Engineering Excellence: Transforming NASA's Organizational System

1. Engineering Excellence and the Implementation of the Technical Authority at the Goddard Space Flight Center Orlando Figueroa Director, Advanced Engineering & Technology O. Figueroa

2. Agenda • Changing NASA’s Organizational System • GSFC’s - The Elements That Make Our Story a Successful One • NASA’s Governance Model • The AETD Organization • Systems Engineering Education and Development • Summary O. Figueroa

3. Excerpts From The CAIB Report • “Signals were overlooked, people were silenced, and useful information and dissenting views on technical issues did not surface at higher levels.” • “An organization system failure calls for corrective measures that address all relevant levels of the organization, [but for all of its its cutting edge technologies, diving catch rescues, and imaginative plans for the technology and the future of space exploration, NASA has shown very little understanding of the inner workings of its own organization].” • “NASA structure changed as roles and responsibilities were transferred to contractors, which increased the dependence on the private sector for safety functions and risk assessment while simultaneously reducing the in-house capability to spot safety [and technical] risk issues.” • “When lives [and mission success] are on the line, flexibility and democratic process should take priority over bureaucratic response.” O. Figueroa

4. A History of Success 16 1959 - 2005 Spacecraft Failures 1 14 1 Launch Vehicle Failures 1 13 12 1 12 2 1 Successes 10 2 1 10 10 Number of Launches 1 1 9 9 9 8 4 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 1 1 1 7 7 7 6 1 3 3 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 2003 1977 1961 1965 1969 1973 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1997 2001 2005 1959 1963 1967 1971 1981 1985 1989 1993 1999 Year * Financial success through same period in low 90’s for things that we had direct control over O. Figueroa

5. Fundamentals of System Designand Checks and Balances System of Interest Enabling System System of Interest System of Interest Enabling System System of Interest Enabling System Policies, Processes & Concepts System of Interest Enabling System Capability Review & Reporting System Design O. Figueroa

6. Project Mgr Integrates Team andis Accountable for Mission success Primary authority and accountability Project Manager Lead Project Systems Engineer System Assurance Manager Element A Manager Element B Manager Element n Manager Contractor Proj. Mgr. NASA Engineering Workforce Contractor Engineering O. Figueroa

7. Review and Reporting • Center Management Council integrates across all support needed to • assess and ensure proper execution • Via monthly and life cycle event driven reviews • Assess project support, Engineering, S&MA, Science, • CFO,CIO, Procurement, Facility Operations, Security, etc GSFC Center Director Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate Director Flight Programs and Projects Director Office of System Safety and Mission Assurance Director Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Director Division Chiefs Branch Heads Lead Systems Engineers Program/Project Managers System Assurance Managers Discipline Engineers Safety and Mission Assurance Discipline Engineers Matrix Report Report Direct Report Technical Authority O. Figueroa

8. Policy, Processes and Concepts • Continuous monitoring by Engineering and S&MA organizations to ensure rigorous execution of technical requirements • ensure application of Agency policy documents • monthly status reviews, others as needed • strong technical requirements documents • e.g. GOLD rules, Goddard Environmental Verification Specification, Systems Engineering GPR, Mission Assurance Requirements, etc • Support structure by Flight Projects Directorate to ensure rigorous implementation of management processes and principles O. Figueroa

9. Former Governance Model NASA Administrator NASA Chief Engineer Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Director Mission Directorate Associate Administrator GSFC Center Director GSFC Chief Engineer Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate Director Flight Programs and Projects Director Office of System Safety and Mission Assurance Director Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Director AETD Chief Engineer Division Chiefs Div Chief Engineer Branch Heads Lead Systems Engineers Program/Project Managers System Assurance Managers Discipline Engineers Safety and Mission Assurance Discipline Engineers Direct Report O. Figueroa

10. New Governance Model NASA Administrator NASA Chief Engineer Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Director GSFC Center Director Mission Directorate Associate Administrator GSFC Chief Engineer Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate Director Flight Programs and Projects Director Office of System Safety and Mission Assurance Director Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Director AETD Chief Engineer Division Chiefs Div Chief Engineer Branch Heads Lead Systems Engineers Program/Project Managers System Assurance Managers Discipline Engineers Safety and Mission Assurance Discipline Engineers TA Matrix Report Matrix Report Report Report Direct Report Direct Report Technical Authority Technical Authority O. Figueroa

11. The Case for the“New” Governance Model • Eliminate conflict of interests between programmatic content and institutional health • Balance of power between Program/Project Management, Engineering, Safety and Assurance • Provide independent channels of access to the Administrator’s Office to communicate issues or to appeal decisions that may be considered detrimental to mission success O. Figueroa

12. AETD Organization AET DIRECTORATE • Code 500 Director • Orlando Figueroa (x6-6218) Deputy Director • Thomas Magner (x6-6422) Deputy Planning & Dvpmt • B. Butterworth (x6-6185) Assistant for Eng Support – Stan Wojnar (x6-8776) Assistant for Business Development - Juan Roman GSFC Chief Technologist • Peter Hughes (x6-2342) Assistant for Wallops • Steve Nelson (x7-2396) BUSINESS MANAGEMENT OFFICE - Code 501 Chief • Curtis Johnson (x6-6187) Associate • Elaine Slaugh Associate • Dona McKenney TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICE - Code 504 Chief • Nona Cheeks (x6-5810) (28) GSFC TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OFFICE - Code 502 Chief • Peter Hughes* (5) (1311) (10) GSFC Chief Engineer • Steve Scott (x6-2529) AETD Chief Engineer • Tom McCarthy* (x6-6422) Deputy AETD Chf Eng • Madeline Butler (x6-4806) MECHANICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION Code 540 Chief • Ken Hinkle (x67101) Associate • Lee Niemeyer Associate • Laura Milam INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY DIVISION Code 550 Chief • Rich Barney (x6-7531) Assoc • Felicia Jones-Selden Assoc • Peter Maymon* ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION Code 560 Chief • John Day (x65118) Associate • Fred Huegel Associate • Bob Lebair (261) (285) (198) INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION Code 580 Chief • Joe Hennessy (x6-8623) Associate • Martha Chu Associate • Barbara Pfarr MISSION ENGINEERING & SYSTEMS ANALYSIS DIVISION Code 590 Chief • Dennis Andrucyk (x6-8496) Associate • John Deily Associate •Eric Isaac O. Figueroa (281) (223) *Acting

13. Tactical Thrusts/Health Metrics • Safety • Critical assessments and corrective action • National Assets (Facilities and infrastructure) • Critical assessments and corrective action • Highly capable diverse workforce • Managing diversity • Strategic hiring policies • Training and development • Rewards and recognition • Strategic technology development • Hands-on experience • Tools for increased efficiency and effectiveness • Integrated Design Environment • Human Capital Management (transition/available for new work, core competencies) • Resource management (full cost environment) • Capability Maturity for software development • Systems Engineering Processes and Procedures • Honoring commitments • Customer satisfaction • Technical and programmatic performance O. Figueroa

14. AETD Median Age Compared to Center & Regional and National Aerospace O. Figueroa

15. AETD Age Distribution Compared to Center & MD Aerospace O. Figueroa

16. AETD Engineers Ethnic Diversity O. Figueroa

17. AETD Education O. Figueroa

18. AETD In-House Work 1323 – AETD Ceiling 1077 – Non-Supv Engineers & Technicians 1/3 of Non-Supv Engineers & Technicians *GSFC won through competition O. Figueroa As of 3/22/06; 3pm

19. Mission Systems Engineering System/Mission Design and architecture Requirements Management Interface Management Resource (mass, power, data rate) Management Electrostatic Cleanliness Magnetics Management Verification and Validation Reliability assessment Technical risk management Instrument Systems Reliability System Verification Structural/Mechanical Thermal Power Electrical and Harness Guidance & Navigation Propulsion Communications Command and Data Handling Mechanisms Flight Software Ground Software Parts Engineering Materials Radiation Contamination Control Integration and Test Aerospace Technicians Test Systems Design Test Equipment Development Launch Vehicle Integration Facilities Management and Usage AETD Engineering Capability Areas * Supported CEV Smart Buyer 90 day study in leadership capacity O. Figueroa

20. Areas of Immediate Attention • Development program for Systems Engineers • Cuts to didactic development component threaten • Facilities and infrastructure critical inventory • Threats to design and analysis tools • Focus hiring on fresh-outs to ensure longevity of competencies • Safety critical inventory and corrective action • Policies and procedures to implement NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements (NPR 7123) • Policies and procedures to implement OCE/Technical Authority O. Figueroa

21. The Systems Engineering Continuum Discipline Systems Engineers Mid Level Senior Level Entry Level Project Systems Engineers Program Systems Engineers Fundamentals of Systems Engineering (Systems Design) System Engineers Education and Development (SEED) Jump Start O. Figueroa

22. Demand for Highly Trained Systems Engineers • The Demand for highly capable SEs • There is a growing shortage of highly capable Systems Engineers not only at Goddard, but for the entire Agency and in private industry. • The Supply is currently NOT meeting the Demand. • Attrition will always be with us (retirement, move on to Project Management, loss to other agencies, etc.). • The Demand will continue • GSFC needs a reliable, continuing source of SEs who will grow into highly capable SEs in a minimum amount of time. • Administrator Griffin has stated that he wants to move Systems Engineering back into civil service in the Agency which will only increase demand for SEs Agencywide. (Note: With respect to Goddard, this has been the predominant method of systems engineering). O. Figueroa

23. Developing the Systems Engineering Capability (1 of 2) • Career path (metamorphosis) and outside hiring needs to be supplemented with a program to produce a greater number of well trained and highly capable SEs in a shorter amount of time. • The SEED program has been created to help develop the capabilities of about five System Engineers per year (2 year development program). O. Figueroa

24. Developing the Systems Engineering Capability System Engineering is a mindset built on • Education • Experience • Many years of the right experience. • Judgment • Knowledge of how to tap the correct resources to get the right answers and/or make the right decisions. • Training • Solid technical background, knowledge, and skills. • Big Picture/Whole Picture thinking • Effective Leadership O. Figueroa

25. Systems Engineering Education & Development Program (SEED) • Systems Engineering Education & Development (SEED) is a program to take mid-level discipline engineers and train them to become Systems Engineers. • Assignments and classes are selected to broaden the Participant’s experience across several disciplines, subsystems, and phases of the mission life cycle. • Program length is approximately 2 years, and the graduate receives a non-competitive consideration for any Goddard GS-14 systems engineering position (meets APPEL Level 3 requirements). O. Figueroa

26. 5 Grads 1 Grad 3 Grads SEED Graduate Rate O. Figueroa

27. SEED Budget Requirements History Future 1.SEEDling FTEs: 50% covered by Flight Projects 25% formal training 25% not funded by Projects O. Figueroa

28. Summary • A Legacy of excellence in the art and science of the engineering of systems • A healthy, safe and highly capable diverse organization • A high performing fiscally responsible organization Policies, Processes & Concepts Capability Knowledge & Skill of Workforce Tools & Methods O. Figueroa