# Presentation: 671727

## KSC NIAT Implementation Team (KNIT) Working GroupStatus UpdateNovember 13, 2001

**Joni Richards/QA-D/7-4817**

## Agenda

**Purpose for Meeting ****	****3**
**Working Group Members ****	****4**
**Executive Board Members****	****5**
**Background ****	****6**
**Survey for establishing baseline (e.g. NIAT-1)****	****9**
**Survey Results with Top 5 NIAT Actions****	****10**
**What to Implement?****	****11**
**Future Plans****	****12**
**Other formal HQ NIAT Actions ****	****13**
**Potential Impact Statement****	****14**
**Summary****	****15**

- 2

**Notes:**
  History Highlights
  Identify the active members on the working group
  look at a sample of the survey we used to establish  our baseline assessment Along with the supporting data and a comparison by organization of our TOP 5 actions.
  Glance at the Working Group’s meeting timeline
  THEN I’ll discuss the list of Projects and Actions that Code AE would like us to immediately assess

## Purpose for Meeting

**Per the Executive Board Charter (signed 2/12/01)—**
***The Working Group is to obtain direction from the Executive Board for assuring that the recommendations of the NIAT report are implemented at KSC.  ***
***  *****Working Group***** *****Deliverables include:**** **
**  ****KSC “Baseline”Assessment**
**  ****NIAT Implementation Plan**

**To obtain approval of the NIAT Response and Implementation Plan**
**to the NASA Integrated Action Team (NIAT) Recommendations**** **

- 3

**Notes:**

The purpose of this meeting is to provide you with the results of the NIAT working Group’s efforts.  
You have before you the NIAT Response and Implementation Plan which was the second deliverable
The first one, baseline assessment, deals with a survey that was conducted...I will explain that further after pausing to identify the WG members.

## Working Group Members

***Walt Feitshans*****, YA/Spaceport Engineering & Technology **
***Roger Hall*****, UB/International Space Station/Payload Processing**
***Ruth Harrison*****, PH/Space Shuttle Processing **
***Joan Lyons*****, GG/Chief Financial Office**
***Henry Molnar*****, OP/Procurement **
***Gordon Perry*****, TA/Spaceport Services**
***Joni Richards *****(Chair), QA/Safety Health & Independent Assessment **
***Mark Ruether*****, VB/Expendable Launch Vehicles & Payload Carriers **
***Pam Steel*****, XA/External Relations & Business Development **
***Jim Thompson*****, BA/Workforce & Diversity Management ****	**

- 4

## Executive Board Members

***Ken Payne (Chair)*****, YA/Spaceport Engineering & Technology **
***David King (Co-Chair)*****, PH/Space Shuttle Processing**
***Directors of:***** **
**BA/ Workforce & Diversity Management **
**GG/Chief Financial Office**
**OP/Procurement **
**QA/Safety Health & Independent Assessment**
**Chief Engineer/Systems Management Office**
**TA/Spaceport Services**
**UB/International Space Station/Payload Processing**
**VA/Expendable Launch Vehicles & Payload Carriers **
**XA/External Relations & Business Development **
**	**

- 5

## Background

**In addition to the four program-specific assessments such as the Mars Program and the Shuttle wiring problems, the NASA Administrator recognized the need to assess and respond to findings and recommendations that could be more broadly applied to the wide range of NASA projects.**
**This resulted in the HQ/Chief Engineer chartering a NASA-wide team to evaluate the recommendations from the four assessments and define specific set of actions that focus on critical implementation issues.**
**The goal is to strive for the reduction of residual risk to that inherent or acceptable which is understood and agreed to by the program/project, GPMC, and the customers.**
**The NIAT actions** **represent a “required state” for implementing NASA programs and projects.**** **
**Themes:**
**Developing and supporting exceptional people and teams**
**Delivering advanced technologies**
**Understanding and controlling risk**
**Ensuring formulation rigor and implementation discipline**
**Improving communication**

- 6

**Notes:**
The 17 NIAT Recommendations were drawn from 4 reports
2 MARS failures, SHL wiring and Faster, Better Cheaper report

The bottom of this chart lists the 5 major themes, and thus
The moral of the story is to—

Reach A Required State by reducing the amt of residual risk that is acceptable to the program or project

## Background

**January 11, 2001, the Administrator and the Chief Engineer communicated their views on the NIAT recommendations via webcast**
**February 8:  KSC Daily News article**
**Encouraging all to be familiar with the NIAT Report**
**Website to obtain report, https://webcasts.hq.nasa.gov/niat/niatfinal1221.pdf**
**February 9:  NIAT Working Group Kick-off Meeting**
**Familiarized team with Executive Board and Working Group charters**
**Discussed ambitious schedule and survey format for establishing a center baseline **
**February 15: HQ Senior Management met to discuss approach to assess ongoing programs/projects against the NIAT Actions.**
**February 16: the Administrator and Chief Engineer met and agreed that immediate focus would be on NIAT actions 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 for those **_**projects**_** in “Implementation” or “Operational” phase (i.e. ELV and CLCS projects).**

- 7

**Notes:**
On Jan 11, NASA Adm and Chief Eng shared their views of the report via webcast
Feb 8 – KSC Daily News, encouraging all to become familiar with the report
Feb 9 – Working Group kick-off meeting
Feb 15 - Snr Mgmt met to discuss an approach which 
Feb 16 – agreement was made to focus on 7 of the 17 actions (7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15).

## Background

**February 16:  NIAT Working Group Meeting**
**Team had begun to canvass their individual directorates to score the survey and determine the Top 5 Actions with the highest payoff**
**March 2: NIAT Working Group Meeting**
**Informed team that I forwarded our survey to HQ/Orlando Figueroa as suggestion for gathering consistent data from the field centers**
**Team agreed on survey completion date of March 5**
**March 8:** **NIAT Working Group Meeting**
**Team agreed to complete Supporting Data on their Top 5 Actions by         mid-June**
**March 20: Working Group Status presentation to the Executive Board of Baseline Assessment (survey results) and obtain approval to proceed.**
**June 19:  Presentation to CD in preparation for the Wye River Plantation Meeting with Headquarters’ Associate Administrators.**
**August 13:  Final Working Group meeting to cover any outstanding issues.**

- 8

**Notes:**
Meanwhile, the working group members were  beginning to canvas their directorates on by scoring the survey and determining their individual Top 5 actions with the highest payback to the center. 

## Survey (sample of NIAT 1 of 17) 

**Remaining NIAT Action Titles:**
**2:  Development of the Workforce****	****10:  Integrated Review Process**
**3:  Revitalizing Engineering ****	****11:  Ensuring  Adequate Resources**
**4:  Balanced Technology Investment****	****12:  Faster, Better, Cheaper**
**5:  Integrated Technology Planning Process****	****13:  Surveillance**
**6:  Technology Development and Infusion****	****14:  Verification and Validation**
**7:  Risk Identification, Assessment & Management****	****15:  Managing Responsibility & Accountability**
**8:  Safety and Mission Assurance****	****16:  Organizational Communication**
**9:  Software Development and Assurance****	****17:  Knowledge Management**

- 9

**Notes:**
This illustrates the survey that was conducted in each directorate.
As you can see, there are 4 choices to answer each element
FULLY IMPLEMENT =  that a plan is in place to fully address that element
Next choice =  plan was in place, yet needed to be revised or was under development 
Following column =  this element applies to the org, but no plan has been created thus far. 
NOT APPLICABLE
This approach was shared with the Code M Enterprise rep as well as the other Code centers to compare methodology

## Prioritization of NIAT Actions by Organization (Top 5)

**Prioritization of NIAT Actions by Organization (Top 5)**

***Note: YA has identified 7 priorities including 9 & 15**

**Essentially, all directorates performed a rough gap analysis that formed the basis for the center Implementation Plan.  After comparing directorate results, the overall ranking that resulted for KSC was**** --**
**	****1:** 	**Health and Safety**
**	****2:** 	**Development of the Workforce**
**	****7:****	****Risk Identification, Assessment and Management **
**	****8:****	****Safety and Mission Assurance**
**16:  Organizational Communications**

- 10

**Notes:**
This is a roll-up of the TOP 5 actions that were considered the highest importance to each organization.  

Essentially this was our gap analysis for determining content for the implementation plan, 2nd deliverable

## What To Implement?

**Based on the supporting data in Appendix D along with the detailed explanations in the section titled--*****KSC’s Top 5 Actions with Supporting Evidence***** (p. 7), the Working Group agreed that there were no specific actions to implement**** at this time.**
**As a result, the Working Group voted to rename the plan to—**
**	****“****Response and Implementation Plan ****to the **
**NASA Integrated Action Team (NIAT) Recommendations”**** **
**The Working Group believed that the initiatives that are currently underway was sufficient evidence that closed the gaps identified from the survey.**
** **

- 11

**Notes:**
Based on the supporting data in Appendix D which are sound bites of efforts being conducted for each element

Furthermore, there is further explanations in the narrative section which begins on p. 7-17

With that...the WG voted to rename the plan since we had ample evidence that closed the gaps found from the survey 

## Future Plans

**Since the NIAT Report indicates that each NIAT Action will have a HQ Action Lead, all future NIAT related actions will be viewed as an Opportunity For Improvement (OFI).**
**Appendix F contains the list of HQ Action Leads, prepared by Kitty Havens, Code UP.**
**To date, we have received plans from 2 Action Leads—**
**Jo Gunderson:  Action 2, Development of the Workforce**
**Wilson Harkins:  Action 8, Safety and Mission Assurance**
** **

- 12

**Notes:**
I’d like to point out that the NIAT Report specifically states that there will be a HQ Action Lead for each action. Therefore, all future NIAT related actions will be considered Opportunities for improvement.

Other than receiving proposed plans for actions 2 & 8, we have yet to hear from the others.
Kitty Havens provided the list of assigned leads which is contained in Appendix E of the KSC plan.

## Other Formal HQ NIAT Actions

**March 13: HATS Action (1AE/2001-00019) - Code AE/Brian Keegan requested that the Project Managers for ELV and CLCS to address a specific set of questions regarding NIAT Actions 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, & 15.**
** **_**Status**_**: ****	****To be presented at the KPPMC, 11/13/01; ****ELV Response prepared ****	****by QA-D/Eric Ernst; CLCS Response prepared by**** ****Mike Bolger, ****	****Larry Wilhelm and Ric Hurt**
**April 4: KAITS Action (AA/2001-00110.1) - Code F/Vicki Novak requested BA’s review and concurrence with their proposed NIAT Action 2 (Development of the Workforce) Plan.**
** **_**Status**_**: ****	****BA has concurred is awaiting direction per the plan prepared by   ****	*****Jo Gunderson*****.**
**April 5: QA Action (QA/2001-00025) - Code QS/Jim Lloyd requested QA’s review and concurrence with their proposed NIAT Action 8 (Safety and Mission Assurance) Plan. **
** **_**Status**_**: QA/Ann Montgomery replied to *****Wilson Harkins***** with comments on   ****	****April 18, 01 and is awaiting further action. **
**April 16: ****via e-mail - Dr. Barry indicated that Dr. Mulville plans to roll-out  the new “NASA** **Effective Stress Management”** **self-education/test which is pertinent to NIAT Action 1: Health and Safety. **
** **_**Status**_**: ****Available at http://ohp.ksc.nasa.gov/disciplines/eap/survey**

- 13

## Potential Impact Statement

-  	**Several of the actions proposed in the formal Action Plans (i.e. **
**	****Actions 2 & 8) represent a potential burden on existing resources. **
**  ****	****However, neither Action Lead has levied any new requirements as a **
**	****result of their proposed plan.  Until such time, the SMO will remain**
** ****	****as the central interface for coordinating future NIAT Actions while**
** ****	****allowing the affected organizations to determine what impact, if any, **
**	****would occur by implementing each proposed plan.**
**	**
**	**
** **_**  **_

- 14

**Notes:**
Several of the actions proposed in the formal Action Plans (i.e. 
Actions 2 & 8) represent a potential burden on existing resources. 

However, neither Action Lead has levied any new requirements as a result of their proposed plan.  

Until such time, the SMO will remain as the central interface for coordinating purposes while allowing the affected organizations to determine what impact IF ANY would occur by implementing each proposed plan.

## Summary

**  ****	****Headquarters direction was negligible and despite admiration for our ****	****methodical approach, no agreement was reached or further ****	****guidance provided on what they expected outside the Code AE ****	****action for CLCS and ELV Project.**
**  ****	****The Systems Management Office will remain as the central ****	****interface for coordinating future NIAT Actions.  **
** ****	****The Working Group will disband, allowing the responsibility for ****	****each future action to reside with the affected organization(s).**

- 15

**Notes:**
Although HQ has commended us on our approach, we have not received any further guidance on what is expected from each center, other than the Code AE action for CLCS and ELV projects.

AND as was mentioned in the previous slide, the SMO will remain as the coordinator for all NIAT related actions.

Finally, the WG will disband following approval of the KSC Response and Implemenation Plan.

## Slide 16

## Backup slides

**Supporting data on Actions 1, 2, 7, 8, 16****	****	****	****Slides 17-27**
**Four Reports referenced in NIAT Report****	****	****	****Slide 28**
**Code AE Action details ****	****	****	****	****	****Slides 29--34**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****	**

- 16

**Notes:**
I’d like to offer the choice of going through the supporting data for the Top 5 Actions or provide you the opportunity tp 

## NIAT Action 1: Health and Safety

**Chief Health and Medical Officer (CHMO), at NASA Headquarters, is the lead individual responsible for ensuring implementation of the employee health portion of the NIAT 1 Health and Safety Action Plan.**
**The Manager, Agency Occupational Health Program, located at the Principal Center KSC, in the Office of Safety, Health, and Independent Assessments, is responsible for developing and coordinating of EAP policy implementation, procedures, and guidelines for approval along with providing EAP operations management and staff assistance.**** **** **
**The CHMO urges that Center Directors strongly encourage supervisors to take the EAP training module with a goal of 75% completion rate by June 1, 2002.**** **
**KSC intends to meet this goal by the projected date and has successfully met the OHP recommended guideline to have 1 EAP professional per 3,000 civil service employees.**

- 17

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  
Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program resided. 

Encourage supervisors to take the EAP training module with a goal of 75% completion rate by June 1, 2002. 

In fact, we have successfully met the OHP recommended guideline to have 1 EAP professional per 3,000 civil service employees.

## NIAT Action 1: Health and Safety

**In addition to individual counseling, the EAP provides training on a number of subject matters such as stress management, sexual harassment, communication skills and team building to name a few. These services are performed as needs are identified in the workplace. **
**The RehabWorks Program has been developed to provide all KSC and CCAS employees with a free rehabilitation for work, non-work or sports-related injury in order to maximize long-term recovery and reduce lost work time (by Certified/Licensed Athletic Trainers (ATC/L)).**
**As supporting evidence, KSC continues to track payroll indicators by posting the Lost Time Injury metrics on the web to allow both NASA and contractors to analyze their individual trending data and determine ways to improve their efficacy while meeting workload demands.**
**Supervisors must encourage and support employee participation in safety and health activities and include this theme in their individual performance plans, including KSC’s Goal Performance Evaluating System (GPES).**
**Lastly, in a recent Center Director Communication letter (dated July 25, 2001) which addressed the Agency’s commitment to safety**** **

- 18

**Notes:**
EAP offers training on an as needed basis.

ReHabWorks offers free rehabilitation to work & non-work that is correlated to Lost Time Injury metrics 

CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 
In late July CD Comm that reiterated the importance of Health & Safety

## NIAT Action 2: Development of the Workforce

**Headquarters Action Lead, Code FT/Jo Gunderson, submitted a formal Action Plan (KAITS Action: AA/2001-00110.1) to all the centers on April 5, requesting concurrence to their draft Implementation Plan on April 10, 2001. **
**The implementation plan was reviewed by the Systems Management Office along with the BA/Workforce & Diversity Management Office.**
**Our formal response to Code FT was that KSC supports the requirements outlined in the NIAT Action 2 Response Plan contingent upon the milestones being met by the originating organizations at NASA Headquarters. **
** ****Awaiting further direction from Headquarters**

- 19

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## NIAT Action 2: Development of the Workforce

**Until further notice from HQ is received, KSC has some on-going activities to highlight in Workforce Development.  **
** ****	****The Human Resources Development Board Systems Management ****	****was chartered to provide guidance and direction on training, rotational ****	****assignments, and and to oversee the Spaceport Technology And ****	****Research (STAR) career ladder program which was established as part ****	****of the overall KSC 2000 reorganization.**
** ****	****The Goal Performance Evaluation System (GPES) allows the supervisor ****	****to become reacquainted with the employees’ accomplishments and ****	****promotes communication about their Individual Development Plan (IDP). **
** ****	****SMO is working closely with BA to develop a KSC Project Management ****	****Development Process (PMDP) certification board.  This information will ****	****be defined so that Project Managers can easily assess what they need to ****	****achieve to fulfill each level of the PMDP. **

- 20

**Notes:**
Until further word from HQ on this particular action, we pointed out that—

 HRDB – guidance/direction on tng, rotational asmt, and STAR career ladder pgm; result of Reorg 2000

 GPES
 PMDP cert which was presented last week

## NIAT Action 7: Risk Identification, Assessment and Management 

**KSC has implemented numerous Risk Management (RM) activities in recent years to improve the Centers’ Program/project lifecycles with SHIA serving as the focal point for: **
**Establishing RM/S&MA policy and standards **
**Consulting with respect to RM/S&MA planning, tools, and analyses **
**Implementing integrated RM/S&MA tools and capabilities**
**Accomplishing KSC Program/Project Management Council (KPPMC) assessments in support of the KSC Systems Management Office (SMO)**
**The KSC SE&T S&MA Project Assessment Office, in conjunction with KSC SHIA, have developed RM and Project Plan templates that can be tailored for each projects’ specific needs. **
**An assessment of the analysis tools used for KSC projects was conducted in July 2001.  Their findings revealed strong usage of hazards analysis, FMEA/CIL, FTA, as well as a PRA (where project complexity warranted its use).**
**KSC also facilitated separate Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Saphire fundamentals workshops in the January/February 2001 timeframe, where a total of 45 personnel (32 PRA, 13 Saphire) were trained.**
**The SE&T directorate has also been involved in developing ground processing-related PRAs for the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program.**

- 21

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## NIAT Action 7: Risk Identification, Assessment and Management 

**In September 2000, SHIA provided Risk-Based Acquisition Management (R-BAM) training to 79 personnel (45 Procurement/Legal, 34 Engineering), which resulted in:**
**Integrated, innovative teaming approach for employing R-BAM tool for acquisition risk assessment **
**Production of a Top 10 Risk List, Acquisition Stoplight Charts, and Risk Wheels **
**Formulation of generic R-BAM risk assessment templates for use at Acquisition Strategy Meeting (ASM) meetings**
**In October 2000, the ELVIS PDT R-BAM results and products were successfully accepted at the NASA Headquarters ASM.  As a result, several of the KSC R-BAM products have been adopted by GRC and used in subsequent Agency R-BAM activities. **
**An assessment of the analysis tools used for KSC projects was conducted in July 2001.  Their findings revealed strong usage of hazards analysis, FMEA/CIL, FTA, as well as a PRA (where project complexity warranted its use). **
**As of July 2001, 127 employees have attended the R-BAM Overview training course and was utilized during the acquisition processes for major procurements in FY01. **

- 22

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## NIAT Action 7: Risk Identification, Assessment and Management 

**KSC Continuous Risk Management (CRM) program implementation activities were initiated in July 2000.  **
**KSC personnel completed a 2-day CRM Course at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) to evaluate CRM training and lay the groundwork for further CRM training at KSC. **
**As of August 2001, 10 KSC employees have become certified CRM Instructors which will serve to broaden CRM implementation across multiple KSC Programs.  Those projects that participated in a CRM Risk Baselining Workshop were:**
**Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC)**
**Optical Plume Anomaly Detector **
**Launch Testbed Systems**
**Second Generation RLV PRA **
**KSC Project Resources On-Line**
**KSC Complex Control System **

- 23

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## NIAT Action 7: Risk Identification, Assessment and Management 

**KSC has successfully implemented many Agency RM activities that enhance our ability to identify, assess, mitigate, and communicate risks as part of normal project and procurement team activities.  The activities documented will continue to be performed as part of KSC’s ongoing RM activities.**
**KSC will also has become involved in the Agency deployment of the Process-Based Mission Assurance (PBMA) methodology across all centers in support of program and project teams.**
**SHIA is incorporating cutting edge training programs to foster KSC Program/Project Management capabilities in this critical area, including Earned Value Management. **
**EVM is a risk management tool that integrates work scope, schedule, and cost objectives and employs techniques for program planning and control.  EVM is a systematic approach that integrates various management subsystems. **

- 24

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## NIAT Action 8: Safety and Mission Assurance 

**Similar to Action 2, Headquarters Lead, Code QS/Wilson Harkins, submitted a formal Action Plan (QA Action: QA/2001-00025) to all the centers on April 10, requesting concurrence to their draft Implementation Plan on April 16, 2001. **
**KSC will also has become involved in the Agency deployment of the Process-Based Mission Assurance (PBMA) methodology across all centers in support of program and project teams.**
**The Systems Management Office and the KSC Chief Engineer’s Office (CE) are co-located within the Safety, Health & Independent Assessment (SHIA) Directorate. **
**The KSC SMO provides support, mentoring and independent assessments of KSC programs and projects for compliance with NPG 7120.5 NASA Program & Project Management Processes & Requirements, KSC internal processes (KDPs). **

- 25

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## NIAT Action 16: Organizational Communication 

**The Center Director frequently sends memos (i.e. CD Comms) to keep all personnel informed of new initiatives as well as recent changes to center objectives or priorities.  An archive of these letters reside at KSC’s Documentation Home Page (**_[http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/docs/management](http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/docs/management)__) _
**The Center has a Labor-Management Partnership Forum comprised of top managers and union officers to discuss issues, mutual concerns and potentially divisive issues which meets on a monthly basis. **
**The development of a new database (CPI Tracker) is underway to replace the Opportunity For Improvement system by FY02, 3****rd**** quarter.  Analysis and reporting of CPI actions will be performed by the Safety, Health & Independent Assessment Office in coordination with appropriate Database owners and presented to management at the appropriate KSC councils (i.e., Executive Management Council & Safety and Health Council). **
**The ultimate goal is to combine and/or electronically link all or most of these CPI related stand-alone applications to a centralized database or “hub.” **

- 27

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## NIAT Action 16: Organizational Communication 

**KSC Daily (e-mail) News and the Goal Performance Evaluation System (GPES) are positive results of an employee suggestion.**
**The Goal Performance Evaluation System (GPES) links employee performance plans to each Business Objectives and Agreement (BOA), a KSC developed performance/communication system. **
**The purpose of BOAs was to enhance communications by reducing role confusion and clarify mission goals.**
**In July 2001, a new position was formed in the XA/External Relations directorate, Public Affairs Specialist/Internal Communications.  **
**The incumbent is responsible for advising KSC personnel on effective communication tools along with determining how internal events are publicized.**

- 28

**Notes:**
CHMO is responsible for the overall implementation of NIAT Action 1.  Whereas, KSC is the center where the Agency Occupational Health Program is housed. 

## Four Reports referred to in the NIAT

**Four reports in response to failures in the Mars Program, Shuttle wiring problems and generic assessment of NASA’s approach to executing “Faster, Better, Cheaper.”**
**Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) Mishap Investigation, chaired by Arthur Stephenson, Director, Marshall Space Flight Center**
**Mars Program Independent Assessment (MPIA), chaired by A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin (retired)**
**NASA Faster, Better, Cheaper (FBC) Task, chaired by Anthony Spear, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mars Pathfinder Project Manager (retired)**
**Shuttle Independent Assessment (SIA), chaired by Dr. Henry McDonald, Director, Ames Research Center (ARC)**

- 29

## HQ/Code AE list of KSC Proposed Projects to Assess 

**	****As a result of the February 16 meeting between the Administrator and the Chief Engineer, the Systems Management Offices were tasked to address a specific list of projects to be assessed as defined by Code AE. **
**KSC projects:**
**Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) ****	**
**As discussed with the ELV Director, SMO will lead the assessment by obtaining information from existing Red Team Reviews to essentially answer the 7 actions.**** **
**Checkout & Launch Control System (CLCS)**
**Assessment report was prepared by Mike Bolger, Larry Wilhelm and   Ric Hurt.**
**Reporting/Approval hierarchy:**** **
**  ****GPMC and Field Center Director**
**  ****Enterprise (Code M)**
**  ****Code AE**

- 30

**Notes:**
As I mentioned earlier, there was a meeting on the 15th and 16th of Feb which resulted in a list of Pjts that HQ/Code AE created to address 7 Actions in particular.  7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15. A Formal action was sent out last Thursday to the Enterprises and from there the field centers are to negotiate any changes to this final list.  Which, so far, Ops and Range Tech is now removed and we’d like PC to be considered as well due to the level of contractor involvement/dependency & the HQ guidelines of looking at the civil srv activity.
I’d like to stress that this is a parallel effort and does not void the efforts of the working group’s efforts.  

## Code AE Action

-  **March 13: HATS Action (1AE/2001-00019) - Code AE/Brian Keegan requested that the Project Managers for ELV and CLCS to address a specific set of questions regarding NIAT Actions 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, & 15.**
** ****	****7:****	**** Risk Identification, Assessment and Management**** ****	**
**   ****	****8: ****	****Safety and Mission Assurance**
** ****	****10: ****	****Integrated Review Process**
** ****	****11: ****	****Ensuring Adequate Resources**
** ****	****13: ****	****Surveillance**
** ****	****14: ****	****Verification and Validation**
** ****	****15: ****	****Managing Responsibility and Accountability**
-     ** **_**Status**_**:**  - **ELV Response prepared by QA-D/Eric Ernst**
- 			- **CLCS Response prepared by Mike Bolger, Larry Wilhelm and ****	****	****	****	****Ric Hurt**

- 31

## NIAT Actions to Focus on for Assessment

**NIAT 7:  Risk Identification, Assessment and Management**
**Is there a current clearly defined mission level Success Criteria that can guide risk decisions and is it flowed down appropriately to lower levels of the system?**
**Are risks and their mitigation strategies, and acceptance rationale appropriately defined and updated as needed?**
**Does the project comprehensively define and assess risks using, when appropriate, analytic tools such as Failure Modes Effects Analysis, Fault Tree analysis, and Probabilistic Risk Assessment?**
**Is the project risk posture periodically reviewed for acceptability by the Governing Program Management Council?**
**NIAT 8:  Safety and Mission Assurance**
**Is the role and level of involvement of the safety and mission assurance community compatible with the level of risk acceptable for the project?**
**Is there adequate SMA involvement in the reporting, assessment, and closeout of problems and is their adequate awareness by all project personnel, of their role in problem reporting and closeout? ****	**

- 32

**Notes:**
These next four slides are Code AE’s specific questions that need to be addressed by our final list of pjts.  AGAIN, we’re looking at having to do this for only ELV and CLCS.

Unless you’d like to cover each question, I’d like to discuss HQ schedule.

## NIAT Actions to Focus on for Assessment

**NIAT 10:  Integrated Review Process**
**Is the approach to conducting an integrated set of programmatic and technical reviews compatible with the acceptable level of risk for the project, in particular as related to:**
**Degree of independence of review team members**
**Frequency of reviews**
**Scope of review (I.e. appropriate combination of engineering peer reviews, system reviews, major milestone reviews)**
**Reporting of review results and close out system for project responses**
**NIAT 11:  Ensuring Adequate Resources**
**Are the allocated resources (budget, schedule, and staff) compatible with the current scope of the project and are the budgetary reserves, schedule slack, and design margins compatible with current unmitigated risks?  If not, is action underway to achieve such compatibility, recognizing that additional budget is not the only alternative?**
**Is that compatibility assessment periodically updated and reviewed by the Governing Program Management Council?**
**Are the allocated budgetary reserves readily available to the project manager?**

- 33

## NIAT Actions to Focus on for Assessment

**NIAT 13:  Surveillance**
**Is the overall project approach to tracking and directing the efforts of all providers compatible with the level of acceptable risk for the project and is it tailored for the various project elements according to the degree of risk associated with that element? (Note that this question extends beyond the formal surveillance provided by the assurance function to also include activities of the project management staff, the engineering support staff, and the business support staff.  The question further extends beyond only those projects and services provided by formal contract to include all projects and services no matter how provided.)**
**NIAT 14:  Verification and Validation**
**Is the approach to verifying and validating the system compatible with the level of acceptable risk for the project?  This assessment shall include the adequacy of development, acceptance, and qualification testing of individual hardware and software components as well as of the composite flight and ground elements and the fully integrated mission system.  Adequacy of operational simulations should be considered.**
**Is the approach to conducting Independent Verification and Validation of mission critical software compatible with the level of acceptable risk for the project and is it compatible with the current agency policy?**

- 34

## NIAT Actions to Focus on for Assessment

**NIAT 15:  Managing Responsibility and Accountability**
**Is the process for assessing and providing guidance and support to the project team understood by both senior and line management of all organizations associated with execution of the project?  Is that process executed in a way that is compatible with the acceptable level of risk for the project?**

- 35