The document provides an overview of the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Project from a project management perspective. It discusses the GPM mission objectives of improving understanding of the global water cycle and precipitation forecasts. It describes the GPM observatory and spacecraft, including instruments and ground assets. It also summarizes the project management approach, including the use of an integrated master schedule, earned value management, and joint confidence level analysis to manage schedule and costs.

1. Global Precipitation Measurement
(GPM) Project Management
Perspectives on In-House
Development
PM Challenge
February 2011
Art Azarbarzin
Project Manager
Candace Carlisle
Deputy Project Manager
Jackie Fiora
Deputy Project Manager/Resources
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 1

2. Global Precipitation Measurement Overview
Mission Objective:
• Improve scientific understanding of the global water
cycle and fresh water availability
• Improve the accuracy of precipitation forecasts
• Provide frequent and complete sampling of the Earth’s
precipitation
Mission Description (Class B, Category I):
• Constellation of spacecraft provide global precipitation
measurement coverage
– NASA/JAXA Core spacecraft: Provides a microwave
radiometer (GMI) and dual-frequency precipitation
radar (DPR) to cross-calibrate entire constellation
• 65o inclination, 400 km altitude
• Launch July 2013 on HII-A
• 3 year mission (5 year propellant)
– Second GMI instrument to be accommodated on a
TBD partner-provided Low-Inclination spacecraft: • Partners
Complements Core spacecraft and partner assets – Japanese Aerospace and Exploration (JAXA)
• ~40o inclination, ~600 km altitude • DPR instruments for Core spacecraft
• Launch late 2014 (TBR) • Launch service for Core spacecraft
– Partner constellation spacecraft: Provided by – TBD, LIO Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle
JAXA, DoD, NOAA, other space agencies – Other U.S. and international agencies
• Ground assets • Data from radiometers (e.g. IPO NPP, DOD
– Precipitation Processing System: Data DMSP, JAXA GCOM-W, Megha-Tropiques)
processing, archive, distribution for the entire • Ground validation partnerships
constellation of spacecraft – Universities
– Ground validation system: Uses world-wide network of • Ground validation partnerships
ground-based measurements to validate space
measurements and algorithms • Science team participation
– Mission Operations Center for Core Spacecraft
– Instrument Operation Center for GMI #2
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 2
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

3. GPM Core Observatory
• Orbit: 407 km; 65 degree inclination Solar Array
HGA
Avionics
• 3 year design life with 5 years
propellant
• Controlled re-entry at end of
operational life
• GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) :
Conically Scanned Radiometer (Ball
Aerospace)
– 10.6, 18.7, 23.8, 36.5, 89, 166, 183 GHz
• Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar
(DPR = KuPR + KaPR): JAXA
– 13.6, 35.5 GHz
• Spacecraft bus: GSFC in-house GMI
design
– Aluminum and Composite
– Modular, fully-redundant avionics 6.5 m
– Steerable high-gain antenna on dual-hinged
boom
– Solar arrays track the sun
– 12 thrusters (4 forward, 8 aft)
– 240 Amp-hour Lithium Ion Battery
– Size: 13.0m x 6.5m x 5.0m
KuPR
– Mass: 3850 kg KaPR
– Power: ~1950W 5.0 m
– Data Rate:~ 300 Kbs (with onboard storage)
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 3
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

4. Project Management Approach
• GPM Project Management consistent with NPR 7120.5D/NM 7120-81
– Prescribes management practices, milestones, independent project-level reviews, etc.
– Project Plan approved
– GPM Project roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in the GPM Project Plan
• Project Manager responsible for technical, cost and schedule management
– Strong systems oversight of all technical issues
– Project staff monitors and controls cost and schedule
• Project is fully responsible and accountable for management and performance of
all GPM activities for both in-house and out of house
– Similar management approach and processes for both in-house and out-of-house work
– Project approves key technical and programmatic documents such as specifications, schedules
and budget, etc.
• Monitor and report status of development activities
– Written weekly reports to GSFC and HQ management
– GSFC Center Management Council, Flight Projects and Program Office Monthly reviews
– Weekly tag-up with Program Office
– Annual budget reviews with Program Office, Flight Projects, GSFC and Headquarters
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 4
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

5. Management of In-House Activities
• Formal Peer Reviews on each subsystem before major milestones
– GPM Peer Review Plan baselined
– Independent technical review of products and processes with project and Standing
Review Board member participation
– All subsystems and systems formally peer reviewed before major milestones (e.g.
PDR, CDR)
– Table-top review of all drawings, manufacturing plans prior to fabrication
• Milestone reviews (PDR, CDR) conducted with Standing Review Board
– Gate products tracked via spreadsheet and provided to SRB via NASA “Process
Based Mission Assurance” website
– Periodic telecons with SRB to follow up on review actions/concerns
• Status of development activities monitored each week/month
– Weekly Systems and Observatory Staff meetings
– Monthly Earned Value Management (EVM) cost/schedule reviews for each subsystem
– Joint Project - engineering monthly technical review (Champion Team Review)
• One manager from each engineering division will follow that division’s GPM flight
hardware/software and assist in problem-solving
• Monthly “Champion Team” reporting to engineering senior management
– Engineering Division internal monthly technical status reviews
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 5
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

6. DPR Instrument Insight & Interface Management
• JAXA is an international partner
– Signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place
– Export/Import Control Plan baselined
• Baselined Interface Control Document (ICD)
• NASA-JAXA Joint Requirements document signed
• Established S&MA “equivalence”
• Monthly videocons
• Exchange of Technical Interface Communications (TICs) and
Issues
– Weekly status update
• Face-to-face Technical Interface Meetings at least twice a year
(US, Japan)
• Project participation in JAXA Interface reviews
– Interface CDR conducted July 2009
– Instrument Pre-Environmental Review planned for January 2011
• Monthly JAXA visit by the responsible product Lead
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 6
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

7. Schedule Implementation Overview
• Single Integrated Master Schedule used to manage the project
• Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) centralized, utilizing MS Project
2007 tool for all in-house and out-of-house work
– 3 Levels of Integrated Schedules with Custom Views
– Organized by Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Subsystem/Element,
Lead
– Schedule Generally based on a 1-8-5 GSFC Holiday Schedule Calendar
– Activities are Linked to the 7/21/2013 Launch Readiness Date
– Using Critical Path Method (CPM) and Total Slack is Tracked to Launch
• Critical, Cumulative, & EVMS Milestones are identified and
Tracked monthly
– Included in monthly schedule/cost reviews for each subsystem
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 7
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

8. Example Subsystem Detailed Schedule
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 8
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

9. Example Subsystem Intermediate Schedule
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 9
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

10. Core Observatory Master Schedule 12/09 MCDR BL Rev: -
(PPBE 2011 - Core LRD 7/21/2013) Status as of: 9/30/10
10

11. Earned Value Management
(EVM)
Implementation/Management on
GPM
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 11
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

12. EVM Implementation Approach
• GPM uses integrated EVM for the entire project
• Out of house contracts over $25M, EVM started at contract award
– International Partners do not use EVM
• In-house EVM implementation started in March 2010
– Actuals used for prior years
– Implementation similar to industry standard
– March 2010 Budget submit used as the baseline
• Baseline EVM remains unchanged every year, despite cost
phasing requirement adjustments
• No EVM re-baseline permitted, unless funding constraint
imposed by NASA HQ or launch readiness date is changed
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 12
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

13. Earned Value Management
• Subsystem Implementation Plans (SIPs) used to control cost and
schedule
– SIPs include baseline budget, detailed staffing plan, key milestones &
deliverables, and subsystem detailed schedule
• Detailed integrated excel spreadsheet used to develop SIPs
– SIPs used as the control account, work package, and planning package
authorizing document
• EVMS Software
– MPM and Winsight
• Management Tools and Reports
– WBS and WBS Dictionary
– Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM)
– Monthly Contract Performance Reporting (CPR)’s
– Similar CPR reporting for In-house effort
• Monthly calculation of EVMS performance metrics included in
monthly schedule/cost reviews for each subsystem
– Reviewed by management monthly
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 13
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

14. Subsystem Implementation Plan (SIP) Budget Baseline
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 14
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

15. Example SIP Budget, Staffing FY11 by Month
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 15
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

16. Example SIP Budget, Staffing FY12 – FY14
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 16
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

17. Joint Confidence Level
(JCL)Cost and Schedule
Estimation for GPM
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 17
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

18. GPM JCL Approach
• GPM uses the CEPA tool
– NASA HQ provided VAI as consultants to assist GPM with JCL
• GPM JCL is top down
– Captures the plan
• Plan established at PDR (Nov 2008)
– Total plan comprised of 24 activities from PDR through launch (July 2013)
• WBS cost have two parts: Fixed and Variable cost
– Fixed cost covers the core team that will carried to the end of the program
– Variable cost covers designers, materials, manufacturing and test
– Historical performance (actuals) measured PDR through March 2010
• Actual cost and schedule vs. plan
• JCL analysis performed from April 2010 through launch
– Inputs based on project’s forecast of cost and schedule performance for
each of the 24 activities (5x5s), informed by historical performance data
– The JCL Tool calculates the Fixed cost separately and with any schedule
slips, it adds the Fixed cost to the total cost impact
• 1000 sample Monte Carlo Simulation
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 18
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

19. 5x5 set up
• WBS cost have two parts: Fixed and Variable cost
– Fixed cost covers the core team that will carried to the end of the program
– Variable cost covers designers, materials, manufacturing and test
• Only variable cost is entered in 5x5s for this tool
• Schedule column reflects how much of a serial impact to LRD
• 5x5 four corners
– A1 (green) – Best achievable cost and schedule (taking into account current status)
– A5 ) – Stretch the development due to part delays or other spacecraft
hardware development for cost efficiency
– E1 (blue) – Maximum practical amount of money spent to keep activity on schedule
– E5 (red) - Worst case cost and schedule due to developmental problems
• The JCL Tool calculates the Fixed cost separately and with any
schedule slips, it adds the Fixed cost to the total cost impact
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 19
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

20. Example Subsystem– PDR to March 2010 Look (18 Mos Window)
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
FY12 FY13
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
PDR G
LT Q F
Life Test
Qual G
Qual H Assy Test
Flt G
Flt H Assy Test
LR ETU Qual Flight
F 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
COST V 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4-10 thru 2013
T 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
5.2 4.2 2.8 1.1 .9 6.7
F = 1.1 F = .9 F = .8 F = .8 F = .8 F = 2.8
V = 4.1 V = 3.3 V = 2.0 V = .3 V = .1 V = 3.9
3-10 G
F LT Q
Life Test
Flt G Schedule
Assessment = a
Flt H A/T
Loss of 7.5 Mos
Qual G Assy
Qual H A/T
LR ETU Qual Flight
F 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
COST 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5
V 4-10 thru 2013
T 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8
4.4
7.5 6.0
10.5 4.3
4.3 2.2
1.2 .7
.9 9.2
F = .9 F = 1.3 F = 1.3 F = .7 F = .5 F = 3.1
V = 3.5 V = 4.7 V = 3.1 V = .5 V = .2 V = 6.1
Historical Performance PDR to go = 3.9
Measure for 18 Mos
Window V$
Roll Thru = 2.4
Accomplished 10.5 Mos Total Plan = 6.3
Lost 7.5 Mos Performance @ 100% = 6.3
Roll thru 86% = 7.3
Value of 7.5 = $2.4M (Var $) $2.4M @ 100%
72% = 8.8
Perform is: Var Accom = 3.5 58% = 10.9
= .58 44% = 14.3
Var Spent = 6.0
20

21. Output from 1000 Monte Carlo Cases
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 21
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

22. Project Management Perspectives
• AETD (Engineering) Champion team is very successful in
assisting with keeping the project on track
• Single integrated master schedule, with monthly tracking at
detailed level is critical in understanding and managing in-house
progress and working around development problems
• Working with GSFC EVM team and building on LRO experience
to successfully implement EVM for the GPM Project
• Regular videocons and frequent exchange of technical
communications (TICs) with JAXA keeps the international
partnership on track
• Frequent interaction with SRB had mixed success
– SRB participation in peer reviews meant that key members were informed
about the design prior to major reviews
– Additional overhead of follow-up telecons
• Use of top-down CEPA tool for JCL kept the effort manageable
and simple
– Project and SRB were in learning mode on JCL and the tool
– JCL result useful for mitigating potential FY budget shortfalls
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 22
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

23. Core Observatory Alignment Test
Flight Structure assembled DPR alignment test completed
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 23
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011

24. GPM Lower Bus Structure in Clean Room
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 24
GPM PM Perspectives, PM Challenge 2011