Rick nybakken.jan.chodas
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Rick nybakken.jan.chodas

on

  • 13,619 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
13,619
Views on SlideShare
13,619
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

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.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 4
  • 17

Rick nybakken.jan.chodas Presentation Transcript

  • 1. National Aeronautics and Space Juno ProjectAdministrationJet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute ofTechnology Successful Attributes of the Juno Project Management Team NASA Project Management Challenge February 22-23, 2012 Jan Chodas Juno Project Manager Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology © 2012 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged. 1
  • 2. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory What makes a successful California Institute of Technology project management team?• How is a strong team assembled?• How can the positive attributes of the team be maintained and improved?• What types of backgrounds are helpful for key managers to have?• What processes should the management team follow?• How can the relationship with the spacecraft contractor work well?• In what ways can the Principal Investigator interact with the team?• What are the management team’s top priorities? 2
  • 3. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Juno Project OverviewSalient Features• Juno is a Category 1, Class B mission with a $1.1B life cycle cost• First solar-powered mission to the outer planets• Eight instrument payload to conduct gravity, magnetic and atmospheric investigations plus an E/PO camera• Polar orbiter spacecraft launched on August 5, 2011 – 5 year cruise to Jupiter, JOI in July 2016 – 1 year operations, EOM via de-orbit into Jupiter in October 2017• Elliptical 11 day orbit swings below radiation belts to minimize radiation exposure• Partners include SwRI, JPL, ASI, LM-Denver, GSFC, APL, U of Iowa, MSSS, KSC, ULAScienceTo improve our understanding of the origin of our solar system by understandingthe origin and evolution of Jupiter, Juno will:• Determine the global O/H ratio (water abundance) in Jupiter’s atmosphere• Measure latitudinal variations in Jupiter’s deep atmosphere (composition, temperature, cloud opacity, and dynamics)• Map Jupiter’s magnetic and gravitational fields• Characterize Jupiter’s polar magnetosphere and aurorae 3
  • 4. National Aeronautics and Space Juno ProjectAdministrationJet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute ofTechnology Completion of Juno’s Final Tests 4
  • 5. National Aeronautics and Space Juno ProjectAdministrationJet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute ofTechnology Successful Juno Launch on August 5! 5
  • 6. National Aeronautics and Space Juno ProjectAdministrationJet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute ofTechnology Juno Project Phase C/D Organization NASA Science Mission Advisory Board Science Investigation Office Directorate (SMD) PI, Chair John Eterno (SwRI) Firouz Naderi (Dir, SSED, JPL) New Frontiers Program Office Jim Crocker (VP, LM) Science Team Jim Burch (VP, SwRI) Principal Investigator Dr. Scott Bolton (SwRI) Dr. Enrico Flamini (Scientific Programs, ASI) Education & Public Outreach Deputy Principal Investigator Mission Assurance Manager Alice Wessen (JPL) - Manager Dr. Jack Connerney (GSFC) Sammy Kayali (JPL) Project Scientist Deputy Mission Assurance Manager CTM for Flight System Contract Dr. Steve Levin (JPL) Linda Facto (JPL) James Holden (JPL) Radiation Control Manager Flight Sys. Insight-Oversight Team Bill McAlpine (JPL) Project Manager Shin Huh (JPL) Jan Chodas (JPL) Environments Lead Marc Natour (JPL) Deputy Project Manager Business Manager Rick Nybakken (JPL) Suzanne Oyama (JPL) Systems Safety Engineer Deputy Business Manager Karen Moran (JPL) & Subcontracts Manager Geoffrey Pomeroy (JPL) Project Systems Engineer Project Resource Analyst Dr. Doug Bernard (JPL) Scott Johnston (JPL) Deputy Project Systems Engineer Project Schedule Analyst Dr. Rob Abelson (JPL) T.K. Baayoun (JPL) LSP Mission Telecom PEM* Payload Manager Mission Manager Science Ops & Flight Systems Manager Integration Mgr. Anthony Mittskus (JPL) Phil Morton (JPL) Chuck Scott (JPL) Data Center Mgr. Tim Gasparrini (LM)John Calvert (KSC) John Eterno (SwRI) KaT (TASI) Deputy Payload Manager Systems Engineering Manager Deputy Mission Manager Mark Boyles (JPL) Chris Brosious (LM) Ed Hirst (JPL) --MWR (JPL)July 2011 --Gravity Science (JPL) *Note: Telecom PEM reports directly to PM/DPM --MAG Flux Gate (GSFC) for cost, schedule, and technical performance; --JADE (SwRI) and to LM FSM for technical and schedule --UVS (SwRI) delivery --WAVES (Univ. of Iowa) --JEDI (APL) --JunoCam (MSSS) --JIRAM (SG) 6
  • 7. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Assembly of the Juno Management Team• Management team was assembled during early Formulation Phase by Rick Grammier, Juno’s first Project Manager – Rick selected members for their specific experiences as well as for their breadth of experiences – Also key was their ability to work together as a team• Juno was selected for a 2009 launch but was delayed until 2010 at selection then subsequently slipped to a 2011 launch about a year later – Extended Phase B was used to unify the team and to establish strong communication mechanisms – Frequent face-to-face discussions augmented the usual telecons for working meetings and reviews 7
  • 8. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Maintaining and Improving the Positive California Institute of Technology Attributes of the Juno Management Team• Rick selected 4-D Systems, led by Dr. Charlie Pellerin (author of “How NASA Builds Teams”), to bring the team together and maintain strong teaming behaviors• 4-D Systems approach for a successful project team is to articulate a context that makes work more enjoyable and in which the team performs better• Juno held a 4-D Systems Workshop during Phase B (2/07)• Juno followed up with periodic assessments (11/07, 11/08, 8/10, 3/11)• About 6 months before launch, I pulled out the “Behaviors” chart as a reminder of how we wanted to interact 8
  • 9. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mutually Reinforcing Behaviors & Contexts California Institute of Technology from 4-D Systems (courtesy of Dr. C. Pellerin) Expresses Addressing Authentic Shared Being 100% Appreciation Interests Committed Mutual Willing & Respect & EnergizingEnjoyable Work CollaborationAppropriately Keeping All Resisting Clarifying Roles, Including Your Blaming & Accountability Others Agreements Complaining & Authority Authenticity High Outcome Focus Clear and & Aligned, Trustworthiness with no Blamers AchievableEfficient Action & Efficiency or Victims Expectations 9
  • 10. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Backgrounds of Juno Managers• Juno managers had: – Extensive project and line experience before joining the Juno Project – Experience in areas other than their Juno one which helped them understand each others’ viewpoints – Prior experience in Implementation Phase and Operations• Several managers had worked with each other before which helped with knowing each other’s strengths and idiosyncrasies• Deputies were “full service” deputies which was essential given Juno’s workload, its distributed development and the 8-instrument payload 10
  • 11. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Juno Management Experience Base• Most managers were performing their Juno positions for the first time – Roles were novel and stimulating – Mistakes were made occasionally 11
  • 12. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Juno Management Team Processes• Processes were built around consensus but with clearly defined lines of authority and participation – PI has the overall responsibility for the Juno mission – PI delegated most decisions to the Project Manager but remained an active participant in management team’s processes• Principal Investigator, Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager and all System Managers participated in management processes• Key managers were formally polled for decisions and the results were documented in minutes 12
  • 13. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Juno Management Team Processes• Held the usual Project Staff meetings, Quiet Hours, etc.• About 7 months before launch, added a Daily Coordination Tagup to keep a tight communication loop amongst the key managers – Held at a fixed time (7 am PST) so that managers could call in from any time zone (JPL, LM-Denver, SwRI, KSC) 13
  • 14. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Relationship with the Juno Spacecraft Contractor• Project Manager (PM) and Lockheed Martin Program Manager (LM-PM) both emphasized a respectful relationship and a seamless team at all levels – Several JPLers were embedded in LM’s activities and worked as part of the spacecraft team – Juno managers ensured a continuous presence at LM-Denver• PM and LM-PM both advocated an approach of “getting the work done”• Open communication was vital, especially when mistakes occurred – There was no fear of retribution, rather the attitude was “what are our options going forward?”• LM-PM valued JPL “letting us do our job and work the issues and request help when needed as opposed to ‘forcing’ help on us” 14
  • 15. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Interactions with the Juno Principal Investigator• Even though Juno Principal Investigator, Dr. Scott Bolton from SwRI, was not co-located with the Juno management team, he was an instrumental part of the collaborative decision making process – PI articulated the science needs and empowered the managers and engineers to do their jobs – PI maintained close communication via telecons into meetings, ad hoc telecons, emails – PI joined the team periodically at JPL, LM-Denver, Science Team meetings• On-site Project Scientist was a valuable enabler – Project Scientist provided a direct communication path to PI – Project Scientist spoke for PI when PI was not able to participate – Project Scientist had strong systems engineering capability and kept up to speed on technical issues – brought science perspective into engineering trade discussions and addressed science impacts 15
  • 16. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Juno Management Team’s Top Priorities• My top priorities for the management team were: – Safety (personnel and hardware) – Communication• I often asked the managers to behave in a “schizophrenic” manner – To manage within their budgets – To identify issues early especially if solutions involved additional funds• My favorite saying from Tom Gavin is “Don’t let me make a mistake” 16
  • 17. National Aeronautics and Space Juno Project Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Summary• Despite the daunting technical challenges of the long mission and the Jovian environment, Juno completed its development on budget and on schedule, and launched on the first day of its launch period• No sacrifices were made in the original Level 1 requirements, the instrument suite was not descoped during the Implementation Phase, and the spacecraft retained its Class B reliability• These accomplishments would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of many skilled personnel at all levels in the Project’s organization• Juno’s management team was very effective in leading the team to accomplish this success 17