Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions

11

Assessment of Impediments Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science on Space and Earth Science

MissionsMissionsCommittee on Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation

on Space and Earth Science MissionsSpace Studies Board

National Research Council

Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, Committee Co-ChairD. James Baker, The William J. Clinton Foundation, Committee Co-Chair

Arthur Charo, NRC Space Studies Board, Study Director

December 8, 2010

22

Committee on Assessment of Impediments to Committee on Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation in Earth and Space Science Interagency Cooperation in Earth and Space Science

MissionsMissions

D. JAMES BAKER, The William J. Clinton Foundation, Co-Chair DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado, Boulder, Co-Chair DAVID A. BEARDEN, The Aerospace Corporation CHARLES L. BENNETT, Johns Hopkins University STACEY W. BOLAND, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology ANTONIO J. BUSALACCHI, JR., University of Maryland, College Park CARLOS E. DEL CASTILLO, Johns Hopkins University ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation MARGARET FINARELLI, George Mason University TODD R. LaPORTE, University of California, Berkeley MARGARET S. LEINEN, Climate Response Fund SCOTT N. PACE, George Washington University MARK R. SCHOEBERL,1 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center GRAEME L. STEPHENS, Colorado State University ANNALISA L. WEIGEL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MICHAEL S. WITHERELL, University of California, Santa Barbara A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)

1Resigned from the committee on August 28, 2009

33

Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation in Earth and Space Science MissionsCooperation in Earth and Space Science Missions

Study ChargeStudy Charge

The Space Studies Board will establish an ad hoc study committee to prepare a report that will:

Assess impediments, including cost growth, to the successful conduct of interagency cooperation on Earth science and space science missions;

Identify lessons learned and best practices from past interagency Earth science and space science missions; and

Recommend steps to help facilitate successful interagency collaborations on Earth science and space science missions.

44

Impediments to Interagency Collaboration in Earth and Impediments to Interagency Collaboration in Earth and Space Science MissionsSpace Science Missions

Study approach: • Case studies, agency briefings, and existing reports, and

committee members’ personal knowledge and direct experience

Bottom line: • Candidates for multiagency collaboration are often

intrinsically complex and, therefore costly, and a multiagency approach in developing these missions typically results in additional complexity and cost.

• Advocates of collaboration have often underestimated the difficulties and associated costs and risks of dividing responsibility and accountability between two or more partners while also neglecting the possibility of increased risk in meeting performance objectives

55

Types of Collaboration Examined via Case StudiesTypes of Collaboration Examined via Case Studies

CooperationCooperation• NPOESSNPOESS• OSTM/Jason-3OSTM/Jason-3• Fermi/GLASTFermi/GLAST• JDEM/OmegaJDEM/Omega

CoordinationCoordination• Landsat-7Landsat-7• LCDMLCDM• C/NOFSC/NOFS

Procurement of Procurement of servicesservices• GOES-RGOES-R

Use of resourcesUse of resources• ACEACE

66

Case Study: Use of ResourcesCase Study: Use of Resources

Advanced Composition Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE)Explorer (ACE)

Merging of NASA research interests Merging of NASA research interests with NOAA & USAF operational needs with NOAA & USAF operational needs for real-time data on the upstream for real-time data on the upstream solar wind for warning & forecast of solar wind for warning & forecast of severe space weather events severe space weather events

NASA spacecraft & instruments, NOAA NASA spacecraft & instruments, NOAA $ to enable real-time data link to DOD $ to enable real-time data link to DOD ground stationsground stations

Managed by NASAManaged by NASA Development completed under budgetDevelopment completed under budget Initiated in 1991, launched in 1997, still Initiated in 1991, launched in 1997, still

operatingoperating The government has not been able to The government has not been able to

initiate a follow-on mission that initiate a follow-on mission that transfers this NASA research capability transfers this NASA research capability into operational status under NOAA or into operational status under NOAA or DOD management. DOD management.

77

Case Study: Procurement of ServicesCase Study: Procurement of Services

GOES-R NOAA sought procurement of

next-generation GOES spacecraft. NASA sought possible transition of GIFTS instrument to advanced sensor for GOES-R.

NOAA provides direct oversight for the GOES-R Program, Flight and Ground Segment. NASA responsible for procurement, management, and execution of the Flight Project in accordance with overall NOAA guidance.

Initiated in 2004; launch planned for 2015

Significant cost overrun has required reduction from planned 4 satellites with 5 sensors to 2 satellites with 4 sensors.

88

Case Study: CoordinationCase Study: Coordination

Ocean Surface Topography Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2

Continuing partnership to measure Continuing partnership to measure sea-surface heightsea-surface height

French CNES provided spacecraft French CNES provided spacecraft bus, 2 instruments, and early on-bus, 2 instruments, and early on-orbit checkout. NASA provided 3 orbit checkout. NASA provided 3 instruments and launch. NOAA and instruments and launch. NOAA and EUMETSAT provided ground EUMETSAT provided ground command and control operations.command and control operations.

Initiated in 2002 and launched in Initiated in 2002 and launched in 2008 on time and within budget. 2008 on time and within budget.

99

Case Study: CooperationCase Study: Cooperation

National Polar Orbiting National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)System (NPOESS)

Established to eliminate Established to eliminate financial redundancy while financial redundancy while continuing to satisfy U.S. continuing to satisfy U.S. operational requirement for operational requirement for polar-orbiting environmental polar-orbiting environmental satellite systems. satellite systems.

Joint DOD-NOAA-NASA Joint DOD-NOAA-NASA integrated program office with integrated program office with DOD and NOAA sharing DOD and NOAA sharing development costs and NASA development costs and NASA supporting technology supporting technology infusion.infusion.

Initiated in 2002 with original Initiated in 2002 with original launch date in 2008. launch date in 2008. Substantial cost overruns.Substantial cost overruns.

Program descoped from 6 to 4 Program descoped from 6 to 4 spacecraft with reduced spacecraft with reduced payloads.payloads.

Program cancelled in 2010.Program cancelled in 2010.

1010

Cost Growth (left) and Schedule Delay (right) for Cost Growth (left) and Schedule Delay (right) for Missions With & Without CollaborationMissions With & Without Collaboration

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No Collaboration Foreign Collaboration US Multi-Agency

% Cost Growth

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No Collaboration Foreign Collaboration US Multi-Agency

% Schedule Slip

1111

System Cost as Function of Complexity

10

100

1000

10000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Complexity Index

Co

st (

FY

09$M

)

No P artne ring

Fore ign P artne rsh ip s

U S Mu lti-Age ncy

Fermi/GLAST JDEM/Omega

GOES-R

LDCM

Landsat-7

C/NOFS

NPOESS

1212


This committee’s principal recommendation is that agencies should conduct Earth and space science projects independently. This approach should not change unless: • Cooperation will result in significant added scientific value

to the project over what could be achieved by a single agency alone; or

• Unique capabilities reside within one agency that are necessary for the mission success of a project managed by another agency; or

• The project is intended to transfer from research to operations necessitating a change in responsibility from one agency to another during the project; or

• There are other compelling reasons to pursue collaboration, for example, a desire to build capacity at one of the cooperating agencies.

1313


Recommendation 2Recommendation 2: : If OSTP, OMB, or the Congress wishes to If OSTP, OMB, or the Congress wishes to encourage a particular interagency research collaboration, then specific encourage a particular interagency research collaboration, then specific incentives and support for the interagency project should be provided.incentives and support for the interagency project should be provided.

Recommendation 3Recommendation 3: : The following key elements (found in The following key elements (found in successful past collaborations) should be incorporated in every successful past collaborations) should be incorporated in every interagency Earth and space science collaboration agreement: interagency Earth and space science collaboration agreement: • A small and achievable priority list A small and achievable priority list • A clear process to make decisions and settle disputes A clear process to make decisions and settle disputes • Clear lines of authority and responsibility for the project Clear lines of authority and responsibility for the project • Well-understood participation incentives for each agency and Well-understood participation incentives for each agency and

its primary stakeholders its primary stakeholders • Single acquisition, funding, cost control, and review processes Single acquisition, funding, cost control, and review processes • Adequate funding and stakeholder support to complete the task Adequate funding and stakeholder support to complete the task

1414

Questions To Address Before CollaboratingQuestions To Address Before Collaborating

Evaluation: Deciding Whether to CollaborateEvaluation: Deciding Whether to Collaborate

Why is the collaboration being contemplated? What are the Why is the collaboration being contemplated? What are the arguments for and against separate missions?arguments for and against separate missions?

How real are potential synergies? What assumptions, if changed, How real are potential synergies? What assumptions, if changed, would cause significant increases in cost and complexity?would cause significant increases in cost and complexity?

What does each agency bring to the table? Examples include What does each agency bring to the table? Examples include expertise in acquisition, insight/oversight capability, and technical expertise in acquisition, insight/oversight capability, and technical skills.skills.

What happens if one partner leaves the collaboration? What can What happens if one partner leaves the collaboration? What can be done to minimize the impact of one agency’s default?be done to minimize the impact of one agency’s default?

What is the level of support from the agency’s workforce or from What is the level of support from the agency’s workforce or from the scientific community for the collaboration? the scientific community for the collaboration?

How will agreement (e.g., on the scope and funding of a proposed How will agreement (e.g., on the scope and funding of a proposed collaboration) be secured among administration, legislative, collaboration) be secured among administration, legislative, and agency stakeholders? and agency stakeholders?

Who will be tasked with building and maintaining consensus?Who will be tasked with building and maintaining consensus?

1515


Policy: Setting Priorities and Resolving DisputesPolicy: Setting Priorities and Resolving Disputes

How high does the cooperative project rank on each agency’s How high does the cooperative project rank on each agency’s priority list?priority list?

What level of leadership support is available for the project at each What level of leadership support is available for the project at each agency? agency?

How will project decisions be made?How will project decisions be made? Are there clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability? Are there clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability?

Is there an agreed upon decision-making process that includes an Is there an agreed upon decision-making process that includes an

effective dispute resolution approach?effective dispute resolution approach? Are the respective organizations adequately defined and structured Are the respective organizations adequately defined and structured

in accordance with agreed upon roles and responsibilities?in accordance with agreed upon roles and responsibilities? How will funding be provided to and from each agency? How will funding be provided to and from each agency? How will cost overruns be paid for? How will cost overruns be paid for? What are the criteria for terminating the project? What are the criteria for terminating the project?

1616


Systems Engineering: Achieving Mission SuccessSystems Engineering: Achieving Mission Success

Is there an agreement on a single process for systems engineering? Is there an agreement on a single process for systems engineering? If so, what is the process? If so, what is the process?

Is there an agreement on a single process for requirements Is there an agreement on a single process for requirements definition, and what is the process? definition, and what is the process?

How will project decisions be made, and who is empowered to How will project decisions be made, and who is empowered to make them? make them?

How will the interfaces and work breakdown between agencies be How will the interfaces and work breakdown between agencies be determined? determined?

To what extent are the mission systems defined at all levels so that To what extent are the mission systems defined at all levels so that each participating agency understands how its roles and each participating agency understands how its roles and responsibilities translate into work and products?responsibilities translate into work and products?

To what extent does each participant understand what they need To what extent does each participant understand what they need to provide to the other team members and when? Is there a to provide to the other team members and when? Is there a written plan (e.g., project plan) including this level of detail?written plan (e.g., project plan) including this level of detail?

1717


Acquisition: Achieving Technical and Programmatic SuccessAcquisition: Achieving Technical and Programmatic Success

Which agency’s acquisition process will be used? Which agency’s acquisition process will be used? Are there independent cost estimates at each major milestone, and is Are there independent cost estimates at each major milestone, and is

there a process for reconciling differences between the project office’s there a process for reconciling differences between the project office’s estimates and independent estimates?estimates and independent estimates?

Which agency’s quality assurance process will be used? Which agency’s quality assurance process will be used? Which agency’s spaceflight project and/or flight instrument selection Which agency’s spaceflight project and/or flight instrument selection

process will be used?process will be used?

Operations: Successful Mission ExecutionOperations: Successful Mission Execution

Is there an agreement on a single operational concept, and if so, what is Is there an agreement on a single operational concept, and if so, what is it? it?

To what extent do good, open communications exist between all parties? To what extent do good, open communications exist between all parties? To what extent do the parties trust and respect each other, and are they To what extent do the parties trust and respect each other, and are they

committed? committed?