# Presentation: 359451

## Engineering Excellence and the Implementation of the Technical Authority at the Goddard Space Flight Center

- Orlando Figueroa
- Director, Advanced Engineering & Technology

## 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

## 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.”

## A History of Success

- 1959 - 2005

**4**

**6**

**12**

**6**

**13**

**10**

**8**

**10**

**9**

**7**

**4**

**6**

**7**

**3**

**8**

**9**

**3**

**4**

**8**

**4**

**2**

**5**

**3**

**3**

**5**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**3**

**2**

**3**

**4**

**4**

**4**

**4**

**4**

**3**

**4**

**4**

**5**

**7**

**3**

**9**

**4**

**2**

**2**

**3**

**3**

**4**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**2**

**1**

**3**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**2**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**4**

**2**

**1**

**0**

**2**

**4**

**6**

**8**

**10**

**12**

**14**

**16**

**1959**

**1961**

**1963**

**1965**

**1967**

**1969**

**1971**

**1973**

**1975**

**1977**

**1979**

**1981**

**1983**

**1985**

**1987**

**1989**

**1991**

**1993**

**1995**

**1997**

**1999**

**2001**

**2003**

**2005**

**Year**

**Number of Launches**

**Spacecraft Failures**

**Launch Vehicle Failures**

**Successes**

**  Financial success through same period in low 90’s for things that we had direct control over*

## Fundamentals of System Designand Checks and Balances 

***Review &***
***Reporting***

***Policies, Processes***
***& Concepts***

***System***
***Design***

***Capability***

- System of
- Interest

- System of
- Interest

- System of
- Interest

- System of
- Interest

- Enabling
- System

- Enabling
- System

- Enabling
- System

- System of
- Interest

- Enabling
- System

## Project Mgr Integrates Team andis Accountable for Mission success 

- Project
-      Manager

- Lead Project
- Systems Engineer

- System Assurance
- Manager

- Element B
- Manager

- Element n
- Manager

- Element A
- Manager

- NASA Engineering Workforce

- Contractor
- Proj. Mgr.

- Contractor Engineering

**Primary authority**
**and accountability**

## Review and Reporting

- Safety and Mission Assurance
- Discipline Engineers

- Suborbital and
- Special Orbital Projects
- Director

- Discipline Engineers

- Division Chiefs

- Branch Heads

- Lead Systems Engineers

- Applied Engineering and Technology
- Directorate
- Director

- Program/Project Managers

- Flight Programs and Projects
- Director

- Office of System Safety
- and Mission Assurance
- Director

- GSFC Center Director

- System Assurance Managers

- Direct Report

- Technical Authority

- Matrix Report

- Report

- 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

## 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

## Former Governance Model

- Safety and Mission Assurance
- Discipline Engineers

- Suborbital and
- Special Orbital Projects
- Director

- Discipline Engineers

- Division Chiefs

- Branch Heads

- Lead Systems Engineers

- Applied Engineering and Technology
- Directorate
- Director

- Program/Project Managers

- Flight Programs and Projects
- Director

- Office of System Safety
- and Mission Assurance
- Director

- Office of Safety and Mission
- Assurance Director

- NASA  Chief Engineer

- NASA Administrator

- GSFC Center Director

- Mission Directorate
- Associate Administrator

- System Assurance Managers

- Direct Report

- GSFC Chief
- Engineer

- AETD Chief
- Engineer

- Div Chief
- Engineer

## New Governance Model

- Direct Report

- Technical Authority

- Matrix Report

- Report

- Safety and Mission Assurance
- Discipline Engineers

- Suborbital and
- Special Orbital Projects
- Director

- Discipline Engineers

- Division Chiefs

- Branch Heads

- Lead Systems Engineers

- Applied Engineering and Technology
- Directorate
- Director

- Program/Project Managers

- Flight Programs and Projects
- Director

- Office of System Safety
- and Mission Assurance
- Director

- Office of Safety and Mission
- Assurance Director

- NASA  Chief Engineer

- NASA Administrator

- GSFC Center Director

- Mission Directorate
- Associate Administrator

- System Assurance Managers

- Direct Report

- Technical Authority

- Matrix Report

- Report

- TA

- GSFC Chief
- Engineer

- AETD Chief
- Engineer

- Div Chief
- Engineer

## 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

## AETD Organization

***Acting**

**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)

**MECHANICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION**** **
**Code 540**
- Chief • Ken Hinkle (x67101)
- Associate • Lee Niemeyer
- Associate • Laura Milam

**BUSINESS MANAGEMENT OFFICE - ****Code 501 **
- Chief • Curtis Johnson (x6-6187)
- Associate • Elaine Slaugh
- Associate • Dona McKenney

**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

**GSFC TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OFFICE - ****Code 502 **
- Chief • Peter Hughes*

**TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICE - ****Code 504 **
- Chief • Nona Cheeks (x6-5810)

**MISSION ENGINEERING & SYSTEMS ANALYSIS DIVISION**** **
**Code 590**
- Chief • Dennis Andrucyk (x6-8496)
- Associate • John Deily
- Associate •Eric Isaac

**INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION**
**Code 580 **
- Chief • Joe Hennessy (x6-8623)
- Associate • Martha Chu
- Associate • Barbara Pfarr

**GSFC Chief Engineer • Steve Scott **(x6-2529)
**AETD Chief Engineer • Tom McCarthy* **(x6-6422)
**Deputy AETD Chf Eng • Madeline Butler **(x6-4806)

**(28)**

**(10)**

**(5)**

**(1311)**

**(285)**

**(198)**

**(261)**

**(281)**

**(223)**

## 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

## AETD Median Age Compared to Center & Regional and National Aerospace

## AETD Age Distribution Compared to Center & MD Aerospace

## AETD Engineers Ethnic Diversity

## AETD Education

## AETD In-House Work

| Projects |
| --- |
| MMS Spacecraft |
| MMS Ground System |
| MMS IRAS* |
| Express Pallet Dev |
| GPM |
| JWST ISIM-Structure |
| LRO S/C |
| SDO |
| ST-5* |
| ST-8* |
| Aquarius* |
| JWST ISIM-NIRCAM |
| JWST ISIM-NIRSPEC |
| LOLA Instrument* |
| MMS-FAST Plasma Instrument* |
| SAM (w/o QMS)* |
| SAM-QMS Instrument* |

- 1077 – Non-Supv Engineers & Technicians

- 1/3 of Non-Supv Engineers & Technicians

- As of 3/22/06; 3pm

***GSFC won through competition**

- 1323 – AETD Ceiling

## AETD Engineering Capability Areas

- 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

** Supported CEV Smart Buyer 90 day study in leadership capacity*

## 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

## The Systems Engineering Continuum

- Discipline Systems Engineers

- Entry Level

- Mid Level

- Senior Level

- Project Systems Engineers

- Program Systems Engineers

**System Engineers Education and Development (SEED) **

**Jump Start**

**Fundamentals of Systems Engineering (Systems Design) **

## 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).

## 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).

## 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

## 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).

## SEED Graduate Rate

## SEED Budget Requirements

- 1.SEEDling FTEs:  50% covered by Flight Projects
- 		25% formal training
- 		25% not funded by Projects

- Future

- History

## 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

***Knowledge***
***& Skill of Workforce***

***Policies, Processes***
***& Concepts***

***Tools &***
***Methods***

***Capability***