Download as PDF, PPTX
![Governance, Deployment & Methodologies for Agentic Automation [2/3]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/agenticcommunityseries-day2-251112135038-a386476d-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Calder jones
- 1. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Gravity Probe B: Lessons from a Management Study Brad Jones Johnson Space Center (formerly Stanford University) & Ned Calder Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Always be suspicious of news you want to hear.” – Francis Everitt, Stanford University ~ GP-B Principal Investigator February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 1
- 2. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD How Einstein Got Physics Out of Two Problems & into a Third! • Special Relativity (1905) -- very well tested – Reconciled Maxwell’s 1865 electromagnetics with Newton’s mechanics by changing Newton’s theory at high speeds – “E = mc2” comes from special relativity • General Relativity (1916) -- very incompletely tested – Einstein’s theory of gravity – Solved inconsistency between special relativity and Newton’s theory of gravity by replacing Newton’s force with curved space-time • The fix Einstein landed us in -- unsolved after 90 years! – General relativity can’t be reconciled with quantum mechanics -- our theory of atoms and elementary particles February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 2
- 3. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Purpose of Gravity Probe B • To measure with respect to framework of distant Universe, two tiny drift effects on gyros in orbit around the Earth – geodetic 6,614.4 mas/yr – frame-dragging 42.0 mas/yr • Effects predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity • 1 mas (milliarc second) = width of human hair seen at 10 miles February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 3
- 4. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Management Study Overview • Project Purpose: To examine the impact and effectiveness of having a university prime contractor on a large scale NASA program • Project Objective: Extract a set of best practices for managing NASA- University-Industry relationships • Research Conducted with Over 40 Interviews: – Stanford University – NASA Marshall Space Flight Center – NASA Headquarters – Lockheed Martin (Sunnyvale & Palo Alto) – NASA Kennedy Space Center @ Vandenberg Air Force Base – Independent Review Team February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 4
- 5. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Why GP-B? • GP-B was a perfect case study because… – One of the first programs with a university prime “How did it work out?” – NASA-University-Industry all represented – Technical complexity stressed the management environment – One of NASA’s longest mission “What took so long?” • Management Experiment – Originated in 1985 from a comment by then NASA Administrator Mr. James Beggs : GP-B will be an interesting management experiment in addition to an interesting scientific experiment. – Vast difference of opinion on success of the Management Experiment February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 5
- 6. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Best Practices Summary 1. Organizational Asymmetries – Strategically leveraging capability asymmetries while managing cultural differences. 2. Contextual Transitions – Recognizing and managing transition points when programmatic requirements and processes change significantly. 3. Adaptive Program Management – Recognizing the need for emphasis on different aspects of the program management’s competencies at different stages of the program life cycle. 4. ‘Aerospace Knowledge’ at Universities – Establishing the importance for the university to acquire aerospace experience and for NASA to ensure that key personnel are treated as investments as opposed to costs. 5. Managing Risk – Providing proper oversight for the unique management challenges encountered on university programs through the use of risk management techniques. February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 6
- 7. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Organizational Asymmetries Leveraging Capability Differences and Managing Cultural Differences: Industry/ Universities Government -Flat -Hierarchical Environment -Knowledge focus -Mission focus -Individuality -Teamwork Culture -Informal -Formal -Entrepreneurial -Cost conscious -Radical Innovation -Incremental Innovation Capability -Efficient -System/Process February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 7
- 8. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Organizational Asymmetries Leveraging Capability Differences and Managing Cultural Differences: Industry/ Universities Government NASA MSFC: “It was extremely difficult to get the university personnel to stop tinkering and start -Flat -Hierarchical producing.” Environment -Informal -Formal SU: “Lockheed is only out to make a profit!” -Focus on Individuality -Focus on Team Work NASA HQ: “Universities excel at radical innovation Culture -Focus on Knowledge -Focus on Cost – something industry generally lacks.” -Entrepreneurial -Radical Innovation -Incremental Innovation Capability -Efficiency -System/Process February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 8
- 9. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Boundary Spanning Agents • Facilitators with understanding of the cultural, capability, and process differences between the collaborating organizations. Boundary Agent University NASA Organizational/Knowledge Boundary • Either substantial previous experience with each organization or develop needed skills on the job. • Boundary agents developed through exchanging team members February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 9
- 10. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Contextual Transitions Phase A: Phase B: Phase C: Phase D: Phase E: NASA Definition: Preliminary Analysis Definition Design Development Operations Science Program Conceptual Definition, Technology Development, Hardware Development, Definition: Specification Development & Innovation Integration, & Testing Contextual Transition Management Led by PI or PM with Strong Science Technology Led by PM with Strong Division: Background Aerospace Management Background GP-B Management Aerospace Aerospace PI & Scientist Led Scientist Division: Management Management Led Led Led Contextual Transition: Management Experiment NASA Guided Procurement of Flight Hardware February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 10
- 11. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Adaptive Program Management High Low Science Technical Ability Managerial Ability Potential Program Management Shift(s) Procurement of Launch Flight HW Low Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E High • Multi-Talented Program Manager (Sci. & Mgmt.) may not require any changes • Critical for NASA to make university aware of the potential management shift early • Management team should embody relevant competencies not just the Program Manager February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 11
- 12. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Adaptive Program Management High Low LM: “There was a substantial period of time where Science Technical Ability Managerial Ability Stanford’s management didn’t appear to know how to complete aProgramprogram.” Potential space Management Shift(s) NASA MSFC: “Lockheed over-powered Stanford’s contract management capabilities.” IRT: “At one point, it was recommended that LM Procurement of Launch become the prime since they had experience Flight HW developing spacecraft.” Low Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E High • Multi-Talented Program Manager (Sci. & Mgmt.) may not require any changes • Critical for NASA to make university aware of the potential management shift early • Management team should embody relevant competencies not just the Program Manager February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 12
- 13. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Implementing/Maintaining Aerospace Knowledge University Operations Involving Aerospace Procurement of Launch Flight HW 100% Practices (%) Ideal Transition 50% Gravity Probe B Maintain Aerospace 15% Experience at University Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E • Implementation too early impairs productivity, while too late leads to ineffectiveness and rejection • NASA needs to conduct early training sessions on procedure writing, quality assurance, part tracking, etc. for university employees to aid in an efficient transition. February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 13
- 14. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Implementing/Maintaining Aerospace Knowledge University Operations Involving Aerospace Procurement of Launch Flight HW SU: “It took us awhile, but in the end we had a very 100% competent team, in terms of ability to build flight Practices (%) hardware.” Ideal Transition NASA MSFC: “SU was testing flight HW without test 50% procedures, by the end they were as savvy as any Gravity Probe B contractor at utilizing aerospace processes.” NASA HQ: “Stanford doesn’t realize the resources it Maintain Aerospace 15% has developed.” Experience at University Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E • Implementation too early impairs productivity, while too late leads to ineffectiveness and rejection • NASA needs to conduct early training sessions on procedure writing, quality assurance, part tracking, etc. for university employees to aid in an efficient transition. February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 14
- 15. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Efficiently Managing Risk Risk Management High System Implemented Procurement of Flight HW Launch NASA Support Not Necessarily High Number of Personnel Note: Actual Number of Personnel Based on Risk Management Ideal NASA Support GP-B NASA Support Low Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E • Overwhelming positive response by all organizations on effectiveness of the system • Implement risk management system early to aid management • Avoid: Man-loading & fluctuating personnel February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 15
- 16. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Efficiently Managing Risk Risk Management High System Implemented Procurement of Flight HW Launch NASA MSFC: “After the risk system was introduced, High relationship felt much more like a Not Necessarily the NASA Support Number of Personnel partnership.” Note: Actual Number of Personnel Based on SU: “The new approach to risk management really Risk Management helped us work with Marshall to identify what the Ideal NASA Support real concerns were.” GP-B NASA Support LM: “The risk system provided us the ability to gauge NASA’s response to any situation.” Low Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E • Overwhelming positive response by all organizations on effectiveness of the system • Implement risk management system early to aid management • Avoid: Man-loading & fluctuating personnel February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 16
- 17. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Implementation and Other Applications • Implementation of these practices is a joint effort Partnership Mutual awareness and understanding at all levels NASA should provide leadership, but universities must have autonomy • Other Applications Results can be generalized to situations that: • Involve organizational asymmetries • Involve contextual transitions Examples • Center-to-Center collaboration • Internal NASA development programs February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 17
- 18. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Backup Slides February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 18
- 19. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Justification for University Prime Contractors • Interdependent space vehicle – Science payload must be a significant portion of overall vehicle development • Novel, path-dependant technology development Gravity Probe B – Specifications depend on development – Exploit university capabilities • Program management capability – Aerospace processes – Risk management LISA February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 19
- 20. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD GP-B Telescope Quartz Block Assembly SENSOR CONTROLLER (Payload) ACTUATOR (Payload/Spacecraft) (Spacecraft) Thruster Quartz Block Assembly Thruster Dewar Telescope (inside) Probe (inside) • Interdependent Payload and Spacecraft • Path-dependent development process, integrated spec derivation • High-level of novel technology development February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 20
- 21. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD GP-B: The Main Systems Gyroscope Telescope Science Instrument Cryogenic Probe Payload Space Vehicle February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 21
- 22. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Gravity Probe B: Technological Development 100% Space Vehicle Funding (Million $) 70 Usable 60 Launch 40 End SM 20 1959 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0% Conceptual Definition and Design Shuttle Test Development Operations 0 1959-1983 1984-1992 1993-2003 2004~2010 1959. Conceptually realized (Beginning of GPB) 1984. Begin 1995. NASA says go Apr. 2004. STORE directly to flight, GPB launch 1961. First contact with NASA begin contract 1985. Begin NAS8-39225, July 2004. 1964. NASA grant begins, retroactive 1963 contract STU ends End IOC NAS8-36125 1977. End NASA grant 1990-1991. FIST Sept. 2005. 1986. Challenger End SM accident, 1991-1994. GTU-0 STORE 2006. becomes GPB 1994-1995. GTU-1 Publish Tech results, 1996. End NAS8-36125 end NAS8- 1990. STU begins 39225 1997. GTU-2 2005-2010. 1999. PL Test 1 Potential for further 2000. PL Test 2 GPB experiments 2001. PL integrated with spacecraft 2010. End battery life 2002. SV Acoustic & Thermal Vac Tests 2003. SV moved to VAFB February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 22
- 23. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Risk Management System February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 23
- 24. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Risk Management System Cont’d February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 24
- 25. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Where Does NASA Go From Here? • Conclusions – NASA should concentrate early & continuously on: • Foster collaborative, not contractor, relationships • Implement management best practices • Provide oversight through risk management techniques – Develop a set of guidelines for universities – When certain criteria present, universities are the prudent choice as prime contractor • Limitations – Single organizational arrangement – Single academic institution – Idiosyncrasies of GP-B February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 25
- 26. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD Benefits of Stanford University • Practical Aerospace Training – Aerospace Project Management Experience – Spacecraft Development & Flight Experienced Personnel Trained by NASA – Excellent Facilities Including a Flight Proven Mission Operations Center (MOC) • Technology Advancement Capabilities – Proven Research Capabilities & Technology Advances – One of a Kind Teaming & Collaboration between Engineering & Science Departments – Nationally Ranked Programs in Science, Engineering, & Business Perfect Formula for Successful Collaboration February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 26
- 27. Gravity Probe B• A Management Study • STANFORD About the Authors Ned Calder Brad Jones Research Scientist Payload Safety Engineer Massachusetts Institute of Technology Johnson Space Center [email protected] [email protected] 617-388-9029 281-244-1098 (work) 650-278-0928 (cell) GP-B Experience: GP-B Experience: – Technical liaison and cryogenics – Flight director and launch specialist team lead Education: Education: – M.S. Technology and Policy – M.S. (in progress) Aero/Astro Massachusetts Institute of Stanford University Technology – M.E. Management and – B.S. Physics Systems Engineering Northwestern University Cornell University – B.S. Civil Engineering Texas A&M University February 7 2007 Calder-Jones - 27