Woods.edwards.pm challenge bpr presentation 2012 v1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Woods.edwards.pm challenge bpr presentation 2012 v1

on

  • 13,375 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
13,375
Views on SlideShare
13,375
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
27
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
  • The BPR has been recognized by OMB as a “Best Practice” in federal government.
  • The BPR has been recognized by OMB as a “Best Practice” in federal government.
  • This is what the presentation includes. It is at a high level and there is much more detail that can be shared. Some of this is provided for reference and won’t be presented. This is just a “taste” to provide a general sense of how this works at NASA.
  • Much of the value of BPR takes place outside of the meeting. The discussions and coordination necessary to prepare for the meeting leads to many concerns being addressed before the meeting.
  • MESSAGES: (1) All aspects of the Agency are represented. (2) NASA Internal Independent Assessment is a key component. Formal Membership for reference: Associate Administrator Deputy Administrator Associate Deputy Administrator Chief of Staff Senior Advisor Senior Advisor Associate Administrator, PA&E Chief, Safety & Mission Assurance White House Liaison Chief Engineer Assistant Associate Administrator Associate Administrator Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Executive Director, NSSC Associate Administrator Science Mission Directorate Associate Administrator Space Operations Mission Directorate Chief Financial Officer Chief Information Officer Chief, Health and Medical Officer General Counsel Executive Director, Headquarters Operations Director, Program and Institutional Integration Associate Administrator for Institutions & Management Assistant Administrator, Procurement Dryden Center Director Ames Center Director Glenn Center Director Goddard Center Director Johnson Center Director Kennedy Center Director Langley Center Director Marshall Center Director Stennis Center Director Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory BPR Coordinator
  • Won’t have time to describe all of these. They are provided to illustrate the kinds of data and analyses that are developed and reviewed. NOTE: This is not comprehensive and is being improved continually.
  • The standing agenda varies little. Special topics are added as needed.
  • Won’t have time to describe all of these. They are provided to illustrate the kinds of data and analyses that are developed and reviewed. NOTE: This is not comprehensive and is being improved continually.
  • Small Business just recently added to the agenda. To be covered quarterly.
  • Institutional and program/project CofF are summarized by the Office of Infrastructure.
  • Safety mishap statistics are reported monthly.
  • The OCE addresses Cross-Cutting technical issues. Non-technical cross-cutting are also identified and reported to the BPR.
  • Litigation arguments in progress.
  • Additional projects in Development : LADEE for Planetary; SET and BARREL for Heliophysics; Astro-F for Astrophysics and GOES-P in ESD.
  • Orion: Mass trace from the ESAS reference design to today’s Orion spacecraft; a comparison of what a scaled-up Apollo spacecraft would weigh if sized to Orion; a discussion of the avionics architecture of the spacecraft and a Zero Based vehicle overview . The OVEIWG has been continuing their work, and processing the vehicle buybacks. Round one of the buyback process is complete. Minimal mass margins at this stage of life cycle. Mass margins including mass growth allowances: Total: 2856lbs (CM 1553 lbs; LAS 265 lbs) - Management Reserve 1500 lbs. ALAS 11 OML will allow reduction in nominal-flight acoustic levels but abort levels are driven by plume impingement. The 51-AS wind tunnel test is considered critical to reducing vibro-acoustics risk. However there is significant schedule risk for obtaining approval, accomplishing this test, analyzing the data, and developing component vibration levels in time to provide conservative environments. Risk 1230 cost impacts need to be validated against the known costs associated with lines 22, 23, 24, and New CFD Studies. Task #22 Changed definition to reflect current scope of 57-AS. It originally was to be the “Dedicated >8% scale Orion final OML acoustic tunnel test for ascent & abort with & w/o plume effects”: That is 51-AS which is beginning in ‘08. The project will have ~$115M of FY07 resources authority unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. Ares: The resync with the Orion configuration has necessitated a replan of a loads plan. This includes a strategy to still achieve the PDR schedules. Resolution: A checkpoint has been established in early March 2008 to evaluate Ares readiness for the stage and vehicle PDRs (Engine CDR) scheduled for April-September 2008. Shuttle Program will build another ET at MAF. Preliminary assessments indicate this will impact of first Ares upper stage by at least 6 months. Resolution: Adequate floor space at MAF has been identified for US production in terms of square footage. SSC/A2 needed from SSME project in January 2009 to ensure March 2010 need date met per current J-2X development plan. J-2X Proceeding with Engines and Facility Planning with Assumption of A2 Transition in July 2009 – Known Conflict with SSME to be Revisited Between CxP and SSP in March 2009. GO: Significant obligation under run against plan - $100M. Significant cost under plan – $68M. Flight vehicle interface requirements uncertainty beginning to impact ground operations schedule. EVA: Suit architecture is improving but mass allocation with Orion still in work. Ares I-X: Has negative schedule margin but working to buy back with lean events.
  • Orion: Mass trace from the ESAS reference design to today’s Orion spacecraft; a comparison of what a scaled-up Apollo spacecraft would weigh if sized to Orion; a discussion of the avionics architecture of the spacecraft and a Zero Based vehicle overview . The OVEIWG has been continuing their work, and processing the vehicle buybacks. Round one of the buyback process is complete. Minimal mass margins at this stage of life cycle. Mass margins including mass growth allowances: Total: 2856lbs (CM 1553 lbs; LAS 265 lbs) - Management Reserve 1500 lbs. ALAS 11 OML will allow reduction in nominal-flight acoustic levels but abort levels are driven by plume impingement. The 51-AS wind tunnel test is considered critical to reducing vibro-acoustics risk. However there is significant schedule risk for obtaining approval, accomplishing this test, analyzing the data, and developing component vibration levels in time to provide conservative environments. Risk 1230 cost impacts need to be validated against the known costs associated with lines 22, 23, 24, and New CFD Studies. Task #22 Changed definition to reflect current scope of 57-AS. It originally was to be the “Dedicated >8% scale Orion final OML acoustic tunnel test for ascent & abort with & w/o plume effects”: That is 51-AS which is beginning in ‘08. The project will have ~$115M of FY07 resources authority unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. Ares: The resync with the Orion configuration has necessitated a replan of a loads plan. This includes a strategy to still achieve the PDR schedules. Resolution: A checkpoint has been established in early March 2008 to evaluate Ares readiness for the stage and vehicle PDRs (Engine CDR) scheduled for April-September 2008. Shuttle Program will build another ET at MAF. Preliminary assessments indicate this will impact of first Ares upper stage by at least 6 months. Resolution: Adequate floor space at MAF has been identified for US production in terms of square footage. SSC/A2 needed from SSME project in January 2009 to ensure March 2010 need date met per current J-2X development plan. J-2X Proceeding with Engines and Facility Planning with Assumption of A2 Transition in July 2009 – Known Conflict with SSME to be Revisited Between CxP and SSP in March 2009. GO: Significant obligation under run against plan - $100M. Significant cost under plan – $68M. Flight vehicle interface requirements uncertainty beginning to impact ground operations schedule. EVA: Suit architecture is improving but mass allocation with Orion still in work. Ares I-X: Has negative schedule margin but working to buy back with lean events.
  • Orion: Mass trace from the ESAS reference design to today’s Orion spacecraft; a comparison of what a scaled-up Apollo spacecraft would weigh if sized to Orion; a discussion of the avionics architecture of the spacecraft and a Zero Based vehicle overview . The OVEIWG has been continuing their work, and processing the vehicle buybacks. Round one of the buyback process is complete. Minimal mass margins at this stage of life cycle. Mass margins including mass growth allowances: Total: 2856lbs (CM 1553 lbs; LAS 265 lbs) - Management Reserve 1500 lbs. ALAS 11 OML will allow reduction in nominal-flight acoustic levels but abort levels are driven by plume impingement. The 51-AS wind tunnel test is considered critical to reducing vibro-acoustics risk. However there is significant schedule risk for obtaining approval, accomplishing this test, analyzing the data, and developing component vibration levels in time to provide conservative environments. Risk 1230 cost impacts need to be validated against the known costs associated with lines 22, 23, 24, and New CFD Studies. Task #22 Changed definition to reflect current scope of 57-AS. It originally was to be the “Dedicated >8% scale Orion final OML acoustic tunnel test for ascent & abort with & w/o plume effects”: That is 51-AS which is beginning in ‘08. The project will have ~$115M of FY07 resources authority unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. Ares: The resync with the Orion configuration has necessitated a replan of a loads plan. This includes a strategy to still achieve the PDR schedules. Resolution: A checkpoint has been established in early March 2008 to evaluate Ares readiness for the stage and vehicle PDRs (Engine CDR) scheduled for April-September 2008. Shuttle Program will build another ET at MAF. Preliminary assessments indicate this will impact of first Ares upper stage by at least 6 months. Resolution: Adequate floor space at MAF has been identified for US production in terms of square footage. SSC/A2 needed from SSME project in January 2009 to ensure March 2010 need date met per current J-2X development plan. J-2X Proceeding with Engines and Facility Planning with Assumption of A2 Transition in July 2009 – Known Conflict with SSME to be Revisited Between CxP and SSP in March 2009. GO: Significant obligation under run against plan - $100M. Significant cost under plan – $68M. Flight vehicle interface requirements uncertainty beginning to impact ground operations schedule. EVA: Suit architecture is improving but mass allocation with Orion still in work. Ares I-X: Has negative schedule margin but working to buy back with lean events.
  • POC: PA&E Mary Beth Zimmerman Closure Criteria: Here’s the language worked up: NOTE (1): This reporting addresses projects in formulation and only includes contracts (1) of $50M or more and which include some development content. In general, design, support services, CoF, and similar non-development contracts are not included. The contract life may not extend through the end of project development. NOTE (2): Contract cost changes are not reflected in this reporting until they are definitized. Estimated contract value at completion and NTE values are not included.
  • Should the BPR Coordinator also be a POC for the PIC members?

Woods.edwards.pm challenge bpr presentation 2012 v1 Woods.edwards.pm challenge bpr presentation 2012 v1 Presentation Transcript

  • Overview of theBaseline Performance Review (BPR) Office of the Chief Engineer Program Management Challenge Orlando, FL February 22-23 , 2012 1
  • Presentation Purpose • Describe NASA’s Baseline Performance Review (BPR) to the greater NASA community at PM Challenge 2012.  Characterize the BPR objectives, scope, process, and products and recent updates  Provide insight into other complementary initiatives  Summarize NASA’s technique for monitoring Agency performance against its baseline plansFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 2
  • Contents • BPR History and Context • BPR Objectives • BPR Scope, Participants • BPR Process • BPR Process Improvements • Sample BPR Meeting Agenda • Sample BPR Analysis Content • SummaryFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 3
  • BPR Background and Context • In the spring of 2006, the Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) was given the action by the Associate Administrator to develop a State of the Agency (SoA) process that provides the Agency Project Management Council (APMC) an independent top level view of the status of the Agency’s programs and projects. • The first SoA presentation, to the Agency PMC, was by the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) in August of 2006. The process has matured and continued to meet the objectives outlined by the Associate Administrator, the Associate Deputy Administrator, the Chief Engineer (CE) and the various stakeholders. The SoA evolved to a distinct monthly meeting in December 2007 and was officially entitled the Baseline Performance Review (BPR).February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 4
  • BPR Background and Context (continued) • The BPR instituted a modified “balanced score card stop-light chart” process based on metrics encompassed in a core set of functional area questions and supporting raw data. • Participants from the projects, programs, Centers, Mission Directorates (MDs) and Mission Support Offices respond monthly to each core area question based on provided thresholds and key metrics for use in internal and external reporting. • All Mission Directorates are reporting at the BPR meeting the findings of the independent process. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recognized the Agency BPR as a “best practice” in the Federal Government.February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 5
  • BPR Objectives• Provide NASA Senior Leadership comprehensive, integrated, and objective information that describes the “performance-to-plan” of the Agency’s programs, projects, and institutional capabilities.  A single place to see the full execution context of the Agency• Assure open cross-functional communications among NASA’s organizations to enhance Agency performance.• Identify and analyze performance trends and cross-cutting or systemic issues and risks• Serve the Agency’s decision-making Councils as their ”execution arm”  Within NASA Governance, the BPR is distinct from the decision- making Executive Committee, Program Management, and Mission Support Council  BPR is “action-oriented” to improve performance and inform Agency decision authorities of issues needing attention.February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 6
  • BPR Scope and Participants • The BPR is co-chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator (Chris Scolese)and the Mission Support Directorate Associate Administrator (Woodrow Whitlow). • Membership includes the heads of NASA Staff Offices, Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices, and its ten Field Centers. • Mission Support functions (e.g., finance, workforce, acquisition, infrastructure, IT, etc.) report monthly and Small Business and Diversity and Equal opportunity report quarterly. • Mission Directorates (covering all program areas) report monthly with one (and sometimes 2) “highlighted” in greater detail. • The Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) leads the process and a team of “independent assessors” from OCE, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) Strategic Investment Division (SID), Office of Safety Mission Assurance analyze programs’ and projects’ performance.  “Green/Yellow/Red” criteria were established to assess of technical, cost, schedule, and programmatic performance are provided monthly for all Mission Directorates.February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 7
  • BPR Detailed Process Flow 3 Issue charts 1 Mission MDs Directorates (MDs) “Stoplight” ratings for 2 Mission Support projects and OCE sends out Offices programs from the OCE (OCE, IPCE, notifications to   consolidates OSMA, and Assessor Teams OCE 3 users who answer NASA Centers input from OCFO) generates questions stakeholders Assessor 1- 5 Teams BPR 4 Programs package 5 Technical Projects Cross-Cutting, OCE PCA Status reps. for MDs Non- Package Technical briefing to Cross-Cutting Chief OCE feedback and Engineer for Action items on BPR OCFO approval process BPR reports OCE Package is Package Provides available presented Executive for Read- at the BPR Summary only viewing from siteFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 8
  • Example Outcomes/Results • Cross-cutting issues  Across missions, faulty material was discovered resulting in a mitigation process for the materials use saving time and resources. • Organizational communication issues  Turned a conflict between projects on thermal protection systems into a collaboration between the major development projects who previously were competing for shared resources. • Mission support issues  Workforce planning resolution was expedited when a project was confronted with changes resulting in 500 people at a Center needing reassignment because the project was delayed 2 years. • Senior leaders as an “Execution Board of Directors”  Charlie Bolden utilized the BPR to successfully highlight and resolve the delays in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses. • Mission specific issues  Timely communication resulted in a Center director de-conflicting a vendors schedule between 2 NASA projects from different Centers.February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 9
  • BPR Process Updates - 2011 BPR is a dynamic process – stakeholder driven • AA in July ’10 directed call for inputs for BPR improvements • Online survey conducted in Aug ‘10– wide agency participation to gather recommendations for BPR process and meeting improvements • Town Hall in Sep ‘10 to review and refine comments • Core Team developed recommendations – Core Team (assessors) - OSMA, OCFO, IPCE and OCE • Brief to senior agency leadership in early Jan ‘11 • Results promulgated to stakeholders with BPR process changes implemented throughout 2011February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 10
  • BPR Process Update HighlightsPresentation Content determination and Frequency –• Workforce & FOIA – from monthly to as required• OCIO – monthly• New BPR topic - addition of semi-annual brief by Physical Security• Deletion of individual briefs by ASM/ASP and External Reporting (presentation materials will still be included in BPR package)• OCT to present two different technology areas on a quarterly basisMSD/MSO – institutional assessment is still a pending issue• To report to BPR on periodic basis• Form of assessment and reporting to be determined at a later dateDocument Compliance, Life Cycle Review, MD Rollups, MD –• Monthly Highlighted MD: assessors and MD designee will submit and present their own inputs• Non-highlighted MD: assessors only will prepare and submit their inputs for inclusion in the BPR package, but not be required to brief February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 11
  • Notional BPR Presentation ScheduleFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 12
  • Example BPR ReportsFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 13
  • BPR Project Questions Total of 36 Questions for Projects Technical/Programmatic/Schedule/CostFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 14
  • Typical Monthly BPR Agenda 10:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. (EST) NASA Headquarters, Room 8R4210:00 Opening Remarks and Action Items Associate Administrator, BPR Manager10:15 Mission Support Reports Finance Chief Financial Officer Workforce Human Capital Management ASP/ASM Mission Support Division Acquisition Procurement Small Business Small Business Programs Infrastructure Infrastructure Information Technology Chief Information Officer12:15 Lunch12:30 Agency Aggregate Assessments OSMA Safety - NASA Mishap Posture NASA Safety Center Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Status Public Affairs Office External Reporting Status Chief Financial Officer/Strategic Investment (SID) Cross Cutting Non-Technical Issues Chief Financial Officer/SID Cross Cutting Technical Issues Office of Chief Engineer Documents Compliance Office of Chief Engineer Life Cycle Milestone Schedule Office of Chief Engineer1:40 Center Summaries Center Representatives2:40 Roll-up of Mission Directorates Program/Project Office of Chief Engineer3:00 Highlighted: Science Mission Directorate (SMD) SMD Assessment Science Mission Directorate JWST Status/Recovery Plan* JWST Program4:15 Actions Summary BPR Executive Secretary4:30 Adjourn Associate Administrator *Specific topic is rotated February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 15
  • Example BPR Reports • Finance • Acquisition • Small Business • Infrastructure • Safety and Mishaps • Crosscutting Issues • Field Center Summaries • Independent Assessments of Programs and Projects (“Stoplight” ratings)February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 16
  • Finance Example BudgetExecution February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 17
  • Procurement ExampleUndefinitized ContractAction (UCA) Status February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 18
  • Small Business Example Federal Agency General Services AdministrationPrime Small Business Department of Justice Dollars Department of Homeland Overview Security Department of Veterans Affairs National Aeronautics & Space Administration Health and Human Services Department of Energy $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 In Million $ Total Dollars Small Business Dollars February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 19
  • Infrastructure Example ARC DFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC Remarks Facilities JSC damage from Ike could impact JWST Project.. Chamber A MOU G G G G G Y G G G G and Management Plan not complete. Concern about communication Design & Construction between Eng Div and Facil Div at JSC Facility repair backlog is 8.6% of facility value with increasing Y Y Y Y Y R Y Y Y Y trend.JSC damage from Ike could impact SOMD Operations Facility Maintenance DFRC, KSC, and SSC were changed to yellow since they have not G Y G Y G Y Y G Y Y submitted revised Master Plans. GSFC presented new Master Plan, Planning/Real Estate but has not submitted document for formal approval. Logistics Delay in replacement of critical civil service personnel at GRC and KSC. Also at KSC, a concern existed as retiring civil servants positions were not backfilled. Situation improved by increased use of G G Y G G G G Y G Y Support Services Contractors. Sinlge point failure for multiple logistics functions at LaRC and SSC. Anticipated hire at SSC Supply currently on hold. Delay in replacement of critical civil service personnel at GRC and KSC. GRC expects to fill vacancy by end of 2008. At KSC, a concern existed as retiring civil servants positions were not backfilled. G G Y G NA G G Y G Y Situation improved by increased use of Support Services Contractors. Single point failure for multiple log functions at LaRC and SSC. Anticipated hire at SSC currently on hold. GSFC filled HQ Equipment SEMO position. CFO management control findings related to property management are being addressed, however center IPO staffing concerns to support transition workload and FAR update present an on-going staffing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y issue. JSC in process of filling Contract Property Administrator position. JSC also submitted request to fill the following: 2 positions for Property Disposal, 1 position for Shuttle Clerical (Property) and 1 position for Packing/Shipping in Transportation. Contract Property Agency risk for not meeting EO 13423 (alternate fuel): discussions with MSFC to resolve center contribution ongoing. Single point failure for multiple log functions at SSC, anticipated hire currently on hold. G G G Y G G G Y Y Y GSFC loss of CNG capability for approx. 13 vehicles. KSC added additional contractor to assist with transportation functions. At LaRC, TO/SEMO is one person, he will be out in Jan. (medical leave) no Transportation replacement appointed. Increase in excess property workload due to Shuttle and Hubble G G G Y G Y Y G Y Y disposition at GSFC, MSFC, KSC, SSC & JSC. Single point failure Property Disposal for multiple log functions at SSC.February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 20
  • Mishap Reports Example February NASA and MishapContractor OCO Safety StatisticsDashboards Jan 2008 – Mar 2008 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009 Jan 2008 – Mar 200 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009 Jan 2008 - Mar 2008 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009 March Mishaps: • No Type A Mishaps • One Type B Mishap: DRC- (Deluge System Release in Shuttle Hangar - 3/13/09) • One Potential Type B Mishap: DRC- (Global Hawk Electronics Failure 3/12/09) – currently a Type D Data does not include 4/2/09 Type B Mishap: Water Drill mishap resulting in multiple amputations Close Call Incidents Show An Increase From Previous Reporting Period (Jan – Mar 2008). February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 21
  • Technical Cross Cutting Example of Communications Networks CapabilityFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 22
  • PCA Status Example Agency ProgramsFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 23
  • Agency Schedule ExampleFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 24
  • Center Summary Example Technical Authority/Mission Support/Institutional Institutional Risk to Mission Budget/Finance: Grants reconciliation and transition: The ORR for the Phase 2 transition to NSSC is scheduled for November 30th; will complete GSFC transition activities. Workforce: Early Career Hiring: FY09 - 66 on-board; FY10 – 10 with an additional 10 offers accepted and negotiating dates. Acquisition: Contractor Support: Consolidated Agency contracting approach being pursued. GSFC had restricted authorization to use the existing GSFC contract for critical tasks ending in December. “Authorization” to seek services on another contract granted but is not expected to save resources and requires unnecessary actions. XYZ contract protest activities continue. ZYX contract has been extended through Feb 2011. The delayed transition from ZYX to XYZ continues to impact the contractor’s ability to retain experienced employees to perform the work. • Agency-level protests denied on August 11th and the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) implementation was initiated on August 17th. • A protest was submitted on August 21st to GAO with regard to the CAP. CAP implementation permitted to continue. GAO decision due NLT November 30th. • Congressional request for information with regard to the CAP was submitted October 22nd.February 2012 25 For NASA Internal Use Only
  • Assessment Aggregate Rollup Example Science Mission DirectorateFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 26
  • Program Status Roll Up Example ARMDFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 27
  • Cost & Schedule Rollup ExampleFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 28
  • Assessment Quad Chart ExampleFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 29
  • BPR Actions and Status Example Subj: Cross Cutting Technical Issues – Review and Update Action Statement: • The Mission Directorate Chief Engineers (MDCE’s) will meet and do a comprehensive review of the technical cross cutting process and issues to include discussion about what new issues should be added to the list. Action for: OCE MDCEs Date Assigned: Dec 15th Action Assigned: • Present candidate Tech Cross Cutting Issues at Feb BPR . 2011-12-047 30February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only
  • Assessment Color CriteriaFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 31
  • Green Criteria A Category for a Project is Green if: There are minimal programmatic issues and adequate margin (budget reserve,schedule slack, technical margin), or capability (for operational missions), tocomplete the Project on plan. A Project is Green overall if: All 4 categories are Green, or One or more are Yellow and the issues are collectively not a threat/impact to theproject by virtue of their being solvable within the projects planned resources.(Margin in one category may provide capability to resolve a lack of margin in anothercategory.) A Program is Green if: The constituent projects are Green overall, or are Yellow with realistic, defined plansto return to green and all other program elements are on budget and schedule. February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 32
  • Yellow CriteriaA Category for a Project is Yellow if:The remaining margin within the category appears inadequate to meet Projectrequirements or external commitments, however, mitigation plans are in place or indevelopment to recover margin and achieve commitments within the availableresources of the Project. (For operational projects in the technical category "margin"may be interpreted as operational capabilities.)A Project is Yellow overall if:Any one category is Red, the overall is at least Yellow, orOne or more categories are Yellow and the issues are collectively a threat to theprojects ability to meet their commitments within the projects planned resources.A Program is Yellow if:Any of its constituent projects are Red overall, or if one or more are Yellow and theissues are collectively a threat to the Programs ability to meet its commitmentswithin planned resources. February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 33
  • Red CriteriaA Category for a Project is Red if:There is minimal margin or negative margin within the category such that the Projectis estimated not to meet its requirements or commitments without significant impactto other categories. There is high risk that the Project will require external resourcesor relief from performance or programmatic requirements.A Project is Red overall if:One or more categories are Red, and it is estimated that the Project will not havesufficient resources to meet its commitments.A Program is Red if:Most of its constituent projects are Red overall, or if one or more are Red and theissues are collectively a threat to the Programs ability to meet its commitments. February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 34
  • Assessment Rubric for Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs Cost Schedule Technical ProgrammaticCost estimates remain consistent with cost Schedule progress remains consistent with Technical progress remains consistent with Programmatic performance remains consistentcommitments: schedule commitments: technical commitments: with program/project requirements:-- Formulation: Current estimated -- Formulation: The current estimated -- Formulation: The project/program is -- Formulation: An approved FAD is in place andformulation costs are consistent with the authority-to-proceed to implementation date is making planned progress in developing planned progress is being made in completingprogram FAD. at or before the FAD. technical design, reliability, safety, and risk programmatic arrangements necessary to enter-- Development: Current estimated LCC at -- Development: Current estimated operational mitigation requirements necessary to development as planned.completion is at or below the LCC readiness date (ORD) is at or before the ORD proceed to implementation as planned. -- Development: Top-level objectives andcommitment. For multi-project programs, the commitment. For multi-project programs, the -- Development: Technical requirements programmatic requirements in the plan are stablecurrent cost estimate by year for the current estimated schedule for planned start are stable and progress and risk and programmatic capabilities are beingprogram’s projects, including reserve, is dates for future projects is consistent with the management is consistent with plan while developed/ managed as planned. Plans arewithin the 5 year cost run-out in the program program plan. maintaining safety. For multi-project consistent with 7120.5 or necessary waivers areplan. The program is consistently executing -- Operations: Planned operations, including programs, any lack of planned technical in place. A multi-project program is effectivelyits projects within their cost cap or maintenance, are proceeding on schedule. progress at the project level is not resulting managing its projects, with new projectscommitment. and there are minimal issues and adequate in an increased risk to the program’s beginning per the Program Plan.-- Operations: Annual operational costs are schedule margin to complete the Program or technical commitments and objectives. -- Operations. Operational requirements areat or below planned costs for these Project on plan: -- Operations: Operational systems are stable consistent with plan, and operations areoperations --Funded schedule reserves & phasing are delivering the planned level of services and being managed as planned. Retirement/ transitionand there are minimal issues and adequate consistent with plan and are being drawn down reliability, with a general trend towards plans are being developed/ implementedcost margin (budget reserve) to complete at a rate consistent with plan and emergent improved safety, and efficiency. consistent with the timing for these events.the Program or Project on plan: schedule risks/threats. For multi-project and there are minimal issues and adequate and there are minimal issues and adequate-Lifecycle cost reserves are consistent with programs, any faster-than-planned project technical margin to complete the Program programmatic flexibility to complete the Programplan and are being drawn down at a rate draw-down of schedule reserve is not or Project on plan: or Project on plan:consistent with plan and emergent cost impinging on the ability of the program to meet -- Technical reserves are being drawn down --Key contract actions are being undertaken andrisks/threats. For multi-project programs, its overall schedule commitments. are consistent with plan; technical completed as planned. The multi-projectreserves are being managed consistent with --Key interim milestones (KDP as well as WBS difficulties/risks encountered are typical for program’s acquisition strategy (both contractedthe annual reserves planned for each milestones) being met. this type of project/program and are being and in-house) is resulting in the timely start ofproject. -- For multi-project programs, any delay in mitigated or controlled as required to make projects and delivery of project elements.-- The project/program will not require project schedule is not jeopardizing inputs planned technical progress. --Key critical workforce, access to key facilities,additional funds to complete the current required for another project or resulting in an -- Are consistent with the requirements of EVM, and management systems are in placefiscal year with required carryover. increased risk to the program’s schedule safety, reliability & quality assurance, and consistent with plan.-- Phasing of cost reserves are consistent commitments. incorporate good systems engineering & --Key partnerships are in place and operating aswith emergent risks or threats. -- External partners are providing key integration practice. planned; external requirements are stable; and-- Current year budget level and timing of deliverables on schedule. -- External partners are making planned there are no other factors external to thefunds distribution are consistent with plan or technical progress and external events project/program (e.g., new Agency requirements)commitments are not threatened as a result (e.g., import approvals) are not altering which are significantly disrupting planned project/of any or delay in current year funding. technical requirements. program management.-- External partners are providing key -- For operational projects, the ground andresources as planned. in-flight hardware is operating satisfactorily on prime or backup units and mission requirements are being met. February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 35
  • Assessment Rubric for Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs (continued) Cost Schedule Technical ProgrammaticIn general, the program or project follows In general, the program or project follows the In general, the program or project follows In general, programmatic performance remains the green assessment guidelines, green assessment guidelines, but the green assessment guidelines, consistent with program/project but cost commitments are now schedule commitments are now but technical commitments are now requirements for a green assessment, but threatened. threatened. threatened: remaining programmatic flexibility may beRemaining cost margin appears inadequate Remaining schedule margin appears Remaining technical margins appear inadequate to meet requirements due to to meet requirements due to one or inadequate to meet requirements due inadequate to meet requirements one or more of the following programmatic more of the following deviations from to one or more of the following due to one or more of the following deviations from plan however, mitigation plan, however, mitigation plans are deviations from plan, however, technical deviations from plan plans are in place or in development to in place or in development to mitigation plans are in place or in however, mitigation plans are in recover margin and achieve commitments recover margin and achieve development to recover margin and place or in development to recover within the planned resources: commitments within the planned achieve commitments within the margin and achieve commitments -- Key contract actions are not being undertaken resources of the Program or Project: planned resources: within the planned resources: or completed as planned.-- Lifecycle cost reserves (including those -- Schedule reserves are being drawn down -- Technical reserves are being drawn down -- A multi-project program’s acquisition strategy held at the program level) are being faster than planned or as required for at a rate inconsistent with plan; or (both contracted and in-house) is not drawn down faster than planned or emergent schedule risks/threats. technical difficulties/risks resulting in the timely start of projects and required for emergent cost -- Key interim milestones (KDP and/or WBS encountered exceed those which delivery of project elements. risks/threats. milestones) have slipped. are typical for this type of -- Key critical workforce, access to key facilities,-- Phasing of cost reserves are inconsistent -- For multi-project programs, delay in project project/program or are not being EVM, and management systems are not with emergent risks or threats. schedules is resulting in an increased mitigated or controlled as required to consistent with plan..-- Current year cost growth is exceeding risk to the program’s schedule make planned technical progress. -- Key partnerships are not in place or operating planned current year cost reserves commitments. -- Are not consistent in some key areas with as planned; external requirements are not and will require a re-phasing of the -- External partners are delayed in providing the requirements of safety, reliability stable; or there are other factors external annual budget in order to complete key deliverables or external factors are & quality assurance, and the to the project/program (e.g., new Agency the fiscal year with required delaying completion of a key milestone. incorporation of good systems requirements) which are significantly carryover. engineering & integration practice. disrupting planned project/program -- A reduction in current year budget or -- External partners are not making planned management. slow- down in funds distribution will technical progress or external require the project/program to events (e.g., import approvals) are rephrase future year annual costs. altering technical requirements.-- External partner changes or factors -- For operational projects, ground or flight external to the project/program are capabilities have been curtailed, but placing additional pressure on plans are in work to recover the project/program costs. capability or develop a workaround-- For operating missions, in flight anomalies such that mission requirements will are draining cost reserves. still be met. 36February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only
  • Assessment Rubric for Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs (continued) Cost Schedule Technical ProgrammaticThe Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to be meet its cost commitments without meet its schedule commitments without meet its technical requirements able to meet its requirements due to significant impact to other significant impact to other categories. without significant impact to other programmatic issues affecting the other categories. The key end-of-phase KDP milestones categories:. categories.Depending on phase, the projects are unlikely to be met. A project in formulation is not making the A formulation project has failed to make the formulation costs, or development For multi-project programs, the planned start- technical progress required to enter programmatic progress required to be costs, or annual operating costs up of future projects is delayed beyond development. confirmed for development. are exceeding the planned budget program commitments or objectives. For a project in development, technical A development project lacks an approved plan or beyond all planned reserves. For operations missions, the current operations failures or delays preclude the has failed to implement that planFor multi-project programs, total annual schedule is insufficient to meet project project from being able to meet its consistent with meeting its commitments. costs for the program’s projects commitments or the mission failed prior technical requirements and The multi-project program lacks an exceed the program’s 5 year to the planned end-of-operations date. commitments. approved PCA or project plan, or has planned run-out, including reserves. For multi-project programs: The current There is minimal or negative technical failed to implement the projects require toThere is minimal or negative cost margin operations schedule is insufficient to margin such that there is high risk meet its commitments. such that there is high risk that the meet program commitments or the that the Program or Project will There is limited or no programmatic flexibility such Program or Project will require failure of one or missions prior to the require additional technical that there is high risk that the Program or additional funding or relief from planned end date has resulted in the resources or relief from performance Project will require relief from performance performance or programmatic project not being able to meet its or programmatic requirements due or programmatic requirements due to one requirements due to one or more of commitments or objectives. to one or more of the following or more of the following deviations from the following deviations from plan for There is minimal or negative schedule margin technical deviations from plan for plan for which the project/ program has a realistic recovery strategy has not is such that there is high risk that the which the project or program has not not identified a realistic strategy for been identified: Program or Project will require identified a realistic strategy for recovery:-- Lifecycle cost reserves (including those additional schedule or relief from recovery: --Key contract actions are not being undertaken or held at the program level) are being performance or programmatic -- Technical reserves are being drawn down completed as required. The multi-project drawn down at an unsustainable rate requirements due to one or more of the at an unsustainable rate or program’s acquisition strategy (both and remaining reserves are following deviations from plan for which emergent technical difficulties, risks, contracted and in-house) is not resulting in insufficient given emergent a realistic strategy for recovery has not or threats are not being resolved as the timely start of projects and delivery of risks/threats. been identified: required to meet the technical project elements.-- Phasing of cost reserves are inconsistent -- Schedule reserves are being drawn down at commitments. --Key critical workforce, availability of key with emergent risks or threats. an unsustainable rate and remaining -- Are not consistent with the requirements facilities, EVM, and management systems-- Current year cost growth exceeds planned reserves are insufficient given of safety, reliability & quality are missing or inconsistent with meeting costs and cannot be accommodated emergent risks/threats. assurance, and the incorporation of the project’s commitments. by rephrasing annual costs. -- A slip of one or more key interim milestones good systems engineering & --Key planned partnerships did not materialize,-- A reduction or delay in current year (KDP and/or WBS milestones) is integration practice. quit or not to delivering consistent with funding is inconsistent with inconsistent with the planned ORD. -- Lack of technical progress by external project/program commitments; unstable or maintaining the overall LCC For programs, delay in project partners or external events (e.g., newly emergent external requirements are commitment. schedules is inconsistent with import approvals) are inconsistent not implementable; or other external-- A loss of key external partners or program’s schedule commitments. with meeting the project/program developments are inconsistent with the resources is inconsistent with -- An external partner delays or delays caused technical requirements, project/program commitments. keeping the project or program by other external factors are commitments, or objectives, or within planned costs. inconsistent with the planned ORD. additional/different external cannot-- For operational projects, in-flight For multi-project programs, delays be met within plan. anomalies have drained all cost caused by external factors are -- For operational missions, in-flight reserves and the project will need inconsistent with the program’s anomalies have used up 37 more funds to February 2012 complete the prime Forschedule Internal Use Only NASA commitments. redundancy and made it unlikely 37
  • Summary • NASA Senior Management monitors Agency-Wide performance monthly through its baseline Performance Review (BPR) Process  Mission Directorate detailed assessments are reported quarterly on a rotating basis • BPR continues to evolve and improve to reflect the Agency priorities and plans Self Assessment – “There is a luxury in self- reproach. When we blame ourselves we feel that no one else has a right to blame us.” Oscar WildeFebruary 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 38