T carlson mbontrager_wtippin_lsinger_v2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

T carlson mbontrager_wtippin_lsinger_v2

on

  • 13,369 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
13,369
Views on SlideShare
13,369
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
18
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
  • To begin our presentation it’s important to reflect upon the history of KSC. At the same time Kennedy realized that history is...so as a center we must always be evolving.
  • Reduced fundingNo single large programMission commercialize LOEMission to Mars
  • Several changes from what I think is the better of the two alternates:1. Since only a (well-aligned) partnership of Agency, Center, and Project perspectives can enable the needed transformation, let’s lead with those players.2. There are some natural hierarchies among the partners, but hierarchy isn’t the point: all three work together to enable the desired change. Thus I see them as side by side, not top to bottom.3. Seeking a consistent use of the orange blocks, I propose them as the products each partner leads development for. The Agency sets a Facilities Vision (text on slide 9), the Centers produce Master Plans, and Project teams produce buildings (forgive the license on the description of the facilities; I’ welcome to other formulations).
  • Several changes from what I think is the better of the two alternates:1. Since only a (well-aligned) partnership of Agency, Center, and Project perspectives can enable the needed transformation, let’s lead with those players.2. There are some natural hierarchies among the partners, but hierarchy isn’t the point: all three work together to enable the desired change. Thus I see them as side by side, not top to bottom.3. Seeking a consistent use of the orange blocks, I propose them as the products each partner leads development for. The Agency sets a Facilities Vision (text on slide 9), the Centers produce Master Plans, and Project teams produce buildings (forgive the license on the description of the facilities; I’ welcome to other formulations).
  • The Federal / StateTransformation ModelSeveral changes from what I think is the better of the two alternates:1. Since only a (well-aligned) partnership of Agency, Center, and Project perspectives can enable the needed transformation, let’s lead with those players.2. There are some natural hierarchies among the partners, but hierarchy isn’t the point: all three work together to enable the desired change. Thus I see them as side by side, not top to bottom.3. Seeking a consistent use of the orange blocks, I propose them as the products each partner leads development for. The Agency sets a Facilities Vision (text on slide 9), the Centers produce Master Plans, and Project teams produce buildings (forgive the license on the description of the facilities; I’ welcome to other formulations).
  • Published criteria for assessing candidate usesAlignment with NASA’s mission, purpose & KSC long-term developmentBenefits and risks to NASA & KSCSchedule alignment Financial viabilityEnvironmental, safety, and security impactsSustainment of technical workforce
  • Several changes from what I think is the better of the two alternates:1. Since only a (well-aligned) partnership of Agency, Center, and Project perspectives can enable the needed transformation, let’s lead with those players.2. There are some natural hierarchies among the partners, but hierarchy isn’t the point: all three work together to enable the desired change. Thus I see them as side by side, not top to bottom.3. Seeking a consistent use of the orange blocks, I propose them as the products each partner leads development for. The Agency sets a Facilities Vision (text on slide 9), the Centers produce Master Plans, and Project teams produce buildings (forgive the license on the description of the facilities; I’ welcome to other formulations).

T carlson mbontrager_wtippin_lsinger_v2 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Changing the Platform: Repurposing Kennedy Space CenterTrey Carlson, KSC Master Planner – NASAMark Bontrager, VP Spaceport Operations – Space FloridaWilliam Tippin, DM CMC Vice President – AECOMLarry Singer, APA, Principal – AECOMAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering LeadershipProject Management Challenge 2012Track Topic: Game Changing Innovation StrategiesFebruary 22, 2012 1
  • 2. History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside. John F. KennedyAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 2Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 3. KSC nationally treasured asset Built with single purpose KSC inaugurated in 1961 Unique launch geometry Two launch pads Vehicle Assembly Building 70% of NASA’s land holdings 20% of NASA’s constructed assetsAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 3Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 4. KSC’s infrastructure Built-to-suitAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 4Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 5. KSC brand known worldwide as the Spaceport to the starsAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 5Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 6. KSC now faces New mission November, 1963 George Mueller, head of Manned Space Flight , briefing President Kennedy on Apollo Program Complex 37 .Academy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 6Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 7. KSC must transform Creates need to update master plan  Determine all user requirements (e.g. NASA programmatic, State of Florida & Commercial)  Convert from single to multiple user  Public & private clients  Multiple programs  Ensure long-term viability of infrastructure  Vertical & horizontal space operationsAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 7Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 8. With changing mission KSC faces Significant challenges  Reduce overhead  Modernize/ right size infrastructure  Allow users to buy services  Manage range/airspace access  Design flexible architecture  Improve sustainability  Manage land uses  Protect against encroachment  Provide equitable user supportAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 8Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 9. Transformational challenge Solved through inter-governmental collaboration  By following a Federal / State model to transform, KSC will successfully develop it’s next generation spaceport master plan.Academy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 9Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 10. KSC transformation Federal / State model KSC SpacePartners: AECOM Florida Vision “Mission” Fulfillment andRole: Facilitation Realignment Institutionalizing Building Consensus Finalizing the Master Making it Work Plan Forming a Powerful Developing Enabling Short-TermSteps: 1 Guiding Coalition 4 the Vision 7 Wins Interview Implementing 2 stakeholders 5 the Vision 8 Maturing the Model Helping craft Communicating Institutionalizing 3 a Vision 6 the Vision 9 New Approaches Academy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 10 Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 11. Vision Facilitation: Building ConsensusAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering LeadershipProject Management Challenge 2012 11
  • 12. KSC transformation Federal / State model KSC Space AECOM Florida Vision “Mission” Fulfillment and Facilitation Realignment Institutionalizing Building Consensus Finalizing the Master Making it Work Plan Forming a Powerful Developing Enabling Short-Term 1 Guiding Coalition 4 the Vision 7 Wins Interview Implementing 2 stakeholders 5 the Vision 8 Maturing the Model Helping craft Communicating Institutionalizing 3 6 9 New Approaches a Vision the VisionAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 12Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 13. Step 1: Powerful guiding coalition Federal and State organizationsKSC Team Center Planning and Development Office Master Plan Steering Group Center Deputy Director and senior staffState of Florida Partners Provided Grant to Provided funding State agency tasked DOT for Space to KSC to support with supporting Planning master planning Florida’s space efforts industryAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 13Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 14. Step 1: Powerful guiding coalition Process to gain consensus State and KSC jointly initiated four-part planning effort to kick off KSC Master Plan Vision process. 1) Stakeholder 2) Development 3) Two-Day Interviews/Data of a Strategic Workshop Gathering Framework (charrette) 4) Future Development Concept AECOM commissioned as process facilitator.Academy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 14Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 15. Step 2: Interview stakeholders A structured sequence followed Add picture of 4 people  Stakeholder – entities with working together relevant KSC relationship  Stakeholder interviews > 30  Stakeholders identified by Planning Team  Approved by Master Plan Steering Group.  Stakeholders reflected diverse relationshipsAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 15Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 16. Step 2: Interview stakeholders NASA, Federal, State, local and commercial  NASA Headquarters  KSC Senior Staff  U.S. Air Force  FAA  U.S. National Park Service  State Agencies  Local Governments  Commercial Space IndustryAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 16Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 17. Step 2: Interview stakeholders Summary findings formed “Strategic Framework” Key components Strategic Framework questionUnique competencies What are the unique advantages in geography, infrastructure and human talent, valuable to potential missions and users?Market opportunities What markets can KSC uniquely fill?Competitive analysis How competitors are positioning for the future?Analogs What are examples of other entities that have shifted their mission and business?Vision ideas How does KSC fit into the nation’s future space activities?Academy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 17Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 18. Step 3: Helping craft a Vision Utilized Charrette process  Following interviews, hosted two-day Charrette  Over 75 KSC and State of Florida participants  Strategic Framework presented to structure strategic thinkingAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 18Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 19. Step 3: Helping craft a Vision Captured participants ideas  Participants guided through group exercises  Each building on the last  Ultimate goal, producing KSC Future Development Concepts 2030 2030 KSC Core Values KSC Position Statement 2030 KSC PerceptionAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 19Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 20. Step 3: Helping craft a Vision Charrette consolidated ideas2030 2030KSC Core Services Concept of Operations 2030 KSC Core FacilitiesAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 20Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 21. Step 3: Helping craft a Vision Charrette yielded future development conceptsFuture Development Concepts Implementation Strategy PrioritizationAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 21Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 22. Mission Realignment: Finalizing the Master PlanAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering LeadershipProject Management Challenge 2012 22
  • 23. KSC Transformation Federal / State model KSC Space AECOM Florida Vision “Mission” Fulfillment and Facilitation Realignment Institutionalizing Building Consensus Finalizing the Master Making it Work Plan 1 Forming a Powerful Developing Enabling Short-Term Guiding Coalition 4 the Vision 7 Wins Interview Implementing 2 stakeholders 5 8 Maturing the Model the Vision 3 Helping craft 6 Communicating 9 Institutionalizing a Vision the Vision New ApproachesAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 23Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 24. Step 4: Developing the Vision Translating Charrette outcomes into NASA  Synthesizing Data ⁻ Charrette outputs, stakeholder interviews & State’s final report ⁻ Alignment Agency & Center & goals objectivesAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 24Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 25. Step 4: Developing the Vision Translating Charrette outcomes into NASA  Articulation: KSC’s Future Development Concept ⁻ Vision for KSC 20-year Master Plan ⁻ Divesting without Diminishing ⁻ New Business Models ⁻ Evolution to multi-user spaceport management  Vetting with Stakeholders: Internal and external to KSCAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 25Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 26. Step 5: Implementing the Vision Using the correct toolsAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 26Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 27. Step 5: Implementing the Vision Utilizing Congressional mandated authority Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) ⁻ 60-acre site leased to a Florida utility for a 10 megawatt solar farm integrated into its grid ⁻ Deal provided KSC its own facility, generating 1% of Center needs from renewable power.  Use Permit to State of Florida ⁻ Enabled construction/operation of $30 million Space Life Sciences Lab in support of ISSAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 27Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 28. Step 5: Implementing the Vision Pathfinder Facility Use AgreementAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 28Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 29. Step 6: Communicating the Vision Involving all stakeholders KSC Spaceport Universities Titusville Titusville R&D Commercial Support University NASA Partners NASA Other Federal CCAFS Other Federal State Industrial State R&D Port R&D Canaveral CCAFS Partners Tech & International Biotech Business Orlando Orlando KSC of Today KSC of TomorrowAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 29Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 30. Step 6: Communicating the Vision Targeted uses and users  Published KSC Notice of Availability in 2011  Determine commercial interest in underutilized facility capacity  Targeted specific uses and usersAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 30Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 31. Fulfillment & Institutionalizing:Making it WorkAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering LeadershipProject Management Challenge 2012 31
  • 32. KSC transformation Federal / State model KSC Space AECOM Florida Vision “Mission” Fulfillment and Facilitation Realignment Institutionalizing Building Consensus Finalizing the Master Making it Work Plan Forming a Powerful Developing Enabling Short-Term 1 Guiding Coalition 4 the Vision 7 Wins Interview Implementing 2 stakeholders 5 the Vision 8 Maturing the Model Helping craft Communicating Institutionalizing 3 a Vision 6 the Vision 9 New ApproachesAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 32Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 33. Step 7: Enabling short-term wins Sharing resources at KSC  1987 - Built to support Space Shuttle program  2011 - Underutilized asset at Kennedy Space Center  Use Permit  Market-responsive terms and conditions  Space Florida funding to modernizeOrbiter Processing Facility 3Academy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 33Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 34. Step 8: Maturing the Model Producing still more change  Space Florida Vision 2020 ⁻ Market-Focused ⁻ Start with Strengths ⁻ Apply across all market sectorsAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 34Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 35. Step 9: Institutionalizing new approaches With space partnersAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 35Project Management Challenge 2012
  • 36. Summary StatementAcademy of Program / Project & Engineering LeadershipProject Management Challenge 2012 36
  • 37. Summary statement Conclusions and recommendation  Conclusions ⁻ Transforming a single use federal facility to a multi-use federal facility requires tremendous resources. ⁻ We have found that partnering between federal and state is required for an effort of this magnitude. • Passionate – NASA was surprised at State’s willingness to support this transformation. The State was eager to be involved in the process. • Time Sensitive Opportunities – Market can go elsewhere, infrastructure decay. • Public Private Multi-use – everyone wants to see the KSC Future Development Concept successful.  Recommendation ⁻ The Federal/State partnership model has the best potential to yield positive results. Can be applied elsewhere.Academy of Program / Project & Engineering Leadership 37Project Management Challenge 2012