Upload
nasapmc
View
11.144
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Project Management:Brazilian Experience
Himilcon de Castro Carvalho, AEB
Used with Permission
“Classic”Project Phasing
& PlanningECSS or ISO1 yr 2-3 yrs
Reality
decision mobilization peak launch & ops
1-2 yr 2-3 yr 4-6 yr
Activity or $$
Lack of:
BudgetHuman ResourcesInfrastructure
Reality
decision mobilization peak launch & ops
1-2 yr 2-3 yr 4-6 yr
Activity or $$
Lack of:
BudgetHuman ResourcesInfrastructure
Political talks
OK! Let's go
Gov't ChangesEconomical crisisChanges in priorities
Reality
decision mobilization peak launch & ops
1-2 yr 2-3 yr 4-6 yr
Activity or $$
Lack of:
BudgetHuman ResourcesInfrastructure
What was expected
Political talks
OK! Let's go!
Govn't ChangesEconomical crisisChanges in priorities
Project Organization
Project Office
Strong Matrix Structure (80' – 90')
Mech. Eng.
Electr.. Eng.
Ground Segment
AIT ...
Project Office = Management + Systems Engineering
QA, AIT, Ground Seg. completely dedicated to this single project
QA
Project Organization
Project Office 1
Weak Matrix Structure (90' – 00')
Project Office 2Project Office 3
Systems Eng.
Mech. Eng.
Electr.. Eng.
Ground Segment
AIT ...
Competition for project resources, human resources and budget
QA
Planning
ScopePlanning
ScopeDefinition WBS
Activity Definition
ActivityDuration
Activity Sequencing
ActivityResources
Risk Mgt.Plan
Risk Identification
Qualit.Risk An.
Quant.Risk An.
Risk Resp.Planning
ScheduleDevel.
Cost Estimating
CostBudgeting
HRPlanning
QualityPlanning
Comm.Planning
Plan Purch.& Acq.
PlanContracting
Planning
ScopePlanning
ScopeDefinition WBS
Activity Definition
ActivityDuration
Activity Sequencing
ActivityResources
Risk Mgt.Plan
Risk Identification
Qualit.Risk An.
Quant.Risk An.
Risk Resp.Planning
ScheduleDevel.
Cost Estimating
CostBudgeting
HRPlanning
QualityPlanning
Comm.Planning
Plan Purch.& Acq.
PlanContracting
“out of control” variables
“under relative control” variables
Planning
ScopePlanning
ScopeDefinition WBS
Activity Definition
ActivityDuration
Activity Sequencing
ActivityResources
Risk Mgt.Plan
Risk Identification
Qualit.Risk An.
Quant.Risk An.
Risk Resp.Planning
ScheduleDevel.
Cost Estimating
CostBudgeting
HRPlanning
QualityPlanning
Comm.Planning
Plan Purch.& Acq.
PlanContracting
“out of control” variables
“under relative control” variables
focusand
Impacts
PM under severe HR and Budget Restrictions
Low responsivity Schedules not used as actual management tool Small number of concurrent projects Low industry dynamics
Focus on WBS Focus on Activity Definition & Sequencing Focus on Quality/Verification Planning Special focus on Risk Planning
Thank you!
Himilcon de Castro CarvalhoDirector of Space Policy and Strategic InvestmentsBrazilian Space [email protected]
1
Mini-SARAn Imaging Radar on India’s Chandrayaan-1 Mission to the Moon
Paul D. SpudisMSR Principal Investigator
Lunar and Planetary InstituteHouston TX
www.spudislunarresources.com
NASA Program Management Challenge 2010February 2010
2
Origins
Waikaloa, Hawaii 2003Dr. Narendra Bhandari talk on proposed Chandrayaan-1
mission (not yet selected for flight)I approach him to fly radar; he encourages itAPL submits unsolicited letter proposalISRO decides on open competition for foreign payloads
(< 10 kg, < 100 W), Feb. 2004Submit formal proposal, April 2004Selected for flight, September 2004
3
Approval
Getting the money from NASATechnology interest from SOMD; exploration interest from ESMDTechnology development package developed and jointly funded
Getting approval from Dept. of StatePresent instrument concept/overview to DoS Dec. 2004Formal application for export license Jan. 2005State approval June 2005
Getting final approval from ISROTAA draft sent to ISRO in June 2005; no responseContinuous delay; demand for change of title of TAA documentTAA signed during May 2006 India visit by M. Griffin (NASA
Administrator)
4
Build and test
Mini-SAR (re-named Mini-RF) gets underway May 2005; instrument PDR Dec. 2005
Chandrayaan/MSR ICD draft written and approved Nov. 2005
Mini-SAR CDR Sept. 2006Chandrayaan-1 CDR May 2007Mini-SAR ship to APL; calibration
and test March-June 2007MSR ship to ISRO, August 2007I&T at ISAC, August 2007-July
2008
5
Getting Ready to Go
6
Launch and Mission
7
Some First Results
8
Moon Minerals and Particles
9
Mini-SAR Experiment Objectives
Map the deposits of both poles of the Moon (> 80° lat.) at optimum viewing angles (~40°) to characterize permanently dark areas and definitively determine their RF backscattering properties using both SAR and scatterometry
Complete the global map of the Moon by mapping dark regions in lunar polar areas
Characterize the physical nature of the polar regolith and surface
SAR mapping of other targets of opportunity as possible
Moon South PoleClementine 750 nm base map
10
Circular Polarization Ratio (CPR)
Ratio of received power in both right and left senses
Normal rocky planet surfaces = polarization inversion (receive opposite sense from that transmitted)
“Same sense” received indicates something unusual:
double- or even-multiple-bounce reflections
Volume scattering from RF-transparent material
High CPR (enhanced “same sense” reception) is common for fresh, rough (at wavelength scale) targets and water ice
11
MSR Coverage from First Mapping Cycle
12
PearyHermite
Rozhdestvensky
Plaskett
Main L
80˚ N
Sylvester
Haskin
Byrd
NansenWhipple
De Sitter
Lovelace
Gloja
84˚ N
88˚ N
90˚ W
180˚
90˚ E
0˚
13
North Polar CPR Map
14
A Tale of Two Scatterers
Main L
15
16
17
Peary
Hermite
Rozhdestvensky
Plaskett
Main L80˚ N
Sylvester
Haskin
Byrd
NansenWhipple
De Sitter
Lovelace
Gloja
84˚ N
88˚ N
90˚ W
180˚
90˚ E
0˚
18
Fresh craters
Anomalous craters
80˚ N
84˚ N
88˚ N
90˚ W
180˚
90˚ E
0˚
19
Water Equivalent Hydrogen (wt.%)
20
Summary
Mini-SAR successfully mapped about 90% of both polar areas; due to some operational issues, coverage is not contiguous
Calibration data from Earth and Moon have been acquired and partly processed; used to quantify radar response
Non-polar areas analyzed; results consistent with previous S-band radar mapping from Earth
Areas of high CPR have been identified:Some high CPR is clearly associated with surface roughness
(e.g., Main L ejecta blanket)Some deposits (e.g., near north pole on floor of Peary) show
high CPR and are restricted to the interior of craters; these features are in permanent darkness.
21
Some Lessons Learned
Sensitivities about ITARUS must recognize that foreign institutions may view
ITAR restrictions negatively
Foreign governments must realize that wording is not chosen by the flight partners
ITAR issues did not materially interfere with MSR build, test, and operation
ITAR compliance is simply an overhead lien that must be paid
22
Some Lessons Learned
Interactions with the pressOther governments may have different relationships
with press
Keep quiet and let your lead partner set the tone
“No comment” is a comment; it will not deter a determined reporter
Project Management Practicesfor Indian Space Vehicles
Dr. BN SureshDirector, Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology,
(Former Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre)Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Used with Permission
SLV-3
ASLV
PSLV
GSLV
GSLV Mk IIIMarch 2011
Launch Vehicle SLV ASLV PSLV GSLV GSLV Mk III
Lift-off weight (kg) 17 40 295 450 635
Payload (kg) 40 (LEO) 150 (LEO) 1800 (SSO) 2200 (GTO) 4000 (GTO)
ISRO Launch Vehicle Evolution
A Core Project team with overall responsibility
System Projects in new / critical areas
Distributed work environment (work centers all over India)
New technology development at ISRO units
Large scale facility build-up Launch complex, Propulsion systems development,
testing, Avionics systems and Vehicle level testing& mock ups etc.
Large scale industrial production
Motor cases, Light alloy structures & Propellant tanks Liquid / Cryo engine systems, Avionics system components, Propellants & chemicals, Sub assemblies integration etc.
Implementation of change & configuration control
Project DirectorAsso. Project Director
Project Directors
System Projects
Project Managers
for various systems
Matrix Management Structure
System ProjectsSystem
ProjectsSystem ProjectsSystem
ProjectsSystem Projects
Dy. Project Directors
Project Engineers
Dev
elop
men
t A
genc
ies
Management Structure (For Launch Vehicle Programmes)
Definition and implementation of project management plan & procedures.
Communication of project objectives and plans to all levels Mission specification & interfaces with users. Launch complex and tracking network interfaces. Vehicle systems definition and specifications. Stage engineering and interfaces control. Vehicle / stage level configuration control & change management Direct monitoring of progress in all key areas Speedy execution without compromising performance and
quality Programme management, cost/schedule monitoring and control. Organise project related reviews at micro and macro levels
Core Project ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities of the Core Project have been :
• Generated programme plans, system development plans, schedules & milestone plans.
Establishing Targets
• Monitored through weekly biweekly and monthly review meetings, progress reports.
Monitoring Performance
• Compared actual progress with expected performance.
ProgrammeAnalysis
• Identified solution options, implemented decisions & follow up of needed actions.
Management Reporting
Programme Control Cycle Used in Development
Project Review Meetings
Weekly review of project activity status
Project Executive Reviews (PEX) : Tier - 1
Monthly reviews for resolving technical / managerial issues
Reviews by Centre Director
Technical / managerial
Reviews by Project Management Boards (PMB) : Tier - 2
General guidelines, budget approvals, schedules, facility & manpower
Reviews by Project Management Council (PMC) : Tier - 3
Overall policy guidelines
Reviews by Chairman, ISRO
Technical / managerial
Techno- Managerial Review MechanismsManagement of Scope, Time & Cost without compromising Quality
Scope
Time
Quality
Cost
Nor
mal
ised
wor
k lo
ad
Time in years
Technical Review Milestones followed
System ConceptReview
SCR
Preliminary Design Review
PDRCritical Design Review
CDRTest
Readiness Review
TRRSystem
Readiness Review
SRR
System configuration. System /subsystem
specs.Manufacturing & test
facilities. Schedule & resource
projections
Technical adequacy of design approach
Firm up specs. for system / subsystems
Physical and functionalinterfaces definition.
Clearance for detailed design.
Approval of specs.and design.
Approval of baseline production
Firm up interfaces Firm up detailed test
plan
Detailed interface performance checks.
Certify system performance meetsrequirements
Finalise system configuration
Approval for system commissioning
SCR PDR CDR SRR
7
6-7 years
Objectives are closely tracked In all milestone reviews.
Objectives
Managing Technical Risks
Schedule Management
Quality management
Cost ManagementNew Technology
Development
Launch Vehicle Project
Management
Overall Management Approach
Managing Technical Risks
Identification of single point failure
Redundancy management for mission critical Avionics / Control systems
Vendor directory /Preferred part list
Well evolved part screening for electronic components
Process documents & QA / QC plans
Test & evaluation at different levels
Integrated system level checks
Detailed simulations at different levels
FMECA analysis /Fault tree analysis
The following procedures are strictly implemented.
Optimal sharing of resources between numerous operational and development programmes
The following methodologies are strictly implemented throughout the Project phase
Work Break down Structures (WBS)
Schedule analysis (PERT/CPM) & simulations
Identifying ‘limiting factors’
Anticipating criticalities
‘Feed forward’ control– Real time correction of plans
as work progresses, Work around plans
Fast tracking through Concurrent Engineering approach
Near critical paths & criticality index
Integrated Information network for faster communication
Time management
Project Schedule Management
Data Input
Analysis/Processing
Information/Output
For decision making For progress monitoring
Project Executives & Management Forums
Participating Agencies, Centre level Forums
By Project
From Work centres
To Management
Management Information System used
Quality Management
Quality Control
Quality Audit
Quality Assurance
Key processes and continuous Quality control during development and realisation of all launch vehicle subsytems are identified and carried out.
The Strict Quality Assurance is ensured by meticulously following the various steps given below. Approved specifications & design Qualified materials, Process reviews Inspection/Surveillance during production Stage clearances 3 tier non conformance management Batch testing for VOQ, Acceptance testing
The Quality Audit is given utmost importance Using appropriate equipments
Reference Standards
Monitoring of key characteristics
Maintenance of records & traceability
Verification through audits
Project Cost Management Cost Estimation and Control The costs of the resources needed to complete project activities including
infrastructure are worked out. More than 2000 line items with individual line item code for each launch
vehicle project are identified to define the clear cut responsibilities Methodologies adopted for cost control
Expenditure Control Methodologies Through Periodic management reviews Changes through department approved re-
appropriation procedures & approval cycles S-Curve analysis for schedule/cost
S Curve
Maximal use of available technologies, proven designs Planning for contingencies & cost escalations in the initial stage itself Standardization & stock piling standard parts in the beginning Design for manufacture (DFM) & concurrent engineering methodologies. Taking calculated risks - Realization of subsystems in numbers based on confidence
in design / analysis without waiting for test results Optimal hardware rotation plan for different test programme Optimal sequencing of number of tests & test durations ‘Make or buy’ decisions with focus on ‘comparative advantage’
GK Cryo(Russian)
Indigenous 7.5/ 9 ton Cryo engine (2008)
Indigenous 20 ton Cryo engine by 2010
Larger engines in future
One gigantic leap may lead to failure
Feasible size jumps
Initial level
Time
Lear
ning
leve
l Adopt available technologies or near term
technologies Step by step approach for new technology
development. Manageable learning steps. Identification of key improvement packages
in terms of performance, reliability & cost & provide thrust for development
Identification of key strategic areas for indigenization – e.g. Cryogenic technology strategic materials
Managing TechnologyDevelopments
Change Management
Control of intersystem interfaces has been the majorresponsibility of the project team.
The evolution and changes in the design are continuouslymonitored and the impacts assessed.
Traceability of changes, decisions and inputs are utilised toassess the impacts of a new change.
Design changes and requirements are closely monitored duringdevelopment and changes are meticulously catalogued.
Dissemination of the information across the system teams aredone expeditiously using management information tools.
Management of changes is given high priority to ensure thesuccess of operational launches.
• Launch vehicle• Space craft• Propellant servicing / Safety• Tracking & ground station• Logistics
Integrated Team Effort
• Mission Director• Vehicle Director• Satellite Director• Range Director
Campaign management
system
• Micro level scheduling on day to day & hourly basis
• Orchestrated effort for resource deployment
• More than 100 people involved per launch at different phases of time
Planning methodology
• Technical /progress reviews• Stage clearances• Authorization reviews for launch
Mission Readiness Review, Launch Authorization Board
Reviews
45 to 60 days activity at Sriharikota
Launch Campaign Management
Countdown
Source: Patrick Lencioni, The Five dysfunctions of a Team- A Leadership Fable; 2006
The Management Structure which is in vogue has been very effective .
The Programme Control Cycle and the Overall Management approach have been very efficient , leading to successful space launches.
Indian Space ia able to implement programmes with shoe string budget through effective Schedule and Cost controls.
Focus has always been on achievement of collective results.
Time tested review mechanisms have helped to achieve technical excellence.
Some of the key factors for the effective management of Indian Space Programme are: Engaging the teams into productive, constructive discussions around ideas and
issues Accepting and committing to decisions & plan of actions arrived at by the team. Each identified team member is accountable for delivery as per the decided
plans. Creative leadership, rewards and recognitions to the deserving team member/s
who make significant contributions.
Conclusions. (Success through Team effort)