1 / 65

NPR 7120.5 Update (NID and Rev. E) PPMB 10/1/09

NPR 7120.5 Update (NID and Rev. E) PPMB 10/1/09. NPR 7120.5 Overview. 3/07 – Rev. D issued 9/09 – NID signed 8/09 – Rev. E development initiated with NID Walk Through 10/09 – First Rev. E development meeting 4/10 – Rev. E - Target for signature

tan
Download Presentation

NPR 7120.5 Update (NID and Rev. E) PPMB 10/1/09

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NPR 7120.5 Update (NID and Rev. E) PPMB 10/1/09 10-1-09

  2. NPR 7120.5 Overview 3/07 – Rev. D issued 9/09 – NID signed 8/09 – Rev. E developmentinitiated with NID Walk Through 10/09 – First Rev. E development meeting 4/10 – Rev. E - Target for signature 9/10 – NID expiration 10-01-09

  3. Part 1 NID Accomplishments Picked up NASA policy changes since Rev. D was issued Addressed external drivers and direction affecting programs and projects Addressed issues resulting from experience using NPR 7120.5D 8-10-09

  4. Major Changes from Rev. D to the NID Brief will Cover Topics in Green • Program Project Manager Certification - 1.1.4 • Need to conform to Chapter 2 & 3 - 1.3.2 • “Project like" activities not in Program Plan are covered by NPR 7120.5D - 2.1.2 • Realism in Acquisition - 2.1.8.1 • Baseline Policy - 2.1.8.2 • Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level Policy - 2.1.8.5 (To be covered later by Tom Coonce.) 8-10-09

  5. Major Changes from Rev. D to the NID (Cont.) • Program and Project Review - 2.5 • Independent Life Cycle Review; process and reporting – 2.5.12 and Figure 2-5 • Dissenting Opinion - Section 3.3 • Technical Authority –Section 3.4 • Tailoring of Requirements; Terminology (waiver and deviation), Minimum content of request for requirement relief – 3.6.1.1 & 3.6.3 8-10-09

  6. Major Changes from Rev. D to NID • Chapter 4 and Appendices • Recognized new policy from Chapters 1-3 (e.g., JCL, the term Deviation) where appropriate • The basis for contracts involving EVM is directly tied to the NASA FAR Supplement with accompanying clarifications. (e.g., use of a Center’s fully validated EVM system rather than EVM principles ) • Mishap Control, End of Mission and Software Management Plans were added to Maturity Matrices (Table 4-3 or 4-4) and to the program and project plan templates • Updated terminology, reference documents, definitions, acronyms 8-10-09

  7. Selected Changes from Rev. D to NID 10-01-09

  8. Baseline Policy - 2.1.8.2Established two new baselines • Commitment Baseline – Basis for commitments to OMB and Congress • Management Baseline – Basis for program/project execution and strategic management process reporting 8-10-09

  9. Commitment Baseline - 2.1.8.2Key Attributes • It is an integrated set of project requirements, cost, schedule, technical content, and agreed to JCL that forms the basis for NASA’s commitment to OMB and Congress. • It is established at the Key Decision Point (KDP) that initiates the Implementation Phase. • The Commitment Baseline is the official and only NASA baseline for a program or project. 8-10-09

  10. Commitment Baseline – 2.1.8.2 Key Attributes(cont.) • Documented in the Project Plan • All projects are budgeted at their Commitment Baseline • Changes to the Commitment Baseline occur via a rebaselining processand require coordination with OMB and Congress • The sponsoring Mission Directorate provides PA&E Commitment Baseline information in a complete and timely manner. PA&E records, maintains, and reports as necessary all Commitment Baselines. 8-10-09

  11. Unallocated Future Expenses (UFEs)Definition – Appendix A Unallocated Future Expenses - The portion of estimated cost required to meet specified JCL that cannot yet be allocated to the specific project WBS sub-elements because theestimate includes probabilistic risks and specific needs that are not known until these risks are realized. Note - The term “reserves” is obsolete. 8-10-09

  12. Unallocated Future Expenses (UFEs) (cont.) • The term ‘UFE’ is being used to make it clear that these are funds that, based on experience, are expected to be required to complete the project, but cannot yet be allocated to a specific WBS activity. • All UFE is included in the project’s budget. NOTE – The relationship of UFE to Commitment and Management Baselines is illustrated in an upcoming slide. 8-10-09

  13. Management Baseline - 2.1.8.2 Key Attributes • An integrated baseline (set of requirements, cost, schedule, technical content, and associated JCL) that forms the foundation for program/project execution • The initial Management Baseline is established at the Key Decision Point (KDP) that initiates the Implementation Phase as approved by the decision authority. 8-10-09

  14. Management Baseline - 2.1.8.2Key Attributes (cont.) • The program Management Baseline is the aggregate of the project Commitment Baselines plus the program operating expenses.Similarly, the project Management Baseline equals the Commitment Baseline less any portion of UFE not released to the project for project execution. 8-10-09

  15. Management Baseline Key Attributes(cont.) • The Management Baseline is documented in the Program/Project Plan. • The portion of UFE not included in the Management Baseline is reflected in the Commitment Baseline information provided to PA&E. • The program/project manager has the authority to replan within the approved Management Baseline but must obtain the approval of the decision authority to change the Management Baseline. 8-10-09

  16. Relationship of UFE to Commitment and Management Baselines Program/MD Control ProjectCommitment Baseline UFE ProjectManagementBaseline Project Manager Control Drawing not to scale.

  17. Current Triggers Related to Commitment Baseline

  18. Rebaselining – 2.1.8.3 Projectsare rebaselined when: • The development cost portion of the Commitment Baseline is exceeded by 30 percent and Congress authorizes the project to continue or • The decision authority judges that events external to the Agency make a rebaseline appropriate.Rebaselines are documented through updates to the Project Plan. “Development cost” is the total of all costs from the period beginning with the approval to proceed, to implementation, through the achievement of operational readiness. 8-10-09

  19. Rebaselining – 2.1.8.3 (Cont.)Examples of External Drivers • Differences between appropriated and requested funding • Directed changes to Agency mission • Changes in partner contributions • Changes in industrial base • Natural and unavoidable catastrophe that interrupts the expected course of events. 8-10-09

  20. Program Project Reviews – Section 2.5Drivers for NID changes • Issues raised relative to non-compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) • NPD 1000.5 policy related to life cycle reviews • Need to clarify the interrelationship between program or project internal reviews and independent life cycle reviews as well as the role of SRB members in internal reviews • Need to ensure that programs and projects will be ready before a major lifecycle review is formally scheduled 8-10-09

  21. Program Project Reviews Three Allowable SRB Structures - 2.5.7.1 • Three allowable structures • Civil Service Board (CS) • Civil Service Board with expert support (CS2) • Non Consensus Board (NC) 8-10-09

  22. Program Project Reviews Allowable SRB Structures (cont.) – Table 2-5 8-10-09

  23. Program Project Reviews Integrity of the independent review process - 2.5.9 Paragraph 2.5.9 is a new section that covers NASA policy to ensure the integrity of the independent review process. This section is in direct support of NASA’s FACA objectives and covers conflict of interest and other matters. 8-10-09

  24. Program and Project ReviewsDrivers of Changes to Review Process • A request to improve timely identification of issues to the DA – 2.5.12.2 • The need to limit the interval between program or project internal and the SRB reviews – 2.5.10.7 • The need to recognize that internal and SRB reviews may be conducted simultaneously as has been the custom in robotics programs - 2.5.13.1 • The need to clarify the role of SRB members in internal reviews 8-10-09

  25. Program and Project Reviews Process - Figure 2.5 Changes from Rev. D are highlighted 8-10-09

  26. Program and Project Reviews Process Readiness for SRB Review - 2.5.12 • Program or project manager • determines when the program or project will be ready • Reviews readiness with the SRB chair • The SRB chair provides the convening authorities with the results of the chair’s assessment of the program or project’s readiness for the review. 8-10-09

  27. Program and Project Reviews Process Readiness for SRB Review - 2.5.12 • The decision authority determines the proper course of action with respect to scheduling the independent review, and the ToR is updated to reflect that action. For example: delay the review, proceed with the expectation of full or partial delta review, convene an appropriate special review, proceed with the exception of major RFAs 8-10-09

  28. Dissenting Opinion Clarifications – 3.3.1 &3.3.2 • A “Dissenting Opinion” is a substantive disagreement with a decision or action that an individual judges is not in the best interest of NASA and is of sufficient importance that it warrants a timely review and decision by higher level management. • Identifies thechoices an individual has in deciding where they stand on a decision or action: Agree, Disagree but be willing to fully support the decision, or Raise a Dissenting Opinion. 8-10-09

  29. Dissenting Opinion (Cont.)Clarifications • Clarifies that the process for resolving a Dissenting Opinion is “joint” and involves both parties -3.3.3 & 3.4.1.5 • Clarifiesthat there are three steps to establishing a Dissenting Opinion: • The individual’s disagreement with a decision or action, • The individual’s decision that the issue rises to the level that warrants a Dissenting Opinion, and • A request that the dissent be recorded and resolved by the Dissenting Opinion process. –Appendix A 8-10-09

  30. Technical Authority Roles Regarding Risk - 3.4.1.2New Requirement from NPD 1000.0A • On decisions related to technical and operational matters involving safety and mission success risk, formal concurrence by the responsible Technical Authorities (Engineering, Safety and Mission Assurance, and Health and Medical) is required. • This concurrence is to be based on the technical merits of the case and includes agreement that the risk is acceptable. • For matters involving human safety risk, the actual risk taker(s) (or official spokesperson(s) and their supervisory chain) must formally consent to taking the risk; and the responsible program, project, or operations manager must formally accept the risk. 8-10-09

  31. Technical Authority - 3.4.2.3ETAs with Programmatic Authority Responsibilities • NPR 7120.5D Paragraph 3.4.2.2.a allows program- or project-level EngineeringTechnical Authority to also have certain Programmatic Authority responsibilities. • NASA’s organizational structure and governance is built on the separation of the Programmatic Authority and Institutional Authority (Includes the ETA). • The NID adds provisions to bring the practice allowed by 3.4.2.2 into conformance with NASA governance. • The Engineering Technical Authority can’t be the decision-maker on a Board or panel that provides relief to a derived requirement. • As a minimum, two Engineering Technical Authorities must agree with the action to accept a change to or a waiver or deviation from a Technical Authority requirement. 8-10-09

  32. Part 2 Rev. E Development • Charter • Identified Topics (High-level view) • Schedule 10-01-09

  33. Rev. E Development Charter • Build on the NID. • Issue Rev. E before the expiration of the NID. • Fully vet and resolve policy issues raised but not resolved during the NID review process • Incorporate any additional policy decisions resulting from changes in NASA policy and practice, findings from OCE survey process and other audits, other lessons learned, and other relevant and not previously addressed issues with policy or practice. 10-01-09

  34. Rev. E Development Charter(Cont.) • Ensure proper flow down from NPD1000.0A, and NPD 1000.5. • Address inconsistencies among fundamental OCE documents. The primary focus will be on NPR 7120.5, NPD 7120.4, NPD 1000.5, and NPR 7123.1A. Inconsistencies and deficiencies in other OCE directives, handbooks, etc. as well as other key Agency policy should be identified with appropriate recommendations. 10-01-09

  35. Rev. E Development Topics include, but are not limited to: • The Technical Authority process in an environment involving more than one Center and more than one Technical Authority and determine the proper place to institutionalize the process. • Authority Roles Regarding Risk – Determine the appropriate flow down from NPD 1000.0A, paragraph 3.4.2.1.4. • Terminology consistency and standardization across OCE documents • Approval and Concurrence signatures on Program or Project Plan 10-01-09

  36. Rev. E DevelopmentTopics (Cont.) • Requirement relief process (Tailoring) • The need for further standardizationorclarification • Responsibilities and process related to obtaining relief from derived requirements • Further clarification of the process for handling batch processing of waivers and deviations • Clarify the process for a specific Center to exercise its delegated authority to disposition a request for requirement relief, when the requirement and the associated waiver/deviation has implications for work being done at another Center. 10-01-09

  37. Rev. E DevelopmentTopics (Cont.) • Rebaselining • Determine what a Program or Project Manager needs to know about external reporting and what happens when a congressional limit is breached. Establish where this should be documented. • Determine the limit on technical content removal before a project rebaseline is needed. 10-01-09

  38. Rev. E DevelopmentTopics (Cont.) • Program Project Reviews • Determine what changes are needed to ensure Center-defined processes get sufficient emphasis in the review process. • Should some current procedural details be relocated to a referenced document? • Are clarifications or changes needed to the SRB/Independent Review Process as described in the NPR 7120.5D NID? 10-01-09

  39. Rev. E DevelopmentTopics (Cont.) • Program and Project Life Cycles • When should Implementation start for tightly coupled programs and single-project programs? • Do we still have or need single-project programs? • Changes and clarifications to Figures 2-3 and 2-4 10-01-09

  40. Sidebar - Tightly Coupled Programs -What is the issue? Issue- NPR 7120.5D is not clear about whenTightly Coupled Programs are to be approved for implementation. Initial Solution – Because this issue was identified late in NID development, the initial approach was to provide an OCE Interpretation that for tightly coupled program would be approved for implementation at KDP II. The full solution was deferred to Rev. E to provide time to work out all the necessary changes and clarifications. 8-10-09

  41. Initial Solution – Letter of Intent Content For tightly coupled programs, the implementation phase will coincide with the project life cycle to ensure that the program and all its projects are properly integrated, including proper interface definition and resource allocation across all internal projects and with external programs and organizations. This means that for Constellation, the transition to the Implementation phase is at KDP II following the three project PDRs and the Program PDRs. The basis for external commitments (Commitment Baseline) will be established at that time. 8-10-09

  42. Formal Solutions Alternatitives under consideration • Post a formal letter of interpretation on NODIS that is linked to the NPR 7120.5D NID • Issue a NID to the NPR 7120.5D NID to pick up fix the most obvious areas causing confusion. • Request the Rev. E Development team to propose the final solution to the Tightly Coupled Program implementation issue as soon as possible. • Get a CxP to submit a deviation to NPR 7120.5D to get formal approval of how they want to proceed. • Consider using the ToR to provide direction on handling identified area that lack clarity. 8-10-09

  43. Sidebar - SMD KDP Topic • LADEE is the first mission in the Lunar Quest Program which is in formulation • The LQP will also be the program into which LRO will be placed when it finishes its ESMD mission • LQP is a loosely coupled program • MDAA would like to postpone approval of LQP for Implementation until the FY’11 budget is clear • The Program Plan and PCA are on hold • NPR 7120.5D requires a project ready for approval at KDP-C for implementation to be contained in an approved program also in implementation • Previously , the first project has been confirmed at the same time as the program was confirmed • LADEE is looking for a recommendation • Options: • Process a 7120 waiver • Craft the program plan to allow flexibility associated with budget changes 8-10-09

  44. Rev. E DevelopmentTopics (Cont.) Identify and address disconnects that exist between NPR 7120.5D and NPR 7123 including: • Entrance and Success/Exit criteria for lifecycle reviews • Tailoring • Derived requirements (NPR 7120.5D) and derived technical requirements (NPR 7123) 10-01-09

  45. Rev E. DevelopmentTopics (Cont.) Need for additions to: • Update EVM coverage • Provide appropriate coverage for Highly Specialized IT • Clarify Mishap contingency planning • Document KDP decisions • Clarify expectations/requirements for KDP-B related preliminary integrated baselines and JCL • Clarify of decommissioning planning/reviews and termination reviews • Update CADRe 10-01-09

  46. Rev. E DevelopmentSchedule First Rev. E development meeting – 10/09 Rev. E - Target for signature – 4/10 NID Expiration – 9/10 10-01-09

  47. Rev. E DevelopmentTeam Membership Lead Facilitators - Todd May and Tom Gavin Sponsor – Sandra Smalley 10-01-09

  48. Rev. E DevelopmentSMEs 10-01-09

  49. Rev E. DevelopmentConclusions • Rev. E is an important task requiring: • Right Team • PPMB Support • Advocacy • Strategic Guidance and • Coordination within Center or Organization • Your assistance is requested in getting your center or organization to identify to the Rev. E Team any issues they should consider. Early identification will support the schedule and minimize rework. 10-01-09

  50. The End Backup slides follow 8-10-09

More Related