National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA’s FY 2014 Management and Performance 

Including the FY 2012 Agency Performance Report

And the

FY 2013 Performance Plan Update

FY 2014 Performance Plan

www.nasa.gov
Management and Performance 

INTRODUCTION

M&P-2

The Management and Performance section of NASA’s Congressional Justification describes the 

Agency’s approach to performance management. The complete section is available on 

http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html, and provides a comprehensive record of past and planned 

performance for Agency programs and projects, from 2007 to 2014. The Management and Performance 

section:

• Describes NASA’s performance management cycle and its underlying processes and tools;

• Presents the Agency’s FY 2012 performance in the Annual Performance Report;

• Updates commitments set last year in the FY 2013 Performance Plan;

• Sets performance targets in the FY 2014 Performance Plan aligned with this Congressional 

Justification budget request; 

• Presents program performance against cost and schedule estimates in the Major Program Annual 

Report; and

• Discusses the results of performance evaluations and subsequent improvement actions.

NASA’s Approach to Performance Management

“NASA’s Approach to Performance Management” shows that activities follow a cycle that allows for 

feedback among three phases: Plan, Evaluate, and Report. This cycle integrates processes and tools to:

• Plan and implement strategy and performance;

• Monitor and evaluate performance toward commitments; 

• Report decision-making information to NASA leaders and other stakeholders; and

• Inform future planning.

The Agency’s performance management cycle begins with the planning phase. NASA leaders employ 

two distinct planning processes for setting long- and short-term priorities. NASA’s management councils 

first set the strategic plan, which lays out the Agency’s long-term priorities and commitments, and its 

strategy and performance. The framework aligns the implementation activities of programs and projects 

with the Agency’s strategic direction. Next, NASA builds its annual performance plan upon the strategy 

and performance framework. Annual performance plans contain the tactical, short-term steps necessary 

along the path to each strategic goal. 

Evaluation is the second phase of the performance management cycle. The Agency continually monitors 

progress against targets as programs and projects execute the performance plan. NASA leverages an 

internal performance assessment process to collect objective evidence of Agency performance. NASA 

relies on a suite of data collection and analytics tools to support these performance management activities. 

Specifically, in 2012, NASA launched an Agency-level system, called Performance Warehouse, to 

manage data collected in compliance of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). Since its implementation, the system has streamlined collection, 

improved quality, and increased accessibility of NASA performance data. 

Reporting results to decision-makers and stakeholders is the third phase of NASA’s performance 

management cycle. NASA leverages a quarterly reporting process with other on-going assessments to 

drive performance information to decision-makers. NASA’s recent efforts are focused on maximizing the 
Management and Performance 

INTRODUCTION

M&P-3

outcomes of the quarterly reporting process by using the Performance Warehouse, because it increases the 

Agency’s capacity for using evidence and evaluation in decision-making. NASA leaders and stakeholders 

make key investment, policy, and performance decisions based on insights from objective performance 

evidence and robust evaluations. These decisions drive leaders to renew, adjust, or reset strategic and 

performance plans.

Performance Reporting and Planning

In “Performance Reporting and Planning,” NASA presents the combined FY 2012 Annual Performance 

Report and FY 2013 and 2014 Performance Plans. When past performance and future plans are integrated 

in one report, they reveal performance trends across NASA’s investment portfolio. Agency leaders use 

this comprehensive view of performance information to plan future performance targets and strategy.

The combined performance report and plans demonstrate:

• Adherence to Agency-wide performance management processes, as described in “NASA’s 

Approach to Performance Management”; 

• Six years of historical performance information and two years of future commitments on the path 

to each strategic goal; 

• Adjustments to FY 2012 and FY 2013 performance plans to align with budget and congressional 

and/or the President’s and strategic direction;

• Achievements toward Priority Goals1 and Cross Agency Priority Goals; and

• NASA’s commitment to transparency and accountability. 

Addressing Management Challenges and Improving 

Performance

Comprehensive evaluations enable meaningful performance reports and inform planning activities. 

“Addressing Management Challenges and Improving Performance” provides an assessment of NASA’s 

performance, with a focus on performance shortfalls and the effectiveness of corrective actions. It 

presents the results of continuous performance evaluation, as well as results from performance 

improvement efforts. NASA’s evaluations:

• Rely on performance evidence from NASA Performance Warehouse and other internal 

performance management tools;

• Reflect assessment from stakeholders and independent assessors;

• Identify persistent issues affecting performance; and

• Inform actions to improve performance. 

############################################################

1 When originally published, these goals were designated as High Priority Performance Goals. The GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010 and subsequent guidance from OMB changed the designation to Agency Priority Goals.

NASA is using “Priority Goals” to refer to both the original High Priority Performance Goals set in 2011 and the 

Agency Priority Goals set later.
Management and Performance 

INTRODUCTION

M&P-4

In 2014, NASA will develop a new strategic plan and supporting performance plans that will continue to 

reflect Agency and National priorities, as specified by Congress and the Administration. The evaluations 

presented in this section will inform leadership as the Agency sets its course for the next ten years, and 

beyond. The Agency will publish its 2014 Strategic Plan and supporting performance plans, along with 

historical performance plans and reports, on NASA’s budget Web page at 

http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html. 
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-5

 “NASA’s Approach to Performance Management” summarizes planning strategy and performance 

through performance evaluation and reporting. First, it provides an overview of NASA as a performancebased organization, the basis for effective performance management. It then discusses each phase of 

NASA’s performance management cycle, and the processes and tools that support each phase. It provides 

context for understanding the performance reports and plans in “Performance Reporting and Planning.” 

This section also summarizes NASA’s approach to using evidence and evaluation of performance to 

inform investment decisions and future planning, which “Addressing Management Challenges and 

Improving Performance” discusses in further detail. 

A Performance-Based Organization Enables Effective 

Management

Foundational to effective performance management is the organization and its people. A performancebased organization has a strong alignment of its strategic and performance plans with its planned 

investments; monitors and reports on the success of or challenges for those investments; and uses this 

information to set future directions. NASA is a performance-based organization that manages the work of 

each installation to accomplish its Vision and Mission.

VISION AND MISSION

NASA’s Vision is 

To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown, so that what we do 

and learn will benefit all humankind.

To make this Vision a reality, each day NASA pursues its Mission to 

Drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance 

knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of 

Earth. 

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Under the leadership of the Administrator, NASA offices at Headquarters provide overall guidance and 

direction to the Agency. NASA’s Centers and installations conduct the Agency’s day-to-day work in 

laboratories, on airfields, in wind tunnels, in control rooms, and in NASA’s other one-of-a-kind facilities. 

NASA is organized to accomplish its mission while providing a framework of sound business, 

management, and safety oversight. The Office of the Administrator provides top-level strategy and 

direction for the Agency. The Administrator and his officers help guide programmatic direction for 

NASA’s missions and guide the operations of the Centers.

Four organizations lead the pursuit of NASA’s mission and set technical performance commitments 

aligned with their budgets:
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-6

• Science Mission Directorate (SMD) manages the Science budget account and focuses on 

programmatic work in the disciplines of Earth, planetary, astrophysics, and heliophysics research;

• Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) manages the Aeronautics account and 

applied research activities that improves the current and future state of air travel;

• Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), new in FY 2013, manages the Space 

Technology account to support the crosscutting activities of the Office of the Chief Technologist. 

STMD coordinates and supports advanced technology development within the Agency and the 

commercial sector; and

• Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) manages the Exploration and 

Space Operations accounts. HEOMD manages development of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle (Orion-MPCV), future exploration technologies, and works with U.S. commercial space 

industry partners to develop commercial systems for providing crew and cargo transportation 

services to and from low Earth orbit. HEOMD also manages operations and research for the 

International Space Station (ISS), and communications systems and networks that enable deep 

space and near-Earth exploration.

A fifth organization aligns its performance plans and budget to support all the mission goals in a 

crosscutting manner. The Mission Support Directorate (MSD) manages the Cross Agency Support (CAS) 

and Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration (CECR) accounts. These accounts fund 

operations at Headquarters and the Centers as well as institutional and programmatic construction of 

facilities. MSD, through the CAS account, includes support offices that set policy and strategy for 

specific crosscutting Agency functions including safety and mission assurance, technology planning, 

education, equal opportunity, information technology, financial administration, small business 

administration, international relations, and legislative and intergovernmental affairs. Among other 

responsibilities, these offices report to the Administrator and other stakeholders on progress towards 

national initiatives, provide independent reviews and/or investigations, and liaise with the public and 

other federal agencies. While based at Headquarters, these offices typically have representatives at the 

Centers and provide a coordinating and control function.

Figure 1.1 shows the NASA organizational structure, current as of February 2013.
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-7

Figure 1.1: NASA’s Organization

NASA employs about 18,000 civil servants who work at Headquarters in Washington, DC, the Centers, 

and other facilities. NASA staffs each location with a contractor workforce for technical and business 

operations support. Figure 1.2 shows the range of NASA’s facilities.
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-8

Figure 1.2: NASA Centers and Facilities Nationwide

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center in 

Pasadena, California. The California Institute of Technology manages JPL. 
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-9

Performance Management Cycle

NASA’s performance management activities follow a cycle that ensures strategic management and 

accountability. Figure 1.3 shows NASA’s performance management cycle. 

Figure 1.3: Performance Management Cycle

In the planning phase, NASA’s governing councils set the strategy, the performance framework, and the 

strategic plan, which consists of the Agency’s long-term priorities and commitments. Then, NASA 

management builds its performance plan to align with the framework, ensuring that short-term priorities 

support the Agency’s overall strategic direction. 

In the evaluation phase, NASA managers monitor and measure performance of programs and projects 

against the fiscal year’s performance plan. NASA leverages an internal performance assessment process 

to collect objective evidence of progress. Performance analysts verify and evaluate that evidence. When 

the interim data suggests a risk of performance shortfalls, the Agency requests additional information to 

understand and mitigate the risk. 

The reporting phase connects evaluation to planning efforts. NASA managers present performance 

information to senior leaders, such as council members, and other stakeholders. The performance results 

reflect objective evidence and thorough evaluation obtained in the evaluation phase, and inform 

investment, policy, and performance decisions made in the planning phase of the next performance 

management cycle.
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-10

Strategic Management and Governance

Governance by council provides high-level oversight of the Agency-wide planning efforts that take place 

in planning phase of NASA’s performance management cycle. NASA council members use the results of 

performance evaluations to shape the Agency’s strategy and set its long-term priorities. NASA’s 

governance policy ensures that leadership takes a rigorous and data-driven approach to their strategic 

management decisions. This disciplined governance enables efficient decision-making and planning. As 

shown in Figure 1.4, the governance councils affect all phases of the performance management cycle. The 

councils set the strategic plan and the strategy and performance framework in the planning phase. The 

councils drive assessment requirements of Agency performance in the evaluation phase. Finally, the 

councils review the results of those evaluations during the reporting phase to support decisions on new 

plans, and on-going implementation and operations. 

NASA governs with three Agency-level councils, each with a distinct set of responsibilities. NASA 

Policy Directive 1000.3 includes the charters, responsibilities, and decision-making authorities of each 

council: 

• The Executive Council (EC), supported by the Strategic Management Council (SMC), 

• The Program Management Council (PMC), and 

• The Mission Support Council (MSC).

Figure 1.4: Functional Relationships Between NASA’s Governing Councils

Program & Mission Decisions Mission-Enabling Decisions Decision authority Strategic Assessments & Recommendations

Program-derived Institutional Requirements

Delivery of Institutional Capabilities

PMC

EC

MSC

SMC
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-11

Each council plays a key role in supporting NASA’s performance management cycle. EC determines 

NASA’s strategic direction, assesses Agency progress toward achieving the NASA Vision, and serves as 

the senior decision-making body for Agency-wide decisions. PMC is the senior decision-making body 

regarding NASA’s program portfolio, and so guides execution of the strategy and performance 

framework. MSC ensures the Agency has the capacity to reach its goals. It is the senior decision-making 

body regarding all mission support policy and activities, including facilities, workforce, information 

technology, infrastructure, technical capabilities and associated investments and divestments, regardless 

of funding source. 

In support of EC, SMC serves several functions. When delegated by EC, SMC provides:

• Advice and counsel to senior leadership on key issues of the Agency; 

• Input on the formulation of Agency strategy; and 

• Makes decisions regarding strategic direction and planning.

To augment this formal governance structure, NASA’s Baseline Performance Review (BPR) serves as 

NASA’s monthly senior performance management review, integrating Agency-wide communication of 

performance metrics, analysis, and independent assessment for both mission and mission support 

programs and activities. While BPR is not a decision-making body, members of the councils attend BPR, 

and performance information presented during BPR informs council activities. The review complements 

the Executive, Program Management, and Mission Support Councils by providing continuous 

performance monitoring between key council decisions.

THE STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

The strategic plan, as set by EC, establishes a strategy and performance framework that aligns short-term 

performance targets with the Agency’s long-term commitments. The current strategy and performance 

framework consists of the elements of the strategic plan and annual performance plans as seen in Figure 

1.5. The strategy and performance framework has five, distinct elements: 

• Strategic goals,

• Outcomes, 

• Objectives,

• Performance goals, including Priority Goals, and

• Annual performance goals. 

The internal implementation plans of individual offices and NASA Centers flow from the framework. 

Internal implementation plans guide each entity’s activities toward achieving performance goals and 

annual performance goals. Due to their technical nature, these plans generally remain internal to the 

Agency.
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-12

Figure 1.5: NASA’s Strategy and Performance Framework

STRATEGIC PLAN

NASA’s current strategic plan, published in 2011, reflects the top three levels in the strategy and 

performance framework. The strategic goals, outcomes, and objectives result from rigorous internal 

planning and external consultation with the Agency’s stakeholders. 

The Agency’s senior leaders set the strategic plan to reflect the Agency’s strategic direction and priorities, 

as agreed to with Congress and the Administration. Updates occur according to the timelines set by the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act (GPRAMA) of 2010. As such, the 

Agency plans to update its strategic plan in 2014 with input from stakeholders, including Congress and 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with GPRAMA, NASA also delivers its Agency Priority Goals with its strategic plan, to 

signify the importance of these ambitious, short-term goals in the overall achievement of NASA’s 

strategy. Agency Priority Goals are discussed in more detail in “Performance Reporting and Planning.”

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLANS

While the strategic plan primarily focuses on long-term activities, NASA’s annual performance plans set 

short-term targets for programs, projects, and organizations through performance goals, Priority Goals, 

and annual performance goals. Performance goals and Priority Goals focus on planned progress over the 

next 18 months to five years. Annual performance goals align to NASA’s budget themes and programs in 

the Congressional Justification. NASA publishes these measures in annual performance plans, which also 

identify each responsible program or office. The FY 2013 and 2014 Performance Plans are included in 

“Performance Reporting and Planning.” In its performance plans, NASA also sets targets for mission 
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-13

support activities that support program and project activities. These performance commitments span the 

mission support portfolio in a range of areas, including human capital, information technology, 

infrastructure, and operational processes.

Performance Management

Rigorous planning is followed by evaluation and reporting. Once NASA entities begin executing against 

commitments in the performance plan, Agency managers and performance analysts begin to monitor and 

evaluate performance. Internal reporting requirements drive the evaluation phase and call for analysis of 

results against planned performance. NASA continuously measures the Agency’s progress in pursuit of 

its strategic goals, outcomes, and performance measures, and reports progress towards its targets to 

Congress and the public in the Annual Performance Report (APR). This year, the Agency shares its report 

combined with future annual performance plans, to provide a holistic view of NASA’s performance.

The Agency monitors and evaluates performance toward plans and commitments using assessments. 

Through these assessments, managers identify issues, gauge programmatic and organizational health, and 

provide appropriate data and evidence to NASA decision-makers. NASA gathers and provides the data to 

management through the following type of assessments: 

• On-going monthly and quarterly analysis and reviews of Agency activities; 

• Annual assessments in support of budget formulation (for budget guidance and issue 

identification, analysis, and disposition); 

• Annual reporting of performance, management issues, and financial position; 

• Periodic, in-depth program or special purpose assessments; and

• Recurring or special assessment reports to internal and external organizations.

QUARTERLY REPORTING

Each quarter, program officials submit to NASA management a self-evaluation that includes a rating for 

each performance measure and the supporting information that justifies the rating. The results of quarterly 

performance assessments provide feedback to NASA leaders, allowing them to make course corrections 

through the year to maintain alignment with strategic goals. The quarterly performance reporting and 

supporting verification processes culminate in the annual performance report, and contribute to 

development of the Congressional Justification and performance plans. 

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RATING SCALES AND CRITERIA

NASA evaluates its progress toward achieving performance goals and annual performance goals against 

the Agency’s standard rating scale, seen in Figures 1.6 and 1.7. NASA determines performance ratings 

based on a series of internal assessments that are part of ongoing monitoring of NASA’s program and 

project performance. External entities, such as scientific review committees, aeronautics technical 

evaluation bodies, and OMB, validate the ratings prior to publication by NASA.
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-14

Figure 1.6: Performance Goal Rating Scale

Rating Rating Criteria for Performance Goals

Green

(On Track)

NASA achieved or expects to achieve the intent of the performance goal within the estimated

timeframe. NASA achieved the majority of key activities supporting this performance goal.

Yellow

(At Risk)

NASA expects to achieve the intent of the performance goal within the timeframe; however,

there is at least one likely programmatic, cost, or schedule risk to achieving the performance

goal.

Red

(Not on Track)

NASA does not expect to achieve this performance goal within the estimated timeframe.

White

(Canceled or 

Postponed)

NASA senior management canceled this performance goal and the Agency is no longer pursuing

activities relevant to this performance goal or the program did not have activities relevant to the 

performance goal during the fiscal year.
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-15

Figure 1.7: Annual Performance Goal Rating Scale

Timeframe: 

When NASA 

will achieve 

the APG

Rating Criteria for Annual Performance Goal (APG) Types

Rating

Single Milestone or 

Deliverable

Multiple Deliverables, 

Targeted Performance, 

and Efficiencies

On-going Activities, Services, 

or Management Processes

Current FY as 

planned.

NASA achieved the 

event or the 

deliverable met the 

intent of the APG 

within the timeframe.

The program/project 

reached the stated numeric 

target.

The intended result of the 

program/project was achieved 

as defined by internally held 

success criteria.

Green

Achieve next 

FY (will not 

achieve this FY 

as planned).

NASA did not achieve this APG in the current fiscal year, but anticipates achieving it 

during the next fiscal year.

Will not be Yellow

achieved, but 

progress was 

made.

N/A NASA failed to achieve this 

APG, but made significant 

progress as defined by 

reaching 80 percent of the 

target or other internally 

held success criteria.

The intended results of the 

program/project were not 

achieved in this fiscal year, but 

significant progress was 

accomplished, as defined by 

internally held success criteria.

Will not be 

achieved.

NASA did not 

achieve the APG and 

does not anticipate 

completing it within 

the next fiscal year.

NASA achieved less than 

80 percent of the target or 

other internally held 

success criteria.

Neither intended results nor 

significant progress were 

achieved. The progress toward 

the APG does not meet 

standards for significant 

progress for the internally held 

success criteria.

Red

Will not be 

achieved due to 

cancellation or 

postponement.

NASA senior management canceled this APG and the Agency is no longer pursuing 

activities relevant to this APG or the program did not have activities relevant to the 

APG during the fiscal year. White

MANAGING PERFORMANCE DATA

Data management keeps the performance management cycle in motion by fueling evaluations and driving 

evidence-based reports to leaders. In July 2012, NASA implemented the Performance Warehouse, a 

database designed in partnership with the Department of Treasury. The system leverages technology and 

best practices to collect, maintain, and analyze performance information. The Performance Warehouse 

standardizes data collection and archiving, streamlines performance reporting, and enables more data 

analytics. NASA uses this system to track performance metrics for the entire performance cycle, 

beginning with measure development through evaluation and reporting.

Beyond supporting NASA’s internal management processes, these enhanced capabilities also provide a 

more efficient means to comply with legislative and executive branch requirements, such as preparing 
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-16

machine-readable formats of performance information, and carrying out verification and validation of 

performance data. 

In September 2012, OCFO launched the companion system, the Performance Dashboard, which further 

streamlines evaluation and reporting activities. The new tool automates ad-hoc performance analysis, 

which increases NASA’s capacity for focused, in-depth performance evaluations. The tool also automates 

reports and plans, such as the annual performance report.

Using Evidence and Evaluation in Decision-Making

Laws, executive orders, and management “best practices” all dictate that organizations must set 

expectations for success and be accountable for achieving that success. Furthermore, agencies must 

demonstrate to stakeholders that their programs and activities do deliver the products or services 

expected, are managed and operated effectively (and efficiently), and continue to be relevant in a 

changing and dynamic environment. Collection and analysis of performance data and conduct of rigorous 

independent evaluation are essential in determining the success and validity of an investment.

• NASA monitors and assesses the engineering process of designing, building, and operating 

spacecraft and other major assets. Measures of performance for such investments tend to focus on 

comparisons of actual versus planned schedule and cost. The Agency continually monitors 

performance through the BPR, and additionally holds formal independent assessments as the 

project progresses through a series of gatekeeping “key decision points,” or KDPs. Key decision 

points provide managers a time to review all aspects of performance and thoughtfully promote (or 

delay, or even terminate) work on a project. These points can occur at any time of the year, 

depending on the formulation, development, or construction plan.

• NASA’s research programs often have broad goals, such as “understand the origin of the 

universe.” To measure performance of these types of investments, NASA establishes and 

measures performance against smaller achievable goals that demonstrate a contribution to the 

knowledge on the subject. NASA conducts an assessment on these programs each year.

• NASA assesses technology research and development (R&D) programs against incremental 

milestones (technology readiness levels, or TRLs) in terms of research maturity and adoption. 

NASA regularly measures the TRL advancement of an individual technology investment, with 

overall technology portfolio assessments occurring each year.

• NASA’s “operations” or support and service type programs generally assess progress on meeting 

their specific objectives, and can measure performance against targets for “output” or capacity of 

the activity, quantifiable estimates of improvement with aggressive targets (e.g., reducing 

operating costs by two percent in two years), or even customer satisfaction. These assessments 

tend to be annual in nature.

Evaluations drive decisions on a range of NASA investments, small and large. A series of decadal surveys 

and other analyses, conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academies, helps inform 

decisions about the Science investment portfolio and other aspects of NASA’s R&D efforts. This external 

“evaluation” of user needs and requirements, in combination with performance assessment of on-going 

activities, helps ensure that NASA’s research priorities and investments stay current with the needs of the 

research community. The Space Technology Roadmap is a similar planning tool, reflecting the R&D and 

technology needs of NASA, the government, and industry. NASA uses external peer review panels to 
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-17

objectively assess and evaluate proposals for new work in the disciplines of research, technology 

development, and education. NASA often contracts internal and external evaluators to assess impact, 

efficiency and effectiveness, cost to benefit, and the relevance of work being performed. Evaluations are a 

routine business activity in the NASA fields of education, facilities maintenance and operations, 

procurement and contract operations, and logistics. 

In addition to the program or theme-based evaluations, NASA also conducts evaluations across its 

portfolio. As a part of NASA’s performance management cycle, NASA reports the results of those 

evaluation activities at regular interval to Agency leaders. The following sections highlight the evaluative 

methods employed by NASA to assess performance and performance improvement. Through this 

evidence-based strategic management, NASA has improved management oversight of project cost, 

schedule, technical, and institutional performance with the implementation of Cross Agency initiatives, 

policy adjustments, and other techniques. The “Performance Reporting and Planning” subsection 

documents how evaluation and reporting culminate in the Agency’s annual performance report and plans. 

“Addressing Management Challenges and Improving Performance” provides an in depth discussion of 

NASA’s evaluative approach. The subsection discusses these three aspects: 

• NASA’s evaluation methodology, 

• The results of evaluations, and 

• The effectiveness of previous improvement efforts.

The evaluation phase of the performance management cycle highlights the Agency’s improvement 

opportunities. For example, the evaluation results could reveal a need for cross-Agency coordination 

efforts, increased oversight, or policy adjustment. Leveraging insights from the FY 2011 performance 

management cycle, NASA implemented tools and processes in FY 2012 that streamlined planning, 

evaluation, and reporting. In so doing, the Agency increased its capacity to focus on performance 

improvement in FY 2013.

Each quarter, NASA presents to senior leaders at BPR an evaluation and summary of performance goals 

based on evidence provided by programs. Additionally, an independent assessment team provides 

evaluations of technical, cost, schedule, and programmatic details for major spaceflight and technology 

projects and programs. OCFO also presents a summary of progress made toward achieving all 

performance measures, as well as a discussion of relevant performance issues. 

Center and mission directorate-level offices and key Headquarters Offices support BPR. As an integrated 

review of institutional and program activities, BPR highlights interrelated issues that impact performance 

and program risk enabling senior management to quickly address issues, including referral to the 

governing councils for decision, if needed. The BPR forum fosters communication across organizational 

boundaries to address mutual concerns and interests. The objectives of the forum are to:

• Provide NASA senior leadership comprehensive, integrated, and objective information that 

describes the performance of the Agency’s programs, projects, and institutional capabilities (i.e., 

the full portfolio at one time);

• Ensure open cross-functional communications among NASA’s organizations to enhance Agency 

performance; and

• Identify and analyze performance trends and crosscutting or systemic issues and risks.
Management and Performance 

NASA’S APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

M&P-18

No matter the type of activity, NASA monitors performance with an eye to benefit received or to be 

received in the future. Results of performance assessments and evaluations inform decisions on program 

restructuring, initiation or termination, and changes in policy or management strategies. Across the board, 

NASA’s FY 2014 budget request reflects prioritizations and decisions based on performance evidence 

and evaluations.