REG NASA-LLIS-1507-2003 Lessons Learned - Orbital Space Plane Budget and Schedule Risk.pdf

《REG NASA-LLIS-1507-2003 Lessons Learned - Orbital Space Plane Budget and Schedule Risk.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《REG NASA-LLIS-1507-2003 Lessons Learned - Orbital Space Plane Budget and Schedule Risk.pdf（3页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Lessons Learned Entry: 1507Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 1507a71 Lesson Date: 2003-07-01a71 Submitting Organization: MSFCa71 Submitted by: Lisa CarrSubject: Orbital Space Plane Budget and Schedule Risk Abstract: Plans, procedures, and policies must be robust enough to withstand the inevitable chang

2、e in schedules, budgets, and risks.Description of Driving Event: Acceleration and budget reductions created stress cracks in the OSP management processes.Lesson(s) Learned: A stress crack can grow only if the total energy applied increases or remains constant. Acceleration and budget reductions crea

3、ted stress cracks in the OSP management processes. Lack of defined plans and policies kept the energy level steady or climbing. Communication flow suffered, serial processes became parallel, rigor was diminished, record keeping got lax, and training went to the back burner.Additionally:a. Review Cri

4、teria. A specific example of stress cracks during the OSP formulation was the lowering of standards/success criteria for major Program reviews, such as SRR and SDR. Meeting the milestones, baselining the requirements, and conducting the meetings became higher priority than the technical content or a

5、dequate assessment of the content.b. Shrinking of the Inner Circle. After each occurrence of increased stress (budget cut, schedule accelerated) the “inner circle” of the Program Management team seemed to shrink and data flow to the mid-level managers and workers was reduced.Provided by IHSNot for R

6、esaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-c. Focus on Operability. Early in the formulation phase, the OSP Program committed to placing a high emphasis on ensuring “operability” in the design, to reduce life cycle costs and reduce process-induced failures. When pressu

7、re was ramping up, the emphasis on operations infusion into the design fell by the wayside.d. Find the “NO” Point. Ultimately, during times of “belt-tightening” things will inevitably be given up. but it would be very advantageous to determine in advance (during the calm periods) the real priorities

8、 that can not be allowed to degrade under increased schedule, budget, or political pressure.e. Synchronize Development. Requirement development, analyses, and system design activities were not synchronized. Functional decomposition was not complete before system design started and before Level 3 req

9、uirements were base-lined. Also, in the environment of acceleration a Requirements Development Team (RDT), consisting of decision makers from the OSP, ELV and ISS Programs and Headquarters, was formed. This team, although very efficient in making decisions and finalizing requirements, also created s

10、ome undesired consequences. Limited communication to the outside and limited analysis created an environment where some requirements may have lacked technical feasibility. This led to incomplete requirements and orphan or childless level 2 requirements.f. Program Plan and SEMP. The OSP Program Plan,

11、 Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) and related foundational plans (Risk Management, Configuration and Data Management, etc.) were not sufficiently mature when the decision was made to embark on an accelerated program. Parallel development during program execution deadened the sense of urgen

12、cy to complete them.g. Schedule Planning and Implementation. An OSP schedule guidelines document was not prepared early enough in the program execution. A lack of standardization of inputs from various centers and organizations complicated the Integrated Master Schedule baseline and updates. Additio

13、nally, in response to acceleration of the program, two separate schedules of ongoing and planned work were being maintained. Recommendation(s): Plans, procedures, and policies must be robust enough to withstand the inevitable change in schedules, budgets, and risks. Meeting the milestones, base-lini

14、ng the requirements, and conducting the meetings became higher priority than the technical content or adequate assessment of the content. Even as schedules get tight, set priorities for projects. The greater the schedule pressure, the more important it is to establish, follow, and enforce a Systems

15、Engineering Management Plan. Parallel development during program execution deadened the sense of urgency to complete them. Maintain and track a master schedule of program milestones. Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted wi

16、thout license from IHS-,-,-N/ADocuments Related to Lesson: N/AMission Directorate(s): a71 Exploration Systemsa71 Space Operationsa71 Aeronautics ResearchAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 Communication SystemsAdditional Info: Approval Info: a71 Approval Date: 2005-04-12a71 Approval Name: Lisa Carra71 Approval Organization: MSFCa71 Approval Phone Number: 256-544-2544Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-