin at lower levels♦ Lean Events (Kaizens) are terrific tools • Use early and often • Do it right – don’t cheat yourself♦ Manage using Total Float Paths (requires a healthy schedule)♦ Start using Monte Carlo Analysis just before CDR • It is just a tool and not an exact science♦ Fancy software does not integrate a schedule • Enterprise tools are great when used by a good schedule team BUT… Don’t forget how important Human Factors & Org Structure is to the IMS 25
  • 26. More Than Good Scheduling Human Org FactorsStructure Good Schedule Practices Effective IMS 26
  • 27. Thanks to the Ares I-X SchedulersAmy McQuown Nick KindredBrian Schmid Paul Mc MastersChris Feagan Paul KuhlkenDan Healey Sonny WoodDoug Pulling Steve McGrawJackie Cochran Susie JohnstonKathy Drummond Tracy KammKaren Russell Tammy DonaldsonLloyd Johnson Viren HarrisMelanie Hawkins 27
  • 28. Big Shoes 28
  • 29. 29