NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5E 

Governance and the Role of Center Directors 

2015-03-01 (Council-01) 

Recommendation: 

The Council recommends that NASA examine the current Agency governance approach with the 

objective of more clearly defining the role ofNASA Center Directors. 

Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation: 

NASA's traditional governance structure has changed several times in the last two decades, 

significantly altering the authority and accountability of the Center Directors. Traditionally, the 

Associate Administrators controlled major milestones in approved programs, and then delegated 

responsibility and accountability for executing those programs to the relevant Center Director. The 

current NASA governance structure, in contrast, sometimes results in complex and even conflicting 

roles and responsibilities, with unanticipated consequences. 

After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) made 

numerous safety culture recommendations directed specifically at the Shuttle Program. The CAIB 

recommended establishing a Technical Authority (TA) to provide safety input to the Shuttle Program 

Manager, and separating program and T A budgets in assessing safety matters. The NASA 

Administrator at that time decided to extend the CAIB recommendations and implement that 

governance model across the Agency. At that point, Center Director accountability for program 

success became less clear. Center Directors retained responsibility for institutional management, but 

program authority resided at NASA Headquarters with the Associate Administrator, who has direct 

project authority over the program/project managers at the NASA Centers. This is despite the fact 

that NPR 7120.5E clearly states: "Center Directors are responsible and accountable for all activities 

assigned to their Center. They are responsible for the institutional activities and for ensuring the 

proper planning for and assuring the proper execution of programs and projects assigned to the 

Center. " As a consequence, project formulation/execution authority and accountability was 

separated from Center oversight and leadership. This change also divorced program execution from 

the institutional capability to formulate and execute projects (e.g., engineering, quality assurance, 

project control, etc.). The implementation of the CAIB recommendation, intended to enhance safety 

for the Shuttle Program, when applied across the Agency contributed to lapses in the formulation and 

execution of some robotic science missions, e.g., the James Webb Space Telescope. 

Consequences of No Action on the Proposed Recommendation: 

Confusion over the roles and responsibilities of Center Directors could lead to delays and/or cost 

overruns in important flight projects. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs that Center Directors should have clearly defmed roles. We continually look at ways 

to ensure the authority and accountability of our Center AND Mission Directors to ensure ownership 

of key Agency Missions and Capabilities. In the past, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) 

expressed similar concerns and NASA updated the wording in NASA Procedural Requirements 

(NPR) 7120.5E to address those concerns. However, ifthe NASA Advisory Council (NAC) still sees 

this as a potential concern, NASA looks forward to further discussions and examples from the NAC 

on where the potential confusion is manifesting itself so, if necessary, we can clarify these roles and 

responsibilities. 

Enclosure 
2 

In addition, as part ofNASA's overall effort to move to a more efficient operating model, 

streamlining independent assessment ofNASA's programs and projects has been identified. The 

functional responsibilities for independent review will become the responsibility of the Mission 

Directorates and Centers, strengthening the Center Director role in program/project accountability on 

performance. Specifically, Mission Directorates will establish Independent Review Teams (IRTs) 

utilizing Center resources independent of a program or project to provide independent, value added 

assessment into the program/project performance. Independent reviews are critical to ensuring that 

the most accurate and informed program/project risks, cost and schedule assessments, and overall 

performance projections are presented to decision makers at Key Decision Points. Assigning the 

independent review responsibility to the Mission Directorate, utilizing Center expertise and 

resources, provides an additional measure of responsibility and accountability to the Mission 

Directorate and Center Directors for overall mission success.