Download as PDF, PPTX
![National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
References
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
[1] IEEEAC Paper 1359 presented at 2004 IEEE
Aerospace Conference; “JPL’s Approach for Helping
Flight Project Managers Meet Today’s Management
Challenges”, C. J. Leising, dated 12/22/03
[2] AIAA Paper 2009-6824 presented at AIAA
Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena,
California; "Measuring the Maturity of Robotic
Planetary Mission Concepts", R.R. Wessen, M. Adler,
C.J. Leising, B. Sherwood, Sep. 14-17, 2009
[3] IEEEAC Paper 1318 to be presented at 2010
IEEE Aerospace conference “Recent Improvements
in JPL’s Mission Formulation Process”, Charles J.
Leising, Brent Sherwood, Dr. Mark Adler, Dr. Randii
R. Wessen, Dr. Firouz M. Naderi, dated March 6,
2010
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 28](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/charles-leising-111027094736-phpapp01/85/Charles-leising-28-320.jpg)
More Related Content
![Getting Started with Apache Spark: Big Data Made Simple [Free Meetup]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/apachesparkgettingstarted-260203175547-8361bcc3-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Charles.leising
- 1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Increasing the Robustness of Flight Project Concepts Project Manager Challenge C.J. Leising B. Sherwood Dr. M. Adler Dr. R. Wessen Dr. F. Naderi February 9, 2010 Copyright 2009 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged. Used with permission
- 2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration JetPropulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California “A Tale of Two Cities”
- 3. National Aeronautics and Current Environment - Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Concept Development Technology Pasadena, California • Lack of insight, resources, workforce or time to assess all significant risks • Inability to communicate concept maturity • Minimum guidelines on how to incorporate or evaluate concept “robustness” • Competitive, cost capped environment • Fewer new starts, desire to win and unwarranted optimism 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 3
- 4. Pre-Phase A andFormulation Phase Life Cycle (Updated 10.26.2009) Advanced Concept Step 1 Step 2 Phase B Project Preliminary Design and Phase Studies Development Proposal Proposal Technology Completion • Identify & Develop New • Develop Innovative • Develop Step 1 • Develop Step 2 Concept Study • Validate • Develop Final Sys Reqts Concepts Mission Concepts for Proposal, With Report, With Final Mission & Implementation • Develop Prelim Design • Perform Advanced Studies Rapid Proposal Response Recommended Sci Reqts, S/C Concept, Approach • Develop Baseline Project • Assess Sci Drivers • Identify Driving Level 1 Reqts, Technology Assessment, Cost • Develop Prelim Plan and PIP • Identify Technology Options Requirements S/C Concept, & Schedule Project Plan & • Develop Phase C/D Plan • Perform Technology Cost & Sched • Assemble Project Team PIP Evaluation Draft AO Down Site Project AO release Select Visit Selection KDP-C Major PIs identify mission concepts Step 1 Step 2 Project Gates & Concept Portfolio Cost Baseline Commitment Proposal Proposal CSR Reviews Review Gate Preview Commitment Review/Gate Gate/Proposal Implementation Reviews Submitted Risk Review Submitted PMSR PDR Advanced Studies Pre-Phase A Phase A Phase B Project Concept Development Concept & Technology Preliminary Design and Phase Development Technology Completion • Identify & Develop New • Develop Draft Mission Reqts • Develop Prelim Sys Reqts • Develop Final Sys Reqts Concepts • Perform Mission and S/C Studies and • Complete Technology Assessment • Develop Prelim Mission and S/C Design • Perform Advanced Studies Technology Evaluation • Baseline Mission and S/C Concepts • Develop Baseline Project Plan & PIP • Assess Sci Drivers • Propose Baseline Mission Concept • Develop Prelim Project Plan, PIP and & • Develop Phase C/D Plan • Identify Technology Options • Develop Phase A Plan Final Technology Development Plan • Demonstrate Technology Form/Fit/Function • Develop Phase B Plan • Assemble Project Team Science Advisory Initiate Science Instrument Acquisition Group Pre-Project Definition KDP-A AO Strategy Meeting KDP-B KDP-C Team Major Project Milestones Mission & Reviews Study Report MCR SRR MDR PDR 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 4
- 5. National Aeronautics and Review Detail Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Project Advanced Concept Step 1 Step 2 Phase Studies Development Proposal Proposal Draft AO Down AO Release Select PI’s identify mission Major concepts Step 1 Step 2 Project Gates & Reviews Concept Portfolio Cost Baseline Commitment Proposal Review Gate Preview Commitment Gate/Proposal Implementation Review/Gate Submitted Risk Review CML 1 2 3 4 5 - CML tied to a life cycle milestone - CML that occurs between life cycle milestones 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 5
- 6. National Aeronautics and Additional Improvements and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Innovations Technology Pasadena, California • New Metric - Concept Maturity Levels • New P4 document that quantifies requirements and guidelines • New tools and templates • Increased Formulation Team support • Organizational improvements • New training for pre-phase A community 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 6
- 7. National Aeronautics Absent: a Common Language for and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Concepts California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California • Planetary Projects are overrunning their budgets during development - Concept baselines are the basis for establishing project costs • Need a common language to assess a concept’s completeness, robustness and maturity Trades Alternatives and Selections Comments Launch vehicle Atlas V Delta IV-Heavy Ares V Ares V considered acceptable only for sample return concepts launched post 2020. Cruise propulsion SEP + GAs Chemical + GAs Propulsive only Good performance from Chemical+Gravity How Assists (GAs). SEP+GAs warrants further consideration, but new optimized trajectory search is needed. Capture into Saturn system Titan aerocapture Propulsive capture Aerogravity assist saves mass and also saves at (aerogravity assist) least several months in pumpdown . Uranus Satellites Pump-down mission design Enceladus/Titan Multiple moon GAs Multiple moon REP+GAs Other options found to be too high delta-V or GAs only only propulsively- flight time. mature is leveraged GAs RPS type MMRTG ARPS (advanced ARPS specific power higher, efficiency much Interior higher (less Pu needed). Guidelines allowed Interior Stirling) Magnetic Energetic Surface Surface Structure ARPS as acceptable and available option for Atmosphere Structure Field Particles Structure Composition (Gravity Field) (Gravity Field) flagship studies. Orbiter implementation Enceladus Orbiter Low-Energy High-Energy Enceladus Multiple- Enceladus Multiple- Flyby (Saturn Flyby (Saturn Orbiter) Orbiter) Lg. Circ. Vertical Release of your Priority placed on having in-situ measurements Sm. Conv. Structure Internal Heat Lander/Probe implementation Fly-Through Rough Landers Soft Landers Orbi-Landers Probes and from surface. Impactors Number of landers None One Three (regional Five (larger-scale distribution) distribution and/or Fly-By redundancy) Lander lifetime/duration Short-lived (~2 Long-lived (~1 year concept? weeks on primary on RPS) battery or fuel cell) Polar Orbiter Lander mobility type Stationary Locally mobile (~10 Regionally mobile Globally mobile Considered propulsive "hopper" type concepts km) (~100 km) for soft landers. Equatorial Orbiter Acceptable and evaluated in this Legend: study Atm. Probe Acceptable but not evaluated in this study Lander Unacceptable A Enceladus orbiter with multiple B Enceladus orbiter with multiple D Enceladus orbiter becoming a (flybys) with multiple short-lived Relative Goal Science Value E Enceladus orbiter with single (flybys) with a single long-lived Mass Comparison Summary - Launch Mass and Sub-Elements G High energy Saturn orbiter H Low energy Saturn orbiter F Low energy Saturn orbiter Free-Flying I Low energy Saturn orbiter C Enceladus orbiter alone Instruments 6,000 8000 short lived landers long-lived landers long-lived lander long-lived lander Delta IV-Heavy C3=16 km^2/s^2 (flybys) alone (flybys) alone 7000 5,000 Cassini landers lander 6000 4,000 Science Goals, Enceladus Mission Science Assessment - 0-10, 10 best 5000 Atlas 551 C3=16 km^2/s^2 $FY06M Mass (kg) 1. What is the heat source, what drives the plume 10 6 7 4 5 5 2 1 3 6 1 3,000 TMC 4000 2.Lander(s) the plume production rate, and does it vary What is 8 8 9 8 9 9 7 3 8 7 3 3000 3.Orbiter are the effects of the plume on the structure and What 2,000 composition of Enceladus? 5 8 9 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 2000 4.Aerocapturethe interaction effects of the plume on the What are System Cruise/Prop Stage Saturnian system 3 7 7 7 6 6 8 7 8 7 1,000 7 1000 5. Does the composition and/or existence of the plume give - 0 us clues to the origin and evolution of the solar system 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 3 Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G Option H Option I A B C D E F G H I 6. Does the plume source environment provide the conditions necessary (or sufficient) to sustain biotic or pre- biotic chemistry 5 8 8 6 7 8 6 5 7 8 3 7. Are other similar bodies (Dione, Tethys, Rhea) also active, and if not, why not? 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 5 Value by Architecture, summed 52 55 45 49 50 42 31 46 51 24 Value by Architecture, weighted, summed, normalized 0.46 0.493 0.393 0.439 0.446 0.353 0.246 0.393 0.449 0.187 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 7
- 8. What’s in aMission National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Concept? California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Management Elements Engineering Elements Proposal Concepts are composed of engineering and management elements 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 8
- 9. National Aeronautics and Elements of a Concept Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Engineering Elements Management Elements • Mission Objectives & Requirements • Acquisition Approach • Mission Design • Project Organization • Spacecraft System Design • Schedules & Margins • Ground System Design • Cost, Cost Risks & Reserves • Technical Risk Assessment & Mitigation • Implementation Plans • Technical Maturity • Subsystem Make-Buy • Inheritance • Work Breakdown Structure • Master Equipment List • Testbeds, Models & Spares • Technical Margins • Coordinated Cost, Schedule & Scope • Trade Space • Mission Assurance Approach • Modeling & Simulation Approach • Launch Vehicle Options • Planetary Protection Approach 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 9
- 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration A Powerful Communication Tool Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Mission Prelim CML 7 Integrated B/L Definition Review I nitial Design CML 6 Preliminary Step 1 Design Concept Baseline CML 5 Proposal Review (PDR) Preferred Design Point within CML 4 Trade Space Trade Space CML 3 I nitial Feasibility F=ma CML 2 Cocktail Napkin CML 1 CMLs measure concept maturity in the same way TRLs measure technology readiness 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 10
- 11. Summary CML Matrix November 2, 2009 Name Cocktail Initial Trade Space Point Design within Concept Baseline Initial Design Prelim Cost- Napkin Feasibility Trade Space Sched-Design Integ B/L CML 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Organization PI needed for Partnering options identified Pre-Project Manager & Pre- Co-I(s), rest of Science team & Project Manager identified; Remaining Core Project Team Core project team in Earth and Project Scientist appointed key partners identified Roles & responsibilities of key identified place Astrophysics (assigned); Implementation partners defined; Draft org chart concepts mode trades performed developed Schedule Documented to Rough (or required) launch Variations and risks to 1-page top-level Gantt chart 1-page Gantt Chart expanded Top-level Gantt Chart & draft Preliminary Integrated approximate half- year and mission duration development schedule and generated; Schedule compared to 1-month resolution with key IMS (with critical path and Master Schedule decade documented impacts to mission duration to Schedule Rules-of-Thumb deliverables, system reviews, funded schedule reserve) produced documented guidelines and critical path updated Cost Cost estimated by Cost estimates using Division Cost sensitivities across trade Model-based estimate iterated A cost comparison table with at Cost estimate is a combination Signed-off grass roots analogy (scatter- 3X costing models generated space as a function of major using models with subsystem least 3 reconciled model-based of grass roots and model- cost estimated by plot model) (e.g., MC2, ROMMIT, CoMET, drivers determined level functionality; Team X estimates produced (e.g., Price, based cost estimates organizations Rapid Costing Tool, etc.) ) model-based cost estimate SEER, etc.); Input parameters responsible for for each model identified completing the work Science Prime science, Objectives quantified to levels Objectives broadened to include End-to-end approach for Science Traceability Matrix Level 2 & 3 driving Final PLRA submitted; exploration & that allow comparison with acceptable alternatives; Cost and achieving science documented; produced requirements documented Preliminary Level 2 & technology previous investigations; risk sensitivities to varying levels Distinction between baseline & 3 requirements objectives Internal draft Level 1 of science return quantified threshold (floor) success criteria documented documented requirements documented documented; Mission High level Rudimentary calculations & Alternative sets of mission Driving requirements, initial high- Mission operational phases Expanded description of Key driving mission description of comparisons to mission architectures vs. science level scenarios, timelines and documented to level needed for mission phases to illustrate scenarios, timelines mission analogues to demonstrate objectives, cost, & risk operational modes documented illustrating how science critical s/c/ ground functions and modes documented feasibility documented documented & evaluated objectives will be met documented documented in detail Spacecraft High-level Key flight elements, design Alternate flight system System architecture and Subsystem & instrument Initial system and subsystem System and description of parameters and performance architectures and payloads vs. instrument design described by designs described; design documented subsystem design, System spacecraft requirements documented; science/mission objectives, cost mech. config. drawings and block instrument accommodations open issues and documented High-level comparison to and risk documented & evaluated diagrams; recommended external I/F similar flight systems heritage and descope options documented documented Ground None at this time Mission ops approach Mission ops drivers and Ops concept documented; Major MOS responsibilities, MOS diagrams with proposed MOS implementation documented; High-level sensitivities documented MOS/GDS/ operations support block diagrams, facilities and inheritance documented w/ mission unique System comparison to similar ground architecture based on complexity I/Fs with science community items documented systems documented of ops scenarios quantified documented Technical What is How to implement new Mitigation/ development options A 5 × 5 matrix with relevant risk Selected mitigation/ Risk list expanded to include Project risk unprecedented? functionality; Initial risk drivers for risks characterized and drivers (include selected development options into second tier subsystem and/or management process Risks and developments documented mitigation/ development options) baseline detailed; Strategies for instrument risks implemented documented used control, allocation and release of tech margins and cost reserves documented
- 12. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Science CML Matrix Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Science Prime Objectives Objectives End-to-end Science Level 2 & 3 Final PLRA science, quantified to broadened to approach for Traceability driving submitted; exploration levels that include achieving Matrix requirements Preliminary & allow acceptable science produced documented Level 2 & 3 technology comparison alternatives; documented; requirements objectives with previous Cost and risk Distinction documented documented investigations; sensitivities to between baseline Internal draft varying levels of & threshold Level 1 science return (floor) success requirements quantified criteria documented documented; 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 12
- 13. Pre-Phase A andFormulation Phase Life National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Cycle (Updated 10.26.2009) California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Advanced Concept Step 1 Step 2 Phase B Project Preliminary Design & Phase Studies Development Proposal Proposal Technology Completion Draft AO Down Site Project AO release Select Visit Selection KDP-C Major PIs identify mission concepts Step 1 Step 2 Project Gates & Concept Portfolio Cost Baseline Commitment Proposal Proposal CSR Reviews Review Gate Preview Commitment Gate/Proposal Implementation Reviews Submitted PMSR PDR Review/Gate Submitted Risk Review CML 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Advanced Pre-Phase A Phase A Phase B Project Concept Development Concept & Technology Preliminary Design & Phase Studies Development Technology Completion Science Advisory Initiate Science Instrument Acquisition Group Pre-Project Definition KDP-A AO Strategy Meeting KDP-B KDP-C Team Major Project Milestones Mission & Reviews Study Report MCR SRR MDR PDR CML 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - CML tied to a life cycle milestone - CML that occurs between life cycle milestones 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 13
- 14. Application to NewFrontiers National Aeronautics and Space Administration Proposals – CML 5 Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California NF concepts in Feb 2009 Functional Area Criteria NF #1 NF #2 NF #3 NF #4 Science Objectives, Baseline science mission and success criteria (B-16) defined oŹŹ g g g g Driving Requirements & Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) oŹŹ g g y g Descope Options End-to-end approach for achieving science objectives (B-16) oŹŹ y g g g Draft Level 1 requirements (B-17) oŹŹ g g g g 30-min Major driving requirements (drives costs or risks) oŹŹ g g g g oŹŹScience traceability matrix upward to national science objectives and downward through measurement requirements, instrument functional requirements and g g g g mission functional requirements (B-15, B-17) Demonstrate that instrumentation can meet measurement requirements (B-19) oŹŹ y y g g Science enhancement options (SEO), if any (B-25) oŹŹ g g g N/A Threshold science mission (B-18) oŹŹ g g g g Scope contingency, descope options, technology fallback options (B-37) oŹŹ g g g g Mission Design Mission overview with description of mission phases and critical events (B-26, B-29, B-30) oŹŹ g g g g Mission traceability matrix from mission functional requirements to mission design, spacecraft, ground system and operations requirements (B-27) oŹŹ y g g g Navigation, delta-V & propellant budgets for s/c (B-29, B-30, B-32)) oŹŹ g g g g interviews oŹŹ Documented high-level science observing profiles, timelines and modes defining instrument characteristics, S/C and ground activities adequate to see that r g g g science objectives will be met (B-19, B-22, B-35) oŹŹ Instrument quantity, quality, continuity & latency (QQCL) requirements (B-21) y g g g Command & Data Handling strategies (B-32) oŹŹ y g g g Telecommunication & antenna coverage strategies (B-27, B-35) oŹŹ g g g g oŹŹ day launch period 20 g g g g Spacecraft or Instrument System architecture, mechanical configuration drawings, block diagrams (B-27, B-29, B-32, B-33) oŹŹ g g g g System Design Spacecraft system capabilities (e.g., lifetimes, pointing, etc.) (B-32) oŹŹ g g g g Spacecraft system contingency & margins (B-34) oŹŹ g g g g Subsystem & instrument designs to the appropriate assembly level (Represented by subsystem block diagrams and CAD drawings) (B-19. B-32) r g g g identify oŹŹ Single point failures oŹŹ g g g g Selected redundancy oŹŹ g g g g Instrument descriptions & accommodations (B-20, B-27) oŹŹ g g g g Ground System/Mission MOS and tracking architectural options oŹŹ g g g y Operations System MOS/ GDS sizing (based on ops complexity and tracking scenarios) (B-30, B-35) oŹŹ g g g y Design Major MOS responsibilities (B-29) oŹŹ g g g g Approach for acquiring and returning critical events data (B-35) oŹŹ g g g g Block diagrams, facilities & I/Fs with science community identified (B-35) oŹŹ r g g y Technical Risk Mitigation for risk drivers detailed, costed and incorporated into baseline cost (B-43) g g g g weaknesses oŹŹ Assessment & Mitigation Documented top technical risks using a 5x5 matrix oŹŹ g g g g Management strategies for control, allocation & release of technical margins, cost reserves & schedule margin (B-43) oŹŹ r y g y Technology Readiness Completed technology evaluations (B-37) oŹŹ g g g g Levels TRL-5 with target of TRL-6 (B-37) oŹŹ g y g g Rationale for stated TRL value (B-37) oŹŹ g g g g Approach for maturing any new technology to TRL 6 by the time of the Project PDR (B-37) oŹŹ r g g g Master Equipment Lists Assembly level (e.g. antenna, propellant tank, star tracker, etc) (B-67) oŹŹ g g g g needing Technical Margins (B-34 requires proposal teams to calculate the following eight margins, but does not specify thresholds.) * Margins can be relaxed down to PMSR levels if equivalent of 5 percentage points of scope contingency can be identified. (Note: New Fronters'09 teams should follow the margin strategy provided by the Program Office) S/C Dry Mass (Mass growth oŹŹ 35%* >= g g g g allowance & margin) Power oŹŹ 35%* >= g g g y attention Propellants oŹŹ TBD%* >= g TBD g g Data Storage oŹŹ TBD%* >= y TBD g g Attitude Control oŹŹ TBD%* >= g TBD g g Energy oŹŹ 35%* >= g g g y Flight S/W (CPU timing & oŹŹ 100% >= TBD r g g memory) Telecom oŹŹ 3 dB (for deep space); >=6 dB (for proximity links) >= g g g g Major Trades Results of architectural trade studies (B-36) oŹŹ g g g g Trade space explored and rationale for selection of baseline (B-36) oŹŹ g g g g Complete operations vs ground trades (B-36) oŹŹ g N/A g g Complete subsystem level trades and justify selected baseline oŹŹ g g g g Essential trade studies to be completed oŹŹ g g g g Mission Assurance Define high-level reliability approach (e.g., redundancy, parts, testing, analysis, etc.) (B-36) oŹŹ g g g g Approach for closing action items, hardware discrepancies & test anomalies (B-36) oŹŹ r g g g Analytical Modeling & Identify unique analytical modeling and simulation requirements necessary for the mission to succeed (other than standard institutional modeling tools) oŹŹ g g g g Simulations Key performance validation models oŹŹ g g g g Identify development plan oŹŹ r y g g Assess model reuse & new developments oŹŹ r g g g Launch Vehicle Recommended launch vehicle, requirements & capabilities (B-27, B-31) oŹŹ g g g g Planetary Protection Obtain letter with tentative Planetary Protection Categorization (B-63) oŹŹ r y g g Project Plans o Completed Phase A Plan prior to start of Step 2 (B-41) TBD N/A g N/A o Reviewed list of questions in Project Managers Decisions Guidance & Policies template r r y r o System Engineering approach documented in viewgraphs (B-36) r r g r o Completed Business Decision Memorandum & Partner MOU (B-57 requires Letter of Commitment in the proposal) g r g g o Complete NEPA ECLASS Worksheet (N/A for New Frontiers'09) r r g y o Initial Technical Assistance Agreement has been written to cover Step 1 & Step 2 activities and is ready for submission (if any foreign partners) N/A r g r o Prelim V&V approach for new & enabling functions and integration approaches documented in VGs (B-39) g g g g o Defined science data release philosophy, archive responsibilities & delivery schedule (B-23) y g g g Organization, Partnering Science Team identified (B-41) oŹŹ g g g g & Staffing Project Mgr (B-42), PSE, FSM and/or ISDM identified oŹŹ TBD r y N/A Roles & responsibilities of key partners defined (B-42) oŹŹ g g g g Draft org chart developed (B-41) oŹŹ g g g g List proposed contributions and cooperative agreements (B-44) oŹŹ r g g g Schedules One page Gantt Chart with system level activities, including:. oŹŹ g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ All system reviews (B-40) g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Spacecraft development (B-40) g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Instrument developments (B-40) g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ enhancement options (B-40) Science N/A g g N/A -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ system developments (B-40) Ground g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Technology development g g g N/A -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ I&T launch readiness (B-30, B-38, B-40) g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Hardware Models & simulators (B-40) g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Long lead item procurements (B-40) r y g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ path (B-40) Critical r g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ schedule reserves (B-40) Funded g g g g -ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ resolution (B-40) 1 month g g g g Schedule Margin o Start of Implementation to ATLO 1.5 months/year g y g y o ATLO to Launch Site 2.5 months/year g y g y o Receipt at Launch Site to Launch 1.5 weeks/months g y g y Inheritance Heritage options (B-19, B-36, B-69) oŹŹ g y g g oŹŹ claiming any inheritance benefit, validate against P4 algorithm at subsystem level (see Office 154 for help) If r r y r Subsystem Make-Buy Generate strawman list of subsystem sources oŹŹ g g g g Decisions Work Breakdown Follow NASA Standard WBS and Dictionary to Level 2 (B-49) oŹŹ g g g g Structure Follow JPL Standard WBS below Level 2 oŹŹ g g g g Cost Cost table (B-49) oŹŹ g g g g Cost estimate comparison table for three types of models (e.g., Price, SEER, etc.) (per Cost Steering Group) (B-46) oŹŹ g g g g Justification for recommended reserve allocations (B-47) oŹŹ g g g g Identify input parameters used for each estimation method oŹŹ g g g g Cost Risk Assessment Description of cost risks (B-48) oŹŹ g g g g Complete cost risk factors form and determine recommended reserve level based on cost risk subfactors algorithm oŹŹ g g g g Preliminary reserve allocation by major WBS element (e.g. science, spacecraft, payload, etc) oŹŹ r g g g ESD/5X risk assessment oŹŹ N/A g N/A H/W Models, Testbeds & oŹŹ Identify spares, testbeds (B-38), simulators and model baseline (prototype, ETM, protoflight, etc) g g g g Spares 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 14
- 15. National Aeronautics and Pre-Project Principles and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Practices (P4) Pasadena, California • Define: – quantitative criteria for each concept element – practices to be followed • Imposes increasing rigor for later stages of life cycle • Organized by CML • Mix of guidelines and requirements • Transitions seamlessly into Flight Project Practices and NPR 7120.5 • Available in hard copy or on-line 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 15
- 16. National Aeronautics CMLs were used to Set and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Expectations Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 16
- 17. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology P4 Example Pasadena, California 5.8 Technical Risk Assessment & Mitigation Technical risk assessment involves identification, analysis and mitigation of risks. These risks need to be identified early and continuously re-evaluated. Principles: 1. Unprecedented Capabilities (G) – The concept includes a list of unique and unprecedented mission capabilities outside JPL or NASA experience. (CML 1) Rationale: Unprecedented capabilities represent potential risk areas that should be identified to inform the initial feasibility studies. 2. Implementing New Functionality (G) – The concept includes an identification of alternative approaches for implementing unprecedented new capabilities and or significant technology or engineering development (CML 2) Rationale: Cannot conclude the concept is feasible without identifying backups for new technology and major engineering development . Practices: 1. Early Identification of Top Risks (G) – Document top risks and potential mitigations. (CML 3) Rationale: Understand the risk implications of each option being evaluated so they may be compared. 2/9/2010 Note: for this example, text truncates at PM Challenge 17 CML 3.
- 18. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Cost Risk Subfactors California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California COST RISK SUBFACTORS COST RISK SUBFACTORS MISSION COMPLEXITY SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE 1. Mission with multiple flight elements (P) 1. New system architecture (P) 2. Mission with multiple objectives 2. System architecture applied to new environment and technology 3. Precision lander mission 3. Level 1 Requirements not well defined in formulation phase (P) 4. Operation in harsh environments (P) 4. System with many ACS modes SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT 5. System with many deployments 1. Mission enabling spacecraft technology with TRL<5 (P) 6. Excessive reliability requirements (P) 2. Mission critical instrument technology with TRL<5 7.Pointing control stability requirements beyond state of art 3. Lack of fallback option for mission critical technology CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES MATCH 4. Multiple interfaces affected by mission critical technology 1. Contractor inexperienced in mission application (P) NEW SOFTWARE OR UNVALIDATED SOFTWARE 2. Foreign Partner delivering hardware that is mission critical or on INHERITANCE critical path 1. New software architecture 3. Not enough experienced personnel available. 2. New fault protection PROGRAMMATIC /COST &SCHEDULE MARGIN 3. New software team 1. Less then 12-month Phase A/B 4. Undocumented software inheritance without the same development team 2. Less than 30-month Phase C/D TECHNICAL MARGINS 3. Schedule margins below guidelines (P) 1. New design with multiple parameters not meeting the margin requirements specified in the design principles (P) 4. Multiple programmatic interfaces 2. Inherited hardware with any single technical parameter not meeting the technical margin requirements specified in the design principles MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION 1. Inadequate team and management experience (P) 2. Insufficient workforce 3. Risk mitigation plan not completed during formulation phase 4. Selection of science instruments late in phase B (P) (P) = Primary risk subfactors; All others (S) = Secondary risk subfactors. Required budget reserve % = 20% + 5(number of P's)% + 2(number of S's)% 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 18
- 19. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Cost and Schedule Rules of California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Thumb 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 19
- 20. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology “Frontline” Web Portal Pasadena, California 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 20
- 21. National Aeronautics and Space Administration JetPropulsion Example of Information on Website Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California
- 22. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Quad Chart Pasadena, California C (Final Design & Fabrication) 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 22
- 23. Formulation Support National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Team Services Technology Pasadena, California • Planning templates • Review agenda • Concept maturity assessments • Tailoring EVM and WBS • Pre-Project Principles and Practices • Gate Products • Cost and Schedule “Rules of Thumb” • Cost Risk Subfactors • Schedule analysis • Requirements “PIT” sessions 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 23
- 24. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Strategic Planning & Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Project Formulation Technology Pasadena, California JPL Laboratory Director Associate Laboratory Director for Project Formulation & Strategy 150 Strategic Planning & Formulation Office 151 152 153 154 155 Strategic Analysis Advanced Concepts Opportunity Project Formulation System Modeling and Support Office Development Office Development Office Support Office Analysis Office 1521 1531 Advanced Design Proposal Support Methods Office Office - Mission architects - Capture - Formulation Team - Infrastructure strategies support to Step 2 support for - Tools - Strategic funding Proposals and modeling and - Team X Formulation Teams simulation support - New methodologies - P4 - Proposal gates, standards, - Standards, tools, templates, templates, reviews & examples processes - Frontline website 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 24
- 25. Mission Development Workshop OVERVIEW Team X Importance of Science Involvement throughout the Life System Engineering with a Clean Sheet of Paper Cycle COSTING New Mission Concepts – How Developed, Sold and Kept Cost Estimating Alive during Formulation Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Pre-Project and Formulation Life Cycles Cost Risk Subfactors Project Scheduling CAPTURE PLANNING PROPOSALS Capture Team Roles Proposal Lessons Learned Competitive Solicitations, Gates and Guidelines AO Proposal Development Toolkit Capture Planning Toolkit Lesson Learned from Recent Wins Example of a Recent Project Capture Strategy FORMULATION PLANNING PI perspective on Working with JPL Instrument Projects CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT A Case Study on a “Planetary In-situ Science Mission that Science –Driven Concept Design Looks Too Good to be True” Designing a Concept for Survival Top Priorities for Newly Approved Projects Technology as a Driver for Concept Development Panel discussion on “Decisions Made during Early Pre-Project Principles and Practices Formulation that had Major Impacts on Implementation – Good and Bad” Nurturing Innovation 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 25
- 26. Working Together -We can Build Anything 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 26
- 27. Appendix 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 27
- 28. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory References California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California [1] IEEEAC Paper 1359 presented at 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conference; “JPL’s Approach for Helping Flight Project Managers Meet Today’s Management Challenges”, C. J. Leising, dated 12/22/03 [2] AIAA Paper 2009-6824 presented at AIAA Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, California; "Measuring the Maturity of Robotic Planetary Mission Concepts", R.R. Wessen, M. Adler, C.J. Leising, B. Sherwood, Sep. 14-17, 2009 [3] IEEEAC Paper 1318 to be presented at 2010 IEEE Aerospace conference “Recent Improvements in JPL’s Mission Formulation Process”, Charles J. Leising, Brent Sherwood, Dr. Mark Adler, Dr. Randii R. Wessen, Dr. Firouz M. Naderi, dated March 6, 2010 2/9/2010 PM Challenge 28