Amer.tahani

19,109 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
19,109
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Amer.tahani

  1. 1. HeadquartersIndependent Program & Cost Evaluation State-of-the-Art in Independent Review Execution Tahani Amer and Kaiser Adeni Review Managers Independent Program Assessment Office 8th Annual 2011 NASA Program Management Challenge February 10, 2011
  2. 2. OutlineHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • Look Back at FY10 Reviews • Review Process Improvements • SRB Balance & Structure • SRB Members Roles & Responsibilities • SRB Coordination (between Mission Directorates, Centers, and Programs/projects (P/p)) • SRB Products • SRB – HB updates • IPAO State-of-the-Art Activities • Look Forward 2
  3. 3. Look Back at FY10 ReviewsHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation• 8 Programs and 20 project review activities executed in FY10:  Preliminary Design Review: MAVEN  Critical Design Reviews: GRAIL, RBSP, GPM, TDRS, LDCM, MMS, OCO-II  System Integration Reviews: MSL, GRAIL and Juno  ORR/FRR/PLAR: WISE  Program Approval Review: RPS and LQP  Program Implementation Review: SCaN, ESMP, D/NF  Special Reviews: MSL, CxP, Aquarius, SOFIA  8 Non-IPAO reviews: 2- GOES-R, ASP, AvSP, ATP, FAP, ENAS, CAS 3
  4. 4. FY10 Completed ReviewsHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation 4
  5. 5. FY10 Completed ReviewsHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation 5
  6. 6. FY10 IPAO Completed Reviews IPAO supported 8 non-IPAO review activities in FY10HeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation 6
  7. 7. Review Process ImprovementsHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • SRB process improvements: • Quick Look Reports (one-pagers); • 30-day reporting requirement; • Increased coordination for programmatic assessments; • Readiness-to-proceed assessments; • Alternate opinions for non-consensus boards; • Key Decision Point (KDP) Decision Memo improvements; • Deferral of program reviews approved at APMC; • Institutionalized electronic signature of SRB approval letters; • Streamlining of ToR content as defined in draft NPR 7120.5E; 7
  8. 8. Review Process ImprovementsHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • SRB process improvements (continued): • Better coordination of SRB team nomination process; early stakeholders involvement in the process to ensure proper team balance of competency/currency/independence; • Final reports are posted on APMC electronic repository (https://nx.arc.nasa.gov/nx/dsweb/View/Collection-93608); notification at APMC when reports are posted; • Strengthening and improving the rigor and integration of the technical and programmatic assessments; • Working with SMD and the Centers to formulate principles on conducting joint Program/project reviews when there is a significant external partner involved. Efforts are evolving w/ExoMars and JPSS. 8
  9. 9. SRB Balance & StructureHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • SRB members should be competent, current, and independent from the management or advocacy chain of the P/p, with membership balanced between the host Center and other organizations to ensure the needs of the convening authorities are met. • Although balance of each SRB member is important, ultimately the goal is to have the SRB, as a whole, balanced. • More inclusive set of discussion with Center and TA • It is not a numerical formula, but it goals to meet Agency’s goals 9
  10. 10. SRB Balance & StructureHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation  Competency  Relevant experience and expertise with the technical, specific technologies and programmatic domain of the P/p under review.  Currency  Addresses recent/current experience and expertise in programmatics or the technical domain(s) of the project or program under review.  Understanding of current Agency governance, project management and systems engineering policies, procedures and methods, specifically NPR 7120.5, NPR 7123.1, NPD 1000.5, specific Center practices and procedures and the SRB Handbook.  Independence  Not in the programmatic chain of command of the program or project and have no conflicts of interest either personally, institutionally or organizationally. 10
  11. 11. SRB Members Roles & ResponsibilitiesHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • A member of an SRB is an “agent” of the convening authorities:  More emphasis on programmatic risk assessment and analysis;  More emphasis on the individual member independent report (IMIR);  Advise the SRB Chair and the Review Manager (RM) on areas that require particular attention by the SRB per their area of expertise;  Support the SRB “Quick-Look Report” summaries and briefings to the Convening Authorities (CA), and provide expert opinion to SRB preliminary and final reports. 11
  12. 12. SRB CoordinationHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation• Coordination with the Mission Directorates:  Early and frequent coordination is conducted with the Mission Directorate Program Executive (PE) to:  Establish SRB membership  Chair with support from RM establishes the discipline areas to be covered  PE/MDs provide a list of potential candidates. CAs approve or provide alternate nominations  RM leads the vetting effort for Organizational and Personal Conflict of Interest (OCI/PCI) in coordination with the LaRC Legal Office and Contracting Officer(s)  Finalize Terms of Reference (ToR) content  Content is reviewed and agreed-to prior to final approval by the CA  Identify any additional Mission Directorate review criteria  Establish timing of the Site Visit  Establish post-review out brief schedule  CMC/DPMC briefing  APMC briefing (Cat 1 and some Cat 2 Programs/projects)  APMC special topics for Cat 2 project life cycle reviews  Pause and Learn (PAL) 12
  13. 13. SRB CoordinationHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • Coordination with the Center  Coordination with the Center is conducted to:  Coordinate and develop a list of SRB candidates from the Center based on the discipline areas established by the Chair  Facilitate the review of the ToR content and ensure that the Center specific requirements are being met  Golden Rules  JPL Rules  Facilitate Center CA approvals of ToRs, team nominations, etc.  Establish dates for post-review CMC briefing  Establish a Community of Practice (CoP) at each Center (in progress)  Knowledge sharing of best practices and expectations for independent assessment  Review manifest coordination and approval  Identify Center personnel to participate in SRBs  Assist with nomination of high potential candidates for RM assignment with IPAO  Request potential Center Review Managers as detailees to IPAO  Develop a CoP for the Agency after completion on the discussion with Centers 13
  14. 14. SRB CoordinationHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • Coordination with Program/project:  Program/project pre-planning coordination begins ~120 days prior to Site Visit to:  Establish Site Visit review requirements  Discipline areas to be covered  Data drop timeline for cost and schedule products  Establish agreement on Terms of Reference (ToR) review criteria  Single ToR for LCR (0.5E)  Readiness to Proceed Review  Establish timing of the Site Visit  Establish post-review out brief schedule  Quick- Look Report (One Pagers)  P/p briefing  CMC briefing  DPMC briefing  APMC briefing (Cat 1 and some Cat 2 P/p) 14
  15. 15. Headquarters SRB ProductsIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation SRB products produced for each Site Visit:  Briefings  One-pager (Quick Look Report)  P/p Briefing  CMC Briefing  DPMC  APMC Briefing (if a Cat 1 Project) ToRs, team nomination letters, alternate opinions Vetting Package  OCI/PCI mitigation plans/annual vetting  SRB member resumes/bios  SRB approval letters  Reports Final SRB summary report to include each SRB individual reports to DA. https://nx.arc.nasa.gov/nx/dsweb/View/Collection-93608 IPAO Review Record RRD for the Agency 15
  16. 16. Headquarters SRB –HB UpdateIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation  Guidance to the P/p and SRB members  The SRB-HB is posted on the http://nodis.hq.nasa.gov/policy_letters/NM_7120-81_.pdf  Updates to comply with NPR 7120.5E 16
  17. 17. IPAO State-of-the-Art ActivitiesHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • JCL assessments and improved programmatic analysis:  Using Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and Government Accounting Office (GAO) criterion as standard evaluation criteria for schedules  Implementation of standard analysis timeline allowing for time to work with the projects to improve cost and schedule concerns  Analysis processes have been defined and documented in Standard Operating Procedure Instructions (SOPI) • Better risk assessments:  Using state-of-the-art tools for integrated risk analysis  Establishment of Schedule Analysis Working Group (SAWG) to develop a CoP for programmatic risk analysis • Forensics Study:  Analysis of the SRB findings  Identify trends and systematic issues  Provide recommendation to improve PM at NASA 17
  18. 18. IPAO State-of-the-Art ActivitiesHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • Lessons Learned (LL) after each review  IPAO members share the LL with RMs and PAG Analysts  Database of LL • ILCR - Customer/CA/SRB member surveys  Developed ILCR surveys & Approved by CA  Implementing the survey: RBSP • Training: RMs & Chairs • Outreach Effort: Articles, PM Track, Visits to Centers, PAL • Developmental Program: Detail opportunity to support Agency Project Management 18
  19. 19. Look ForwardHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation • Implementation of the NPR 7120.5E • Update the SRB Hand Book • Continue coordination with MDs, Centers, and P/p • Communities of Practice • SRB Balance • Independent Reviews involving external partners • Independent Reviews and Technology P/p 19
  20. 20. HeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation Back-up Slides 20
  21. 21. One Step PDR Life Cycle Review OverviewHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation KDP-C KDP-B (2) Quick Look Report PDR Readiness Assessment (2) PDR-LCR (30- 90 days) (30 Days) -Required prior to LCR Technical Baseline with C/S/R -Report to DA for life cycle reviews and Integrated Assessment of preceding KDP B&C and during any Technical and Programmatic major replan or rebaseline (3) Baseline Not To Scale Programmatic Data Drops to SRB (includes JCL Model) P/p Center MD Deliveries start at 100 days before site review Brief Brief Brief (2) CheckPoint if needed. Periodic SRB Involvement as Appropriate FOOTNOTES: 1. A One Step Review may be used for any LCR. 2. Appendix I provides information on the readiness assessment, quick-look reports and checkpoints associated with life cycle reviews. 3. For all other life cycle reviews, report to Chief Engineer if significant unresolvable disagreements. 21 Page 21
  22. 22. Two Step PDR Life Cycle Review OverviewHeadquartersIndependent Program and Cost Evaluation KDP-C KDP-B PDR LCR (2) Quick Look Report (2) Quick Look Report PDR Readiness Independent Integrated Assessment (2) PDR PDR Assessment (30-90 days) (1-6 months) (30 Days) -Required prior to LCR Technical Baseline Integrated -Report to DA for life cycle reviews with Cost, Assessment of preceding KDP B&C and during any Schedule, and Risk Technical and major replan or rebaseline (3) Information Programmatic Baseline Not To Scale Programmatic Data Drops to Resolve Tech SRB (includes JCL Model) Issues/Risks, Update P/p Center MD Cost/Schedule Baseline Brief Brief Brief (2) CheckPoint if needed. Periodic SRB Involvement as Appropriate FOOTNOTES: 1. A Two Step Review may be used for any LCR 2. Appendix I provides information on the readiness assessment, quick-look reports and checkpoints associated with life cycle reviews 3. For all other life cycle reviews report to Chief Engineer if 22 significant unresolvable disagreements 22 Page

×