The document describes NASA's Baseline Performance Review (BPR) process. The BPR provides NASA senior leadership with comprehensive and objective information on the performance of NASA programs and projects compared to their baseline plans. It aims to identify performance trends, risks, and cross-cutting issues. The BPR is co-chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator and involves heads of NASA offices, centers, and mission directorates. It uses a "stoplight" system to assess technical, cost, schedule, and programmatic performance. The process is meant to improve communication, performance, and inform decision making. Sample outcomes include addressing issues across missions, between organizations, and on specific projects.
The document describes NASA's Baseline Performance Review (BPR) process. The BPR provides NASA senior leadership with objective information on the performance of NASA programs, projects, and operations relative to their baseline plans. It aims to identify performance trends, issues, and risks. The BPR involves monthly reporting from Mission Directorates and support offices. Independent assessors evaluate performance metrics. The BPR process helps improve communication, identify cross-cutting issues, and inform decision-making.
The document discusses changes made to NASA's Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) paradigm following several accidents and reports. It outlines how S&MA was reorganized at Marshall Space Flight Center to improve expertise, resources, and inclusion in technical decisions. S&MA now takes an integrated, in-line approach to projects through activities like hazard analysis, risk assessment, and participating in working groups. This early involvement has impacted vehicle designs and produced risk-based products to meet new safety and reliability requirements for programs like Constellation's Ares I.
In product development, some form of reliability testing is used for design release and/or comparing design alternatives. In view of limited lead time and high reliability requirement, these tests are “accelerated” by testing products at higher stresses or harsher environmental conditions involving higher temperature, voltages and humidity so as to increase the susceptibility of failure. The typical challenge for engineers is to figure out how to design such tests; i.e. the test condition, sample size, etc, so that the results can lead to meaningful analysis, statistically and technically, from which follow-up actions result in reliability improvement. Here, we present a general roadmap in developing an appropriate test plan for new products development and/or design modifications. The roadmap is discussed in the context of 3 real life examples involving miniature hard disk, a systems iron and split unit air-conditioners.
The document presents a strategy proposed by NASA's AR&D Community of Practice to address NASA's history of developing autonomous and automated rendezvous and docking (AR&D) capabilities for individual programs rather than taking an integrated agency approach. The strategy calls for developing an "AR&D Warehouse" - a library of reusable AR&D hardware and software components with standardized interfaces. This would provide 80% of the AR&D capability needed for future missions at much lower costs compared to current single-program approaches. The strategy argues that an integrated, evolutionary development approach coordinated across NASA centers is needed to realize the benefits of the Warehouse concept.
This document provides an update on the Navy's Personnel/Pay Modernization efforts. It discusses the history of failed modernization attempts and the current strategy to improve personnel and pay systems through a staged approach using the NSIPS platform. Stage 1 focuses on reducing complexity and increasing audit readiness. Stage 2 improves quality of personnel services. Stage 3 enhances decision making. Key initiatives include transitioning labor-intensive functions to NSIPS, reengineering processes, and establishing an authoritative data environment. Training and addressing financial/audit issues are also priorities. The timeline outlines FY13-14 projects and business process evaluations and requirements. Input is sought on targeting the right areas for most significant improvement.
This report summarizes a study on tools for psychological support during long-duration space exploration missions. It identifies challenges crews may face, such as isolation and confinement. It develops a Psychological Issues Matrix to categorize interacting factors. It also defines a new Embedded Psychological Support Integrated for Long-duration missions (EPSILON) model. This model incorporates prevention, monitoring and resolution approaches. Finally, it recommends priority tools for development based on workshops with experts. These tools aim to help crews effectively address psychological issues.
The document summarizes the establishment of an IT Program Management Office (PMO) at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. It discusses how the CIO proposed transforming IT management to increase consolidation and standardization. An Information Management Council and CIO Technical Advisory Committee were formed. The PMO was created to lead IT projects using consistent project management practices and provide oversight of projects. It aims to improve outcomes, grow project managers, and support customers.
Approach e cl-gdf-suez chporfr 13072012 v1.0lukberlanger
Déhora Consultancy Group provides planning consultancy services. They have over 25 years of experience working with over 1,500 customers across various industries. Their mission is to significantly improve organizational efficiency, productivity, and vitality through professional planning. For their project with E-CI/GDF-Suez in Chile, Déhora will take a two-level approach to optimize processes and professionalize planning organization at two power plant sites. This will include auditing current planning, implementing improved processes, and developing planning competencies and tools.
The document describes NASA's Baseline Performance Review (BPR) process. The BPR provides NASA senior leadership with objective information on the performance of NASA programs, projects, and operations relative to their baseline plans. It aims to identify performance trends, issues, and risks. The BPR involves monthly reporting from Mission Directorates and support offices. Independent assessors evaluate performance metrics. The BPR process helps improve communication, identify cross-cutting issues, and inform decision-making.
The document discusses changes made to NASA's Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) paradigm following several accidents and reports. It outlines how S&MA was reorganized at Marshall Space Flight Center to improve expertise, resources, and inclusion in technical decisions. S&MA now takes an integrated, in-line approach to projects through activities like hazard analysis, risk assessment, and participating in working groups. This early involvement has impacted vehicle designs and produced risk-based products to meet new safety and reliability requirements for programs like Constellation's Ares I.
In product development, some form of reliability testing is used for design release and/or comparing design alternatives. In view of limited lead time and high reliability requirement, these tests are “accelerated” by testing products at higher stresses or harsher environmental conditions involving higher temperature, voltages and humidity so as to increase the susceptibility of failure. The typical challenge for engineers is to figure out how to design such tests; i.e. the test condition, sample size, etc, so that the results can lead to meaningful analysis, statistically and technically, from which follow-up actions result in reliability improvement. Here, we present a general roadmap in developing an appropriate test plan for new products development and/or design modifications. The roadmap is discussed in the context of 3 real life examples involving miniature hard disk, a systems iron and split unit air-conditioners.
The document presents a strategy proposed by NASA's AR&D Community of Practice to address NASA's history of developing autonomous and automated rendezvous and docking (AR&D) capabilities for individual programs rather than taking an integrated agency approach. The strategy calls for developing an "AR&D Warehouse" - a library of reusable AR&D hardware and software components with standardized interfaces. This would provide 80% of the AR&D capability needed for future missions at much lower costs compared to current single-program approaches. The strategy argues that an integrated, evolutionary development approach coordinated across NASA centers is needed to realize the benefits of the Warehouse concept.
This document provides an update on the Navy's Personnel/Pay Modernization efforts. It discusses the history of failed modernization attempts and the current strategy to improve personnel and pay systems through a staged approach using the NSIPS platform. Stage 1 focuses on reducing complexity and increasing audit readiness. Stage 2 improves quality of personnel services. Stage 3 enhances decision making. Key initiatives include transitioning labor-intensive functions to NSIPS, reengineering processes, and establishing an authoritative data environment. Training and addressing financial/audit issues are also priorities. The timeline outlines FY13-14 projects and business process evaluations and requirements. Input is sought on targeting the right areas for most significant improvement.
This report summarizes a study on tools for psychological support during long-duration space exploration missions. It identifies challenges crews may face, such as isolation and confinement. It develops a Psychological Issues Matrix to categorize interacting factors. It also defines a new Embedded Psychological Support Integrated for Long-duration missions (EPSILON) model. This model incorporates prevention, monitoring and resolution approaches. Finally, it recommends priority tools for development based on workshops with experts. These tools aim to help crews effectively address psychological issues.
The document summarizes the establishment of an IT Program Management Office (PMO) at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. It discusses how the CIO proposed transforming IT management to increase consolidation and standardization. An Information Management Council and CIO Technical Advisory Committee were formed. The PMO was created to lead IT projects using consistent project management practices and provide oversight of projects. It aims to improve outcomes, grow project managers, and support customers.
Approach e cl-gdf-suez chporfr 13072012 v1.0lukberlanger
Déhora Consultancy Group provides planning consultancy services. They have over 25 years of experience working with over 1,500 customers across various industries. Their mission is to significantly improve organizational efficiency, productivity, and vitality through professional planning. For their project with E-CI/GDF-Suez in Chile, Déhora will take a two-level approach to optimize processes and professionalize planning organization at two power plant sites. This will include auditing current planning, implementing improved processes, and developing planning competencies and tools.
The document summarizes updates made to NASA's NPD 1000.0 Governance and Strategic Management Handbook. Key changes included implementing recommendations from an Internal Review Panel to better define NASA's strategic direction, mission, and mission enabling. The updates also clarified roles and responsibilities, incorporated NASA's new strategic plan, and reflected organizational changes. However, many aspects of NASA's governance philosophy and strategic management system remained unchanged.
This presentation discusses the importance of developing and sharing case studies as a key component of knowledge sharing within NASA. It identifies various sources for developing case studies, such as databases at NASA centers and lessons learned documents. Developing high-quality case studies is important for retaining historical knowledge, especially as experienced employees retire. The presentation emphasizes preparing and submitting timely, high-quality lessons learned and case studies. It also discusses opportunities to expand the collection of case studies, such as developing 10 additional cases per year focused on human spaceflight knowledge sharing.
The Constellation Space Transportation Planning Office (CSTP) manages the production, launch preparations, mission operations, and recovery of the Orion/Ares vehicle configuration that will transport crew to and from the International Space Station. The CSTP oversees the entire work cycle from element production to final disposition. It uses an organizational structure with divisions for program integration, planning and control, systems engineering, and operations. The presentation provides an overview of CSTP and updates on its projects and forward work.
It is the new mandated initiative by the Department of Defense as the upgraded Transition Assistance Program (a.k.a. TAP) to direct and guide Active Duty military in reaching their Goals (G), make Plans (P), and be Successful (S) in their new chosen path.
This document summarizes planning tools and techniques discussed in Chapter 9. It describes environmental scanning, which involves screening large amounts of information to anticipate changes in the environment. It also discusses competitor intelligence, forecasting, different types of forecasting including quantitative and qualitative, and benchmarking, which is searching for best practices that lead to superior performance among competitors and non-competitors.
The document summarizes a Six Sigma Green Belt certification course offered at Rutgers University. The course was designed to teach students the Six Sigma methodology and prepare them to pass the ASQ Green Belt certification exam in a cost-effective way, as typical certification courses can be prohibitively expensive. The course applied the Six Sigma DMAIC process of Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control to both the material covered and the pedagogical method of instruction. Pre- and post-test data was collected to analyze the effectiveness of the course and students' improvement.
The document provides an overview of the transition and retirement of the Space Shuttle Program. It discusses developing a strategy based on benchmarking other large program retirements. A Strategic Capabilities Assessment was conducted to determine what capabilities need to be retained and when. Governance boards were established for oversight. Implementation involves functions like workforce retention, property disposition, and environmental management. The goal is to safely complete the mission manifest and support exploration goals while retiring unneeded capabilities.
IQPC's 8th Shutdowns and Turnarounds 2011JBScott44
After years of fantastic feedback, Oil and Gas IQ's successful Shutdowns and Turnarounds Forum returns for its 8th year. This is the largest gathering in Europe of shutdown, outage, maintenance and turnaround professionals across a range of continuous processing industries for two days of pure information sharing and networking.
This year's conference agenda includes leading contractors, consultants and technological experts including representatives from Shell, RWE npower and Air Liquide who will analyse HSE, costing, time lining, scope management, technology and efficiency best practice.
Strategic Facilities Planning provides facilities planning and program management services. Founded in 1996, it has planned facilities for universities, medical centers, high tech companies, and government agencies. Services include needs assessments, space planning, project management, and construction administration. The firm uses a collaborative process to understand clients' visions and develop customized tools to identify key issues and facility requirements.
In our experiences, we have found a significant number of situations that force us to have to QC a much greater percentage of our LC/MS UV, ELSD compound QC results than we feel should be really necessary. This oftentimes means a 100% QC. Some of the reasons are summarized as: Target(s) Found (Green) but the purity or concentration of the sample being too low to be of practical usage. Targets found but eluting in a region of significant level impurities and therefore more challenging for auto-purification. Targets eluting within the solvent front or end of the chromatographic run typically with poor integration. Targets being poorly classified as found, maybe or not found due to challenges in the signal processing, baselining, peak integration, MS peak classification, poor assignment of adducts and so on. The major issue of course, was that we were not really sure to what level these issues were prevalent or were causing us to over QC results. To better understand these effects we have undertaken a relatively large scale review of our results to determine where most of the problem situation occurs and to remedy as many as possible. We were also looking to increase the trust we have our processing and to be able to trap those situations where an analyst needs to make an informed decision and communicate this effectively. This presentation summarizes some of our finding and how we have attempted to solve these issues.
The document discusses supply chain mapping, including what a supply chain map is, how mapping can help businesses, and how to create a supply chain map. It provides an example of how two companies, Capital Equipment Inc. and Mare Technologies, collaborated to map their supply chain, identify inefficiencies, prioritize improvements, and implement changes that reduced lead times, work-in-process, and costs. The document also covers potential difficulties in supply chain collaboration and provides an activity for mapping the peanut butter supply chain of Ritz Peanut Butter Co.
Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture
Proposal to prepare a compendium of case studies on adaptation to Climate
Change in the Agriculture sector in the Indian context
Teti Presentation Metro Md Meeting 9 15 2010cmteti
The document summarizes the role and structure of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). It provides an overview of GAO's mission to serve Congress and work as an independent and non-partisan agency. It also outlines GAO's organization, including its leadership under the Comptroller General and divisions focused on various policy areas. Finally, it describes the role and services provided by GAO's Knowledge Services division, which supports GAO's mission through research, library, and information management functions.
The document describes a project management toolkit developed by NASA Glenn Research Center to help with space flight projects. The toolkit provides a collection of standardized project planning and management tools accessible through a web portal. It aims to facilitate rigorous and compliant project proposal, planning, execution, and control according to NASA requirements and best practices. The development of the operational toolkit was driven by a strategic goal of delivering project management excellence for successful customer missions.
This document discusses the process for developing Joint Confidence Level (JCL) assessments of cost and schedule estimates for programs and projects. It outlines the roles of programs/projects and the independent review board (SRB) in developing probabilistic cost estimates, risk analyses, and JCL assessments to present at key decision points. Both the program/project and SRB will develop their own analyses, then reconcile differences through iterative reviews and updates until agreeing on a final JCL assessment to report out. The goal is for estimates to have a 70% confidence level that costs and schedules will be equal to or less than predicted.
The document discusses NASA's independent review process for programs and projects. It aims to ensure the highest probability of mission success. Key points:
1. Independent reviews are conducted by Standing Review Boards at each project life-cycle milestone to objectively assess technical approach, schedule, resources, risk, and management approach.
2. Reviews provide independent validation of projects' readiness to proceed and reassure stakeholders that commitments can be delivered. Preparing for reviews allows holistic project examination.
3. Reviews follow NASA governance involving senior management, technical authorities, and decision authorities. Standing Review Boards comprised of independent experts conduct the actual reviews.
4. The process helps ensure projects receive independent assurance they are on
The document describes how the Orion Standing Review Board (SRB) provides independent reviews that add value to the Orion Project. It outlines the makeup and role of the SRB, which includes experts from industry, government agencies, and academia. The SRB observes Orion's internal reviews and conducts formal assessments of key project milestones. While the SRB aims to provide constructive feedback, its assessments must be high-quality, fact-based, and independent of the project. The document notes some challenges around the timing of the SRB's reviews and reporting.
The document discusses the Performance Management System (PMS) used by the TSU PES. It introduces the Office Performance Evaluation System (OPES) which measures the collective performance of offices through outputs. OPES uses a point system to assign values to outputs based on the time required to complete them. It also establishes total target points for offices based on staffing levels and the proportion of quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable work. OPES aims to directly link office objectives to agency strategic goals and enhance objective individual performance evaluations.
This document summarizes the findings of a NASA survey of various centers regarding compliance with Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) policy. It describes the survey objectives, methodology, elements reviewed, and schedule. Some key findings included inconsistent implementation of configuration management, risk management, and technical authority across centers. Strengths identified included lessons learned processes and software engineering at JPL. Opportunities for improvement included updating directives, validating Earned Value Management Systems, and clarifying the roles of technical authority and systems engineering.
This document summarizes the findings of a NASA survey of various centers regarding compliance with Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) policy. It describes the survey objectives, methodology, elements reviewed, and schedule. Some key findings included inconsistent implementation of configuration management, risk management, and technical authority across centers. Strengths identified included lessons learned processes and software engineering at JPL. Opportunities for improvement included updating directives, validating Earned Value Management Systems, and clarifying the roles of technical authority and systems engineering.
This document introduces the Schedule Test and Assessment Tool (STAT) developed by NASA to assess schedule credibility. It provides an overview of STAT's capabilities, benefits of assessing schedules, and background on why schedule assessment is important. The document demonstrates STAT's schedule health check, trend analysis, and summary reporting features using example output. It summarizes that STAT enables efficient schedule assessment, quality improvement, and timely analysis through an easy-to-use automated tool.
The document summarizes updates made to NASA's NPD 1000.0 Governance and Strategic Management Handbook. Key changes included implementing recommendations from an Internal Review Panel to better define NASA's strategic direction, mission, and mission enabling. The updates also clarified roles and responsibilities, incorporated NASA's new strategic plan, and reflected organizational changes. However, many aspects of NASA's governance philosophy and strategic management system remained unchanged.
This presentation discusses the importance of developing and sharing case studies as a key component of knowledge sharing within NASA. It identifies various sources for developing case studies, such as databases at NASA centers and lessons learned documents. Developing high-quality case studies is important for retaining historical knowledge, especially as experienced employees retire. The presentation emphasizes preparing and submitting timely, high-quality lessons learned and case studies. It also discusses opportunities to expand the collection of case studies, such as developing 10 additional cases per year focused on human spaceflight knowledge sharing.
The Constellation Space Transportation Planning Office (CSTP) manages the production, launch preparations, mission operations, and recovery of the Orion/Ares vehicle configuration that will transport crew to and from the International Space Station. The CSTP oversees the entire work cycle from element production to final disposition. It uses an organizational structure with divisions for program integration, planning and control, systems engineering, and operations. The presentation provides an overview of CSTP and updates on its projects and forward work.
It is the new mandated initiative by the Department of Defense as the upgraded Transition Assistance Program (a.k.a. TAP) to direct and guide Active Duty military in reaching their Goals (G), make Plans (P), and be Successful (S) in their new chosen path.
This document summarizes planning tools and techniques discussed in Chapter 9. It describes environmental scanning, which involves screening large amounts of information to anticipate changes in the environment. It also discusses competitor intelligence, forecasting, different types of forecasting including quantitative and qualitative, and benchmarking, which is searching for best practices that lead to superior performance among competitors and non-competitors.
The document summarizes a Six Sigma Green Belt certification course offered at Rutgers University. The course was designed to teach students the Six Sigma methodology and prepare them to pass the ASQ Green Belt certification exam in a cost-effective way, as typical certification courses can be prohibitively expensive. The course applied the Six Sigma DMAIC process of Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control to both the material covered and the pedagogical method of instruction. Pre- and post-test data was collected to analyze the effectiveness of the course and students' improvement.
The document provides an overview of the transition and retirement of the Space Shuttle Program. It discusses developing a strategy based on benchmarking other large program retirements. A Strategic Capabilities Assessment was conducted to determine what capabilities need to be retained and when. Governance boards were established for oversight. Implementation involves functions like workforce retention, property disposition, and environmental management. The goal is to safely complete the mission manifest and support exploration goals while retiring unneeded capabilities.
IQPC's 8th Shutdowns and Turnarounds 2011JBScott44
After years of fantastic feedback, Oil and Gas IQ's successful Shutdowns and Turnarounds Forum returns for its 8th year. This is the largest gathering in Europe of shutdown, outage, maintenance and turnaround professionals across a range of continuous processing industries for two days of pure information sharing and networking.
This year's conference agenda includes leading contractors, consultants and technological experts including representatives from Shell, RWE npower and Air Liquide who will analyse HSE, costing, time lining, scope management, technology and efficiency best practice.
Strategic Facilities Planning provides facilities planning and program management services. Founded in 1996, it has planned facilities for universities, medical centers, high tech companies, and government agencies. Services include needs assessments, space planning, project management, and construction administration. The firm uses a collaborative process to understand clients' visions and develop customized tools to identify key issues and facility requirements.
In our experiences, we have found a significant number of situations that force us to have to QC a much greater percentage of our LC/MS UV, ELSD compound QC results than we feel should be really necessary. This oftentimes means a 100% QC. Some of the reasons are summarized as: Target(s) Found (Green) but the purity or concentration of the sample being too low to be of practical usage. Targets found but eluting in a region of significant level impurities and therefore more challenging for auto-purification. Targets eluting within the solvent front or end of the chromatographic run typically with poor integration. Targets being poorly classified as found, maybe or not found due to challenges in the signal processing, baselining, peak integration, MS peak classification, poor assignment of adducts and so on. The major issue of course, was that we were not really sure to what level these issues were prevalent or were causing us to over QC results. To better understand these effects we have undertaken a relatively large scale review of our results to determine where most of the problem situation occurs and to remedy as many as possible. We were also looking to increase the trust we have our processing and to be able to trap those situations where an analyst needs to make an informed decision and communicate this effectively. This presentation summarizes some of our finding and how we have attempted to solve these issues.
The document discusses supply chain mapping, including what a supply chain map is, how mapping can help businesses, and how to create a supply chain map. It provides an example of how two companies, Capital Equipment Inc. and Mare Technologies, collaborated to map their supply chain, identify inefficiencies, prioritize improvements, and implement changes that reduced lead times, work-in-process, and costs. The document also covers potential difficulties in supply chain collaboration and provides an activity for mapping the peanut butter supply chain of Ritz Peanut Butter Co.
Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture
Proposal to prepare a compendium of case studies on adaptation to Climate
Change in the Agriculture sector in the Indian context
Teti Presentation Metro Md Meeting 9 15 2010cmteti
The document summarizes the role and structure of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). It provides an overview of GAO's mission to serve Congress and work as an independent and non-partisan agency. It also outlines GAO's organization, including its leadership under the Comptroller General and divisions focused on various policy areas. Finally, it describes the role and services provided by GAO's Knowledge Services division, which supports GAO's mission through research, library, and information management functions.
The document describes a project management toolkit developed by NASA Glenn Research Center to help with space flight projects. The toolkit provides a collection of standardized project planning and management tools accessible through a web portal. It aims to facilitate rigorous and compliant project proposal, planning, execution, and control according to NASA requirements and best practices. The development of the operational toolkit was driven by a strategic goal of delivering project management excellence for successful customer missions.
This document discusses the process for developing Joint Confidence Level (JCL) assessments of cost and schedule estimates for programs and projects. It outlines the roles of programs/projects and the independent review board (SRB) in developing probabilistic cost estimates, risk analyses, and JCL assessments to present at key decision points. Both the program/project and SRB will develop their own analyses, then reconcile differences through iterative reviews and updates until agreeing on a final JCL assessment to report out. The goal is for estimates to have a 70% confidence level that costs and schedules will be equal to or less than predicted.
The document discusses NASA's independent review process for programs and projects. It aims to ensure the highest probability of mission success. Key points:
1. Independent reviews are conducted by Standing Review Boards at each project life-cycle milestone to objectively assess technical approach, schedule, resources, risk, and management approach.
2. Reviews provide independent validation of projects' readiness to proceed and reassure stakeholders that commitments can be delivered. Preparing for reviews allows holistic project examination.
3. Reviews follow NASA governance involving senior management, technical authorities, and decision authorities. Standing Review Boards comprised of independent experts conduct the actual reviews.
4. The process helps ensure projects receive independent assurance they are on
The document describes how the Orion Standing Review Board (SRB) provides independent reviews that add value to the Orion Project. It outlines the makeup and role of the SRB, which includes experts from industry, government agencies, and academia. The SRB observes Orion's internal reviews and conducts formal assessments of key project milestones. While the SRB aims to provide constructive feedback, its assessments must be high-quality, fact-based, and independent of the project. The document notes some challenges around the timing of the SRB's reviews and reporting.
The document discusses the Performance Management System (PMS) used by the TSU PES. It introduces the Office Performance Evaluation System (OPES) which measures the collective performance of offices through outputs. OPES uses a point system to assign values to outputs based on the time required to complete them. It also establishes total target points for offices based on staffing levels and the proportion of quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable work. OPES aims to directly link office objectives to agency strategic goals and enhance objective individual performance evaluations.
This document summarizes the findings of a NASA survey of various centers regarding compliance with Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) policy. It describes the survey objectives, methodology, elements reviewed, and schedule. Some key findings included inconsistent implementation of configuration management, risk management, and technical authority across centers. Strengths identified included lessons learned processes and software engineering at JPL. Opportunities for improvement included updating directives, validating Earned Value Management Systems, and clarifying the roles of technical authority and systems engineering.
This document summarizes the findings of a NASA survey of various centers regarding compliance with Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) policy. It describes the survey objectives, methodology, elements reviewed, and schedule. Some key findings included inconsistent implementation of configuration management, risk management, and technical authority across centers. Strengths identified included lessons learned processes and software engineering at JPL. Opportunities for improvement included updating directives, validating Earned Value Management Systems, and clarifying the roles of technical authority and systems engineering.
This document introduces the Schedule Test and Assessment Tool (STAT) developed by NASA to assess schedule credibility. It provides an overview of STAT's capabilities, benefits of assessing schedules, and background on why schedule assessment is important. The document demonstrates STAT's schedule health check, trend analysis, and summary reporting features using example output. It summarizes that STAT enables efficient schedule assessment, quality improvement, and timely analysis through an easy-to-use automated tool.
This document provides an overview of changes made to NASA's independent review process to align with updates to policy NPR 7120.5. Key changes include implementing a standard Terms of Reference template for all life cycle reviews, updating what project reviews require Standing Review Board (SRB) involvement, and clarifying the roles of Convening Authorities in approving reviews. The document also discusses ensuring SRB composition is balanced between host centers and other organizations to meet the needs of Convening Authorities. An update to the SRB Handbook will provide additional guidance.
This document outlines improvements made to NASA's independent program review process in fiscal year 2010. It discusses the reviews completed, including 8 program and 20 project reviews. Process improvements included quick look reports, increased coordination, readiness assessments, and streamlining of review documentation. The roles and responsibilities of review board members are covered, including ensuring member competency, currency, and independence. Coordination between review boards and NASA mission directorates and centers is also summarized.
This document discusses a 3 phase approach to optimize retail sales operations through modular structures, processes and costs. [Phase 1 focuses on defining and optimizing processes to reduce costs. Phase 2 plans staff capacity by adapting structures and principles. Phase 3 implements optimized workforce planning tools to increase sales readiness while decreasing costs.] The toolbox and process maps coordinate elements across the phases to improve sales and lower financial costs in a sustainable way.
This document discusses the challenges of partnering on major research platforms and facilities. It notes that the high costs and complexity of such projects have driven increased partnering between U.S. agencies and with international entities. However, ensuring alignment between partner processes and practices can be challenging. The document analyzes the practices of three science agencies - DOE, NASA, and NSF - to identify similarities and differences in their approaches to developing and managing large science projects. Understanding these comparative practices is important for facilitating effective interagency and international cooperation on major research infrastructure initiatives.
This document discusses the challenges of partnering on major research platforms and facilities. It notes that the high costs and complexity of such projects have driven increased partnering between U.S. agencies and with international entities. However, ensuring alignment between partner processes and practices can be challenging. The document analyzes the practices of three science agencies - DOE, NASA, and NSF - to identify similarities and differences in their approaches to developing and managing large science projects. Understanding these comparative practices is important for facilitating effective interagency and international cooperation on major research infrastructure initiatives.
The document summarizes an NSC Audits and Assessments Workshop from September 2009-2010. It discusses the background and purpose of different types of NASA safety audits conducted by the NSC Audits and Assessments Office. The document analyzes audit findings from 2007-2010 and identifies potential systemic safety issues across multiple NASA centers, particularly in electrical safety, inspection records, and probabilistic risk assessment. Action plans were developed to address these issues and improve safety audit processes.
The three day training time table focuses on metric management and key performance indicators. Day 1 defines corporate objectives and reviews critical performance against industry standards. Day 2 establishes performance targets and standards, conducts internal and external benchmarking, and analyzes inputs and outputs. Day 3 includes strategic mapping, reviews departmental KPIs, holds performance meetings and appraisals, and discusses improvement strategies and action plans.
This document discusses best practices for managing earned value in project schedules. It begins by defining key earned value metrics like planned value, actual cost, and earned value. It then discusses how earned value measurements can be leveraged throughout a project to analyze metrics and assess cost risk. Challenges in analyzing earned value are also covered. The document concludes by outlining steps to use Microsoft Project to effectively track earned value, including loading resources, creating baselines, updating progress, and revising baselines when needed.
Nek e am_overview_2010_1f.ppt [compatibility mOracle Hrvatska
This document provides an overview of the implementation of Oracle EBS and EAM systems at Nuklearna Elektrarna Krško (NEK), a nuclear power plant in Slovenia. Some key details include:
- The project aims to implement a new long-term IT solution to support plant safety, reliability, and cost effectiveness.
- Implementation began in July 2009 and is planned to go-live in March 2011 using the Application Implementation Method.
- The system will include modules like asset management, maintenance management, project management, and financials to support overall business operations.
- NEK hopes to establish industry best practices and requirements through partnerships like the Oracle EAM Customer Advisory Board.
- Proper
The document discusses upcoming changes to NASA's independent review policies and processes. Some of the key changes include standardizing terms of reference, implementing a 1-step or 2-step review timeline, updating required lifecycle products, revising review criteria and maturity tables, and changes to review team composition and decision memos. The changes aim to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of NASA's review processes.
This document discusses using Primavera Enterprise software for program management of multiple design-build surgical center construction projects. It describes how the software allows monitoring of schedules, costs, quality and resources across projects. It provides templates for organizing project data, tracking milestones and budgets. The software facilitates communication between owners and contractors and helps manage risks, issues and potential claims.
The document discusses schedule assessment and risk analysis. It provides an overview of how schedule risk analysis identifies potential risks and their impacts. It then examines strengths, issues, and opportunities in schedule management based on IPAO's analyses of many NASA programs and projects. Specific issues identified include schedule problems being very common. It provides recommendations for improving practices around schedule health checks, analysis, risk analysis, and other best practices.
The document compares the operational complexity and costs of the Space Shuttle versus the Sea Launch Zenit rocket. [1] The Space Shuttle was designed for performance but not operational efficiency, resulting in costly ground, mission planning, and flight operations. [2] In contrast, the Zenit rocket was designed from the start to have automated and robust processes to keep operations simple and costs low. [3] The key lesson is that designing a launch system with operational requirements in mind from the beginning leads to much more efficient operations long-term.
The document provides an overview of project management and procurement at NASA. It discusses the key skills required for project managers, including acquisition management. It notes that 80-85% of NASA's budget is spent on contracts, and procurement processes are complex and constantly changing. The document outlines some common contract types and how they allocate risk between the government and contractor. It also discusses the relationship between contracting officers and project managers, and how successful procurement requires effective communication rather than direct control or authority.
The document introduces the NASA Engineering Network (NEN), which was created by the Office of the Chief Engineer to be a knowledge management system connecting NASA's engineering community. The NEN integrates various tools like a content management system, search engine, and collaboration tools. It provides access to key knowledge resources like NASA's Lessons Learned database and engineering databases. The NEN is working to expand by adding more communities, engineering disciplines, and knowledge repositories.
Laptops were first used in space in 1983 on the Space Shuttle, when Commander John Young brought the GRiD Compass portable computer on STS-9. Laptops are now widely used on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station for tasks like monitoring spacecraft systems, tracking satellites, inventory management, procedures viewing, and videoconferencing. Managing laptops in space presents challenges around cooling, power, and software/hardware compatibility in the harsh space environment.
Laptops were first used in space in 1983 on the Space Shuttle, when Commander John Young brought the GRiD Compass portable computer on STS-9. Laptops are now widely used on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station for tasks like monitoring spacecraft systems, planning rendezvous and proximity operations, inventory management, procedure reviews, and communication between space and ground via software like WorldMap and DOUG. Managing laptops in space presents challenges around hardware durability, cooling, and software/data management in the space environment.
This document discusses the use of market-based systems to allocate scarce resources for NASA missions and projects. It provides examples of how market-based approaches were used for instrument development for the Cassini mission, manifesting secondary payloads on the space shuttle, and mission planning for the LightSAR Earth imaging satellite project. The document finds that these applications of market-based allocation benefited or could have benefited from a decentralized, incentive-based approach compared to traditional centralized planning methods. However, it notes that resistance to new approaches and loss of managerial control are barriers to adoption of market-based systems.
The Stardust mission collected samples from comet Wild 2 and interstellar dust particles. It launched in February 1999 and encountered Wild 2 in January 2004, collecting dust samples in aerogel. It returned the samples to Earth safely in January 2006. The spacecraft used an innovative Whipple shield to protect itself from comet dust impacts during the encounter. Analysis of the Stardust samples has provided insights about comet composition and the early solar system.
This document discusses solutions for integrating schedules on NASA programs. It introduces Stuart Trahan's company, which provides Earned Value Management (EVM) solutions using Microsoft Office Project that comply with OMB and ANSI requirements. It also introduces a partner company, Pinnacle Management Systems, that specializes in enterprise project management solutions including EVM, project portfolio management, and enterprise project resource management, with experience in the aerospace, defense, and other industries. The document defines schedule integration and describes some methods including importing to a centralized Primavera database for review or using Primavera ProjectLink for updates, and challenges including inconsistent data formats and levels of detail across sub-schedules.
The document discusses NASA's implementation of earned value management (EVM) across its Constellation Program to coordinate work across multiple teams. It outlines the organizational structure, current target groups, and an EVM training suite. It also summarizes lessons learned and the need for project/center collaboration to integrate schedules horizontally and vertically.
This document summarizes a presentation about systems engineering processes for principle investigator (PI) mode missions. It discusses how PI missions face special challenges due to cost caps and lower technology readiness levels. It then outlines various systems engineering techniques used for PI missions, including safety compliance, organizational communication, design tools, requirements management, and lessons learned from past missions. Specific case studies from NASA's Explorers Program Office are provided as examples.
This document discusses changes to NASA's business practices for managing projects, including adopting a new acquisition strategy approach and implementing planning, programming, and budget execution (PPBE). The new acquisition strategy involves additional approval meetings at the strategic planning and project levels to better integrate acquisition with strategic and budgetary planning. PPBE focuses on analyzing programs and infrastructure to align with strategic goals and answer whether proposed programs will help achieve NASA's mission. The document also notes improvements in funds distribution and inter-center transfers, reducing the time for these processes from several weeks to only a few days.
Spaceflight Project Security: Terrestrial and On-Orbit/Mission
The document discusses security challenges for spaceflight projects, including protecting space assets from disruption, exploitation, or attack. It highlights national space policy principles of protecting space capabilities. It also discusses trends in cyber threats, including the increasing capabilities of adversaries and how even unskilled attackers can compromise terrestrial support systems linked to space assets if defenses are not strong. Protecting space projects requires awareness of threats, vulnerabilities, and strategies to defend, restore, and increase situational awareness of space assets and supporting systems.
Humor can positively impact many aspects of project management. It can improve communication, aid in team building, help detect team morale issues, and influence leadership, conflict management, negotiation, motivation, and problem solving. While humor has benefits, it also has risks and not all uses of humor are positive. Future research is needed on humor in multicultural teams, its relationship to team performance, how humor is learned, and determining optimal "doses" of humor. In conclusion, humor is a tool that can influence people and projects, but must be used carefully and spontaneously for best effect.
The recovery of Space Shuttle Columbia after its loss in 2003 involved a massive multi-agency effort to search a wide debris field, recover crew remains and evidence, and compensate local communities. Over 25,000 people searched over 680,000 acres, recovering 38% of Columbia's weight. Extensive engineering investigations were conducted to identify the causes of failure and implement changes to allow the safe return to flight of Discovery in 2005.
This document summarizes research on enhancing safety culture at NASA. It describes a survey developed to assess NASA's safety culture based on principles of high reliability organizations. The survey was tailored specifically for NASA and has been implemented to provide feedback and identify areas for improvement. It allows NASA to benchmark its safety culture within and across other industries pursuing high reliability.
This document summarizes a presentation about project management challenges at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The presentation outlines a vision for anomaly management, including establishing consistent problem reporting and analysis processes across all missions. It describes the current problem management approach, which lacks centralized information sharing. The presentation aims to close this gap by implementing online problem reporting and trend analysis tools to extract lessons learned across missions over time. This will help improve spacecraft design and operations based on ongoing anomaly experiences.
This document discusses leveraging scheduling productivity with practical scheduling techniques. It addresses scheduling issues such as unwieldy schedule databases and faulty logic. It then discusses taming the schedule beast through using a scheduler's toolkit, schedule templates, codes to manipulate MS Project data, common views/filters/tables, limiting constraints, and other best practices. The document provides examples of using codes and custom views/filters to effectively organize and display schedule information.
This document describes Ball Aerospace's implementation of a Life Cycle and Gated Milestone (LCGM) process to improve program planning, execution, and control across its diverse portfolio. The LCGM provides a standardized yet flexible framework that maps out program activities and products across phases. It was developed through cross-functional collaboration and introduced gradually across programs while allowing flexibility. Initial results showed the LCGM supported improved planning and management while aligning with Ball Aerospace's entrepreneurial culture.
This document discusses the importance of situation awareness (SA) for project team members. It defines SA as having three levels: perception of elements in the current situation, comprehension of the current situation, and projection of the future status. Good team SA is achieved by turning individual SAs into shared SA through communication. Teams with strong SA prepare more, focus on comprehending and projecting, and maintain awareness through techniques like questioning assumptions and seeking additional information.
This document discusses theories of leadership and how a project manager's leadership style may impact project success depending on the type of project. It outlines early hypotheses that a PM's competence, including leadership style, is a success factor on projects. It presents a research model linking PM leadership competencies to project success, moderated by factors like project type. Initial interviews found that leadership style is more important on complex projects, and different competencies are needed depending on if a project is technical or involves change. Certain competencies like communication skills and cultural sensitivity were seen as important for different project types and contexts.
Digital Marketing Trends in 2024 | Guide for Staying AheadWask
https://www.wask.co/ebooks/digital-marketing-trends-in-2024
Feeling lost in the digital marketing whirlwind of 2024? Technology is changing, consumer habits are evolving, and staying ahead of the curve feels like a never-ending pursuit. This e-book is your compass. Dive into actionable insights to handle the complexities of modern marketing. From hyper-personalization to the power of user-generated content, learn how to build long-term relationships with your audience and unlock the secrets to success in the ever-shifting digital landscape.
Building Production Ready Search Pipelines with Spark and MilvusZilliz
Spark is the widely used ETL tool for processing, indexing and ingesting data to serving stack for search. Milvus is the production-ready open-source vector database. In this talk we will show how to use Spark to process unstructured data to extract vector representations, and push the vectors to Milvus vector database for search serving.
Skybuffer SAM4U tool for SAP license adoptionTatiana Kojar
Manage and optimize your license adoption and consumption with SAM4U, an SAP free customer software asset management tool.
SAM4U, an SAP complimentary software asset management tool for customers, delivers a detailed and well-structured overview of license inventory and usage with a user-friendly interface. We offer a hosted, cost-effective, and performance-optimized SAM4U setup in the Skybuffer Cloud environment. You retain ownership of the system and data, while we manage the ABAP 7.58 infrastructure, ensuring fixed Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and exceptional services through the SAP Fiori interface.
TrustArc Webinar - 2024 Global Privacy SurveyTrustArc
How does your privacy program stack up against your peers? What challenges are privacy teams tackling and prioritizing in 2024?
In the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey, we asked over 1,800 global privacy professionals and business executives to share their perspectives on the current state of privacy inside and outside of their organizations. This year’s report focused on emerging areas of importance for privacy and compliance professionals, including considerations and implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, building brand trust, and different approaches for achieving higher privacy competence scores.
See how organizational priorities and strategic approaches to data security and privacy are evolving around the globe.
This webinar will review:
- The top 10 privacy insights from the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey
- The top challenges for privacy leaders, practitioners, and organizations in 2024
- Key themes to consider in developing and maintaining your privacy program
How to Interpret Trends in the Kalyan Rajdhani Mix Chart.pdfChart Kalyan
A Mix Chart displays historical data of numbers in a graphical or tabular form. The Kalyan Rajdhani Mix Chart specifically shows the results of a sequence of numbers over different periods.
Fueling AI with Great Data with Airbyte WebinarZilliz
This talk will focus on how to collect data from a variety of sources, leveraging this data for RAG and other GenAI use cases, and finally charting your course to productionalization.
Best 20 SEO Techniques To Improve Website Visibility In SERPPixlogix Infotech
Boost your website's visibility with proven SEO techniques! Our latest blog dives into essential strategies to enhance your online presence, increase traffic, and rank higher on search engines. From keyword optimization to quality content creation, learn how to make your site stand out in the crowded digital landscape. Discover actionable tips and expert insights to elevate your SEO game.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of technologies, XML continues to play a vital role in structuring, storing, and transporting data across diverse systems. The recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present new methodologies for enhancing XML development workflows, introducing efficiency, automation, and intelligent capabilities. This presentation will outline the scope and perspective of utilizing AI in XML development. The potential benefits and the possible pitfalls will be highlighted, providing a balanced view of the subject.
We will explore the capabilities of AI in understanding XML markup languages and autonomously creating structured XML content. Additionally, we will examine the capacity of AI to enrich plain text with appropriate XML markup. Practical examples and methodological guidelines will be provided to elucidate how AI can be effectively prompted to interpret and generate accurate XML markup.
Further emphasis will be placed on the role of AI in developing XSLT, or schemas such as XSD and Schematron. We will address the techniques and strategies adopted to create prompts for generating code, explaining code, or refactoring the code, and the results achieved.
The discussion will extend to how AI can be used to transform XML content. In particular, the focus will be on the use of AI XPath extension functions in XSLT, Schematron, Schematron Quick Fixes, or for XML content refactoring.
The presentation aims to deliver a comprehensive overview of AI usage in XML development, providing attendees with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Whether you’re at the early stages of adopting AI or considering integrating it in advanced XML development, this presentation will cover all levels of expertise.
By highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of integrating AI with XML development tools and languages, the presentation seeks to inspire thoughtful conversation around the future of XML development. We’ll not only delve into the technical aspects of AI-powered XML development but also discuss practical implications and possible future directions.
Salesforce Integration for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions A...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on integration of Salesforce with Bonterra Impact Management.
Interested in deploying an integration with Salesforce for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
5th LF Energy Power Grid Model Meet-up SlidesDanBrown980551
5th Power Grid Model Meet-up
It is with great pleasure that we extend to you an invitation to the 5th Power Grid Model Meet-up, scheduled for 6th June 2024. This event will adopt a hybrid format, allowing participants to join us either through an online Mircosoft Teams session or in person at TU/e located at Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, Netherlands. The meet-up will be hosted by Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), a research university specializing in engineering science & technology.
Power Grid Model
The global energy transition is placing new and unprecedented demands on Distribution System Operators (DSOs). Alongside upgrades to grid capacity, processes such as digitization, capacity optimization, and congestion management are becoming vital for delivering reliable services.
Power Grid Model is an open source project from Linux Foundation Energy and provides a calculation engine that is increasingly essential for DSOs. It offers a standards-based foundation enabling real-time power systems analysis, simulations of electrical power grids, and sophisticated what-if analysis. In addition, it enables in-depth studies and analysis of the electrical power grid’s behavior and performance. This comprehensive model incorporates essential factors such as power generation capacity, electrical losses, voltage levels, power flows, and system stability.
Power Grid Model is currently being applied in a wide variety of use cases, including grid planning, expansion, reliability, and congestion studies. It can also help in analyzing the impact of renewable energy integration, assessing the effects of disturbances or faults, and developing strategies for grid control and optimization.
What to expect
For the upcoming meetup we are organizing, we have an exciting lineup of activities planned:
-Insightful presentations covering two practical applications of the Power Grid Model.
-An update on the latest advancements in Power Grid -Model technology during the first and second quarters of 2024.
-An interactive brainstorming session to discuss and propose new feature requests.
-An opportunity to connect with fellow Power Grid Model enthusiasts and users.
HCL Notes und Domino Lizenzkostenreduzierung in der Welt von DLAUpanagenda
Webinar Recording: https://www.panagenda.com/webinars/hcl-notes-und-domino-lizenzkostenreduzierung-in-der-welt-von-dlau/
DLAU und die Lizenzen nach dem CCB- und CCX-Modell sind für viele in der HCL-Community seit letztem Jahr ein heißes Thema. Als Notes- oder Domino-Kunde haben Sie vielleicht mit unerwartet hohen Benutzerzahlen und Lizenzgebühren zu kämpfen. Sie fragen sich vielleicht, wie diese neue Art der Lizenzierung funktioniert und welchen Nutzen sie Ihnen bringt. Vor allem wollen Sie sicherlich Ihr Budget einhalten und Kosten sparen, wo immer möglich. Das verstehen wir und wir möchten Ihnen dabei helfen!
Wir erklären Ihnen, wie Sie häufige Konfigurationsprobleme lösen können, die dazu führen können, dass mehr Benutzer gezählt werden als nötig, und wie Sie überflüssige oder ungenutzte Konten identifizieren und entfernen können, um Geld zu sparen. Es gibt auch einige Ansätze, die zu unnötigen Ausgaben führen können, z. B. wenn ein Personendokument anstelle eines Mail-Ins für geteilte Mailboxen verwendet wird. Wir zeigen Ihnen solche Fälle und deren Lösungen. Und natürlich erklären wir Ihnen das neue Lizenzmodell.
Nehmen Sie an diesem Webinar teil, bei dem HCL-Ambassador Marc Thomas und Gastredner Franz Walder Ihnen diese neue Welt näherbringen. Es vermittelt Ihnen die Tools und das Know-how, um den Überblick zu bewahren. Sie werden in der Lage sein, Ihre Kosten durch eine optimierte Domino-Konfiguration zu reduzieren und auch in Zukunft gering zu halten.
Diese Themen werden behandelt
- Reduzierung der Lizenzkosten durch Auffinden und Beheben von Fehlkonfigurationen und überflüssigen Konten
- Wie funktionieren CCB- und CCX-Lizenzen wirklich?
- Verstehen des DLAU-Tools und wie man es am besten nutzt
- Tipps für häufige Problembereiche, wie z. B. Team-Postfächer, Funktions-/Testbenutzer usw.
- Praxisbeispiele und Best Practices zum sofortigen Umsetzen
HCL Notes und Domino Lizenzkostenreduzierung in der Welt von DLAU
Steven noneman
1. NASA Baseline
Performance Review
(BPR)
Steven Noneman, NASA HQ
Robert Woods, Perot Systems
Office of Program Analysis and
Evaluation
Office of the Chief Engineer
Program Management Challenge,
Galveston, TX
February 2010
Used with Permission
2. Presentation Purpose
• Describe NASA’s Baseline Performance Review
(BPR) to the greater NASA community at PM
Challenge 2010.
Characterize the BPR objectives, scope, process, and
products
Summarize NASA’s technique for monitoring Agency
performance against its baseline plans
2
4. BPR History and Context
• In the spring of 2006, the Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) was given the action by the
Associate Administrator to develop a State of the Agency (SoA) process that provides the
Agency Project Management Council (APMC) an independent top level view of the status of
the Agency’s programs and projects.
• The first SoA presentation, to the Agency PMC, was by the Science Mission Directorate
(SMD) in August of 2006. The process has matured and continued to meet the objectives
outlined by the Associate Administrator, the Associate Deputy Administrator, the Chief
Engineer (CE) and the various stakeholders. The SoA evolved to a distinct monthly meeting
in December 2007 and was officially entitled the Baseline Performance Review (BPR).
• The BPR instituted a modified “balanced score card stop-light chart” process based on
metrics encompassed in a core set of functional area questions and supporting raw data.
• Participants from the projects, programs, Centers, Mission Directorates (MDs) and Mission
Support Offices respond monthly to each core area question based on provided thresholds
and key metrics for use in internal and external reporting.
• All Mission Directorates are reporting at the BPR meeting the findings of the independent
process.
5. BPR Objectives
• Provide NASA Senior Leadership comprehensive,
integrated, and objective information that describes the
“performance-to-plan” of the Agency’s programs,
projects, and institutional capabilities.
A single place to see the full execution context of the Agency
• Assure open cross-functional communications among
NASA’s organizations to enhance Agency performance.
• Identify and analyze performance trends and cross-
cutting or systemic issues and risks
• Serve the Agency’s decision making Councils as their
”execution arm”
Within the NASA Governance model, the BPR is distinct from
the decision-making Strategic Management, Program
Management, and Operations Management Councils
BPR is “action-oriented” to improve performance and inform
Agency decision authorities of issues needing attention.
5
6. BPR Scope and Participants
• The BPR is co-chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator and the
Associate Deputy Administrator.
• Membership includes the heads of NASA Staff Offices, Mission
Directorates, Mission Support Offices, and its ten Field Centers.
• Mission Support functions (e.g., finance, workforce, acquisition,
infrastructure, IT, etc.) report monthly and Small Business and
Diversity and Equal opportunity report quarterly.
• Mission Directorates (covering all program areas) report monthly with
one (and sometimes 2) “highlighted” in greater detail.
• The Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) leads a team of “independent
assessors” from OCE, Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E), and
Office of Safety Mission Assurance that analyze programs’ and
projects’ performance.
“Green/Yellow/Red” criteria were established to assess of technical, cost,
schedule, and programmatic performance are provided monthly for all
Mission Directorates.
• PA&E provides the BPR Coordinator who manages the review by
setting agendas, tracking actions, and assisting the co-chairs, OCE,
and BPR participants.
6
7. BPR Detailed Process Flow
3
MD issue
charts
1 Mission MDs
Directorates
GYR rankings for
2 Mission Support projects and
OCE sends out Offices programs from the
OCE (OCE,
notifications to consolidates OSMA, and Assessor Group OCE
3
users who answer NASA Centers input from PA & E) generates
questions stakeholders Assessor BPR
1- 5 Group package
4
Programs
5 Technical
Projects X-Cutting, OCE
PCA Status reps. for
MDs
Non- Package
Technical briefing to
X-Cutting CE for
3
OCE feedback and approval
Action items on BPR PA & E
process BPR reps. for
OCE Package is
Package MDs
Provides available
presented Exe. Sum. for Read-
at the BPR
only
viewing
from site
8. Example Outcomes/Results
• Cross-cutting issues
Across missions, faulty material was discovered resulting in a mitigation
process for the materials use saving time and resources.
• Organizational communication issues
Turned a conflict between projects on thermal protection systems into a
collaboration between the major development projects who previously
were competing for shared resources.
• Mission support issues
Workforce planning resolution was expedited when a project was
confronted with changes resulting in 500 people at a Center
needing reassignment because the project was delayed 2 years.
• Senior leaders as an “Execution Board of Directors”
Leadership asked and Centers provided additional workforce during
transition to the NASA Support and Services Center because invoices
were not getting paid on time, which had been costing projects late fees.
• Mission specific issues
Timely communication resulted in a Center director de-conflicting a
vendors schedule between 2 NASA projects from different Centers.
9. BPR Project Questions
O
f
Mission Directorate
fi
c
e
o
Program
Project
f
GUIDANCE FOR R&T P
r
QUESTIONS THRESHOLDS PROGRAMS/ o
c
PROJECTS u
r
e
m
e
n
t COMMENTS
G R
* What is the status and level
G=Yes or <10%, of maturity of the research
Are your top level requirements(such as 10%<Y<=20% objectives?
requirements/objectives not * Have you baselined the
KPP's) or objectives stable and state of the art/knowledge and
stable or established/ Unknowns and lack of
established/baselined? baselined, R>20% are moving off this clarity with Lunar
requirements not stable or accordingly toward those requirements specific to
established/ baselined objectives? X Y X technology development.
G=Yes, Y<=20%
Are you on track to meet your top level requirements/ objectives not
requirements/ objectives? on track, R>20% requirements/
objectives not on track X G X
Has requirement feasability
Does the project/program have plans that been established and have
meet the needs/ objectives of the G=Yes, Y=minor weakness requirements flowed down
community customer? identified, R=major weakness with traceability from customer
identified needs? X G X
G=Yes, Y=minor weakness
Are the results of research/ technology being
identified, R=major weakness
widely disseminated?
identified X G X
G= On track to complete all
What is the readiness to support the next deliverables with no delay, R=
Review? Not on track for deliverables or
delay necessary X NA X
G= All actions complete, Y>=
What is the status of actions from the last
50% of actions complete, R <=
review?
50% of actions complete X NA X
9
10. BPR Project Questions
Currently, more than 1 risk is
G= All "green" or equivalent, Y= * Is the risk posture or your research
What is your overall risk status/ posture (i.e. risk plan/ 5 red.
Any "yellow" but no "red" or portfolio balanced and have you
x 5 matrix)? equivalent, R= Any "red" or identified the top risks to the success of
equivalent your research objectives? X R X
G= Can be resolved within
Are risks manageable and appropriate ( i.e. risk plan/ 5 available resources, Y= Can't be
x 5 matrix)? resolved by project but can with
other resources, R= Only
resolveable by Agency resources X G X
Are technologies sufficiently mature (i.e. TRL or
equivalent) at this point, or expected to be mature in G=yes, Y=one is no, R=more than
time, per program/ project plans? one no X G X
Will all the externally reported performance goals G=all req met, Y= 1 not met, R=
(Annual Performance Goals)be met? more than 1 not met X G X
Have the externally reported performance goals
changed within the current year? G=no, R=yes X G X
Are the externally reported performance goals per your
plan? G=yes, R=no X G X
G= no, Y= has changed once, R=
Has the life-cycle budget (LCB)/ top line budget
changed more than one time in
changed since last reported?
same phase or last 6 months X G X
G= no, Y= has changed once, R=
Has the current year funding changed since last
changed more than one time in
reported?
same phase or last 6 months X G X
Overrun 0<=G<5% LCB,
Are costs over/ under running your phasing plan? 5%LCB<=Y<10%LCB,
10%LCB<=R X G X
Is there a significant need to reallocate resources
between Centers in order to accomplish technical
tasks? G=no, R=yes X G X
Is the current year funding per the approved baseline 90<=G<100%, 80%<=Y<90%,
plan? R<80% X G X
What is the difference between your current estimate at Difference of 0<=G<5%, * Are the cost estimates for obtaining
completion and budget at completion? 5%<=Y<10%, 10%<=R your research objectives still valid? X G X
Are mechanisms in place and functioning properly to
ensure that NASA receives external funding and sends
out funding to others in proper time? G=no, R=yes X G X
For projects/ programs over $250M over 5 years, is the
project/ program cost per baseline plan and beneath NA
congressional limits (15% of Baseline plan)? 0<=G<5%, 5%<=Y<10%, 10%<=R X G X
10
11. BPR Project Questions
Are major milestones (per Integrated Master Schedule G=Next major milestone slippage less * Are the schedule estimates for
or equivalent) being met? or equal to 45 days, Y=Greater than 45 obtaining your major research
but less than 90, R= Greater than 90 objectives milestones still valid? X G X
* For those Outcomes/APGs that are
Are all GPRA milestones on schedule? also key milestones are they still on
G=Yes, Y= 30-60 days behind, R= track for completion per the annual
greater than 60 days behind performance plan? X G X
Has the schedule been significantly impacted since last G=No change, Y=Change but no
reported? schedule slippage, R=Change but with
schedule slippage X G X
For projects/ programs over $250M over 5 years, is the
project/ program under congressional limits for key G=Next major milestone slippage less NA
milestone slippage (less than 6 months)? or equal to 45 days, Y=Greater than 45
but less than 90, R= Greater than 90 X G X
Are all external agreements in place and executing per
plan? G = yes , R = no X G X
Are key partners delivering their commitments on time? G = yes , R = no X G X
Have key partners changed their commitments since
last reported? G = no , R = yes X G X
Are critical contracts in place and executing per plan? G = yes , R = no X G X
Are undefinitized contract actions within guidelines? G = yes , R = no X G X
X
Are existing facilities available (or do results of
required infrastructure assessment/business case
analysis show existing facilities are available to support G=Yes, Y=No - scheduling issue.
the activities)? R=No - need to refurb or build X G X
Are all critical staff and skills identified and available 90% Critical staff<=G<100%Critical
per plan? staff, 80%<=Y<90%, R<80% critical
staff X G X
Are all support staff and skills identified and available 90% Critical staff<=G<100%Critical
per plan? staff, 80%<=Y<90%, R<80% critical
staff X G X
G=Y, Y= 1 required document not
Are required documents per Agency and Center policy
complete, R> required document not
complete (i.e, FAD, PCA, Program/Project Plan)?
complete X G X
11
12. Sample BPR Agenda
10:00 Opening Remarks, Actions Associate Administrator, Coordinator
10:05 Recovery Implementation Status Recovery Act Implementation Team
10:15 Mission Support Reports
- Finance Office of the Chief Financial Officer
- Workforce Office of Human Capital Management
- Acquisition Office of Procurement
- Infrastructure Office of Infrastructure
11:30 Highlighted Mission Support: Small Business Programs* Office of Small Business Programs
12:00 Lunch
12:15 Agency Aggregate Assessments
OSMA Safety Assessment: NASA Mishap Posture Office of Safety and Mission Assurance
Cross Cutting Non-Technical Issues Program Analysis and Evaluation
- Special Topic: 2nd Quarter OMB Cost/Schedule Report
Cross Cutting Technical Issues Office of the Chief Engineer
- Special Topic: Flight S/W Complexity Jet Propulsion Lab
Documents Compliance Office of the Chief Engineer
Life Cycle Milestone Schedule Office of the Chief Engineer
Center Summaries (Programs/Projects and Institutional) Center Representatives
2:45 Roll-up of MD Programs/Projects Office of the Chief Engineer
- JWST Project On-going Status/Recovery Plans Science Mission Directorate
3:30 Highlighted Mission Directorate Office of the Chief Engineer
Space Ops Mission Directorate (SOMD) Assessment* Space Operations Mission Directorate
Launch Services Program Status/Recovery Plan Space Operations Mission Directorate
4:45 Action Summary Coordinator
5:00 Adjourn *Specific topic is rotated Associate Administrator
12
13. Samples of BPR Analysis Content
• Finance
• Workforce
• Acquisition
• Small Business
• Infrastructure
• Safety and Mishaps
• Crosscutting Issues
• Field Center Summaries
• Independent Assessments of Programs and Projects
(“Stoplight” ratings)
13
16. Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) Status
February 27 – March 27, 2009
16
14
1 $1.3B
12
Number of UCAs
4 $27M
10
8
6
$836M
4 8
9
2 1 $35M
2 1 $3.5M
4
0 1 $700K 1 1
$749K
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
er
er
er
er
er
er
er
er
er
er
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
t
en
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1-180 Days 180-360 Days >360 Days
17. FY08 Federal Agency
Prime Small Business Dollars Overview
Top Seven Agencies w/o DOD
General Services
Administration
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland
Security
Department of Veterans SB Dollars
Affairs Total Dollars Obligated
National Aeronautics & Space
Administration
Health and Human Services
Department of Energy
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000
In Million $
Total Dollars Small Business Dollars
18. BPR: I&A Functional Areas
ARC DFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC Remarks
Facilities
JSC damage from Ike could impact JWST Project.. Chamber A MOU
G G G G G Y G G G G and Management Plan not complete. Concern about communication
Design & Construction between Eng Div and Facil Div at JSC
Facility repair backlog is 8.6% of facility value with increasing
Y Y Y Y Y R Y Y Y Y trend.JSC damage from Ike could impact SOMD Operations
Facility Maintenance
DFRC, KSC, and SSC were changed to yellow since they have not
G Y G Y G Y Y G Y Y submitted revised Master Plans. GSFC presented new Master Plan,
Planning/Real Estate but has not submitted document for formal approval.
Logistics
Delay in replacement of critical civil service personnel at GRC and
KSC. Also at KSC, a concern existed as retiring civil servants
positions were not backfilled. Situation improved by increased use of
G G Y G G G G Y G Y Support Services Contractors. Sinlge point failure for multiple
logistics functions at LaRC and SSC. Anticipated hire at SSC
Supply currently on hold.
Delay in replacement of critical civil service personnel at GRC and
KSC. GRC expects to fill vacancy by end of 2008. At KSC, a concern
existed as retiring civil servants positions were not backfilled.
G G Y G NA G G Y G Y Situation improved by increased use of Support Services
Contractors. Single point failure for multiple log functions at LaRC and
SSC. Anticipated hire at SSC currently on hold. GSFC filled HQ
Equipment SEMO position.
CFO management control findings related to property management
are being addressed, however center IPO staffing concerns to support
transition workload and FAR update present an on-going staffing
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y issue. JSC in process of filling Contract Property Administrator
position. JSC also submitted request to fill the following: 2 positions
for Property Disposal, 1 position for Shuttle Clerical (Property) and 1
position for Packing/Shipping in Transportation.
Contract Property
Agency risk for not meeting EO 13423 (alternate fuel): discussions
with MSFC to resolve center contribution ongoing. Single point failure
for multiple log functions at SSC, anticipated hire currently on hold.
G G G Y G G G Y Y Y GSFC loss of CNG capability for approx. 13 vehicles. KSC added
additional contractor to assist with transportation functions. At LaRC,
TO/SEMO is one person, he will be out in Jan. (medical leave) no
Transportation replacement appointed.
Increase in excess property workload due to Shuttle and Hubble
G G G Y G Y Y G Y Y disposition at GSFC, MSFC, KSC, SSC & JSC. Single point failure
Property Disposal for multiple log functions at SSC.
19. NASA and Contractor Safety Statistics
Dashboards
February Mishap
OCO
Jan 2008 – Mar 2008 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009 Jan 2008 – Mar 2008 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009 Jan 2008 - Mar 2008 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009
March Mishaps:
• No Type A Mishaps
• One Type B Mishap: DRC- (Deluge System Release in Shuttle Hangar - 3/13/09)
• One Potential Type B Mishap: DRC- (Global Hawk Electronics Failure 3/12/09) – currently a Type D
Data does not include 4/2/09 Type B Mishap: Water Drill mishap resulting in multiple amputations
Close Call Incidents Show An Increase From Previous Reporting Period (Jan – Mar 2008).
20. False Material Certification Status as of: Date x, 200x
• Issue Description: Company xyz, manufacturer of a material used in flight hardware, was indicted on federal
charges of issuing false material certifications for supplies they sold. Material of uncertain pedigree may
have been used by NASA projects.
Mission Directorate Impact
MD 1 MD 2 MD 3 MD 4
• Cleared: LRO, LCROSS, Ares • Suspect material found in • Suspect material found
• No use of Suspect
I-X, J2-X, Orion PA-1, HRP Kepler spacecraft in a on the Taurus and Delta
material determined as ISS Experiments & ETDP IV vehicles used by
critical area wherein failure
yet • No other project could be catastrophic. OCO, Glory, and NRO L-
• Supplier traceability assessments required • Suspect material also found 26.
investigation still in the AIA instrument on • NRO mission cleared.
underway SDO. • SSP & ISS cleared.
• Other projects are • LSP - All vehicles now
investigating usage. cleared.
Information on Agency Actions and Status (Estimated Completion) POC: Ken Ledbetter
• The Kepler project procured material from Company xyz who obtained some of the material from Company xxx Inc, including
the material for the Telescope Spider Hub Assembly. Company xyz had 46 different material procurements. The Kepler
project performed tests on residual material at xyz and confirmed that it was sufficient to satisfy their mission application.
• GIDEP indicates earliest occurrence was no later than 2002 with the latest false certification in 7/03 for a purchase order in
11/04 by Company xyz.
• SDO project also found suspect material in the AIA instrument. AIA has now been cleared.
• Centers responding with evaluations on a project-by-project basis.
• Top Level Description/ Status: Material found to have uncertain pedigree due to false certifications. Extent of usage
in NASA projects and resulting impact, are under investigation.
21. Agency Programs: PCA Status
Highlight indicates change from previous report
MD Formulation Implementation
SMD Astrophysics Planetary Science Astrophysics
Physics of the Cosmos G Discovery (8/19/08) Y SOFIA (7/26/07)
Cosmic Origins Y Mars Exploration (1/26/07) G Hubble Space Telescope (2/27/09)
G New Frontiers (3/18/08) G Fermi (formerly GLAST) (8/18/08)
Planetary Science Heliophysics G James Webb Space Telescope (3/17/09)
G
Lunar Quest Explorer (2/2/09) G ExoPlanet Exploration (4/14/09)
G Living with a Star (8/25/08) Earth Science
G New Millennium (10/6/08) G Earth Systematic Missions (4/14/08)
Y Solar Terrestrial Probes (12/21/07) G ESSP (4/25/08)
ESMD Constellation (in G Human Research (5/21/07) Rev A in Rev Lunar Precursor Robotic (Waived requirement)
development; expect Technology Development (10/21/07)
G
approval at KDP-II)
ARMD
G Airspace Systems (9/14/2007) G Fundamental Aeronautics (5/21/07)
G Aviation Safety (9/17/2007) G Aeronautics Test (5/21/07)
SOMD G ISS (8/01/08) G SSP (1/26/07)
G LSP (1/28/08) G SCaN (10/16/08)
G RPT (1/23/09) G TDRS K/L (4/18/07)
CHSP (waived requirement)
PCA Status Legend Dates are last signed PCA
G = Signed PCA with no update required Y = MD has identified for update R = No signed PCA BLACK = NA
February 2010 21
23. NASA Monthly Baseline Performance Review (BPR)
GSFC Center Summary Input
Highlights from 11/17/2009
Programs/Projects Technical Authority/Mission Support/Institutional
Summary Performance Institutional Risk to Mission
ESMD:
ESP Budget/Finance:
LRO – Supported LCROSS Lunar Impact, data being analyzed. Grants reconciliation and transition: The ORR for the Phase 2 transition
Transition to SSMO will occur in December. to NSSC is scheduled for November 30th; will complete GSFC transition
SMD: activities.
HST- SM4 SMOV activities complete. Workforce:
– Working possible options to increase FY10 reserves. OTE Early Career Hiring: FY09 - 66 on-board; FY10 – 10 with an additional
CDR complete. 10 offers accepted and negotiating dates.
GLORY- Successful CMC and ESD rebaseline reviews conducted. LV
actions being worked prior to DPMC.
Acquisition:
GPM – Re-planned road to KDP-C. Working toward Mission CDR Aerospace Corp. Support: Consolidated Agency contracting approach
planned for December 14-17th. being pursued. GSFC had restricted authorization to use the existing GSFC
LDCM contract for critical tasks ending in December. “Authorization” to seek
services on the Airforce contract granted but is not expected to save
NPP - Systemic issues with systems engineering and mission resources and requires unnecessary actions.
assurance escapes on IPO-provided instruments reduce confidence in
Instrument life expectancy to be less than the 5-year design life. SCNS contract protest activities continue. NENS contract has been
MMS – S Band antenna height change complete. Swedish Univ, KTH extended through April 2010. The delayed transition from NENS to SCNS
ability to deliver Spin Plane Probe Electric Field Instruments. continues to impact the contractor’s ability to retain experienced employees
to perform the work.
RBSP–Schedule delays are being worked. • Agency-level protests denied on August 11th and the Corrective Action
SDO – LRD is 2/3/2010. AIA Hopa Circuit anomaly. Plan (CAP) implementation was initiated on August 17th.
SAM – Power Distribution Box is integrated onto the flight suite. • A protest was submitted on August 21st to GAO with regard to the CAP.
GOES-R – ITT performance on ABI. CAP implementation permitted to continue. GAO decision due NLT
November 30th.
NOAA Climate Sensors • Congressional request for information with regard to the CAP was
SOMD: submitted October 22nd.
Ground Network Space Network- See Acquisition, SCNS.
TDRS – Continue to Work with BSS regarding requirements flow-down
to subcontractors.
SGSS – RFP development activities continue.
ELC – Successful SMSR October 23rd. Decks #1 and #2 were
Launched November 16th.
February 2010 23
24. SMD Overview
November 2009
Status:
– 2 project rated Red overall: NPP, SOFIA
– 4 projects rated Yellow overall: JWST, MSL, Juno, Glory
– SOFIA changed from Yellow to Red due to eroding schedule, cost issues & delay in rebaseline APMC.
– Juno progress degraded from Green to Yellow; Glory returned to Yellow pending replan DPMC.
– Replan DPMCs pending on Glory, Aquarius, & MSL.
– MRO in safemode due to computer resets; Restarts unsuccessful for Last IceSat laser failure
Technical Schedule
Planetary: MSL actuators. MRO safemode implications on Astrophysics:
developing missions using heritage avionics (e.g. Juno, Earth Sci: Glory Taurus XL return to flight schedule. Potential
GRAIL, MAVEN) further NPP launch delays from instrument rework.
All: Continued difficulties developing instruments; Implications
from usage of Western Titanium.
Cost Programmatic
Planetary: Funding of MSL slip severely impacts division All: Access to Space continues to be an issue: Delta II
Astrophysics: Overall division budget issues, esp JWST. replacement; Taurus XL failure, & impact on Glory. Very
crowded launch manifest in fall 2011.
Watch list Items:
Uncertainty of SMAP launch date for project planning
February 2010 For NASA Internal Use Only 24
25. ESMD Projects Status Roll Up Continued
2009 Month A B C D
COMMENTS
S O N S O N S O N S O N
Y Y G
Successful Launch!! October 28, 2009 at 11:30 am ET
Post-Flight Data Review working group will meet twice a
week to review progress of data collection and reduction
Ares I-X The first stage solid rocket motor recovered; hardware
disposition is in progress; data recorder removed and
shipped to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin who will
provide best and final set of all flight data from a
combination of data from telemetry and the on-board
recorder
Lunar Insufficient funds in PMR09 budget to meet HLR in 2020.
Surface Constrained to “study only” after FY2010.
Systems
February 2010 25
26. PSD Budget Reporting Matrix (11/16/09)
External Internal
Project MPAR OMB Qtrly
(Baseline) IBPD (FY10)*1 (4QFY09) PCA/PRLA/other*2
Development $968.6 $1,631.0 $1,719.9 $1657 ₃
MSL LCC $1,642.2 $2,299.3 $2,394.3 $2,318.5
LRD Sep 2009 Oct 2011 Nov-11 Oct-11
Development $427.0 $427.0 $427.0 $407.7
GRAIL LCC $496.2 $465.6M* $496.2 $468.2
LRD Sep 2011 Sep 2011 Sep 2011 Sep 2011
Development $742.3 $742.3 $742.3 $695.3
JUNO LCC $1,107.0 $1,091.9M* $1,107.0 $1,050.0
LRD Aug 2011 Aug 2011 Aug 2011 Aug-11
*1 - IBPD is updated through N2 automatically and as of 4-15-9 N2 has not been updated to reflect
the FY09 Op Plan Changes nor the GRAIL and Juno KDP-C decisions.
*2 - The PCA (Program Commitment Agreement) is located in Science Works under Requirements
Management system, Planetary Science, Program, Key Document PCA, and KPD
*3 - MSL project assumes an approved $13.4M adjustment from Phase E to Phase C/D, which is
NOT included in the $1657M internal development number.
26
27. Oct Nov
JWST YY Y
Status: In Phase C
Y Technical: G Schedule:
• NIRCam off-axis image quality • WATCH: Low near-term reserves pose a
• NIRSpec microshutter separation - decision threat to LRD.
to change coating
R Cost: G Programmatic:
• FY'10 reserves negative & FY'11 reserves
only 0.9%
• Project requested $20M addition to FY'10
reserves. HQ told project to continue to fund
JSC facility mod, with decision on extra $20M
in 4-6 weeks.
28. Summary
• NASA Senior Management monitors Agency-Wide
performance monthly through its baseline Performance
Review (BPR) Process
Each Program area is assessed quarterly on a rotating basis
• The automated tool is coming online at MSFC
• BPR continues to evolve and improve
30. BPR Actions and Status
7.23.2009 BPR Meeting
• 2009-07-026: PA&E – Revisit the FY09 Q3 Contract reporting chart
to clarify the way the information is being conveyed. (E.g. Contract
base value apparent misalignment with LCC.)
Due: October 2009 BPR
Status: Propose to CLOSE. PA&E has met with ESMD to identify how
to add clarity to this reporting. ESMD will provide additional
information that clarifies the contract values. Interim information was
presented in September BPR by PA&E. ESMD has provided data from
the Ares I and Orion. Language has been added to the contract chart to
explain what contracts are and are not included in contract reporting to
OMB.
32. Green Criteria
A Category for a Project is Green if:
There are minimal programmatic issues and adequate margin (budget reserve,
schedule slack, technical margin), or capability (for operational missions), to
complete the Project on plan.
A Project is Green overall if:
All 4 categories are Green, or
One or more are Yellow and the issues are collectively not a threat/impact to the
project by virtue of their being solvable within the project's planned resources.
(Margin in one category may provide capability to resolve a lack of margin in another
category.)
A Program is Green if:
The constituent projects are Green overall, or are Yellow with realistic, defined plans
to return to green and all other program elements are on budget and schedule.
33. Yellow Criteria
A Category for a Project is Yellow if:
The remaining margin within the category appears inadequate to meet Project
requirements or external commitments, however, mitigation plans are in place or in
development to recover margin and achieve commitments within the available
resources of the Project. (For operational projects in the technical category "margin"
may be interpreted as operational capabilities.)
A Project is Yellow overall if:
Any one category is Red, the overall is at least Yellow, or
One or more categories are Yellow and the issues are collectively a threat to the
project's ability to meet their commitments within the project's planned resources.
A Program is Yellow if:
Any of its constituent projects are Red overall, or if one or more are Yellow and the
issues are collectively a threat to the Program's ability to meet its commitments
within planned resources.
34. Red Criteria
A Category for a Project is Red if:
There is minimal margin or negative margin within the category such that the
Project is estimated not to meet its requirements or commitments without significant
impact to other categories. There is high risk that the Project will require external
resources or relief from performance or programmatic requirements.
A Project is Red overall if:
One or more categories are Red, and it is estimated that the Project will not have
sufficient resources to meet its commitments.
A Program is Red if:
Most of its constituent projects are Red overall, or if one or more are Red and the
issues are collectively a threat to the Program's ability to meet its commitments.
35. Assessment Rubric for Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs
Cost Schedule Technical Programmatic
Cost estimates remain consistent with cost Schedule progress remains consistent with Technical progress remains consistent with Programmatic performance remains consistent
commitments: schedule commitments: technical commitments: with program/project requirements:
-- Formulation: Current estimated -- Formulation: The current estimated -- Formulation: The project/program is -- Formulation: An approved FAD is in place and
formulation costs are consistent with the authority-to-proceed to implementation date is making planned progress in developing planned progress is being made in completing
program FAD. at or before the FAD. technical design, reliability, safety, and risk programmatic arrangements necessary to enter
-- Development: Current estimated LCC at -- Development: Current estimated operational mitigation requirements necessary to development as planned.
completion is at or below the LCC readiness date (ORD) is at or before the ORD proceed to implementation as planned. -- Development: Top-level objectives and
commitment. For multi-project programs, the commitment. For multi-project programs, the -- Development: Technical requirements programmatic requirements in the plan are stable
current cost estimate by year for the current estimated schedule for planned start are stable and progress and risk and programmatic capabilities are being
program’s projects, including reserve, is dates for future projects is consistent with the management is consistent with plan while developed/ managed as planned. Plans are
within the 5 year cost run-out in the program program plan. maintaining safety. For multi-project consistent with 7120.5 or necessary waivers are
plan. The program is consistently executing -- Operations: Planned operations, including programs, any lack of planned technical in place. A multi-project program is effectively
its projects within their cost cap or maintenance, are proceeding on schedule. progress at the project level is not resulting managing its projects, with new projects
commitment. and there are minimal issues and adequate in an increased risk to the program’s beginning per the Program Plan.
-- Operations: Annual operational costs are schedule margin to complete the Program or technical commitments and objectives. -- Operations. Operational requirements are
at or below planned costs for these Project on plan: -- Operations: Operational systems are stable consistent with plan, and operations are
operations --Funded schedule reserves & phasing are delivering the planned level of services and being managed as planned. Retirement/ transition
and there are minimal issues and adequate consistent with plan and are being drawn down reliability, with a general trend towards plans are being developed/ implemented
cost margin (budget reserve) to complete at a rate consistent with plan and emergent improved safety, and efficiency. consistent with the timing for these events.
the Program or Project on plan: schedule risks/threats. For multi-project and there are minimal issues and adequate and there are minimal issues and adequate
-Lifecycle cost reserves are consistent with programs, any faster-than-planned project technical margin to complete the Program programmatic flexibility to complete the Program
plan and are being drawn down at a rate draw-down of schedule reserve is not or Project on plan: or Project on plan:
consistent with plan and emergent cost impinging on the ability of the program to meet -- Technical reserves are being drawn down --Key contract actions are being undertaken and
risks/threats. For multi-project programs, its overall schedule commitments. are consistent with plan; technical completed as planned. The multi-project
reserves are being managed consistent with --Key interim milestones (KDP as well as WBS difficulties/risks encountered are typical for program’s acquisition strategy (both contracted
the annual reserves planned for each milestones) being met. this type of project/program and are being and in-house) is resulting in the timely start of
project. -- For multi-project programs, any delay in mitigated or controlled as required to make projects and delivery of project elements.
-- The project/program will not require project schedule is not jeopardizing inputs planned technical progress. --Key critical workforce, access to key facilities,
additional funds to complete the current required for another project or resulting in an -- Are consistent with the requirements of EVM, and management systems are in place
fiscal year with required carryover. increased risk to the program’s schedule safety, reliability & quality assurance, and consistent with plan.
-- Phasing of cost reserves are consistent commitments. incorporate good systems engineering & --Key partnerships are in place and operating as
with emergent risks or threats. -- External partners are providing key integration practice. planned; external requirements are stable; and
-- Current year budget level and timing of deliverables on schedule. -- External partners are making planned there are no other factors external to the
funds distribution are consistent with plan or technical progress and external events project/program (e.g., new Agency requirements)
commitments are not threatened as a result (e.g., import approvals) are not altering which are significantly disrupting planned
of any or delay in current year funding. technical requirements. project/program management.
-- External partners are providing key -- For operational projects, the ground and
resources as planned. in-flight hardware is operating satisfactorily
on prime or backup units and mission
requirements are being met.
36. Assessment Rubric for Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs (continued)
Cost Schedule Technical Programmatic
In general, the program or project follows In general, the program or project follows the In general, the program or project follows In general, programmatic performance remains
the green assessment guidelines, green assessment guidelines, but the green assessment guidelines, consistent with program/project
but cost commitments are now schedule commitments are now but technical commitments are now requirements for a green assessment, but
threatened. threatened. threatened: remaining programmatic flexibility may be
Remaining cost margin appears inadequate Remaining schedule margin appears Remaining technical margins appear inadequate to meet requirements due to
to meet requirements due to one or inadequate to meet requirements due inadequate to meet requirements one or more of the following programmatic
more of the following deviations from
to one or more of the following due to one or more of the following deviations from plan however, mitigation
plan, however, mitigation plans are
deviations from plan, however, technical deviations from plan plans are in place or in development to
in place or in development to
mitigation plans are in place or in however, mitigation plans are in recover margin and achieve commitments
recover margin and achieve
development to recover margin and place or in development to recover within the planned resources:
commitments within the planned
achieve commitments within the margin and achieve commitments -- Key contract actions are not being undertaken
resources of the Program or Project:
planned resources: within the planned resources: or completed as planned.
-- Lifecycle cost reserves (including those
-- Schedule reserves are being drawn down -- Technical reserves are being drawn down -- A multi-project program’s acquisition strategy
held at the program level) are being
faster than planned or as required for at a rate inconsistent with plan; or (both contracted and in-house) is not
drawn down faster than planned or
emergent schedule risks/threats. technical difficulties/risks resulting in the timely start of projects and
required for emergent cost
-- Key interim milestones (KDP and/or WBS encountered exceed those which delivery of project elements.
risks/threats.
milestones) have slipped. are typical for this type of -- Key critical workforce, access to key facilities,
-- Phasing of cost reserves are inconsistent
-- For multi-project programs, delay in project project/program or are not being EVM, and management systems are not
with emergent risks or threats.
schedules is resulting in an increased mitigated or controlled as required consistent with plan..
-- Current year cost growth is exceeding
risk to the program’s schedule to make planned technical progress. -- Key partnerships are not in place or operating
planned current year cost reserves
commitments. -- Are not consistent in some key areas with as planned; external requirements are not
and will require a re-phasing of the
-- External partners are delayed in providing the requirements of safety, reliability stable; or there are other factors external
annual budget in order to complete
key deliverables or external factors are & quality assurance, and the to the project/program (e.g., new Agency
the fiscal year with required
delaying completion of a key milestone. incorporation of good systems requirements) which are significantly
carryover.
engineering & integration practice. disrupting planned project/program
-- A reduction in current year budget or
-- External partners are not making planned management.
slow- down in funds distribution will
technical progress or external
require the project/program to
events (e.g., import approvals) are
rephrase future year annual costs.
altering technical requirements.
-- External partner changes or factors
-- For operational projects, ground or flight
external to the project/program are
capabilities have been curtailed, but
placing additional pressure on
plans are in work to recover the
project/program costs.
capability or develop a workaround
-- For operating missions, in flight anomalies
such that mission requirements will
are draining cost reserves.
still be met.
37. Assessment Rubric for Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs (continued)
Cost Schedule Technical Programmatic
The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to be
meet its cost commitments without meet its schedule commitments without meet its technical requirements able to meet its requirements due to
significant impact to other significant impact to other categories. without significant impact to other programmatic issues affecting the other
categories. The key end-of-phase KDP milestones categories:. categories.
Depending on phase, the project's are unlikely to be met. A project in formulation is not making the A formulation project has failed to make the
formulation costs, or development For multi-project programs, the planned start- technical progress required to enter programmatic progress required to be
costs, or annual operating costs up of future projects is delayed beyond development. confirmed for development.
are exceeding the planned budget program commitments or objectives. For a project in development, technical A development project lacks an approved plan or
beyond all planned reserves. For operations missions, the current failures or delays preclude the has failed to implement that plan
For multi-project programs, total annual operations schedule is insufficient to project from being able to meet its consistent with meeting its commitments.
costs for the program’s projects meet project commitments or the technical requirements and The multi-project program lacks an
exceed the program’s 5 year mission failed prior to the planned end- commitments. approved PCA or project plan, or has
planned run-out, including reserves. of-operations date. For multi-project There is minimal or negative technical failed to implement the projects require to
There is minimal or negative cost margin programs: The current operations margin such that there is high risk meet its commitments.
such that there is high risk that the schedule is insufficient to meet that the Program or Project will There is limited or no programmatic flexibility such
Program or Project will require program commitments or the failure of require additional technical that there is high risk that the Program or
additional funding or relief from one or missions prior to the planned resources or relief from performance Project will require relief from performance
performance or programmatic end date has resulted in the project not or programmatic requirements due or programmatic requirements due to one
requirements due to one or more of being able to meet its commitments or to one or more of the following or more of the following deviations from
the following deviations from plan for objectives. technical deviations from plan for plan for which the project/ program has
a realistic recovery strategy has not There is minimal or negative schedule margin which the project or program has not identified a realistic strategy for
been identified: is such that there is high risk that the not identified a realistic strategy for recovery:
-- Lifecycle cost reserves (including those Program or Project will require recovery: --Key contract actions are not being undertaken
held at the program level) are being additional schedule or relief from -- Technical reserves are being drawn down or completed as required. The multi-
drawn down at an unsustainable performance or programmatic at an unsustainable rate or project program’s acquisition strategy
rate and remaining reserves are requirements due to one or more of the emergent technical difficulties, risks, (both contracted and in-house) is not
insufficient given emergent following deviations from plan for which or threats are not being resolved as resulting in the timely start of projects and
risks/threats. a realistic strategy for recovery has not required to meet the technical delivery of project elements.
-- Phasing of cost reserves are inconsistent been identified: commitments. --Key critical workforce, availability of key
with emergent risks or threats. -- Schedule reserves are being drawn down at -- Are not consistent with the requirements facilities, EVM, and management systems
-- Current year cost growth exceeds an unsustainable rate and remaining of safety, reliability & quality are missing or inconsistent with meeting
planned costs and cannot be reserves are insufficient given assurance, and the incorporation of the project’s commitments.
accommodated by rephrasing emergent risks/threats. good systems engineering & --Key planned partnerships did not materialize,
annual costs. -- A slip of one or more key interim milestones integration practice. quit or not to delivering consistent with
-- A reduction or delay in current year (KDP and/or WBS milestones) is -- Lack of technical progress by external project/program commitments; unstable or
funding is inconsistent with inconsistent with the planned ORD. partners or external events (e.g., newly emergent external requirements are
maintaining the overall LCC For programs, delay in project import approvals) are inconsistent not implementable; or other external
commitment. schedules is inconsistent with with meeting the project/program developments are inconsistent with the
-- A loss of key external partners or program’s schedule commitments. technical requirements, project/program commitments.
resources is inconsistent with -- An external partner delays or delays caused commitments, or objectives, or
keeping the project or program by other external factors are additional/different external cannot
within planned costs. inconsistent with the planned ORD. be met within plan.
-- For operational projects, in-flight For multi-project programs, delays -- For operational missions, in-flight
anomalies have drained all cost caused by external factors are anomalies have used up
reserves and the project will need inconsistent with the program’s redundancy and made it unlikely
more funds to complete the prime schedule commitments. that the mission will achieve its
mission. mission requirements.
38. BPR Process Organizational
Structure As of June 3, 2008
Associate Administrator
And Associate Deputy
Administrator
Chief
Engineer
Division Chief for
Engineering and
Program & Project
Management
BPR
Team Lead
February 2010 For NASA Internal Use Only 38
39. BPR Process Organizational
Structure As of June 3, 2008
BPR
Executive
Secretariat Team Lead
PA&E Technical OSMA OCE Admin Center OCE MD P&P
Team Lead Cross-Cutting Team Lead Support POC’s Assessment
Team Lead
Institutional Non- Special Topic / Program Mission Mission OSMA PA&E
Assessment Technical Root Cause & Directorate Centers Support Assessor Assessor
Team Lead Cross Cutting Analysis Lead Projects (*) Offices
(One representative
from each MD)
MSO
Representatives
I&A
IT
OCFO
OHCM
OPII
PROC
(*) One representative from each
February 2010 For NASA Internal Use Only 39
40. Primary BPR Deliverables
• Monthly meeting BPR presentation package
• Executive summary and pre-brief
• Meeting Summary Notes and Post-brief
• Executive Summary for the Administrator and Deputy Administrator
• Meeting Actions List and tracking
40