John.emond

13,805 views
13,757 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Travel
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
13,805
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

John.emond

  1. 1. Interagency Collaboration: Leveraging Innovation andTechnology for NASA Missions NASA PROJECT MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 2010 John Emond Innovative Partnerships Program NASA Headquarters Used with Permission
  2. 2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE• WHY PARTNER?• GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT• BENEFITS OF PARTNERSHIPS• CHALLENGES TO PARTNERSHIP – DEVELOPMENT – IMPLEMENTATION• ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR SUCCESS, COMMON GROUNDS• PARTNERSHIP EXAMPLES, FUTURE DIRECTIONS• PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES 2• CONCLUSIONS
  3. 3. WHY PARTNER?Advantages:“Teamwork divides the task and multiplies the success” (unknown)“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much” (Helen Keller)“I think both companies benefit from this partnership in terms of increasing their odds to win” (Bill Tolpegin)And Challenges:• “A camel is a horse designed by a committee” (Alex Issigonis, English Engineer, 1906-1988) 3
  4. 4. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ONTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 4
  5. 5. ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT30 MEMBER COUNTRIESAustralia Hungary NorwayAustria Iceland PolandBelgium Ireland PortugalCanada Italy Slovak RepublicCzech Republic Japan SpainDenmark Korea SwedenFinland Luxembourg SwitzerlandFrance Mexico TurkeyGermany Netherlands United KingdomGreece New Zealand United States 5
  6. 6. SAMPLE OF OECD 2009 REPORT DATA—GROWTH IN GDP Country 1998-2008 2007-2008Canada 2.9% .4%Germany 1.5% 1.3%Ireland 5.7% -2.3%Japan 1.3% -.7%Korea 5.3% 2.2%Mexico 2.9% 1.3%Poland 4.2% 4.9%Slovak Republic 5.1% 6.4%United Kingdom 2.6% .7%United States 2.6% 1.1%Sample of 10 OECD member countries, U.S./U.K. tied for7th place GDP growth 1998-2008, U.S. 6th place 2007-20086
  7. 7. Science and Technology R&D 2007 Government Budget GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE ON R&D Appropriations for R&D, 2008 % OF GDP % Government % Industry Per Capita USD % of GDP % of prior GDP COUNTRY column for Defense Canada 1.88 31.42 49.40 $724 .57 4.0 Germany 2.54 27.76 68.07 $874 .79 6.0 Ireland 1.31 30.13 59.26 $591 .55 0 Japan 3.44 15.63 77.71 $1,157 .7 5.2 Korea 3.47 24.80 73.65 $861 .96 18.0 Mexico .46 45.34 46.49 $57 .19 0 Poland .57 58.61 34.26 $91 .32 1.4 Slovak .46 53.92 35.60 $92 .26 4.4 Republic United Kingdom 1.79 29.33 47.19 $640 .67 24.2 United States 2.68 27.73 66.44 $1,221 1.00 56.6 OBSERVATIONS of OECD Chart• Overall, industry is making a much greater investment in R&D than government• The U.S. is investing a greater portion of overall GDP on R&D compared to most other OECD member countriesbut is still 8th out of 10 in government investment and lags Japan and Korea in corporate R&D investment• U.S. expends a substantially greater share of its government R&D appropriations for defense as a measure of 7GDP compared to other nations. OECD report cites Russian Federation as closest with 52.1% of their GDP R&Dcommitment dedicated to defense
  8. 8. Science and Technology R&D 2007 PATENTS AND TRADE IN TECHNOLOGY Patent Applications Filed Export Market Shares Tech Balance of Payments— % of total OECD Patent Cooperation Treaty Million USD, 2007 Info and Export as % import Receipts Payments Balance High Tech Medium All mfg High tech mfg COUNTRY Total Com.Tech Biotech Canada 2514 1358 1157 2898 1132 289 62 75 4 2 Germany 42739 38350 4389 17147 3984 639 115 200 17 14 Ireland 31704 30850 854 346 137 21 231 232 2 3 Japan 21080 6034 15046 23505 9994 1103 125 373 8 8 Korea 1897 4838 -2941 6396 2885 270 182 156 5 7 Mexico 180 2094 -1913 193 23 5 108 94 3 4 Poland 1700 3994 -2294 128 33 12 49 91 2 1 Slovak 349 573 -224 43 7 4 83 117 1 1 Republic United 34622 17816 16806 6322 2225 420 84 82 5 5 Kingdom United 85919 48957 36962 49909 19145 4124 83 73 13 19 States OBSERVATIONS of OECD Chart• The U.S. has a strong technology balance of payments, is a leader in patent applications, and has astrong export market share of manufacturing within the OECD member countries.• The U.S. lags behind Germany, Ireland, Japan, and Korea whose technology exports are at a 8higher ratio than their respective technology imports.
  9. 9. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE• U.S. remains a leader in technology development but ongoingchallenges from countries i.e. South Korea, China and India that seetechnology development as major factor in economic growth. U.S.government, academia and industry must meet the challenge: • National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2008  U.S. portion of world share in high technology manufacture 1995-2005 decreasing from 23% to 12%;  China rose to 20% in same timeframe • Sample of OECD 10 countries GDP growth 1998-2008  U.S. tied with U.K. for 7th and 8th place out of the 10 sampled. • OECD sample of 10 countries for gross domestic expenses for R&D and the government’s portion of that expense  Listed U.S. as 8 out of the 10 countries in the sample.• The investment in technology development has dramatically shiftedfrom government to the private sector
  10. 10. PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS
  11. 11. PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS AGENCYNASA SHARED GOALS PARTNER(S)AGENCY UNIQUE AGENCY UNIQUE MISSION MISSION
  12. 12. PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS NASA SHARED GOALS AGENCY PARTNER(S) AGENCY UNIQUE AGENCY UNIQUE MISSION MISSION• IMPROVE AND INCREASE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES• AUGMENT BUDGET BY LEVERAGING COSTS• ENHANCE SCIENTIFIC RETURN• OPTIMIZE MISSION OBJECTIVES• USE UNIQUE FACILITY(IES) OF PARTNER• FOSTER INNOVATION, EVOLUTION AND CREATIVITYNOT CONSTRAINED BY TIGHT CONTRACTUAL TERMS
  13. 13. CHALLENGES TO AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS 13
  14. 14. CHALLENGES TO AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS• DEVELOPING THE PARTNERSHIP  ORGANIZATION, CULTURE, BUREAUCRACY DIFFERENCES  INCREASED COMPLEXITY OF GOAL DEVELOPMENT  INTERPRETATION OF PARTNERSHIP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, GOALS AND METRICS MAY DIFFER  SCHEDULE FOR AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT MAY DIFFER  REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS MAY DIFFER• SUSTAINING THE PARTNERSHIP  CHANGES IN PARTNER PRIORITIES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES  CHANGES IN PARTNER ABILITIY TO SUSTAIN ITS COMMITMENT, FINANCIAL OR IN-KIND 14  COMPETING DEMANDS FOR RESOURCES EMERGE
  15. 15. ELEMENTS FOR SUCCESS NASA SHARED GOALS AGENCY PARTNER(S) AGENCY UNIQUE AGENCY UNIQUE MISSION MISSION• “SKIN IN THE GAME”, REAL INVESTMENT/COMMITMENT• CLARITY IN OBJECTIVES OF BOTH PARTIES, IDENTIFIED AT OUTSET• ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK OF PROGRESS  Comparison of actual progress against initial expectations  Maintain present course with no change  Expand collaboration based on successful results  Change direction to address emerging issues/concerns  End partnership if results do not warrant effort• ATTAIN, SUSTAIN SUPPORT BY AGENCY LEADERSHIP, STAKEHOLDERS• “INSTITUTIONALIZE” PARTNERSHIP SO THAT MOMENTUM BUILDS FORRECOGNIZED VALUE AND CONTINUITY BEYOND INITIATORS
  16. 16. COMMON GROUNDS 16
  17. 17. COMMON TECHNOLOGY GROUNDSHUMAN HEALTH  DOD: Warfighter, battlefield treatment  NASA: Astronaut health and performance  NIH: Health care advances in prevention, diagnostics, and treatment of disease, treatment of infection, addressing the challenges of aging (i.e. bone loss)SENSORS, SYSTEM DIAGNOSTICS  DOT: Infrastructure, monitoring bridge integrity, etc.  NASA: Spacecraft systems monitoring  DOD: Sensors in UAV operations for surveillance  EPA: Environmental monitoring 17
  18. 18. COMMON TECHNOLOGY GROUNDSIMAGING TECHNOLOGY  NIH: Cancer detection  DOT: Bridge infrastructure, traffic patterns, detecting road hazards  NASA: Shuttle safety, post-launch observation of Shuttle condition  NASA: Spacecraft missions  DOD: SurveillanceROBOTICS  DOT: Assessment of infrastructure above ground and under water  DHS: Robotics for use by First Responders  DOD: Use of robots for combat (i.e., drones) and bomb location/disposal  NASA: Spacecraft missions 18
  19. 19. INTERAGENCY TECHNOLOGY AREASAgriculture Energy/Power Health•Food Safety •Power plants •Human Performance •Medical Devices•Nutrition •Fuel cells •Surgical Procedures•Biotechnologies •Biofuels •Preventive Medicine •Biomedical •Biomolecular ScienceAnalytic Tools Environment Materials•GIS •Monitoring •Ceramics•Mapping/charting •Recycling •Coatings•Remote Sensing •Remediation •Electronic Materials•Sensors •Metallurgy•Telemetry •Nano Sciences •Polymers •SuperconductivityEngineering Space/ Intelligence•Electrical/Electronic Atmospheric Sciences •Information Tech•Heat Exchange •Rockets•Instrumentation •Communications •Satellites & Comm.•Lasers/Optics •Weather •Microelectronics•Modeling&Simulation •Earth Observations 19•Systems Engineering
  20. 20. During the past 5 years, NASA has had 364 active interagency partnerships♦ Partnerships predominantly with LaRC (191), GRC (90) and ARC (53) (MD’s not identified)♦ Majority of interagency partnerships are with the Department of Defense (DoD), e.g. ♦ USAF, Army – LaRC facilities ♦ Navy - GRC ONR Dupont program ♦ DARPA – LaRC Vulture, Falcon 20
  21. 21. PARTNERSHIP EXAMPLES: AGENCY COMMERCIALINTERNATIONAL
  22. 22. Inflatable Human Habitat (Human Lunar)Team:• Johnson Space Center• National Science Foundation• ILC Dover •Deployed in less than 50 minutes • Operated for 250 days down to -75° F and winds gusts to 50 knots • May be used in Arctic research
  23. 23. Partnerships in On-Line Gaming• The IPP Office at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center is currently negotiating a Space Act Agreement with Virtual Heroes Inc. and Project Whitecard Inc., whose joint proposal was selected for creation of a NASA Massively Multi-player Online Game (MMOG). • Virtual Heroes created the Americas Army MMOG for the US Army, and is located in Research Triangle Park, NC. • Project Whitecard is a Canadian company with over ten years of experience in implementing national online web applications. • The game will be developed via a partnership, at no cost to NASA. • This joint IPP-Education project has the goal of increasing interest in STEM careers among US high school and college students. 23
  24. 24. Wildfire Research and Applications Partnership (WRAP)• JOINT EFFORT BETWEEN NASA AND USDA FOREST SERVICE TO EXPLOREINNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN REMOTE SENSING OBSERVATIONS TO MONITORAND FIGHT FIRES USING UAV TECHNOLOGY.• IN 2008 THE IKHANA UNMANNED AIRCRAFT PROVIDED INFORMATION ON MORETHAN 300 WILDFIRES BURINING IN CALIFORNIA.• PARTICIPATING AGENCIES INCLUDED NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER, NASADRYDEN RESEARCH CENTER, USDA FOREST SERVICE REMOTE SENSINGAPPLICATION CENTER, NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER, AND DOT/FAA 24• RECIPIENTS OF THE FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM 2009 PARTNERSHIP AWARD
  25. 25. NASA COSPAS/SARSAT• Originated in the 1970’s, several countries independentlybegan space-based detection and location of emergencybeacons, more effectively than airborne or ground-basedsystems through satellite deployment in Low Earth Orbit• MOU among then Soviet Union, U.S., Canada, and Francesigned in 1979 to develop an international coordinated satellitesystem for search and rescue. A second MOU was signed in1984; COSPAS-SARSAT became fully operational in 1985.• Today COSPAS-SARSAT is composed of 39 countries with morethan 900,000 maritime, aviation and land-based distress beacons.•COSPAS-SARSAT credited with assisting in rescue of 25over 18,500 people since the first satellite launch in 1982.
  26. 26. FUTURE DIRECTIONS 26
  27. 27. FUTURE DIRECTIONS-- INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS IN DEVELOPMENT• DOD/AIR FORCE  Commercial launch vehicles• DOD/ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY  Technology to aid wounded warfighters return to workplace, strong civilian application• DOT  Non-Destructive Testing and Evaluation  Gaming Industry Concept applied to Transportation  Modeling and Simulation  Robotics for monitoring in difficult environments
  28. 28. FUTURE DIRECTIONS-- INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS IN DEVELOPMENT• NIH/FDA  Range of technologies including optical imaging, computational modeling, wireless technologies, biosensors• USDA  Technology transfer collaboration as part of broader Earth observation/Earth science agreement partnership
  29. 29. PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES
  30. 30. IPP Center ContactsCenter Name EmailARC Lisa Lockyer Lisa.L.Lockyer@nasa.govDFRC Ronald Young Ronald.M.Young@nasa.govGRC Kathy Needham Kathleen.K.Needham@nasa.govGSFC Nona Cheeks Nona.K.Cheeks@nasa.govJPL Andrew. A. Grey Andrew.A.Grey@nasa.govJSC Michele Brekke jsc-techtran@mail.nasa.govKSC Dave Makufka David.R.Makufka@nasa.govLaRC Elizabeth Plentovich elizabeth.b.plentovich@nasa.govMSFC Jim Dowdy Jim.Dowdy@nasa.govSSC Ramona Travis Ramona.E.Travis@nasa.govHQ John Emond John.l.Emond@nasa.gov 30
  31. 31. FEDERAL LABORATORY CONSORTIUMNational Web Site: www.federallabs.orgRegional Web Sites:• Northeast Region: www.flcnortheast.org• Mid-Atlantic Region: www.flcmidatlantic.org• Southeast Region: www.flcsoutheast.org• Mid-West Region: www.flcmidwest.org• Mid-Continent Region: www.zyn.com/flcmc/• Far-West Region: www.zyn.com/flcfw/
  32. 32. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS• TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IS GLOBAL AND TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC POWERHOUSES ARE BEING CHALLENGED BY EMERGING DEVELOPING NATIONS.• U.S. REMAINS STRONG BUT OTHER NATIONS ARE MAKING THE COMMITMENT, AND INVESTMENT, TO BE CONTENDERS IN THE WORLD MARKETPLACE• TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT HAS SHIFTED FROM GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES  IF TECHNOLOGY GROWTH AND ECONOMIC HEALTH IS A NATIONAL PRIORITY, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLAY A LARGER, THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DOMINANT, ROLE, GIVEN THE RESOURCES PRESENT IN OUR NATIONAL 32 CENTERS/LABS
  33. 33. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS• PARTNERSHIPS CAN OPTIMIZE RESOURCES, FOSTER CREATIVITY, AND ENCOURAGE DIVERSE IDEAS TO MEET A COMMON GOAL• NASA BENEFITS FROM PARTNERSHIPS PRESENT AND FUTURE WHICH:  ADVANCE THE AGENCY’S EXPLORATION, SCIENCE AND AERONAUTICS OBJECTIVES  FURTHER PARTNER GOALS  TOGETHER PROVIDE BENEFITS TO SOCIETY 33
  34. 34. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS• PARTNERSHIPS ARE “ORGANIC”: THEY HAVE A LIFESPAN, CAN THRIVE OR WITHER AND DIE, OR BECOME QUIESCENT, DORMANT• CARE MUST BE TAKEN AT THE OUTSET TO  ESTABLISH CLEAR OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS  ATTAIN AND SUSTAIN:  MOMENTUM  LEADERSHIP SUPPORT  CONTINUITY BEYOND INITIATORS 34
  35. 35. John EmondInnovative Partnerships Program NASA Headquarters 202-358-1686 john.l.emond@nasa.gov 35

×