NASA APM-23 Special Study Group: Fast Track Study

Summary

This report documents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the NASA Advanced Project Management Class 23 (APM-23) Special Study Group on managing ‘Fast Track’ projects under severe cost and schedule constraints in a ‘Better, Faster, Cheaper’ environment. Through interviews and case studies across NASA centers, DOD programs (such as JDAM), and industry leaders, the study outlines essential project management strategies including upfront planning, integrated product teams, streamlined oversight, and design-to-cost methodologies.

Cover Page

NASA-TM-112368

PPMI NASA APM-23 Special Study Group FAST TRACK STUDY November 1996 Final Version 1.0

Developed by Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI) 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 108 Falls Church, VA 22043 (703) 749-3040 FAX (703) 749-3046

with support of Advanced Project Management Class 23 NASA PPMI

NASA Fast Track Study Table of Contents

Executive Summary … ii Survey/Feedback Tearout Sheet … v Acknowledgments … vi Introduction/ Background/ Purpose … 1 Methodology … 3 Findings … 7 A. Planning … 8 B. Teamwork … 10 C. Day-to-Day Management … 11 Conclusions … 13 Recommendations … 15

Appendices A. APM-23 Draft Guide B. APM-23 SSG Interview Compilation C. SRI Space Interview Compilation D. SRI Non-Space Interview Compilation E. Supplemental Information

Executive Summary

The NASA Fast Track Study supports the efforts of a Special Study Group (SSG) made up of members of the Advanced Project Management Class number 23 (APM-23) that met at the Wallops Island Management Education Center from April 28 - May 8, 1996. Members of the Class expressed interest to Mr. Vern Weyers in having an input to the NASA Policy Document (NPD) 7120.4, that will replace NASA Management Instruction (NMI) 7120.4, and the NASA Program/Project Management Guide. The APM-23 SSG was tasked with assisting in development of NASA policy on managing Fast Track Projects, defined as small projects under $150 million and completed within three years.

The approach of the APM-23 SSG was to gather data on successful projects working in a “Better, Faster, Cheaper” environment, within and outside of NASA and develop the Fast Track Project section of the NASA Program/Project Management Guide. Fourteen interviews and four other data gathering efforts were conducted by the SSG, and 16 were conducted by Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), including five interviews at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and one at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). The interviews were compiled and analyzed for techniques and approaches commonly used to meet severe cost and schedule constraints.

Findings Summary: From the analysis, the following findings were derived: Within an improved Product Development Cycle (PDC) process that compresses the time needed to go from concept to operation, three primary project management applications were discovered necessary for Fast Track Project success:

Thorough planning (including Risk Planning, metrics for management and use of concurrent engineering).
Teamwork (including use of Integrated Product Teams).
Minimizing disruptive outside events and their potential for consuming time and resources (including extra reviews and second guessing team decisions).

This study found that success was not achieved by omitting steps in the Life Cycle Development (LCD) process, but by innovatively tailoring the process to fit the constraints of the specific project.

Additionally, related management applications that should be considered for use by each project manager as applicable: the use of Risk Management; the use of facilitating technology or tools, such as Rapid Prototyping, Computer Aided Design software, and communication tools; and, training for specific project management applications, team operations, and available supporting management information resources.

From these findings, recommendations for Fast Track Projects were formulated:

Require and allow time for the actual project manager and team to plan at the front end of Fast Track Projects (especially entering Phase C/D), to include Risk Management Planning and Design-to-Cost, with the understanding of the importance of controlling project technical and programmatic requirements throughout the life cycle.
Use Program Commitment Agreement concept at all levels of the project as a series of bilateral agreements, used to ensure common requirement understanding and to control requirement creep.
Use metrics for each project that will measure progress and value.
Use team management and cross functional integration as a tool to achieve success.
Educate project managers in innovative techniques for managing reviews, documentation, oversight and risk to minimize disruptions in a schedule constrained project.
Provide NASA Program/Project Managers access to an educational/corporate knowledge information system addressing issues of Fast Track Project management, available as an on-line resource to support both project management and career development.

Fast Track Study Feedback Form

Fast Track Study Feedback

Was the information helpful to you? [ ] Yes [ ] No Why/Why not? If Yes, how will you use the information?

Was the arrangement of the information helpful? [ ] Yes [ ] No Why/Why not?

Is there more information you would like to see? [ ] Yes [ ] No If Yes, please describe it.

What would you like to see in an information reference library?

I have ideas/experiences to share. Contact me! Name: ____________________ Phone: ____________________ e-mail: ____________________ Office Address: ____________________

Return form to: Dr. Edward Hoffman Code FT NASA Headquarters 300 E Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20546

Acknowledgments

The following members of the APM-23 Class contributed significantly to the writing of the draft Fast Track Guide and to the research and data gathered for this study.

Mr. Greg Stover, LaRC (Coordinator) Mr. Al Motley, LaRC (APM-23 SSG HomePage WebMaster) Mr. Jim Stewart, DFRC Ms. Cynthia Peslen, GSFC Mr. Dave Christiansen, HQ NASA Mr. Paul Bertsch, JSC Mr. Jack James, JSC (Not in APM-23) Mr. Bill Franklin, KSC Mr. Enoch Moser, KSC Mr. Richard Nelson, KSC Ms. Maynette Smith, KSC Mr. Tom Sutliff, LeRC Mr. Dan Morilak, LeRC Mr. David Mann, MSFC Mr. Lowell Primm, MSFC Mr. Fred Sanders, MSFC Mr. David Weeks, MSFC Mr. Mike Potts, SSC

In addition, the contributions of the following are also acknowledged: Dr. Edward Hoffman, NASA HQ/Code FT Ms. Lori Lindholm, SRI Mr. Jerry Coady, SRI Mr. Dennis VanLiere, SRI

Introduction/Background

This study is a result of the thinking, concern and efforts of a number of members of the NASA Advanced Project Management Class number 23 (APM-23), and the encouragement of Mr. Vern Weyers and the Program/Project Management Working Group (PPMWG), charged with developing NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 7120.4. The class convened at NASA’s Management Education Center, Wallops Island, Virginia from April 28 through May 8, 1996. Mr. Weyers, the speaker for the graduation session as Chair of the PPMWG, discussed the issues surrounding new approaches to smaller projects. Following Mr. Weyers’ presentation, the class expressed their concern for NASA to provide guidance, not only for smaller projects, but also for the accelerated project structure needed to meet NASA’s “Better, Faster, Cheaper” objectives. Mr. Weyers challenged the class to provide their issues, concerns and recommendations to the full PPMWG. The class met with the PPMWG on June 19, 1996, and recommended gathering information and data from visionary managers within NASA on their experiences and ideas on how to do “Better, Faster, Cheaper” projects. The PPMWG chartered the class members as a Special Study Group (SSG) and tasked them to research Fast Track Projects. The SSG was also tasked to produce a Guide for Fast Track Projects as part of the NASA Program/Project Management Guide. In addition to looking within NASA, Code FT tasked Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI) with supplementing the SSG’s findings by performing similar research with industry and non-NASA government agencies that have successfully addressed compressing the development cycle.

The interest in “Better, Faster, Cheaper” at NASA grew from studies performed in 1991 and 1992 showing that out of 29 programs evaluated, NASA had experienced approximately 65 percent cost and schedule overruns, and programs averaged 12 years. NASA Administrator, Mr. Daniel Goldin, focused on the concept of “Better, Faster, Cheaper” for NASA in response to declining federal funding. In light of this, sustaining exploration of the solar system, placing a Space Station in orbit and developing a follow-on to the Space Shuttle, requires different approaches throughout NASA than those of the programs referenced in the 1991/92 study.

NASA rewrote its basic Program Management policy for Life Cycle Development, NASA Management Instruction (NMI) 7120.4, in 1993 in response to the study’s results. However, much of the evidence applied only to traditional, large programs. The PPMWG is now rewriting this document, as NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 7120.4 to apply to the broader range of programs and projects, including relatively smaller projects defined as “Better, Faster, Cheaper.” This directive will be accompanied by a new NASA Hand Book (NHB) 7120.5 that will provide guidance for Program/Project Management with the draft Fast Track Guide, produced in conjunction with this study, addressing “Better, Faster, Cheaper” projects.

This study documents, summarizes and discusses the methodology, findings, conclusions and recommendations of individuals within and outside NASA experienced in “Better, Faster, Cheaper” projects. The findings are summarized below and discussed more thoroughly in the body of this study. The draft Fast Track Guide is provided as Appendix A. The compiled interviews at Appendices B, C, and D, and Supplemental Information provided by interviewees is at Appendix E.

Methodology

The SSG was tasked to produce the Fast Track portion of the NASA Program/Project Management Guide. The SSG determined that data for this effort should be based on the experiences of managing projects that may be defined as Fast Track. These projects are usually constrained by cost and/or schedule.

This study was designed as a compilation of interviews conducted at NASA’s Centers or coordinated by the members of the SSG. NASA/Code FT, responsible for NASA’s Program/Project Management Initiative, tasked SRI to support the SSG by compiling the SSG interviews, coordinating the editing of the draft Guide, and researching Fast Track type projects in industry and other government agencies. The objective of both the SSG and SRI research was to examine a cross section of projects to provide a better understanding of how to manage cost and schedule constrained projects.

The SSG and SRI developed interview protocols as a common framework for the study, however, the actual interviews also included information outside the protocol. Although each project manager interviewed differed with regard to what was important and what to focus on when managing a Fast Track Project, several common elements emerged.

NASA Interviews: The NASA interviews occurred at all Centers except Dryden and Ames. There were a total of 14 project interviews and four related data gathering efforts focused on defining what is needed for Fast Track Projects. These were compiled into the areas listed on the following page, to provide a common basis for examining the data from all of the interviews.

Non-NASA Interviews: Identifying potential Non-NASA interviewees required research to select candidate projects, an interview point of contact, and making appointments for conducting the interviews. Of note were the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) personnel, who were very cooperative, as were those contacted at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University. These interviews complemented data from the NASA Centers as several of the JPL and APL projects are managed as “Better, Faster, Cheaper.”

The industry and other government agencies’ projects also provided supporting evidence on managing the development of new products from concept to operation. Although there is not a one-for-one correspondence with NASA’s efforts, many of the problems faced by these project managers are very similar.

Compilation Format: The compilation format emerged from the common threads revealed in both the NASA and non-NASA interviews. Each interview was evaluated for applicability to one of the four areas: Practice Oriented Ideas, Policy Related Comments, Cultural Changes and Technology/Tools. Points made that were determined as applicable to Fast Track Projects, but which did not clearly fit into one of the four areas, were listed in Other Observations.

Interview Compilation Format & Examples: A. Practice Oriented Ideas • Use of Teams • Use of Risk Management Practices vs. Risk Avoidance • Use of Metrics • Use of Co-location/Partnering

B. Policy Related Comments • Reduction in Level of Oversight • Reduction in Rigidity of Life Cycle Development Process • Increased Training Uniformity for New Personnel • Evaluation of Hierarchy of Project Management by Cost, Risk, Size, etc. • Reduction in Documentation Requirements

C. Cultural Changes • Location of Program Manager and Project Manager • Use of Cross Functional Integration • Use of Up-Front Agreements • More Up-Front Planning • Use of Concurrent Engineering

D. Technology/Tools • Use of Rapid Prototyping • Use of CAD/Simulation Software • Use of Communication Tools

E. Other Observations

Analysis, Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations: Once compiled, the interview data was analyzed for commonality of concepts. This commonality was further organized into areas that project managers identify as those that must be managed. Conclusions were drawn, and recommendations provided based on ensuring successful Fast Track Projects. The Draft Fast Track Guide is supported by these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations.

Fast Track Guide Development: The Draft Guide used an evolutionary development process that included a session at Wallops Island to consolidate ideas in a facilitated, focused environment. Much discussion and reflection was invested in this Guide through cooperation and involvement from all NASA Centers.

Findings

The interviews and research process identified a wide variety of approaches to managing development of new products in a cost and schedule constrained environment, but common elements emerged among the managers interviewed. These included: the primacy of good planning at the start of a project; the use of teams, such as Integrated Product Teams (IPT); and solid project management that adheres to the plan.

The interviews revealed that success is not achieved by omitting steps found in the conventional Life Cycle Development Process, but is achieved by examining the entire process to: a) minimize resource consuming activities that do not add value to the project; b) move activities forward in the process where possible; c) compress or shorten process steps; and d) understand that cost and schedule constraints will affect design decisions.

Success is also achieved in projects by controlling project execution to minimize or eliminate changes to original requirements, objectives and the project plan. This requires taking time to develop understanding and ownership of the requirements and objectives, to develop a credible, comprehensive management plan appropriate for the project size and complexity, and to adhere to the plan.

Teamwork was seen by the project managers interviewed as a value-added approach that requires an up-front investment over other non-team approaches, but pays dividends during project execution, where both time is saved and product quality ensured.

The definition of team varies by project, but several notable examples, such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Program show that all individuals involved in a project add value to the project when deliberately made part of the team.

The interviews revealed an array of approaches, even when using common techniques, as well as varying levels of emphasis for each area. This reinforces the finding that there is no detectable, one-size fits all way to manage Fast Track Projects, but that success will be achieved by tailoring the management approach to the uniqueness of the project. One of the hallmarks of the successful project is the use of innovative cost and schedule controls. Everything in the Life Cycle Development Process is open for examination by the Fast Track Project Team to define ways to maintain the schedule and control costs. In the Findings Summary that follows, the concepts of Planning, Teamwork and Day-to-Day Management are discussed with attention given to specific techniques or ideas provided from the interviews.

1.0 Planning 1.1 Up Front Planning: Planning is the key to successful management of a Fast Track Project constrained by cost and schedule. The time taken in the early stages to think through all of the aspects of the project alleviates the potential for the project manager, in the later stages, of having to redirect. The project managers who made this point referred to the conventional attitude toward planning, which is based on the belief that there will be sufficient time and other resources to react to any issues as they arise and to change the course of the project as needed. 1.2 Resource Availability (i.e., project information library, lessons learned): For many project managers, Fast Track is a new operational concept requiring training and sharing of knowledge. While formal classes provide a foundation for Project Management, sources of data and information on management approaches for Fast Track Projects, available on demand, are also desired. 1.3 Planning Areas 1.3.1 Risk (Identification of Issues/Strategy to Manage): Many saw Risk Management as a key planning activity. To be able to identify those potentially stressing aspects of a project, arrive at an assessment of probability of occurrence, and determine the cost impact to the project if a risk event occurred allows a project team to plan mitigation strategies. Many felt that conventional projects avoided risk by simply spending more money. For the cost constrained Fast Track Project, this is not an option and risk must be aggressively managed in ways other than avoidance. 1.3.2 Design (Design-to-Cost): The need to understand the nature of cost driven activities is fundamental. Several project managers mentioned that few seem to understand the concept of Design-to-Cost (DTC) as it relates to the technical-scientific environment. Successful application of DTC within NASA will be necessary to support Fast Track Projects. 1.3.3 Schedule (Design-to-Schedule): Similar to DTC, it is critical for project managers to understand that in the Fast Track environment, cost and schedule are independent variables and must be controlled. This means that, while flexibility must be available in the technical design, it should be built into the project plan from the beginning. 1.3.4 Test (Design-to-Test): While not addressed as strongly, many found this to be an area that can provide both cost and schedule savings. By asking questions about what needs to be tested during the design phase, testing may be accomplished earlier in the process, leading to earlier, less costly and less schedule-disruptive testing. Incremental testing is a key approach allowing users to gain insight into design assumptions and how they impact the satisfaction of user requirements. 1.3.5 Manufacturing/Production (Design for Manufacturing): Several project managers indicated that costs could be controlled very effectively by involving those responsible for manufacturing in the initial design and planning phases. This allows the team to identify opportunities for design decisions that allow earlier selection of alternatives, thereby lessening or shortening the manufacturing schedule. Cost controlling efforts in the area of single process engineering in factories was also revealed as a significant cost saving methodology. 1.3.6 Decision Points (Reviews, Tailoring of Life Cycle Development Process): An area discussed by almost all interviewees was the need to manage disruptive, outside influences. Most elected to incorporate review processes into the project and to not allow them to be seen as being accomplished for only the benefit of individuals outside of the project, such as upper-level management. Instead, reviews are conducted as communication events, or ‘peer reviews’ to foster team knowledge and to encourage team synergism. Where interface with mandated reviews occurred, it was managed so that the oversight panels or board reviews were conducted as part of the planned reviews and scheduled based on the project’s requirements. Minimal time was spent on producing documentation for reviews as well, using only those management products actually used by the team. 1.3.7 Metrics (Earned Value, Performance Measurement, etc.): All stressed the importance of being able to know how the project is progressing. This means that for most project managers, a well thought-out set of project metrics, sometimes unique for each project team, must be identified during planning. The metrics should answer the questions, “What will we have?” and “How will we know it?” They should always be used for high probability, high impact risk management areas. Many mentioned using Earned Value and Performance Measurement methods. 1.4 Requirements Definition: The understanding and management of requirements in the constrained environment of Fast Track Projects is absolutely key to success. The project team must have a common understanding of requirements before planning begins. The customer must also understand that planning will ‘freeze’ requirements, as cost and schedule constraints will not allow course corrections, unless the customer is willing to pay for the changes and/or accept schedule realignment. The team, including the customer, should understand that the requirements at the end of the project, should match the requirements identified at the start of the project. 1.5 Operations: Operations must not be neglected during the development process. Decisions made in the design and development phases will have cost impacts on the operations phase. In addition, several interviewees pointed out that significant schedule and cost savings are available for most projects when transitioning to operations. Consideration must be given to the entire life-cycle for a true understanding of potential schedule and cost savings.

2.0 Teamwork 2.1 Teamwork: Teams and teamwork is a developing area in government project management. The overall project management structure as a team, and the IPT concepts have been used on many successful Fast Track Projects. These team concepts are characterized by openness, concern for each other, and loyalty to team objectives. Less visible, but equally important, is the team’s understanding of the project and its goals. 2.2 Why Teamwork (Rationale): Teamwork was mentioned by many interviewees as one of the most important areas for project management of cost and schedule constrained projects. Many also mentioned that all on the team, including the project leadership, must understand the benefits of teams in order to accept the up front costs associated with team management versus the more traditional, leader-decision maker management style. Some of these benefits follow. 2.2.1 Cross-Functional Integration-Functional Synergism: The most obvious benefits identified are in the area of empowering all project participants with insight and input in the planning and design phases. The interfaces, interactions and integration activities are much more effective and efficient. All individuals that may impact the project are candidates for inclusion on the team, as all must be part of the effort of staying on cost and schedule. All team members must understand the goals of the project and be encouraged to provide innovative ideas on meeting those goals. The Fast Track environment cannot be supported by stove-piped organizations that simply throw the product over the fence to the next function in the process. 2.2.1.1 Eliminate Problems Early Rather than Late: Many of the savings in cost and schedule occur because problems are identified early and can be solved before sunk costs accumulate and schedule redirection is needed. 2.2.1.2 Save Money and Time by Fixing when it’s Cheaper/Easier: This approach allows the project team to make any necessary changes in design before design is frozen or before bending metal. It is much less expensive to make corrections early in the process. 2.2.1.3 Better Design through User/Other: By involving the user on the team, insight into user-peculiarities and perceptions may be gained to provide a better product from the start and prevent the need for late stage corrections. 2.3 Making It Work: A team environment is new for many managers, requiring a new set of skills and abilities. Many project managers emphasized that training to lead teams or be a team member is absolutely essential. 2.3.1 Culture Change (Badgeless Environment): In the environment characteristic of many NASA projects, there will be both in-house and contractor/subcontractor involvement throughout the life of the project. An environment of trust and openness must exist between project members. For example, Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) Project used the idea of a badgeless environment to describe the working relationship they created where all team members were encouraged to share openly. 2.3.2 Selecting the Right Members: Many interviewees pointed out that selecting both government team members and corporate partners able and willing to work in a team environment is a must. It is very easy to break trust and difficult to get it back. Procedures to obtain government members and contractor selection must be well thought out and planned from the beginning. 2.3.3 Cross-Functional Integration (Working Agreements): The idea of working agreements for lower level teams and for the overall team as a way of focusing everyone on the goals and boundaries has proven effective. 2.3.4 Communication (Technology/Process): Communication between team members is a must. The project leadership must do whatever it takes to make this happen. Electronic forms of communication seem to be effective if supported by existing equipment. Several interviewees mentioned that the payoff of good communication was so evident that the purchase of common equipment was a good, essential investment. 2.3.5 Co-Location: Communication on a daily basis is desired for effective cross-functional integration, and several interviewees indicated that co-location should be a requirement.

3.0 Day-to-Day Management 3.1 Day-to-Day Management: Ability to manage to the plan is another key to success. In a constrained environment, there will be little opportunity to conduct reactive management and redirect the project. 3.2 Risk Management: Managing risk during the project is essentially staying on top of those things identified during risk planning through the effective use of metrics. The idea mentioned by many is being able to see things occurring as they start and initiating mitigation activities as early as possible. The activities may be tailored to the situation by the team. 3.3 Oversight: Insight vs. Oversight was an idea put forward by several of the interviewees. This means that project management must work with oversight boards to create a climate of confidence in the team and in the project leadership. The project manager/program manager must strive to develop the same open atmosphere for the team as well. 3.4 Continuous Improvement: Each team member is a potential source of cost and schedule savings, and project managers must establish an environment conducive to fostering ideas from all team members. 3.5 Reviews: As mentioned above, reviews in a Fast Track environment should be minimally disruptive. They should address only open issues and be well planned. The idea mentioned by Motorola regarding the use of reviews to manage the white spaces between different activities or different teams within the project seemed to be an effective approach. The idea of having reviews when the project is ready for them, and not at times determined artificially outside of the project, was also emphasized. 3.6 Documentation: In keeping with the theme that time is a limited resource on Fast Track Projects, all potentially time extending activities must be held to a minimum. Documentation was singled out as a management tool that may needlessly consume time. Only the documentation planned for use by the team for specific project activities, or required to proceed to subsequent stages, should be produced.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Successful project management within the cost and schedule constrained world of “Better, Faster, Cheaper” requires an experienced project manager and the ability to manage to the plan. There is little, if any time, for major changes in requirements or to the established plan during project execution in this new focus for space mission science and spacecraft development projects. Managers must clearly understand the structure in the Life-Cycle Development model used by NASA and how to use this model to create a comprehensive project plan. Planning skills, along with the ability to communicate the understanding of requirements to the ultimate customer and project management team, are critical.

Team structure and teamwork are essential to the successful Fast Track Life Cycle Development process. Teamwork is associated with cross-functional integration and elimination of the stove-piping of disciplines of past approaches. A variety of disciplines must work together to be able to shorten the development cycle. Teamwork provides the ability to achieve that compression, and to identify and eliminate problems early, rather than late, in the project development process. Team leadership and team management are very important for the project manager to be successful in the Fast Track environment.

Since there is little time to recover from false starts or mid-project redirections in this time constrained “Better, Faster, Cheaper” management era, trust becomes very important. For trust to exist, the right project management team, whether in-house or contracted, must be selected and given authority and responsibility for the project. This requires the ability of the team selected to demonstrate from past experience that the capability to work in this environment exists, and that the necessary and appropriate management tools are assembled for the challenges of the project. Working closely with procurement personnel and the ability to manage the contractor selection effort are absolute requirements.

Risk must be identified and risk mitigation planned, along with a reporting system that allows the project management team to implement risk management. Oversight must be as least disruptive as possible. For this reason, documentation and project reviews should only be those that are used by the team to actively manage the project. Higher level reviews should accommodate the project team by allowing those required reviews to fit the project team’s plans and to present status reports from the project team’s management tools and metrics.

Innovation must be encouraged, both in technical and managerial approaches. For the technical team, cost and schedule will drive the design. This does not mean that science needs to take a back seat, but management must recognize early what good enough will be and use better as a design margin. Simplicity and industry-standard design plus off-the-shelf must be used wherever possible. Design-to-Cost and Design-to-Schedule must be taught as a way of life for the “Better, Faster, Cheaper” project team.

On the managerial side of the project, the entire team must look for opportunities to perform activities in parallel, to help each other identify opportunities, to begin work as early as possible in each functional area, and to identify and minimize disruptive but necessary activities. In other words, approaches such as concurrent engineering will also become a way of life and must be well understood. Communication of information is more important than ever and innovation here can provide significant benefits in time and cost savings as well. For this reason, meeting and review management are also key skills for the “Better, Faster, Cheaper” project manager.

Recommendations

Require and allow time for the actual project manager and team to plan at the front end of Fast Track Projects (especially entering Phase C/D), to include Risk Management Planning and Design-to-Cost, with the understanding of the importance of controlling project technical and programmatic requirements throughout the life cycle.
Use the Program Commitment Agreement concept at all levels of the project as a series of bilateral agreements, to ensure common requirement understanding and control requirement creep.
Use metrics for each project that will measure progress and value.
Use team management and cross functional integration as a tool to achieve success.
Educate project managers in innovative techniques for managing reviews, documentation, oversight and risk to minimize disruption in schedule constrained projects.
Provide NASA Program/Project Managers access to an educational/corporate knowledge information system addressing issues of Fast Track Project management, available as an on-line resource to support both project management and career development.

Appendix B: APM-23 SSG Interview Compilations - Table of Contents

Appendix B: APM-23 SSG Interview Compilations

I. Project Interviews

X-CRV (B-2)
LANDSAT (B-4)
Earth Orbiting Satellite (EOS) (Christopher J. Scolese) (B-7)
Explorers (B-9)
Marshall Space Center (MSC) Interviews (B-13) a. Optical Transient Detector b. AXAF c. SAIL d. Transient Pressure Test Article (TPTA) e. STABLE
Advanced Rocket Motor (ASRM) (B-21)
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) (Stephen C. Nunez) (B-23)
Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) (B-25)
In Space Technology Experiment Program (INSTEP) (Lenwood G. Clark) (B-28)
Lidar In Space Technology Experiment (LITE) Instruments (B-31)

II. Non-Interview Data Gathering

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Senior Group Fast Track Brainstorming Ideas (B-34)
GSFC Junior Group Fast Track Brainstorming Ideas (B-37)
Lewis Research Center (LeRC) Pyramid Team Pare Down of NHB 7120.5 (B-40)
LeRC Clean Sheet Team (B-42)

Appendix B: Project Interviews 1 - 4 (X-CRV, LANDSAT, EOS, Explorers)

X-CRV Project Background: The X-CRV is a six-passenger lifting body reentry vehicle that is to remain docked with the space station. In the event of a life threatening emergency, the space station crew would board the vehicle and reenter for a parachute landing.

Practice Oriented: The X-CRV project will proceed through the development of a flying prototype using civil servants for the project staff. Research and development, experimental, or ill-defined projects are well-suited for development by civil servants. Operational production, and other well-defined projects are good candidates for total delegation to contractors. Competitive procurement will be initiated for the production phase. The X-CRV team is housed in a small building isolated from the main buildings at JSC and uses a hands-on hardware approach. Rapid communication occurs because everyone is collocated.
Policy Related: NASA people should negotiate, manage, and make decisions on human space flight projects. A big project should be built as a set of individual smaller projects working towards incremental milestones (‘deliverables’). Project philosophy: “build things small, throw them away, and move on”. Progressive formalization should be used to build the project plan. ISO 9000 does not apply for rapid prototyping/Skunk Works type projects.
Cultural Changes: Dedicated procurement and business personnel should be included in the team. They need to understand that the biggest risk is project failure, not procurement failure. Once technical decisions are made, “ignore the rules and go get it done”.
Technology/Tools: Electronic announcements/selection. Project plan graphically depicted on a poster.

LANDSAT Project: NASA took LANDSAT over from the Air Force midway between PDR and CDR.

Practice Oriented Ideas: Original 150 CDRL items reduced to 5. NASA should play referee, not overseer. Dedicated person for Risk Management Plan; bi-weekly risk assessment meetings. Action Plan for every problem. To avoid burnout: ensure each player has a job they can complete, gets satisfaction, owns the problem, and knows constraints. Flexible Performance Measurement System. Two sets of books: one to manage from, one to present.
Policy Related: Reward excellence and penalize stupidity. Center rotation of directorate-level office staff.
Cultural Change: Fewer “empires”; function-specific track teams with minimal people.
Technology/Tools: Capture lessons learned; home pages and electronic data transfer.
Other Observations: Run minimally-staffed project (e.g. 4 heads, fixed-price contract); partner with contractor without duplicate oversight; 3-year mission focus.

Earth Orbiting Satellite (EOS): EOS AM Project life cycle cost was reduced from $2 B t o$ 1.3B, then $1B.

Practice Oriented: Prime contractor CDRLs reduced from 900+ to ~100 (only 10 requiring approval). Integrated civil servants into IPTs. Do not duplicate work; use heritage designs.
Policy Related: Eliminate POP review and replace/combine with IAR. Three-day PDR/CDR does not add value; reviewers should be involved at subsystem level.
Cultural Changes: IPT structure combining civil servants and industry partners.
Technology/Tools: Breadboards, technology demos, computer modeling.

Explorers (SMEX / MIDEX):

Practice Oriented: A formal project plan had no value for small missions (e.g. SAMPEX, FAST, SWAS). Proposal + PDR + NAR serve as project plan. No pre-Phase A/Phase A studies. Descoping done by end of Phase B; no formal descope plans in Phase C/D. PDR/NAR as control gates with cost cap.
Technology/Tools: Paperless Configuration Management on the Web.

Appendix B: Project Interviews 5 - 10 (MSC Projects, ASRM, EELV, HALOE, INSTEP, LITE)

Marshall Space Center (MSC) Interviews:

Optical Transient Detector (OTD): $4.9M budget, slipped from 6 to 9 months. Daily tag-ups; pre-environmental review was worthwhile, pre-ship was not; dedicated materials acquisition specialist needed; recommend eliminating low-level procurement requests and raising credit card spending limits.
AXAF: $750M cost-driven project with ~500 FTEs. Internal reviews using Earned Value led by Comptroller; baseline requirements at SRR; co-located Center Quality personnel; dedicated parts specialists; strong systems/chief engineer.
SAIL: Handles requirement definition, CM, and SE. Need better upfront requirements, staffloading, and schedule; REE (Responsible Equipment Engineers) cradle-to-grave responsibility.
TPTA Facility: $39M, 9-month project for Shuttle return to flight. Six-day workweek, dedicated co-located team, red-lined drawings, informal design reviews.
STABLE: No creep in basic requirements; only PDR with action items; streamlined CCB signing meetings.

Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM): Shuttle project cancelled in Phase D. Need accurate cost tracking and strong resource control manager; delegate management; small co-located team; verify sub-contractor Earned Value.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV): Drop test & recovery of SSME. Small co-located teams; simplified project plan (PRD); beware of high civil servant overhead rates under Full Cost Accounting; fast contractor procurements.
Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE): UARS instrument ($700M mission, 20-year cycle). Schedule was fixed and non-negotiable metric. Integration team sent to GE Astro; standup shift briefings; clear lines of authority without management by consensus; no PSRR recommended.
In Space Technology Experiment Program (INSTEP): Code X small flight experiments ($5M, 12 months). Simple schedule/status; single procurement contact; brainstorm with experienced people before design; realistic schedules.
Lidar In-Space Technology Experiment (LITE): 10-year shuttle experiment, $25M R&D. External review panel (EIRR) 3 months before launch was a waste of time; Fast Track projects need strictly focused scope and readily available technology (36-month ATP to launch max).

Appendix B: Non-Interview Data Gathering (GSFC & LeRC)

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Senior Group Brainstorming:

Practice: Co-located skilled teams; centralized support; component supermarket (COTS); concurrent engineering; limited metrics.
Policy: Rotate doers and watchers; project QA oversight; fixed funding caps; liberal FAR interpretation.
Culture: Small enabled teams; no-fault risk experiments.

GSFC Junior Group Brainstorming:

Practice: Teams < 5 people; replace handbooks with cookbooks; QA built into design; COTS; blanket travel orders; daily videoconferencing; peer reviews over formal reviews; spec docs < 6 pages.
Policy: Fluid/flexible phases; merit pay / negative pay for failure; project office at contractor plant; commercial COTS contracts.

Lewis Research Center (LeRC) Pyramid Team (Pare Down of NHB 7120.5):

Fast Track applies to Phases C/D/E. No undeveloped technologies at RDR/NAR. Requirements fully defined at RDR/NAR.
Eliminate all IARs and QSRs; keep only end-of-Phase D IRR; hold PMC reviews only as necessary.

LeRC Clean Sheet Team:

Experienced/motivated PMs; clear single point of contact agreements; trade-off authority given to PM; streamlined procurement; freedom to select team members; direct access to decision makers; proper management reserves.

Appendix C & D: Space and Non-Space Industry Case Studies Overview

Appendix C: SRI Space Programs Interview Compilations I. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL):

JPL Reengineering Effort (E. Kane Casani, Michael J. Sander, Bob Metzgar)
Mars Explorer Program (Donna Shirley)
New Millennium Program: Deep Space 1 (David H. Lehman), Mars Microprobe (Sarah Gavit)
Pluto Express Project (Robert L. Staehle)
Clementine I (Dr. Henry B. Garrett) II. Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University: Discovery Program / NEAR (Thomas B. Coughlin, A. Santo, Larry Crawford) III. Hughes Space and Communications Company: Communications Satellite Development IV. Lockheed-Martin Corporation: Iridium Project V. Spectrum Astro Corporation: Deep Space 1 Project (Stan Dubyn)

Appendix D: SRI Non-Space Industry Interview Compilations I. U.S. Air Force / OSD: Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) (Terry R. Little, Diane M. Wright) II. U.S. Army / Natick Laboratories: Soldier-System Science and Technology Program III. Motorola: Soldier-System Science and Technology Program IV. Boeing Vertol: V-22 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft (Stuart Dodge) V. Boeing Laboratories: Boeing Laboratory Reinvention (Rick Becker) VI. Texas Instruments: Factory Improvement / Single Process Initiative (Dave McDearmont)

Appendix C: Key Space Interviews Details (JPL, APL, Industry)

JPL Reengineering & Mars Exploration (Donna Shirley):

Reengineering found success is 10-20% technology and 80-90% cultural change.
Donna Shirley’s First Law of Project Management: “A requirement ain’t a requirement until somebody’s willing to pay for it.”
Minimalist performance specifications instead of detailed MilSpecs; mirror organizations between JPL and Lockheed Martin; goal-based rapid procurement.

New Millennium Program - Deep Space 1 (David Lehman / Spectrum Astro):

Technology validation mission capped at $138.5M. Variable scope with clear primary requirements vs secondary goals. High-end video conferencing saved travel costs and cycle time. Flat structure with IPDTs.

Pluto Express (Robert Staehle):

Design-to-Cost (DTC) and Design-to-Schedule (DTS). >90% dedicated personnel time, <15-20% consulting. 1-page requirement docs. PCAT cost analysis tool.

Clementine I (Dr. Henry B. Garrett):

NRL/BMDO lunar flyby and asteroid rendezvous. Streamlined PM structure, PC-based image processing by ACT Corp at 1/4 to 1/10 usual cost, combined QA/reliability and engineer roles, “just-in-time” philosophy.

NEAR Project (JHU/APL - Coughlin, Crawford, Ebert):

$150M cap, achieved launch at <$ 112M. First 3 months set policy, partners, simplicity. Lead engineer responsible cradle-to-grave across subsystem. 1553 standard data bus saved 1 month integration.

Appendix D: Non-Space Industry Case Studies (JDAM, Army Natick, Motorola, Boeing, TI)

JDAM / JASSM (Terry Little, USAF/OSD):

Reduced unit price from $40, 000 t o$ 18,000 at unit #1. Acquisition reform as primary goal. Contractor responsible for design/how-to; government works interfaces. Past performance weighted at 50% of selection criteria. Peer design reviews; no formal government CDRL sign-offs. 0-6 Requirements Review Council eliminated requirement creep.

Soldier System (Natick Army Labs & Motorola):

Soldier treated as system. Six COTRs (one per IPT) to speed decisions. IPTs develop 8 key metrics (4 performance, 4 cost/schedule). Motorola pushed decisions to lowest level and conducted incremental design reviews.

Boeing Vertol (V-22) & Boeing Labs:

777 Design-Build Teams translated to V-22 AITs (Analysis and Integration Teams) with experienced ‘gray-beards’. 3D CAD/CAM models eliminated mockups. Lab consolidation from 456 to 128 labs.

Texas Instruments (TI):

Single Process Initiative replaced 65 versions of 38 MilSpecs with 8 commercial specs across 770 DoD contracts.

Appendix E: Supplemental Papers and Documents Overview

Appendix E: Supplemental Information Table of Contents: I. Mars on $300K A Day: The Mars Exploration Program (Donna L. Shirley) (E-2) II. New Millennium Program Deep Space One Project Plan (David H. Lehman, Rev. 1, Aug 19, 1996) (E-15) III. Pluto Process Improvement Initiatives (Robert Staehle) (E-61) IV. Discovery Program, Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) Project / Cost Estimation and Modeling for Space Missions at APL/JHU (L.J. Crawford, T.B. Coughlin, W.L. Ebert) (E-66) V. JDAM - The Value of Acquisition Streamlining Internet Home Pages (E-76)

Key Highlights from Papers:

‘Mars on $300 K A D a y^{'} : M E P s t r a t e g y mana g in g l a u n c h ese v er y 26 m o n t h s a t$ 100M/yr; treating science and exploration like a business with strategic planning and industry partnerships.
NMP Deep Space 1 Project Plan (JPL D-13510): Details organization, WBS, review process (IDC, DDC peer reviews), and $138.5M cost cap.
Pluto Initiatives: Skunk Works style, >0.9 dedicated FTE, on-line documentation <= 1 page requirements, rapid prototyping.
APL Cost Estimation Methodology: Five-step estimation (Requirements -> ROM -> Bottom-Up -> Top-Down -> Initial APL Estimate) resulting in historic -5% to +8% cost growth without formal parametric regression models.
JDAM Acquisition Streamlining: Details on ‘Carrots and Sticks’ pricing, rolling downselect, FASA waivers, and reducing RFP/SOW/CDRL burden.