Wessen randi (cd)


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wessen randi (cd)

  1. 1. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministrationJet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of Technology Market-Based Systems: Bidding your way to the Launch Pad Dr. Randii R. Wessen Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Dr. Dave Porter Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science George Mason University 1
  2. 2. Agenda• Introduction• Cassini Science Instrument Development• Space Shuttle Manifests• LightSAR Mission Planning• Market-Based Systems Applied to NASA Resource Allocation Problems• Conclusions 2
  3. 3. IntroductionProblem - How to allocate scarce resourcesamong many users?♦ Users do not have an incentive to reveal accurate information.Current Approach:♦ Benevolent Dictator - Impartial individual making decisions for user community.♦ Committee - “Consensus” reached by user representatives.New Approach:♦ Market-based systems - Decentralized incentive-based decision-making at the user level. 3
  4. 4. Introduction (cont.)Market-based systems use “rights” and“trades” to resolve conflicts. ♦ Users: – Own clearly defined resources. – Decide the importance of their resources. – Enhance their own position by exchanging resources among themselves. 4
  5. 5. Introduction (cont.)Market-based systems require that an“economy” be created.To create an economy, the following must bedefined:♦ Resources to be allocated.♦ Resource ownership rights.♦ Rules for making and keeping track of trades. 5
  6. 6. Introduction (cont.)Market-based systems have two majorphases:♦ Initial Allocation (Primary Market) - Users use “currency” to establish property rights over resources.♦ Aftermarket (Secondary Market) - Users can voluntarily trade their resources with others to enhance their value. 6
  7. 7. Introduction (cont.)Examples of Market-based systems used inprivate industry: ♦ Best Buy ♦ RECLAIM Program in ♦ Corning Southern California ♦ Federal ♦ Sandia National Communications Laboratories Commission ♦ Sears Logistic Services ♦ General Electric ♦ University of Chicago ♦ Google Business School ♦ Hewlett-Packard ♦ University of Michigan ♦ Koch Industries ♦ University of San Diego ♦ Microsoft 7
  8. 8. The Cassini Instrument Development 8
  9. 9. Cassini Instrument DevelopmentTypical instrument development for planetarymissions require: ♦ Project’s to submit a Request for Proposals. ♦ Project’s acceptance of Principal Investigators’ proposals.Data from previous missions show thatinstrument mass and cost growths are: ♦ Almost always positive. ♦ Can be very large. 9
  10. 10. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.) Percent Growth for Past Space Missions 10
  11. 11. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.)In 1992 a Market-based Aftermarket, knownas the Cassini Resource Exchange (CRE),was developed.♦ Based on experiments conducted at Caltech with student subjects and science personnel.Instrument mass, power, data rate, andfunding were allowed to be traded.♦ The CRE opened in 1993 and closed in 1995. – 29 successful trades were made, all but two involved money and mass. 11
  12. 12. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.)Example of a money-market trade: $200k this FY in return for $212k next FY = 6%.16 contracts, worth $4M, were traded at anaverage rate of 8.5%. Fig 2. Money Market Activity 14 Cassini Trade 12 1 Year T-Bill 10 8 % Rate 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Week Number Starting in FY93 12
  13. 13. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.)Mass-market trades:♦ Mass started at $105k/kg and fell to $5k/kg.♦ 11 contracts for a total of 12 kg were traded. Figure 5: Mass Market Activity 120 100 80 $k/Kg 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 Week Number Starting in FY93 13
  14. 14. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.)Cost for the entire science payload grew by<1%. Figure 6: Cassinis Instrument Cost Growth 60 50 40 ost, $M LOA Cost 30 otal C Final Cost T 20 10 0 R S PS S S G IS A S S I S IM A W M IM IR A RS IS D V A D M IN M C C RP U V C RA Investigations 14
  15. 15. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.)Mass for the entire science payload decreased by7%. Figure 7: Cassinis Instrument Mass Growth 70 60 50 40 ass, kg. LOA Mass Final Mass 30 M 20 10 0 R S PS S S G IS A S S I S IM A W M IM IR A RS IS D V A D M IN M C C RP U V C RA Investigations 15
  16. 16. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.)In 1998 a Market-based system was developedfor Cassini science planning.♦ Web-based application. – Password protected.♦ Used to allocate observation time, CDS words and data volume.♦ Compatible with JPL’s Mission Sequence Software System (e.g., APGEN) 16
  17. 17. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.) Cassini science planning bid sheet. 17
  18. 18. Cassini Instrument Dev. (cont.)• Cassini Science Planning Tool. ♦ Timeline is always conflict-free. ♦ Provides user feedback to get observation requests accepted. ♦ This system was never tested. 18
  19. 19. Space Shuttle Manifests ofSecondary Payloads 19
  20. 20. Space Shuttle ManifestsTypical approach for manifesting SpaceShuttles Secondary Payloads require:♦ NASA User Codes to submit requests for payload lockers.♦ Manifestors at NASA Headquarters allocate lockers in such a way to: – Utilize Space Shuttle resources to capacity. – Be “fair” to the User Codes. 20
  21. 21. Space Shuttle Manifests (cont.) Multiple meetings required to: ♦ Present current manifest. ♦ Explain why some payloads were included while others were not. ♦ Obtain payload trade-off information. Manifestors required to re-manifest secondary payloads after each meeting. 21
  22. 22. Space Shuttle Manifests (cont.)In the summer of 1996 a Market-based InitialAllocation experiment was developed forNASA’s Office of Space Utilization.♦ Market-based approach was compared to a simple ranking approach.♦ Secondary payload lockers, energy, and crew hour requirements were allowed to be requested. 22
  23. 23. Space Shuttle Manifests (cont.) Office of Space Utilization personnel performed the simple ranking manifest. ♦ Results were compared to market-based results. Real payload data was used. ♦ A “science return” value and payload rank were included to measure the caliber of the manifest. USER P/L LOCKERS WATT-HRS CREW-HRS SCIENCE RETURN RANKCode U MGBX-01 6 237 56 100 1Code U CGBA-04 4 136 5.166 70 2Code U CPCG-07 1 128 5.833 55 2Code U CPCG-08 1 128 2 45 3Code U PCG-TES-02 3 115 0 40 3 23
  24. 24. Space Shuttle Manifests (cont.) Comparison of resource utilization between asimple ranking vs a market-based approach. Ranking Manual Resource Utilization MBS Points 100% of Capacity Used 95 90 85 80 75 Lockers Watt-Hrs Crew-Hrs 24
  25. 25. Space Shuttle Manifests (cont.) Comparison of science value for a simple ranking vs a market-based approach. Additional Science Return Relative to Baseline 40 Year 1 Year 2 30 Total % Excess Return 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 Code U Code S Code X Code F DoDPoint carry-over 0 37 30 3 1Year 1 to Year 2 25
  26. 26. Space Shuttle Manifests (cont.)Market-based systems have already handledthe following type of problem:♦ Manifest space shuttles middeck lockers efficiently♦ 6 Users♦ 47 variables/payload♦ 1,500,000 payload requests♦ Solutions found in an average of 2.5 minutes 26
  27. 27. Space Shuttle Manifests (cont.)Implementation of a market-based system is“on-hold” until:♦ The full impact of the International Space Station’s requirements on middeck lockers can be determined.♦ “Nominal” Space Shuttle missions resume. 27
  28. 28. LightSARMission Planning 28
  29. 29. LightSAR Mission PlanningLightSAR was a NASA initiative to develop alow-cost Earth-imaging RADAR satellite.Typical approach for mission planning:♦ Submit data take requests.♦ Create integrated timeline.♦ Multiple meetings to resolve conflicts.♦ Re-Integrate timeline. 29
  30. 30. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.)In the winter of 1997 a Market-based InitialAllocation experiment was developed forLightSAR mission planning. ♦ Users were assigned a specific data acquisition type (e.g. Hi-Res Strip, Spotlight, Interferometry, Dual Polarimetry, etc.). 30
  31. 31. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.)A data request, rank and “science return”value were included with each request tomeasure the caliber of the manifest. Dual Polarimetry Requests Location Orbit Data Take Rank Value Number Number Vietnam 1 1 1 60 Kuala Lumpar 1 3 2 45 Indonesia 1 4 2 35 Cambodia 2 3 3 10 31
  32. 32. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.)In a market-based approach, Users bid for a“higher priority” request. ♦ The higher the priority, the greater the probability of getting into the timeline. ♦ A Vickrey Auction was used to provide “incentives” for the Users to be forthright about their bids. – In a Vickrey Auction “winners”pay the runner-up price. 32
  33. 33. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.) Comparison of the science value between a simple ranking, a simple market, and a market using a Vickrey Auction. Science Values 108 Simple Market Simple Market Priority Marke Market w/ Vickrey 107 106 % of Draft Outcome 105 104 103 102 101Science value usinga simple ranking 100approach 99 Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Cumulative 33
  34. 34. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.) 34
  35. 35. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.) 35
  36. 36. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.) 36
  37. 37. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.) 37
  38. 38. LightSAR Mission Planning (cont.)Experiments revealed only minor operationalproblems. ♦ Lack of experience seemed to be the largest.LightSAR was canceled.A new RADAR mission called INSAR has begunconcept studies.♦ The work on LightSAR can be used for INSAR and will be pursued. 38
  39. 39. Market-Based SystemsApplied to NASA Resource Allocation Problems 39
  40. 40. NASA Market-Based Systems Task Start End StatusCassini Instrument Successfully controlled mass and 1993 Sept 1995 AprilDevelopment cost growth.Space Shuttle 1996 Dec 1997 Sept Never made it past experiments.ManifestsLightSAR Mission 1997 Dec 1998 Sept Mission canceled.PlanningCassini Science Never performed experiments 1998 April 1999 MarPlanning with users.Mars’01 Science 1999 April 1999 Dec Mission canceled.PlanningInternational Space Never performed experiments 2000 Sept On HoldStation Manifests with users.Alternate Workforce Never performed experiments 2000 Jun 2002 JanAllocations with users.Deep Space Network Never performed experiments 2005 Jan 2005 AprilAntenna Allocation with users. 40
  41. 41. Conclusions 41
  42. 42. ConclusionsCassini, Space Shuttle, and LightSARbenefited (or could benefit) from the use of amarket-based process.Resource allocation problems can be solvedwith the use of market-based systems.♦ Data shows that market-based systems can produce results: – As good (or better) than the current processes. – Are reached quicker and with a smaller workforce. 42
  43. 43. ConclusionsThe strengths of market-based systems arethat they:♦ Move the decision making process back to the individuals that have the information, namely the users.♦ Are electronically based on the Web and thus can be globally distributed.♦ Remove the need for multiple meetings and appeals. 43
  44. 44. ConclusionsOne perceived short coming of market-basedsystems is their initial allocation.♦ However, all processes have initial allocation problems.♦ Better to solve one large problem early then multiple smaller problems late in a given process.Most individuals outside of experimentaleconomics do not appreciate the power ofmarket-based systems. 44
  45. 45. ConclusionsIn order to successfully implement a market-based system it is recommended that it beused in parallel with the current approach to“gently” help users understand its application.There will be resistance to change to a newsystem, even a more efficient one.♦ Winners are not sure that they’ll do as well as compared to the current process.♦ Losers are not sure that they’ll do better as compared to the current process.♦ Integrators lose their jobs.♦ Managers will express a loss of control. 45
  46. 46. ConclusionsTop 5 “bad” reasons for not using a market-based system:5. “Market-based systems can solve resource allocation problems, but my problem is different.”4. “We don’t have a resource allocation problem, we just just have a scheduling problem.”3. “There’s no way to come up with an initial allocation of resources.”2. “Too many people will lose their jobs.”1. “We don’t need a market-based system to solve our problems. We’ll just solve it in a collegial manner.” 46