This document discusses coordination challenges for developing complex aerospace systems across dispersed global teams. It outlines how traditional project management approaches are insufficient due to workforce thinning, global work practice variations, and high subsystem interdependencies. The authors propose using collaborative visualization and simulation tools to model projects, forecast coordination needs, and integrate information architectures into practices. This approach provides accurate schedules, reduces waste, and improves situational awareness for organizations like NASA.

1. Cross-Center Systems Development:
Coordination Architectures and Practices
Presented at: NASA PM 2010
William Grossmann
Bryan Moser
National Institute of Aerospace
Used with Permission

2. Outline
• Introduction
• The State of Complex System Development
• Perfect Storm Leads to Decline in Judgement
• Visualization & Simulation across Subsystems
• Case Study
• Conclusions & Benefits for NASA

3. Introduction
Today's aerospace products are more
complex while being developed by
teams located across the globe.
The challenge is to optimally organize,
direct, and manage these teams, their
interactions, dependencies, and
priorities during the program.

4. The State of Complex Product
Development
• Multiple layers of system and subsystem, with
substantive design responsibility layers down
• Complex dependencies fall across subsystems
owned by different teams
• Dispersed teams and supply chain with less
chance of a shared, common background
• Pressure to proceed in a dramatically
concurrent fashion, increasing risk of rework,
poor quality, and delay

5. Perfect Storm
Leading to Decline of Judgment
• Thinning of the work force
• Variation in work practices globally
• Dependencies across major subsystems
• Cost of coordination is high

6. Thinning of the work force
• reductions in projects combined with reductions in hiring
changed the age - experience composition
• a decline in opportunities for design experience
– highly qualified technical workers to consider field less desirable.
• engineers will work on fewer projects in their lifetimes
– less experience across a broad spectrum of technologies
• gaps of years between development of new systems
– specifically trained and experienced workers may be lost.
(National Research Council, 2001)

7. Variation in work practices globally
• Technical: to think mathematically, Sound knowledge of basic
science, knowledge of a specific discipline, Maintenance of
current knowledge and practice
• Personal: Ability and willingness to learn, Appreciation of
limits to knowledge, Good communication skills, and
international dimensions
• Professional: Commitment to high standards, of personal and
ethical responsibilities, Ability to handle uncertainty, to
communicate effectively, in more than one language including
English
• Managerial: Ability to work in a team, Appreciation of
management concepts and issues, Ability to lead and manage
personal, financial and technical resources
(National Academy of Engineering 2004)

8. Impact of dependencies across
subsystems
“Boeing has undertaken a grand business experiment with
the Dreamliner. In a bid to tap the best talent and hold down
costs, the aerospace icon has engaged in extreme
outsourcing, leaving it highly dependent on a far-flung
supply chain that includes 43 "top-tier" suppliers on three
continents. It is the first time Boeing has ever outsourced the
most critical areas of the plane, the wing and the fuselage.
About 80% of the
Dreamliner is being fabricated
by outside suppliers, vs. 51%
for existing Boeing planes...”
Holmes, S. (June 19, 2006)
“The 787 Encounters Turbulence”, BusinessWeek.

9. Cost of coordination is high
• A 2004 NIST report claims
– 40% of engineering spent locating and
validating information
– 30% of costs wasted due to poor
communication between teams
– leading to a loss of US$15.8 billion annually
• The cost of failing to provide effective coordination
leads to serious project consequences, including
significant schedule slip, cost overruns, and
project cancellation
(National Institute of Science and Technology 2004)

10. Visualization & Project Simulation across Subsystems
Our approach uses a collaborative project design method for
complex projects, including the activity of coordination across
teams and subsystems. The method is powered by a simulation
and visualization engine to gain shared situational awareness.
Sustainable, visual tools allow teams to keep their focus on real
progress, coordination overhead, and systemic product/system
risk throughout.
OUR APPROACH

11. Benefits of Project Design
• Architectural Judgement for Teams
• Forecast Accuracy through Converging Iteration
• Integration into Information Architecture & Practices

12. Judgement for Teams through
Architectural Project Design
• The Past - activity of product development was
sufficiently consistent over the career of an engineer
that this architectural view became embedded in
their professional judgement
• Now - the visualization and simulation becomes a
learning centred planning exercise through
collaborative modelling that stimulates and
enhances judgement
• Result - promotes accelerated convergence on
shared objectives and options for proceeding

13. Project Design Introduction
Rapid modeling & simulation of complex projects & portfolios
-- Basic R&D at MIT, U Tokyo, U Conn 1994-1999 –
-- Applied in Industry since 2001 --
-- Platform for Program Strategy Dialogue --
-- Collaborative Visual Design --
-- Forward-looking Forecasts and Analytics --
September 2009 13

14. Collaborative Visual Model
showing PBS & Mutual Dependence
• Shows the (PBS)
Product Breakdown
Structure and its
relationship to the
Activities
• Mutual and
concurrent
dependence can be
captured, and impact
simulated.

15. Visual Modelling
from OBS Point of View
• Shows Organizational
Relationship and
Primary Responsibility
for each Activity
• The multiple views of
the same project
stimulate real time
dialogue and insights.

16. Rapid, Iterative Forecasts
Lead to Situational Awareness
• An engaging experience for team
leaders similar to:
– practices for sports competition
– field exercises in the military
– rehearsals for performance
• Early mission studies don’t
normally include feasibility from a
PM point of view
• With Project design, program
feasibility can be weighed as part of
the overall mission strategy

17. Forecast Accuracy through
Converging Iteration
• As a project design exercise proceeds, relevant
elements in a model and forecasts of likely
schedule, cost, and risks improve
• Teams are stimulated to understand when,
where and why coordination occurs
• Understanding that lack of coordination will
cause systemic, propagating delay, rework, and
poor quality is critical

18. Forecasts include Work, Coordination
and Wait Driven Low Utilisation
• Coordination activities across teams are
least likely to be predicted based on previous
judgement
Includes coordination effort,
costs and schedule impact

19. Coordination is Real Effort and
Impact on Schedule Clearly Visible
Team Effort Forecasts
19

20. Visual, Collaborative Design: Demonstration
• Movie here

21. Our approach helps identify the most appropriate information
architecture for a complex system, shows how the information
architecture relates to product, process, and organizationalstructures
and how they can persist and evolve. Further, our approach outlines
how teams can forecast, budget and perform coordination activities
using the information architecture.
INTEGRATION INTO INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE &
PRACTICES

22. Information Architecture: Lifecycle
Model
Iterated Project Design System As Designed
Product/Organizational Functions Operational Product Structure
States Specifications
Structure
As-Maintained As-Built
Master Production
Schedule

23. Growth of Information Through
Project Activity
Product, Project, Organizational
Information Structure
100% Shuttle
Information & Learning
Engines ----
Product/Project Information
Operation,
controls computer wiring Maintenance,
Commis. Training
---- Field Testing
----
Assembly
Manufacturing
Engineering and
Detailed Design
Business Processes
Concept
Information Generation, Archiving and, Distribution
0

24. Achieving Value via Interplay of
Architectures
Information that spans products, teams,
and generations. Sustainable, relevant,
and evolving rather than a passive data
dump. (~50 years+).
Systems and artifact structure and
elements: as required, as designed, as
built, as operated and maintained.
Through retirement and generational re-
use. (~30 years+).
Organization focus and activity tied to
teams, budgets, deliverables, and
schedule with finite start and completion
(~10 years+).
Objective centered activity day to day,
week to week across architectures
(product, process, org). Guided by SE,
PM, and embedded work culture
standards.

25. Case Study
• Sikorsky S 92: an example of a six location, four
continent partnership that includes all aspects of
the aircraft, from marketing through service

26. Product Life Cycle as a
Partnership based Activity (1992-)
Embraer
Brazil
± activity quality M HI
± product quality Japan partnership
marketing
design
Activity Sikorsky Activity Jingdezhen engineering
Integrator Decomposed China production
USA delivery
service
+ design Gamesa
ability Spain
Six location, four continent partnership
that includes all aspects of the aircraft, Taiwan Aerospace
from marketing through service. Taiwan
26

27. Dependency by Subsystem Developer
p1 1
p1 0
Partner
p9
Subsystems
p6
p4
p3
p2
p1
p2 0
p1 9
Dependency shown as number of interfaces
shared by subsystems. p1 8
p1 7
Integrator
Subsystems p1 6
p1 5
p1 4
p1 3
p8
p7
p5
p5 p7 p8 p1 3 p1 4 p1 5 p1 6 p1 7 p1 8 p1 9 p2 0 p1 p2 p3 p4 p6 p9 p1 0 p1 1
27

28. Dependence across 4 key
Subsystems
upstream system activities
Subsys6 Subsys1 Subsys16 Subsys5 Dependence as demand for
interaction by teams.
s
p m r m r m r m r Coordination is activity to
e I f v I f v I f v I f v satisfy the need for interaction.
c F g w F g w F g w F g w
downstream system activities
spec
Subsys6 IF fs 6ri 5ri fs
Subsys6 mfg co 3r time-based
Subsys6 rvw co (finish to start)
Subsys1 IF fs 2r 2r co
Subsys1 mfg 3r co continuous flow
Subsys1 rvw co (parallel)
Subsys16 IF fs 4i
Subsys16 mfg co other
Subsys16 rvw co (information...)
Subsys5 IF fs
Subsys5 mfg 4ri 1ri 5ri 5r co
Subsys5 rvw co
Dependence driven by system
release co co co co
architecture, not just standard
1ri early some results&info work processes. These drive
2r early most results 5r parallel half results demand for coordination (or
3r early all results 5ri parallel half info & results wait and rework) in unexpected
4i early/para, some info 6ri late most info & results ways.
4ri early/para some results&info
28

29. Development Project Model &
Simulation Results
• Product Architecture, Workflow, and
Partnering (Org) Architectures had
been selected separately.
• “Perfect Storm”: The combination
of concurrency, time zones, and
dispersed decision making of rework
drove propagating quality issues.
• Traditional schedulers predicted 5
years to 1st prototype, these
models predicted ~ 9 years. And
showed where this delay would
originate.
September 2009 29

30. Actual Results:
Changes by Subsystem
A middle phase (Engineering) of the
development project. Change
propagating across systems was not
300 predicted in the traditional schedule. p1
280 p2
p3
260
p4 3 subsystems spanning
240 p5
organization architecture
p6
220
p7 drove most rework (as
200 p8
predicted).
180 p9
p10
160
p11
140 p12
120 p13
p14
100
p15
80 p16
60 p17
Duration to 1st prototype 4
40
years later than traditional
20
0
CPM schedules (as
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 predicted).
days
30

31. Complex Development:
“How fast is too fast?”
Initial, complicating assumption
• Partners should proceed as quickly as possible once specs available
Result
• Unexpected communication & wait
• Large amounts of re-work
Correction
• forecast coordination and its impacts ahead of time
• allocate and manage coordination when and where most valuable
• promote concurrency only when systemically beneficial
• change flow of relative progress = "slow-up", "speed down“
31

32. CONCLUSION

33. Emphasis on Coordination Practices
Integrated with Both SE and PM
Systems
Standards Engineering
Practices
Project Coordination Critical Opportunity for
Management Management Improvement in Complex
Dispersed Multi-System
Development

34. Key Benefits for NASA
• Accurate forecasts of feasible concurrency,
subsystem integration, schedule and risks
• Coordination: value prediction and allocation,
waste reduction, & ongoing adjustment
• Information Architecture: Sustainable &
Integrated into Practices
• Situational Awareness across dispersed
Centers & Suppliers