End State Options Synthesis 1 Outbrief NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking Wor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – End State Options Synthesis 1 Outbrief NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking Wor PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: abf55-OTMzO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

End State Options Synthesis 1 Outbrief NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking Wor

Description:

Ability to rapidly startup and achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC). Ability to transition seamlessly from Near/Mid-Term SoSEI solution to the End ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:53
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 51
Provided by: richardbea
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: End State Options Synthesis 1 Outbrief NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking Wor


1
End State Options Synthesis 1 OutbriefNASA
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
Benchmarking Workshop End State Options and
Acquisition Strategies for the NASA Exploration
System of Systems IntegratorDoug Cooke,
FacilitatorDecember 15, 2004
2
Session Charter End State Options Synthesis 1
  • This team will synthesize one or more end state
    SoSEI org options, taking into account all the
    read ahead data and the mornings presentations,
    as well as additional viewpoints from the session
    participants. Key aspects of the synthesis
    challenge to be considered are
  • What are the strengths of the various SoSEI
    organizational models/approaches that were
    presented in the invited lectures, and/or which
    the participants can identify based on their
    extensive expertise and experience?
  • How can these features be combined into a new
    organizational design?
  • Is there a group consensus around separate
    govt-contractor vs. integrated govt-contractor
    organization?

3
Process Comment
  • This presentation does not have conclusions.
  • These are brainstorming items of importance
    that should be considered in determining the
    integration approach to be used, but do not
    define that approach.
  • The complexity of the issues involved suggest
    that more time for this discussion is indicated.

4
Summary Thoughts
  • Enterprise Differences
  • Many major elements to be competed over time
  • All have to work well
  • All have to be amenable to Extension/transition
    to commercial industry/economic activity
  • SoSEI Role will change over time
  • There wont be a single, fixed end state that
    remains in effect for 30 years instead, think of
    end-state1, end-state2
  • Need to take a life-cycle view
  • SoSEI has to start before day 1 to be
    successful
  • SoSEI must bring in operations activity from the
    start, rather than do a handover
  • Major Partnership Required
  • Theres plenty of work for everyone in government
    and industry
  • While there will be competition, its doubtful
    that anyone will be left out
  • This should encourage more partnering and
    cooperation between otherwise competing
    organizations

5
Summary Thoughts, continued
  • NASA HQ (Admiral Steidle) is the SoSEI Customer
  • SoSEI needs to become his deputy
  • Cost, Schedule and Performance across Enterprise
  • Manage Enterprise Architecture
  • Cooperation across HQ Directorates
  • Specific expertise of each NASA Center will be
    required
  • SoSEI needs to add value to industry/hardware
    contractors
  • Help solve problems
  • SoSEI is a very large task
  • Too big of job for one entity (i.e., a single
    contractor)
  • Everyone involved needs to be part of the team
    nobody should be excluded, but
  • Dont Disintegrate the Integrator. The
    multiple players have to be able to function
    together
  • There are many organizational and process options
    for SoSEI
  • Domain Knowledge National Assets

6
Summary Thoughts, continued
  • HW Exclusions
  • Independence/impartiality is very important to
    customers
  • Can be partial or full
  • Regardless of how this is handled, we still need
    to pass the Washington Post Test
  • Full exclusion of an organization from h/w
    development has potential problems
  • The organization would either not have, or lose,
    h/w development experience
  • Technical personnel might be disinclined to join
    an organization if they cant ever develop
    something
  • Personnel
  • High quality of personnel in the SoSEI
    organization is the key to its success.
  • These personnel will change over time, either by
    natural forces or deliberate rotation
  • Post-employment restrictions preventing personnel
    from crossing firewalls as they rotate might
    need to be re-examined
  • Even with personnel changes, a strong core needs
    to be preserved

7
Summary Thoughts, continued
  • Potential Organizations
  • FFRDC
  • Major Aerospace Industry
  • HW Exclusion
  • Someone who builds things, has experience
    getting their hands dirty
  • Center Lead
  • Individual Segment Leads
  • Compete for entire SEI Role
  • Centers are generally stronger in integration
    than in systems engineering
  • National Team
  • Can bring the best resources to bear
  • Distinction between using an existing or new
    organization is not as large as it seems
  • The job is so large that even an aerospace
    mega-contractor (or agency) would need to form a
    new sub-organization to do work
  • Such a new sub-organization will need the
    flexibility to vary from existing policies

8
Summary Thoughts, continued
  • This is a Tough Problem!
  • Needs to be a mature organizational construct
  • Technical Capability
  • Programmatics
  • Partnerships
  • Evolving
  • Collaborative

9
Overall Organization
Other agencies, internationals, etc.
ESMD
Enterprise SEI
SEI
and/or
FFRDC
NASA Centers
SEI Development
CEV
CTS
GSS
SEI Development
Developers
Interface control by SEI
Subsystems
10
End State Options Synthesis 2 OutbriefNASA
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
Benchmarking Workshop End State Options and
Acquisition Strategies for the NASA Exploration
System of Systems IntegratorBetsy Park,
FacilitatorDecember 15, 2004
11
Session Charter End State Options Synthesis 2
  • This team will synthesize one or more end state
    SoSEI org options, taking into account all the
    read ahead data and the mornings presentations,
    as well as additional viewpoints from the session
    participants. Key aspects of the synthesis
    challenge to be considered are
  • What are the strengths of the various SoSEI
    organizational models/approaches that were
    presented in the invited lectures, and/or which
    the participants can identify based on their
    extensive expertise and experience?
  • How can these features be combined into a new
    organizational design?
  • Is there a group consensus around separate
    govt-contractor vs. integrated govt-contractor
    organization?

12
Brainstorming Items
  • Organizational Models
  • Nested IPT Broad membership incl. Product
    Primes (developers, operators, centers, etc.)
  • SEI org/contract at the top level
  • Strong Prime empowered to make cost, performance
    trades, hold margins
  • Hierarchical tiered structure
  • Role is integrator of integrators
  • Hardware exclusion necessary ?
  • Yes, because possible conflict of interest
    between govt SI
  • No, firewalls are supported by individual ethics
  • Multiple SIs Different SI solns are likely,
    desirable for different categories of work.
    Possible major segments
  • Major HW components HW Prime
  • Individual mission (defined by particular
    exploration goal) Prime oversight w govt.
  • Upper tier structure planning (should be govt/
    non profit) Govt / Non-profit
  • Cross-cutting segments (e.g. comm) No solution
    identified potentially multiple.

13
Brainstorming Items
  • Organizational Models
  • NASA Integrated Program Office with Single SEI
    Contractor
  • Establishes centers of excellence for
    integration, responsibilities at centers (Tier D)
  • NASA owns cost, schedule, performance, award fees
  • Centralized control direct to members, not
    through center mgmt.
  • LSI Contract with Hardware Exclusion
  • Govt led with non-profit support (FFRDC ?) in
    Tier A/B/C
  • LSI Prime with HW exclusion in Tier D
  • Integrator of Integrators
  • Series of SEI contractors over time working as
    the integrator of integrators
  • Near-term spiral vs. long-term spiral are
    different challenges
  • Contracts managed, led by centers
  • NASA Does the Whole Job
  • LSI-led (Future Combat System -like Model)
  • NASA strongly integrated with the LSI, the glue
  • Clear roles, responsibilities, controls
    processes use competition
  • LSI selects the HW contractors, recommends fees
  • Co-location irrelevant due to tech. Distributed
    workforce centralized mgmt.

14
Brainstorming Items
  • Organizational Models
  • NASA Institute Alternative Model to FFRDC
  • Acknowledging need for system integration
    techniques for different tech-level developments
  • Fed. employees formed into institute with
    authority to lead tech. development

15
Brainstorming Items
  • Brainstorming SEI End State Options
  • Desired Characteristics
  • Proposed objective criteria
  • maximize exploration unit / .
  • programmatic survival political, by building
    constituency that lasts
  • Widely distributed functions (geographically,
    organizationally, functionally) to support
    interoperability
  • Responsibility is verification of correct,
    feasible reqmts/ and validation that they were
    met
  • Objective Management Must be keeper of figures
    of merit --- sustainability, supportability,
    interoperability. And then relate the mission
    objectives to the FOM, ensure they can/will be
    met
  • Structure must allow feedback in measuring and
    controlling Cost, Schedule, Performance
  • Trust of System Integrator vs. Prime
  • full disclosure ?. Must set up rules for EVM
    from Day 1
  • Proprietary data. The decision of partial (?) HW
    exclusion has bearing on this. Make a good, early
    decision.
  • The SI must understand HW development. Is HW
    expertise necessary?
  • No, not organizationally, just staffed
    appropriately
  • Yes, b/c most mistakes made in design, discovered
    in IT.
  • SI structure must be spiral-developed
    Open-ended and tailorable to evolving exploration
    goals.

16
Brainstorming Items
  • Brainstorming SEI End State Options
  • Desired Characteristics (cont)
  • Integrator of integrator Service to new
    project/integrators
  • How do new developments tap into the existing
    development structure ?
  • Not so driven to consensus that continually
    forced to compromise
  • How much control will the govt give up ?
  • Physical presence vs. virtual co-location ?
  • Flexible on distributed vs. centralized,
    evolutionary over the life of exploration
  • Basic structure with different players over time
  • Clear centralized leadership
  • SI 100 accountable to centralized leadership
  • FFRDC risk is that they a) are immune from
    responsibility, b) tend to exist for themselves,
    not responsive to leadership
  • Hardware exclusion ? At the basic level, ethics
    is the responsibility of the individual, but
    should take away the incentive to cheat

17
Brainstorming Items
  • Brainstorming SEI End State Options
  • Options to Add to the Trade Space
  • Consider SE SI separately
  • SI in A/B/C
  • SE in D
  • Other consortia options (NGO), Non-profit/FFRDC
    grown from other orgs

18
Brainstorming Items
  • Organizational Models
  • System Integration Teams
  • LSI Integrates by mission phase separate from
    developers
  • HW exclusion not necessary
  • NASA manages trade space across missions (Tier
    A-C)
  • Tier E has own SI
  • 1 SI team for dev, 1 for ops, 1 for pgm
    integration

19
Session 1 Four Models OutbriefNASA
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
Benchmarking Workshop End State Options and
Acquisition Strategies for the NASA Exploration
System of Systems IntegratorBetsy Park,
FacilitatorDecember 16, 2004
20
Session Charter
  • Session objectives This team will evaluate
    strengths/weaknesses of Options 1-4, and will
    propose actions that can be taken to ensure that
    these options are enabled.
  • Option 1 Apollo Model Tier A-C SETA, Prime of
    Primes
  • Option 2 Tier A-D SETA with HW Partial Exclusion
  • Option 3 Tier A-D Independent Organization SETA
  • Option 4 NAVSEA Nested MAIT Model
  • Process note from the splinter session
  • These options differ from those in the NRC report
    distributed prior to the workshop and that were
    reviewed by most (if not all) participants.
  • Session members had only a brief introduction to
    these four options, and then a short time to
    evaluate them.
  • Greater understanding of the options, coupled
    with more time to study them, would likely lead
    to differentand more matureresults

21
Two Common Themes
  • For any model, the people doing the SOSI task are
    the key elementas important as the structure.
  • A perfect structure without great people will
    fail.
  • An imperfect structure with great people could
    succeed.
  • The term end state is problematic
  • Constellation, NASA, public policy, and other key
    factors will evolve over time, very likely in
    ways not foreseeable today
  • The SoSEI organization must be adaptable to
    these changes
  • While an end state SoSEI structure could be
    defined in the near term based on current
    conditions, it should not be seen as permanently
    defined and inflexible

22
Option Comparison Pros
This splinter considered three potential
variations of Option 3, which likely have
different advantages and disadvantages.
23
Option Comparison Cons
24
Option Comparison Cons, continued
25
Option Comparison Notes
26
Potential Hybrid Structure
  • Use Option 1 (Apollo) for Tiers A-C
  • Use Option 4 (NAVSEA-Virginia) for Tier D and
    below

27
Evaluation Criteria Outbrief(reflecting
post-workshop integration)NASA Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking
Workshop End State Options and Acquisition
Strategies for the NASA Exploration System of
Systems IntegratorVincent Bilardo,
FacilitatorDecember 15, 2004
28
1. Affordability Criterion
  • This criterion is defined to include the
    following factors
  • Cost of acquiring and maintaining SoSEI
    capability, consisting of
  • Transition The SoSEI End State transition plan
    mitigates risks to NASA and the Exploration
    program, is logical and timely, minimizes impacts
    to ongoing operations and existing contracts, and
    contains minimal disruption to existing
    interfaces and agreements.
  • Establishment The establishment of the option
    considers the complexity of the implementation,
    the requirement for approval/legislation outside
    of NASA, the predictability of the outcome, the
    time needed for establishment, the longevity of
    the arrangement, and the ability to re-compete or
    sever arrangements.
  • Facilities The option enables the ability to
    obtain the necessary facility resources to
    perform SoSEI functions and maximize the
    accessibility, availability, and overall cost
    effectiveness in the use of the required facility
    resources - including those that are owned and/or
    operated by the government.
  • Control The organization has an appropriate
    level of control for managing the SoSEI functions
    and external organizations will respond to NASA
    direction as required to carry out their
    responsibilities.
  • Competencies The competency strategy achieves a
    balanced result between staffing critical SoSEI
    competencies from NASA, industry, and academia.
  • Ability to manage life cycle cost and achieve
    Spiral affordability.
  • Ability to achieve long-term public funding
    stability.

29
2. Organizational and Cultural Effectiveness
Criterion
  • This criterion is defined to include the
    following factors
  • Ability to rapidly startup and achieve Initial
    Operational Capability (IOC).
  • Ability to transition seamlessly from
    Near/Mid-Term SoSEI solution to the End State
    solution, maintaining SoSEI integrity through
    each phase.
  • Adaptability, flexibility, responsiveness and
    evolvability The SoSEI option is capable of
    being responsive to the requirements of the
    directorate and the program with flexibility to
    adapt to requirement changes in a timely manner.
    Risks introduced to the program due to the
    evolution are well-characterized and can be
    mitigated to an acceptable level. The option
    organizational design is robust and flexible
    enough to allow additional evolution as program
    requirements evolve.
  • Ability to establish and maintain clear lines of
    communication, authority, responsibility, and
    accountability across all interfaces between
    organizations and within each organization.
  • Staffing retention ability The new SoSEI
    organization enables a full suite of human
    capital strategies and necessary to acquire and
    retain the skilled workforce and levels of
    expertise required to perform SoSEI functions,
    and to address potential adverse impacts on
    transitioning NASA employees. The degree of
    complexity of the strategies and tools, and the
    effort necessary for this implementation is
    considered to be reasonable for NASA to
    undertake.
  • Minimum organizational complexity, i.e., a
    minimum number of distinct organizational units
    and/or interfaces between organizational units.
    Are the government and contractor components of
    the SoSEI organization separately badged, or are
    they integrated into a joint, "badge-less"
    organization?
  • Ability to avoid/manage conflicts of interest,
    including maintaining a clear understanding of
    Government vs. Contractor Roles
    Responsibilities, while promoting and rewarding
    constructive internal competition.
  • Ability to promote innovation, measure and reward
    performance, and ensure process excellence
    (6-sigma, CMMI, etc.).
  • Maintenance of independent thinking, conclusions
    recommendations and Ability to influence
    strategic goals.
  • Ability to secure and maintain credibility with
    Internal Stakeholders.
  • Attract sufficient staff with the necessary skill
    mix.

30
3. Political and External Environments
Effectiveness Criterion
  • This criterion is defined to include the
    following factors
  • Credibility with external stakeholders The
    SoSEI organization has credibility in the
    technical, political, and public communities. The
    option provides the capability to effectively
    advocate and acquire viable and sustainable
    funding resources and to clearly communicate the
    relevance of the program.
  • Sustainability The SoSEI option enhances the
    long term sustainability of the program,
    including the following subfactors
  • Ability to Promote Commercial Ventures
  • Ability to Rebuild and Sustain the Space
    Industrial Base
  • Ability to Engage Public and Maintain
    Enthusiasm/Support
  • Ability to Secure Military Buy-In
  • Achieve Security Objectives
  • Ability to Leverage Non-Exploration Capabilities.
  • Ability to manage and integrate international
    partners. The SoSEI option provides the
    authority, resources, and international
    credibility to establish and maintain
    international relationships, including
    partnerships, barter agreements, and other
    contract arrangements. The SoSEI option enables
    the seamless integration of international
    partners and their contributions. Relevant
    organizations within the option have recent,
    demonstrated experience with international
    collaborations.

31
4. Expertise and Experience Criterion
  • This criterion is defined to include the
    following factors
  • Space domain expertise One or more of the
    organizations in the SoSEI option has recent,
    relevant , and demonstrated experience with
    large, complex, high visibility, and high cost
    system of systems. The role of the experienced
    organization(s) enables it to translate that
    expertise throughout the option and train other
    organizations/personnel as necessary.
  • Past performance during transition The SoSEI
    team members have demonstrated recent excellent
    performance in executing SoSEI functions,
    including for non-ESMD customers.
  • Ability to foster technology development and
    infuse new technology The SoSEI option enables
    the seamless integration of new technology into
    future missions/spirals. Relevant organizations
    within the option have recent, demonstrated
    experience in technology development and
    integration.

32
5. Knowledge Management Effectiveness Criterion
  • This criterion is defined to include the
    following factors
  • Data rights security management The SoSEI
    option has appropriate authorities and safeguards
    to allow the system integrator to handle, manage,
    and safeguard proprietary data of multiple
    hardware system/element corporate providers. The
    organizations have demonstrated performance in
    maintaining the security of sensitive data from
    government and contractor sources.
  • Ability to enable government corporate knowledge
    retention. The SoSEI option provides processes
    and information systems to enable enduring
    corporate knowledge retention over the life of
    the program. The processes and systems must be
    able to evolve over the long program duration
    without loss of knowledge.
  • Ability to enable a government smart buyer role.
    The SoSEI option enables NASA to obtain and
    retain corporate programmatic and technical
    knowledge across successive spirals. The option
    enables NASA to maintain its internal expertise
    in system engineering and integration at a
    sufficient level for the government smart buyer
    role. NASA has clear visibility into the
    contractor(s), sufficient to provide technical
    and managerial insight into all aspects of the
    system of systems engineering and integration and
    to provide oversight of the contractor's
    performance.
  • Knowledge acquisition management The SoSEI
    option employs information systems and
    technologies to increase systems integration
    efficiency through knowledge sharing and
    accessibility. Advances in knowledge management
    are regularly infused into the SoSEI processes
    and tools.

33
6. SoSEI Effectiveness Criterion
  • This criterion is defined to include the
    following factors
  • Efficiency The SoSEI option is able to deliver
    products within available resources on schedule.
    The option minimizes non-productive use of
    resources that negatively affect the
    implementation of the program. Organizations
    within the option perform regular self-analysis
    and analysis of each program to ensure sustained
    performance.
  • Ability to access full-range of SoSEI skills
    capabilities (including Teaming).
  • Ability to work across multiple organization
    types (Government, Industry, Academia).
  • Ability to institutionalize SoSEI decisions.
  • Ability of SoSEI to make acquisitions (e.g., team
    and hire subcontractors, acquire facilities,
    etc.).
  • Lack of monolithic structure/distributed approach
    (i.e., ability of the SoSEI option to located
    resources wherever needed across the ESMD
    enterprise so as to effectively execute SoSEI
    functions and responsibilities).
  • Ability to develop a balanced view and
    implementation of commonality (i.e., the full
    SoS-level impacts of commonality must be analyzed
    to determine the optimum level of its required
    application).

34
7. Program Management and SEI Effectiveness
Criterion
  • This criterion is defined to include the
    following factors
  • Ability to manage system integration The SoSEI
    option performs the full spectrum of system of
    systems engineering and integration function
    including requirements decomposition, flow, and
    traceability, functional allocation, systems
    design, modeling and simulation capability,
    verification and validation, trade assessments,
    strategy to task to technology, risk management,
    etc. All elements are given sufficient resources
    to enable the smooth, successful operation of the
    whole.
  • Ability to manage complex technical,
    organizational process interfaces The SoSEI
    option provides clear, direct management of the
    system of systems interfaces with a clean
    delineation of responsibilities across the
    interfaces.
  • Ability to perform SOS program control (cost,
    schedule, CM/DM, risk, etc.).
  • Ability to promote commonality (H/W, S/W,
    processes).
  • Ability to manage IT, SBA, S/W development.
  • Ability to manage geographically distributed
    complex interfaces (organization, system,
    software, etc.)
  • Ability to ensure system safety and execute all
    the -ilities integrated logistics,
    reliability, supportability and maintainability
    analysis, etc.
  • Ability to ensure compliance with environmental,
    safety and health regulations.
  • Ability to incorporate science community
    requirements.
  • Ability to achieve mission success.

35
Acquisition Strategy OutbriefNASA Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking
Workshop End State Options and Acquisition
Strategies for the NASA Exploration System of
Systems IntegratorDale Thomas,
FacilitatorDecember 16, 2004
36
Splinter Session Acquisition Strategy Splinter
The Plaza Room
  • Session objectives this team will identify key
    aspects of the acquisition strategy NASA should
    pursue to implement the End State Option(s).
    These aspects should include, at a minimum
  • Recommended contract and solicitation type
  • Desirable industry partnering/teaming
    arrangements
  • Contractor hardware exclusions (full, partial,
    none), and specific features or such exclusions
    (the more detail here the better!)
  • Arrangements for SoSEI organization/contractor
    handling of Exploration system/element hardware
    prime contractor proprietary/sensitive data
  • Design of incentives.
  • Transition strategy.
  • Session leadership
  • Dale Thomas (facilitator)
  • Louise Hamlin (recorder)

37
Option 1 Apollo Model Tier A-C SETA, Prime of
Primes
  • Pros
  • Standard process organization
  • Good lines of communication
  • Pushes decision authority lower
  • Takes advantage of center expertise
  • HQ can concentrate on up, freeing project to
    build product
  • Negs
  • Tiered integration function not specified
  • Conflict of interest integrator also builds HW
  • HQ SETA contractor weak
  • Promotes center rivalry
  • Model originates from non spiral development
  • Commercial IP issues not addressed
  • Prime-of-primes has no control on other
    contracts
  • Co-location at HQ from centers may not bring
    best-of-best
  • HQ SETA contractor may devolve to information
    gathering mode only, may be viewed as HQ spies
  • Actions/ Additional Concerns
  • Requires very strong constellation pgm to balance
    arguments ensure pgm-wide standards policies
  • Clarify interfaces to intnl partners
  • Clarify technology infusion mgmt
  • Add HW exclusion capability

38
Option 2 Tier A-D SETA with HW Partial Exclusion
Strong SEI contractor role in Tier A-D with no
contract letting responsibilities
  • Pros
  • Contractor represents a strong tech. partner
  • Also outreach capability educational, political,
    etc.
  • Span of control responsibility, authority
    enables clear decision-making
  • SEI Prime has advantage in attracting talent to
    team (hiring and teaming)
  • Added stability through spiral
  • Responsive to Congr. funding
  • Negs
  • Primes might resist decision-making control of
    SEI Prime
  • Partial HW exclusion invites possible
    Credibility/ Conflict of Interest
  • Proprietary data (govt, Prime) management a
    challenge when SEI Prime so involved
  • Prime SEI Role (dual leadership HW role) may
    attract Congressional fire
  • Clear lines of control might be difficult to
    define
  • Actions/ Additional Concerns
  • Partial HW excl. How do you keep key expertise ?
  • Firewalls (separate SEI org from HW providing
    org)
  • Importance SEI expertise or HW expertise ?
  • Importance Acquisition support from SEI Prime ?
  • Fee-on-fee

39
Option 3 Tier A-D Independent Organization
  • Negs
  • Large/ early investment required
  • Requires Congr. act to create (headcount limits)
  • Credibility of new organization
  • Do they have experience on this scale ?
  • One Client service Org.
  • No Reach back, no bench
  • DC location
  • Limited career paths for high performers
  • Slow spin up time
  • No Hardware experience
  • Mitigators
  • Use an existing org (Aerospace, Mitre, etc)
  • Modify charter
  • Limits (head count)
  • Resolve Regulatory Issues
  • Do not mandate DC based Structure
  • Push contracting responsibility to the centers

One Client Service Organization
  • Pros
  • Independent agency/org (No OCI)
  • Pockets of strong engineering talent
  • Conclusion Cant get there from here

40
Option 4 NAVSEA Nested MAIT Model
  • Negs
  • Very staffing intensive
  • Comm intensive (lots of mtgs !)
  • Cross-element modeling analysis must be planned
    structured
  • Risk of participants driving decisions to their
    advantage
  • Integrators must have independent authority
  • Past success were at lower levels of
    integration
  • Implementation Actions
  • Define structure up front scale-up/tailor Navy
    model ?
  • Decide how authority is delegated
  • Is there a Prime-of-Primes ?
  • Govt/Contractor mix
  • Pros
  • Flexible, incremental, buy by the yard,
    tailorable to spiral dev.
  • Maximizes comm. insight, no 3rd party integr.
  • Doesnt require lrg SoSEI at start could begin
    implementation at Spiral 1
  • Ownership/accountability at the lowest lvl
  • Easy to balance NASA/Contactor mix

41
Splinter Session Acquisition Strategy Splinter
The Plaza Room
  • Session objectives this team will identify key
    aspects of the acquisition strategy NASA should
    pursue to implement the End State Option(s).
    These aspects should include, at a minimum
  • Recommended contract and solicitation type
  • Desirable industry partnering/teaming
    arrangements
  • Contractor hardware exclusions (full, partial,
    none), and specific features or such exclusions
    (the more detail here the better!)
  • Arrangements for SoSEI organization/contractor
    handling of Exploration system/element hardware
    prime contractor proprietary/sensitive data
  • Design of incentives.
  • Transition strategy.
  • Session leadership
  • Dale Thomas (facilitator)
  • Louise Hamlin (recorder)

42
Acquisition Strategies Option 1
Q Teaming Arrangements SETA A Flexibility to
Sub based on needs , Teaming with GWT LABs PoP A
Standard Govt procurement ACAs Q Contractor
HW exclusions SETA A 100 HW exclusion or
Firewall SOSI Div. PoP A do pre-decisional
analysis prior to HW award Q Arrangements for
proprietary/sensitive data A No unusual
concerns, standard model PoP gets no special
position post-decisional Q Design of
incentives SETA A Shared-savings PoP A
Incentive fee Q Transition strategy SETA A
Could do today PopA Could work as near-term and
end state option
Q Contract Solicitation SETA A Cost fee PoP A
Cost fee, separate integration contract
43
Acquisition Strategies Option 2
  • Q Contract Solicitation
  • A Cost (fixed fee) or incentive
  • Length of contract 5-10yr for base period
  • Q Teaming Arrangements
  • A Suggest no restrictions, could take advantage
    of specific skills of everyone, effective
    partnering will mitigate conflict COI
  • Q Contractor HW exclusions
  • A Partial, bidding of team at least 2 levels
    lower (no Prime)
  • Firewalls for external credibility, COI
  • Q Arrangements for proprietary/sensitive data
  • A Protect data b/t Primes, 100 access to Prime
    data
  • Export-controlled (intnl) non-disciminator
  • Q Design of incentives
  • A Long term contract is incentive, prestige of
    program also
  • Q Transition strategy

44
Acquisition Strategies Option 3
  • Q Contract Solicitation
  • A Team Selection, not competition
  • Q Teaming Arrangements
  • A Not applicable
  • Q Contractor HW exclusions
  • A 100 exclusion
  • Q Arrangements for proprietary/sensitive data
  • AN/A Quasi-Govt
  • Export-controlled (intnl) non-disciminator
  • Q Design of incentives
  • A No contractual fee
  • Performance-based bonus
  • Q Transition strategy
  • A Post-Spiral 1 SRR to End State, start-state
    dependent,

One Client Service Organization
45
Acquisition Strategies Option 4
  • Q Contract Solicitation
  • A Cost award fee, full-and-open competition
  • Linkage to prime contracts for integration tasks,
    products, 5 yr options, covers all spirals
  • Q Teaming Arrangements
  • A not a sig. factor neither precluded or
    reqd
  • Another view Boeing, LM, NG directed subs
  • Q Contractor HW exclusions
  • A 100
  • Q Arrangements for proprietary/sensitive data
  • A Govt purpose data only, not prop. data from
    Day 1
  • Q Design of incentives
  • A Fee structure must incentive SoS-level
    performance (e.g. 1 in all contracts for major
    MSs)
  • Q Transition strategy

46
Policy OutbriefNASA Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate Benchmarking Workshop End
State Options and Acquisition Strategies for the
NASA Exploration System of Systems
IntegratorBetsy Park, FacilitatorDecember
16, 2004
47
Session Charter Policy
  • Session objectives this team will identify
    policy, regulatory, and statutory issues
    associated with the target End State Option(s)
    identified during the orientation.
  • What are the obstacles that lie in the path to
    standing up the End State organization?
  • What new authorities, if any, will NASA require
    in order to establish the End State SoSEI
    organization? The more specific, the better!
  • Are there other organizations that have executed
    a similar transition, or which have obtained and
    implemented such policies/authorities? What
    successes and problems were encountered?

48
Brainstorming Items Creating a New Organization
  • Creating an FFRDC requires
  • Congressional buy-in this can be difficult to
    get.
  • Unique purpose, not presently available in
    industry
  • Alternative options
  • Similar to a public utility For profit but
    regulated
  • Not-for-profit organization (e.g., original
    MITRE)
  • Danger of going native
  • UARC (University Affiliated Research Center)
  • Joint Sponsored Research Agreement
  • A contract, but exempted from FAR provisions,
    falls under Space Act
  • Justification required
  • Not clear that this is applicable
  • Creating an Institute (e.g., National Aerospace
    Institute at LaRC)

49
Policy Issues to be Explored
  • Easing Civil Service rules for NASA personnel to
    facilitate mobility
  • Use incentives that are permissible, e.g.,
    relocation
  • Look at statutory restrictionssee what else is
    possible
  • Non-traditional use of IPAs to bring civil
    servants into a new organization
  • Consider personnel ceilingscan you backfill
    people who leave a Center?
  • Consider governance
  • Must understand organizational constraints of
    workforce outside of NASA, e.g., other agencies,
    internationals, FFRDCs, industry
  • Reach mutual understanding on operating
    principles
  • ITAR
  • Intellectual property
  • Defining and enforcing common standards
    (international)
  • Multi-year funding authority
  • Establishing regulatory policies for commercial
    participation

50
Policy Issues to be Explored, continued
  • Environmental protection (including planetary
    protection)
  • Division of labor between NASA and the SOSI
  • Other organizations for benchmarking
  • Look at NPOESStri-agency steering group
About PowerShow.com