Can NASA’s Integrated Product Teams

1. Can NASA’s Integrated Product Teams become “Hot Groups” ? Randy Lovell United Space Alliance

2. Agenda • Evolution of Teams • Team Classification • Obstacles to Success • Solutions to the Obstacles • Conclusions

3. Evolution of Teams • B2 Stealth Bomber Project • The Early Years, Entirely Functional Organizations • B2 Stealth Bomber Project • Introduction of the IPT • Space Shuttle Modifications • Concurrent Engineering Team • Space Shuttle Major Upgrades • Integrated Product Development utilizing IPTs • Hot Group

4. Evolution of Teams

5. Classification of Teams • Lightweight • Functional • Junior Leaders • No empowerment • Heavyweight • Member diversity • Strong Leadership • Minimum Empowerment • Autonomous • Hand picked members • Very strong leadership • Large amount of empowerment

6. Functional Organization Classification: Lightweight Team • Hierarchy Organizational Management • One clear functional manager • Grouped by specialty • Inefficient Engineering

7. Integrated Product TeamClassification: Heavyweight Team • Improvement over no team • Saved time and reduced costs • Chaotic/Dysfunctional • Project Engineer conducted meetings and chased actions • Members had little or no authority • Little team training offered Team Meetings

8. CE Team Concurrent Engineering TeamClassification: Heavyweight Team Pros • All stake holders are permanent members • Eliminated errors earlier in the life-cycle • Improved communication & team building Cons • No strong leader • Minimum amounts of empowerment • Ineffective and costly

9. NASA IPT Integrated Product TeamClassification: Heavyweight Pros • Full member empowerment • True team synergy • Increased attention to details • Cons • Management commitment to change • Continued lack of training • Communication between teams • Member dedication to one team • Team empowerment

10. Hot Group Hot GroupClassification: Autonomous • Strong Group Leader • Little communication with upper management • Group members are “owned” by the group • Collocated & dedicated to only one group (Kelly 2001) • Team AND group empowerment So… Why Can’t IPTs become Hot Groups?

11. Obstacles • Teams start with an unclear purpose. • Teams do not have committed management. • Teams are too big. • Teams have the wrong people. • Team members have little or no empowerment. • Team members have no team training. • Teams have a lack of communication. • Teams are too spread out.

12. Solutions Obstacles • Hot Groups start with crystal clear high goals and charter. • Hot Groups have intense management commitment. • Hot Groups have a maximum of 20 members. • Hot Groups start with hand selected talented people. • Teams start with an unclear purpose. • Teams do not have committed management. • Teams are too big. • Teams have the wrong people.

13. Obstacles Solutions • Team members have little or no empowerment. • Team members have no team training. • Teams have a lack of communication. • Teams are too spread out. • Hot Groups’ management ensures empowerment. • Hot Groups ensure their management, leaders and members are trained. • Hot Groups’ management facilitates communication. • Hot Groups are collocated.

14. Conclusions • NASA IPTs are currently successful. • Hot Groups are a viable option for NASA. • Senior management commitment required. • Hot Groups optimize costs and schedule. • Hot Groups overcome obstacles that keep teams from being highly innovative. So… Can or Should NASA’s IPTs become Hot Groups?

15. YES they can! YES they should! Especially at NASA, “given the importance of innovation, it’s an effort worth making.”