Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Michael.hazen

•
•
N
NASAPMC

Big picture thinking is valuable for complex problems involving many stakeholders, recurring problems, and issues where actions have wide-ranging effects. It helps reduce project risks and increases likelihood of success. NASA requires systems engineering apply a disciplined, iterative approach throughout a project's life cycle. Big picture thinking considers how a project fits within broader technical and program contexts. It looks beyond immediate requirements to downstream uses and opportunities. Challenges include lack of collaboration across organizations and complex program structures. The Constellation parachute case study showed how considering alternative architectures from an end user perspective led to a simpler, lighter, and safer solution.

Related slideshows

Hunter.h.shinn.s
Hunter.h.shinn.sHunter.h.shinn.s
Hunter.h.shinn.s
 
Chen.tim
Chen.timChen.tim
Chen.tim
 
Alfred mecum
Alfred mecumAlfred mecum
Alfred mecum
 
1 of 36
Download to read offline
Big Picture Thinking NASA Project Management Challenge 2008 Michael Hazen Jacobs Engineering
Purpose of this Presentation Describe the value of ‘big picture thinking’ and how this relates to a “mandate” for your project(s) Review some methods you can use to empower your big picture thinking Processes Tips & Techniques Illustrate the application of big picture thinking using a Constellation case study. 2
The Value of Big Picture Thinking Areas where big picture thinking has proven to be particularly valuable include: Complex problems involving many stakeholders Recurring problems Issues where an action affects the environment Problems with solutions that are not obvious Ref. 6, Aronson
The Value of Big Picture Thinking (cont.) Risk Reduction: Big picture thinking helps to identify risks early in the life cycle Project Success: Big picture thinking can dramatically reduce a projects likelihood of becoming a statistic Widespread failures common : Projects cancelled / over one year late / overruns in excess of 100% Catastrophic Failures 4
Catastrophic Failures Columbia Hubble- When it was made, the glass for the mirror was carefully ground and polished to a near perfect surface. The problem was, it was ground into the wrong shape! Mars Observer – Could not establish contact once at Mars ($1 Billion) Mars Polar Lander - Spurious signals caused the trio of lander legs to deploy during descent making it think it had landed, although it was high above the Mars surface. 5
Genesis – lost 27 months worth of space data when it crashed because a sensor was designed backwards
Definition of ‘Big Picture Thinking’ Tactical ? Strategic ? Outside the Box ? Attention to Interface Details ? 7
Michael Griffin on Systems Engineering and Big Picture Thinking True systems engineering is about minimizing the unintended consequences of a design. Lead Systems Engineers are often buried in the details. Lead SEs must understand the big picture and delegate the details. Big picture thinking is more of an innate talent possessed by some, as opposed to an easily learned competency. NASA PM Challenge 2006 Presentation Comments 8
Enablers NPR 7123.1 (Ref. 4, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. (Ref. 5) 9
The Mandate for you and your project: NPR 7123.1 (Ref. 4, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements) Systems engineering at NASA requires the application of a systematic, disciplined engineering approach that is quantifiable, recursive, iterative, and repeatable for the development, operation, maintenance, and disposal of systems; integrated into a whole throughout the life cycle of a project or program. The emphasis of systems engineering is on safely achieving stakeholder, functional, physical, and operational performance requirements in the intended use environments over the system’s planned life within cost and schedule constraints. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7 123_001A_&page_name=main 10
NPR 7123.1 A SE Engine (Ref. 4) 11
NPR 7123.1 Checklists (Ref. 4) Two checklists (entrance criteria and success criteria) provided for major milestone reviews: Mission Concept Test Readiness Systems Requirements System Acceptance Mission Definition Flight Readiness System Definition Operational Readiness Preliminary Design Decommissioning Critical Design NPR 7123.1A, Appendix G “Checklists” 12
Michael.hazen
Enablers (continued) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. (Ref. 5) http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=174432&id=2&qs=Ntt%3DNASA%252BS ystems%252BEnginering%252BHandbook%26Ntk%3DKeywords%26Ntx%3 Dmode%2520matchall%26N%3D0%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1 Well defined concept of operations (Sect. 4.1.2.1) Well defined interface requirements (Appendix F) Continuous Risk Management (Section 6.4.2) 14
Yes, but ….
I can’t because…. “I’m too busy” working my contractually-defined effort to worry about someone else’s work. “I don’t know how” - Lack of familiarity with how to go about big picture thinking. “My boss won’t let me” - Project/organization does not value/encourage big picture thinking. “I don’t want to” - NIH (not invented here) syndrome. (Ref. 3, “Launching a Leadership Revolution” page 46) 16
How Much Big Picture Thinking is Too Much? Some will argue ANY thinking outside of the tasks and deliverables called out in the project contractual requirements is too much. The real key is looking to see how the big picture affects your project decisions, risks, and opportunities. When this kind of ‘Return on Investment’ fades, that is probably “enough.” Big picture thinking should dare to look beyond your immediate end user expectations. Downstream iterations of your project Reuse Potential Planned obsolescence? – space communication systems as an example. 17
More Roadblocks Key elements of the big picture are either not ready or not willing to collaborate on big picture issues and topics. Complex program structures can make big picture thinking more challenging 18
The Big Picture –The Management Challenge (Ref. 1, Dahlman) $ $ $ $ Within Interdependencies Single Across Organization Multiple Organizations Political and Cost Considerations Impact on Technical Issues 19
Tips for Effective Big Picture Thinking Think like your end user Ensure you have an operational concept that shows how the end users will operate your system to support their needs. Context is key The ability look at the project from various stakeholder views is essential. 20
Big Picture Context Dr. Joel Sercel, Technical Director of Systems Engineering at the Caltech Industrial Relations Center, encourages each enterprise to understand where projects in their portfolios fall, with respect to the D2S criteria (aka, Depth, Disruption and Scale). We must realize that a one-size-fits-all development process may not make sense. (Ref. 2)
Archetypical Programs in D2S Portfolio Model (Ref. 2, Sercel) Science and Technology Depth Pentium Stealth Manhattan Processor Fighter Project Denver Nuclear Manhattan Naval Air Airport Subs Program Power Project Scope ATF r to an e Tr Th si s an y Pl 2 Sp Hoover Typical PhD Major e U Dam Thesis ri ylo (3) P Smart Super H. House House AV High Typical U Moderate (3) o- Hotel cr (2) Mi Medium (2) Typical Enviro The Small House House PC Low (1) (1) Degree of Copyright © 2006 Low Medium High Disruption of ICS Associates Inc. (1) (2) (3) Key Ideas All rights reserved.
Big Picture Context (cont.) The Department of Defense is in the final stages of releasing a “System of Systems” Systems Engineering Handbook The handbook will emphasize tailoring systems engineering methodology to address big picture related challenges.
Big Picture Context (Ref. 1, Dahlman) 24
Constellation Case Study Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) 25
Michael.hazen
Forward Bay Compartment Layout One Confluence FBC Jettison Three Pilot Mortars Mortars ~120o separation Fitting +Z Two Drogue Mortars Parallel Deploy Attach Points Drogue Pilot (to Main Deployment Bag) Three Main Main Harness Parachutes
Multi-discipline Risk Identified Serious risk identified during early simulations and flight tests. “Limit Cycle” oscillation under drogue parachutes, which could result in an unsafe crew module attitude during descent. Designated as a big-picture risk, since timing of parachute deployment commands from Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) and parachute physical deployment are both key players in this phenomenon.
Risk Abatement Options Isolate instability “root cause” offset drogue chute attachment points Unfavorable rotational rate at drogue cut-away Minimize root cause effects Special bridle (confluence fitting) centralize parachute vehicle load interactions “Smart” Drogue release (GNC monitors Crew Module attitude & rates & releases CM at optimum time) Rethink overall Parachute Architecture
Big Picture View End User (big picture) view revealed: Simpler More effective Lower cost Lighter weight Safer Alternative
Big Picture Solution Drogues deploy thru FBC Drogues separate FBC from CM FBC deploys mains and confluence fitting CM descending under mains
Big Picture Solution The Forward Bay Cover (FBC) separation chutes to be used as a dual purpose parachute – both to slow the vehicle (in lieu of similar CPAS drogue parachutes) AND to physically move the separated FBC away from the descending vehicle. In lieu of separate mortars to deploy pilot parachute (which would then deploy main parachutes), the departing FBC is simply used to deploy the main parachutes.
Big Picture Thinking Return on Investment Risk ‘probability of occurrence’ dramatically reduced Reduced number of parachute-related critical events by almost 50% Overall safety increased by an order of magnitude Approximately 50 pounds lighter Fewer parachutes and fewer mortars (cheaper)
Parting Words Reach Higher! Welcome interdisciplinary stakeholder views Think beyond project current life-cycle phase Assess the big picture from the end user (validation) view Always ask “What could go wrong?” When confronted with big picture dilemmas, realize that you are your project’s technical conscience. Share success stories 34
References 1. Department of Defense System of Systems Challenges, JSC Systems Engineering Seminar presentation. Dr. Judith Dahlman. August 2007 2. Emerging Technical Methods of Intelligence – Critical Disruptors for the 21st Century, IEEE Special Presentation. Dr. Joel Sercel. March 2008 3. Launching a Leadership Revolution. Chris Brady and Orrin Woodward 4. NPR 7123.1A, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. March 2007 5. SP-2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. Rev. 1. December 2007 6. Using Systems Thinking to Increase the Benefits of Innovation Efforts. Daniel Aronson. Innovative Leader newsletter. Volume 6, No. 2
Questions? Contact Information Michael Hazen Jacobs Engineering JSC Engineering and Science Contract 281-461-5797 michael.hazen@escg.jacobs.com 36

More Related Content

Michael.hazen

  • 1. Big Picture Thinking NASA Project Management Challenge 2008 Michael Hazen Jacobs Engineering
  • 2. Purpose of this Presentation Describe the value of ‘big picture thinking’ and how this relates to a “mandate” for your project(s) Review some methods you can use to empower your big picture thinking Processes Tips & Techniques Illustrate the application of big picture thinking using a Constellation case study. 2
  • 3. The Value of Big Picture Thinking Areas where big picture thinking has proven to be particularly valuable include: Complex problems involving many stakeholders Recurring problems Issues where an action affects the environment Problems with solutions that are not obvious Ref. 6, Aronson
  • 4. The Value of Big Picture Thinking (cont.) Risk Reduction: Big picture thinking helps to identify risks early in the life cycle Project Success: Big picture thinking can dramatically reduce a projects likelihood of becoming a statistic Widespread failures common : Projects cancelled / over one year late / overruns in excess of 100% Catastrophic Failures 4
  • 5. Catastrophic Failures Columbia Hubble- When it was made, the glass for the mirror was carefully ground and polished to a near perfect surface. The problem was, it was ground into the wrong shape! Mars Observer – Could not establish contact once at Mars ($1 Billion) Mars Polar Lander - Spurious signals caused the trio of lander legs to deploy during descent making it think it had landed, although it was high above the Mars surface. 5
  • 6. Genesis – lost 27 months worth of space data when it crashed because a sensor was designed backwards
  • 7. Definition of ‘Big Picture Thinking’ Tactical ? Strategic ? Outside the Box ? Attention to Interface Details ? 7
  • 8. Michael Griffin on Systems Engineering and Big Picture Thinking True systems engineering is about minimizing the unintended consequences of a design. Lead Systems Engineers are often buried in the details. Lead SEs must understand the big picture and delegate the details. Big picture thinking is more of an innate talent possessed by some, as opposed to an easily learned competency. NASA PM Challenge 2006 Presentation Comments 8
  • 9. Enablers NPR 7123.1 (Ref. 4, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. (Ref. 5) 9
  • 10. The Mandate for you and your project: NPR 7123.1 (Ref. 4, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements) Systems engineering at NASA requires the application of a systematic, disciplined engineering approach that is quantifiable, recursive, iterative, and repeatable for the development, operation, maintenance, and disposal of systems; integrated into a whole throughout the life cycle of a project or program. The emphasis of systems engineering is on safely achieving stakeholder, functional, physical, and operational performance requirements in the intended use environments over the system’s planned life within cost and schedule constraints. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7 123_001A_&page_name=main 10
  • 11. NPR 7123.1 A SE Engine (Ref. 4) 11
  • 12. NPR 7123.1 Checklists (Ref. 4) Two checklists (entrance criteria and success criteria) provided for major milestone reviews: Mission Concept Test Readiness Systems Requirements System Acceptance Mission Definition Flight Readiness System Definition Operational Readiness Preliminary Design Decommissioning Critical Design NPR 7123.1A, Appendix G “Checklists” 12
  • 14. Enablers (continued) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. (Ref. 5) http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=174432&id=2&qs=Ntt%3DNASA%252BS ystems%252BEnginering%252BHandbook%26Ntk%3DKeywords%26Ntx%3 Dmode%2520matchall%26N%3D0%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1 Well defined concept of operations (Sect. 4.1.2.1) Well defined interface requirements (Appendix F) Continuous Risk Management (Section 6.4.2) 14
  • 16. I can’t because…. “I’m too busy” working my contractually-defined effort to worry about someone else’s work. “I don’t know how” - Lack of familiarity with how to go about big picture thinking. “My boss won’t let me” - Project/organization does not value/encourage big picture thinking. “I don’t want to” - NIH (not invented here) syndrome. (Ref. 3, “Launching a Leadership Revolution” page 46) 16
  • 17. How Much Big Picture Thinking is Too Much? Some will argue ANY thinking outside of the tasks and deliverables called out in the project contractual requirements is too much. The real key is looking to see how the big picture affects your project decisions, risks, and opportunities. When this kind of ‘Return on Investment’ fades, that is probably “enough.” Big picture thinking should dare to look beyond your immediate end user expectations. Downstream iterations of your project Reuse Potential Planned obsolescence? – space communication systems as an example. 17
  • 18. More Roadblocks Key elements of the big picture are either not ready or not willing to collaborate on big picture issues and topics. Complex program structures can make big picture thinking more challenging 18
  • 19. The Big Picture –The Management Challenge (Ref. 1, Dahlman) $ $ $ $ Within Interdependencies Single Across Organization Multiple Organizations Political and Cost Considerations Impact on Technical Issues 19
  • 20. Tips for Effective Big Picture Thinking Think like your end user Ensure you have an operational concept that shows how the end users will operate your system to support their needs. Context is key The ability look at the project from various stakeholder views is essential. 20
  • 21. Big Picture Context Dr. Joel Sercel, Technical Director of Systems Engineering at the Caltech Industrial Relations Center, encourages each enterprise to understand where projects in their portfolios fall, with respect to the D2S criteria (aka, Depth, Disruption and Scale). We must realize that a one-size-fits-all development process may not make sense. (Ref. 2)
  • 22. Archetypical Programs in D2S Portfolio Model (Ref. 2, Sercel) Science and Technology Depth Pentium Stealth Manhattan Processor Fighter Project Denver Nuclear Manhattan Naval Air Airport Subs Program Power Project Scope ATF r to an e Tr Th si s an y Pl 2 Sp Hoover Typical PhD Major e U Dam Thesis ri ylo (3) P Smart Super H. House House AV High Typical U Moderate (3) o- Hotel cr (2) Mi Medium (2) Typical Enviro The Small House House PC Low (1) (1) Degree of Copyright © 2006 Low Medium High Disruption of ICS Associates Inc. (1) (2) (3) Key Ideas All rights reserved.
  • 23. Big Picture Context (cont.) The Department of Defense is in the final stages of releasing a “System of Systems” Systems Engineering Handbook The handbook will emphasize tailoring systems engineering methodology to address big picture related challenges.
  • 24. Big Picture Context (Ref. 1, Dahlman) 24
  • 25. Constellation Case Study Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) 25
  • 27. Forward Bay Compartment Layout One Confluence FBC Jettison Three Pilot Mortars Mortars ~120o separation Fitting +Z Two Drogue Mortars Parallel Deploy Attach Points Drogue Pilot (to Main Deployment Bag) Three Main Main Harness Parachutes
  • 28. Multi-discipline Risk Identified Serious risk identified during early simulations and flight tests. “Limit Cycle” oscillation under drogue parachutes, which could result in an unsafe crew module attitude during descent. Designated as a big-picture risk, since timing of parachute deployment commands from Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) and parachute physical deployment are both key players in this phenomenon.
  • 29. Risk Abatement Options Isolate instability “root cause” offset drogue chute attachment points Unfavorable rotational rate at drogue cut-away Minimize root cause effects Special bridle (confluence fitting) centralize parachute vehicle load interactions “Smart” Drogue release (GNC monitors Crew Module attitude & rates & releases CM at optimum time) Rethink overall Parachute Architecture
  • 30. Big Picture View End User (big picture) view revealed: Simpler More effective Lower cost Lighter weight Safer Alternative
  • 31. Big Picture Solution Drogues deploy thru FBC Drogues separate FBC from CM FBC deploys mains and confluence fitting CM descending under mains
  • 32. Big Picture Solution The Forward Bay Cover (FBC) separation chutes to be used as a dual purpose parachute – both to slow the vehicle (in lieu of similar CPAS drogue parachutes) AND to physically move the separated FBC away from the descending vehicle. In lieu of separate mortars to deploy pilot parachute (which would then deploy main parachutes), the departing FBC is simply used to deploy the main parachutes.
  • 33. Big Picture Thinking Return on Investment Risk ‘probability of occurrence’ dramatically reduced Reduced number of parachute-related critical events by almost 50% Overall safety increased by an order of magnitude Approximately 50 pounds lighter Fewer parachutes and fewer mortars (cheaper)
  • 34. Parting Words Reach Higher! Welcome interdisciplinary stakeholder views Think beyond project current life-cycle phase Assess the big picture from the end user (validation) view Always ask “What could go wrong?” When confronted with big picture dilemmas, realize that you are your project’s technical conscience. Share success stories 34
  • 35. References 1. Department of Defense System of Systems Challenges, JSC Systems Engineering Seminar presentation. Dr. Judith Dahlman. August 2007 2. Emerging Technical Methods of Intelligence – Critical Disruptors for the 21st Century, IEEE Special Presentation. Dr. Joel Sercel. March 2008 3. Launching a Leadership Revolution. Chris Brady and Orrin Woodward 4. NPR 7123.1A, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. March 2007 5. SP-2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. Rev. 1. December 2007 6. Using Systems Thinking to Increase the Benefits of Innovation Efforts. Daniel Aronson. Innovative Leader newsletter. Volume 6, No. 2
  • 36. Questions? Contact Information Michael Hazen Jacobs Engineering JSC Engineering and Science Contract 281-461-5797 michael.hazen@escg.jacobs.com 36