• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content







Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • This is the process that was taken on a weekly basis to support the previously mentioned schedule. It should be noted that all members of the Subsystem team did not sheppard the requirements though each stage of the process. Representatives filled that function while the remainder of the team proceeded to work in the next set of requirements to be reviewed during the following week.

Hill.terry Hill.terry Presentation Transcript

  • Project Management Using ModernGuidance, Navigation and ControlTheory Presented at PM Challenge 2011 Presenter: Terry Hill, NASA / JSC Date: February 09, 2011 The full discussion of this topic can be found in: IEEE/AIAA paper IEEEAC#1694 2010
  • Overview  The Laws of Physics  How they apply to Nature  How they apply to Machines  How they apply to Humans & Projects  Why A Project Manager should care about GN&C Theory  How we currently manage projects  How we currently Navigate, Guide and Control vehicles  When the Two Worlds Collide  How this Was Applied to CxP Space Suit ProjectNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 2
  • Introduction The intent is to educate the project manager about the “laws of physics” of their project and to provide an intuitive, mathematical explanation as to the control and behavior of a project; not to teach a GN&C engineer how to become a project manager. Additionally, we will address how the fundamental principals of modern GN&C have been applied to NASA’s Constellation Space Suit project, and resulting in the ability to manage the project within cost, schedule and budget.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3
  • What’s Coming Next: THE LAWS OF PHYSICSNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 4
  • The Laws of Physics  All objects, physical dynamics, energies, frequencies, and light in our observable universe all follow fundamental laws of physics that can be characterized by equations all the way down to the quantum level.  Once you have the equations that fully characterize the physical system, one can predict the outcome of given input to the system with very high probability and accuracy. Force = Mass * Acceleration Energy = Mass*(Speed of Light)2National Aeronautics and Space Administration 5
  • It Doesn’t Add Up  There is the interesting phenomena that takes place where the understanding of the sum of the individual interactions between the system constituents not only is computationally impossible, but has only a third or fourth order effect on the system actual behavior as a whole.  The phenomenon of the dynamic motion of schools of fish, flocks of birds, colonies of bees and ants and large herds of land mammals. 1+1+1 = 10?!?National Aeronautics and Space Administration 6
  •  Why has this not been applied to the dynamics of a group of people working together, in some association with one another, to some agreed ends to their efforts?  That sounds a lot like a project …  … and project manager would like to understand how their project behaves so that they can better understand how to control it and come to a successful conclusion.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7
  •  Moreover, this also resembles physical systems which the engineering world has developed highly sophisticated mathematics and models to not only understand systems, but control them.  It is this application of engineering principals to human systems that will better provide a physical understanding of how projects respond to input and how to best control the outcome of the system.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 8
  • What’s Coming Next: WHY A PROJECT MANAGER SHOULD CARE ABOUT GN&C THEORYNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 9
  • What is Guidance, Navigation & Control Theory?!?  It is the theory that allows us to control most all of the machines we build that are more complicated than your wheelbarrow.  The guiding principles of GN&C apply to complex vehicles, system of systems or software with time- varying processes (at times non-linear responses), multiple data inputs of varying accuracy and a range of operating points. Trains, Planes and Rockets! Oh My!!!National Aeronautics and Space Administration 10
  • GN&C Theory in 30 Seconds or less  The fundamental principals of GN&C state that a system is comprised of these basic core concepts:  State Vector  Defines of the aspects of the dynamics of the system that can change, such as position, velocity, acceleration, coordinate-based attitude, temperature, etc.  System Behavior  What changes are possible in the system. If properly done, will aid in accurate system performance prediction in the future.  Control System  Models the system dynamics as a function of the control inputs to system outputs in a statistically meaningful way.  Navigation System  Understands the state of the system: Where am I? How Fast am I going? What is my attitude?  Guidance System  Understands where we want to be and understands what we need to do to get back on course.  Feedback Systems  Is my system responding as I expected?National Aeronautics and Space Administration 11
  • Simplified GN&C Block Model of a SystemNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 12
  • Example of Modeling System Dynamics y c where: M = Mass of the system y(t) = is the time varying vertical displacement A mass/spring/damper system drawn in of the mass Inkscape by Ilmari Karonen. c= is the dampening (friction) constant K = is the spring constant WhereNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 13
  • But What about Project Management?!?National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14
  • What’s Coming Next: WHEN THE TWO WORLDS COLLIDENational Aeronautics and Space Administration 15
  • Project Management Theory To Date  Much of what has been written about Project Management in the last thirty years has been mostly on the evolution of tools, which have proven to aid in the predictability in the outcome of projects.  However, little has been done to characterize the discipline in terms of physical, mathematical models or characterization.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 16
  • The Equations of Motion for Your Project Team’s Natural Team’s Damping Harmonic Coefficient If your system is under damped - usually through poor or over-reactive leadership (leadership overreacts to events or team members do so respectively) - then your project will expend wasted resources, burn out people or vibrate out of control and fall apart. If the project leadership is too conservative, it can result in the project taking too long to reach a new and desired state for the project. And in business terms, that could mean millions of lost revenue because the competition arrived at the solution first.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 17
  • The Equations of Motion for Your Project Team’s Natural Team’s Damping Harmonic Coefficient The natural frequency, ω, is a function of spring constant (or natural dynamic of the project) The mass, M, or size of the project or team. The dampening coefficient, λ, is in terms of the damping constant (or friction constant) and can be considered a summation of the resistive forces working against the team or decisions of the project manager.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 18
  • Traditional Project Control Variables Specific project control variables can changes depending on the project, but the traditional high-level control variables are (vehicle analogies in parentheses):  Resources (Fuel)  Scope (vehicle functional capabilities or mission profile)  Project status and authority (attitude determination and control)  Schedule (Thrust, velocity, etc.)National Aeronautics and Space Administration 19
  • What’s Coming Next: HOW THIS WAS APPLIED TO CXP SPACE SUIT PROJECTNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 20
  • Background: CxP Suit Requirement Development Schedule  Planned Schedule for 2007:  May 31-Jun 5 – Requirement Training and Kick-off  Jun 1-22 – Suit Element Requirements Generation Activities  June 25-29 – Suit Element SRR Doc(s) review  July 2-6 – Suit Element SRR Doc(s) update & SRR final prep.  July 10 – Suit & Vehicle Interface Elements SRR Kick-off  July 10-20 – Suit/VI Element SRR Doc review & RID submittal  July 22-Aug. 7 – Suit/VI Element SRR Panels and Boards.  Aug. 9-Oct 20 – Close SRR Actions and update ERD  Oct. 23 – Suit ERD for Baselining at EVA PCB.  Oct. 29 – Suit ERD rev. A draft submitted to EVA CM for pre-blackout CSSS Tech. Library drop for Prime contract RFP release * Final outcome, Element SRR slipped one week to ensure quality of products where ready for review. Review revealed products were ready and of the appropriate fidelity by EVA project management.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 21
  • System Requirement Review (SRR) Scope Requirements Design MCR Manufacture or Code SRR Verification Operations SDR Upgrade/ PDR Maintain CDR TRR MCR: Mission Concept Review  Baseline requirements SRR: System Requirements Review  Assess feasibility SDR: System Definition Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review  Set expectations CDR: Critical Design Review TRR: Test Readiness ReviewNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 22
  • Putting Requirement Risk in the Proper Perspective  Not to put too much pressure on you….  The Requirements Document is probably the single most influential piece of paper that we have control over in the entire Constellation Program.  This is our chance to make sure that we are asking for what we really want. Let’s get it right.  This is a big, fat, hairy deal. If we don’t get this right, folks 20 years from now will be shaking their heads and saying, “What were those yahoos thinking?”  I’ll be around and don’t want to go to that meeting. CxP EVA Suit PGS Team Requirement Kickoff Meeting 5/2007National Aeronautics and Space Administration 23
  • Background: CxP Suit Requirements Development Approach: What’s New About That?  Given the extremely success-oriented  In this situation the team was formulated schedule, an un-reported problem that and the process in which they would might result in a schedule slip of just a operate, communicate, the information that day or so was an unacceptable outcome. would be shared, its latency and applicably to what was being controlled was modeled  Like the high performance aircraft, the and documented in the very same way subsystems had to work well that of a vehicle’s GN&C system would independently, they had to communicate have been designed. with other subsystems, they had to communicated on prescribed schedules to  Even down to understanding the mass, the project manager to which he had to spring constant and friction coefficient assess the information and provide a quantities of the team and the guidance update to the team and had to subsequent damping response of the team produce the desired product to the agreed was used to modify the processes, limit to schedule. the size of the team based upon the unique team dynamics.  Information had to flow frequently, accurately and the metrics had to be  By the end of the scheduled four months meaningful to the tasks at hand that the team met the schedule dead-line and were being managed. delivered the first 500 page version of the CxP Suit Element requirementsNational Aeronautics and Space Administration document. 24
  • Suit Requirement Development ProcessNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 25
  • Results in Project Reviews  For the Suit ERD SRR, a ratio of 0.38 Review Item Descriptions (RIDs) were received per requirement.  In comparison, the parent document had a 2.94 RID/requirement ratio at its SRR. Bidders for the development of the “… the most comprehensive and of the highest Suit Element stated that the ERD was: quality they ever remember seeing.” “I cant say enough about how amazed I am by The JSC Engineering Directorate this set of requirements documents. As far as I Crew and Thermal Systems Division Chief was also very know, no other Cx project has allocated and impressed with the quality of the decomposed anywhere near to this level of Suit ERD, saying: depth. You are the first. I have also never seen anything like these from previous programs.”National Aeronautics and Space Administration 26
  • Suit Development Activities to PDR  The remainder of the project was re-formulated in the same manner as has been discussed here to address the changing nature of the team and the external input and expected outputs of the system.  New control systems were put into place where required and tuned so the dynamic response of the team was as required.  Control and management tools like WBS, resource-loaded schedules, control account codes, project risks were all linked such that when on changed, the effect immediately modified the others.  Therefore, per GN&C principals, the Control system’s dynamic model of the system is in terms of the system’s inputs and expected outputs.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 27
  • Example of Requirement Validation Testing for CY 2007National Aeronautics and Space Administration 28
  • Take Away Messages  The experience with utilizing modern adaptive GN&C concepts and experience with the CxP Suit Element engineering team:  During the five years of leadership  Never over-ran the budget  Only responsible for a two-week schedule slip during the project’s second year.  All the while, the team implemented all of the mandated NASA and CxP project control requirements,  Implementation of EVM, WBS structures, resource-loaded schedules and program reporting and lead many of the NASA teams in setting up and utilizing the mandated usage of document control system, development of project control processes and structures.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 29
  • Presenter BiographyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 30
  • Terry HillNASA/JSCTerry R. Hill is a member of NASA’s Johnson Space Center International Space Station / Shuttle Extravehicular MobilityUnit (EMU) Team where he is responsible for providing engineering insight into the sustaining engineering and flightoperations of the ISS EMU, the 2010 life extension hardware modifications, determining what the system hardwareimpacts are to extending the ISS EMU support out until 2028 and investigating how the EMU can be used as ademonstration platform for technology development. Terry has a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering and an M.S. in Guidance,Navigation & Control Theory with a minor in Orbital Mechanics and Mathematics from the University of Texas at Austin.He began his career at NASA while working on his graduate thesis project indeveloping banks of simplified Kalman filters integrated into an artificial neuralnetwork to obtain an optimal state solution for precision landing on Mars.While at NASA, Terry has worked on projects and programs spanning fromISS navigation software verification, Shuttle navigation design test objectivesand back room mission support, X-38 Crew Return Vehicle navigationalgorithm development, Space Launch Initiative technology development,Orbital Space Plane Project office ISS-prime integration, STS-107 “Return toFlight” tile repair capability development, to CxP Space Suit Elementleadership.Terry and the Suit Element have been interviewed by the Associated Pressand covered by media outlets including CNN.com, Forbe.coms and NationalGeographic video “Living on the Moon” air date 2009. Terry has also beenidentified as one of NASA’s Constellation Stars, and was identified as NASATech Brief’s Who’s Who in NASA for November 2010.In leading the CxP Suit Element engineering team, Terry had theresponsibilities of JSC’s Engineering Project Manager, the CxP EVA SystemsSuit Element Deputy Lead and Element Lead during his tenure on the project.He facilitated the development of system functional requirements for spacesuit development and a “clean-sheet” design approach that has been widelyrecognized within and outside NASA. 31