31
A System for Innovation Jeffrey R. Davis, M.D. Director, Space Life Sciences Elizabeth E. Richard Senior Strategist, Wyle Project Management Challenge February 9-10, 2010 Exploring Space, Enhancing Life Used with Permission

Jeff davis

  • Upload
    nasapmc

  • View
    12.966

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Jeff davis

A System for Innovation

Jeffrey R. Davis, M.D.Director, Space Life Sciences

Elizabeth E. RichardSenior Strategist, Wyle

Project Management ChallengeFebruary 9-10, 2010

Exploring Space, Enhancing LifeUsed with Permission

Page 2: Jeff davis

2

Presentation Overview

• Background

• The System for Innovation– Human System Risk Management– Collaborative Innovation

• Human System Risk Management Process– Standards to deliverables– Master list of human system risks– Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool– Human System Risk Board

• Driving Innovation through Collaboration– SLSD Strategic Plan– Why collaborate?– Critical success factors, best practices, and challenges

• Future Work Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Page 3: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

System for Innovation

• The Space Life Sciences Directorate’s (SLSD) system for innovation involves two key components: – 1) an evidence-based risk management system that

continuously evaluates all human system risks across current and future operations, and identifies gaps in the research, technology, operations and service portfolios, and

– 2) a strategic system to drive innovation through strategic alliances and collaboration to optimize SLSD research, technology, operations, and service portfolios.

• SLSD’s change process was stimulated by internal and external changes to the environment

3

Page 4: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life2/19/20104

Change Drivers

• 2001, Institute of Medicine Safe Passage published

• 2003, CAIB Report issued

• 2004, Vision for Space Exploration released

• 2005, Exploration Systems Architecture Study

• 2005, Institute of Medicine Report regarding the Bioastronautics Roadmap

• 2006 NASA Strategic Plan

Page 5: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life5

Institute of Medicine Recommendations

• From Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions– Develop and use an occupational health

model for the collection and analysis of astronaut health data, giving priority to the creation and maintenance of a safe work environment

Page 6: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life6

• Establish an independent Technical Authority, with responsibilities that include:– Develop and maintain technical standards – Sole waiver-granting authority for all technical

standards– Conduct integrated hazard analyses– Review and approve research deliverables

CAIB Report Recommendations

Page 7: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life7

• Review of Bioastronautics Roadmap– Incorporate an evidence-based risk assessment

and communication process into the risk identification and reduction approach

– Risks and mitigation strategies should be represented separately for assessment and comparison

Institute of Medicine Recommendations

Page 8: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life8

Human System Risk Management

• Human System Risk Management Process– Standards to deliverables– Master list of human system risks– Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool– Human System Risk Board

Page 9: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life9

Standards to Deliverables Process

• Standards to deliverables first developed 2005-2006: first response to environmental changes

• Standards - implement health and medical policy– The first step in risk mitigation is establishing standards

to define an acceptable level of risk – Standards are based on the best available information

and evaluated against the space flight environment– Operational experience is assessed to inform the

standards – Research projects are defined to fill the gaps in

knowledge

• Deliverables – Desirable solutions to research and/or technology

questions that mitigate human system risks

Page 10: Jeff davis

10

Transportation to LEO

2025Human Expl Mars Vicinity

2015Human Lunar Exploration

2014Crewed CEV

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 . . . . 2025 . . . 2030

2030Human

Exploration of Mars

Standards to Deliverables Process2005-2006

Vision for Exploration

Human Rating Requirements

Exploration Requirements

Deliverables•Ops Experience•Countermeasures•Knowledge

NASA Strategic PlanHuman Exploration

StrategyHealth and Med Policy

Procedural Rqts

Human System Standards

Research Requirements

Page 11: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life11

Risk Management: An Evidence Based Approach

• A risk management system was needed to implement the standard to deliverables process– A master list of 90 human system risks was identified– A rigorous evidence-based system to mitigate the

approximately 90 human system risks for space is tracked and monitored through a Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool (RMAT)

– A flight activities control board and human system risk board manage all standards development, risks, and mitigation approaches to the 90 human system risks

– When solution to mitigate risks are not readily available from the research and technology portfolios, gaps are identified that must be closed for successful risk mitigation

– Gaps are evaluated for closure through innovative, collaborative approaches

Page 12: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life12

Risk Management: An Evidence Based Approach

• Need to regularly collect/evaluate the accumulated data and evidence from space flight operations and space and ground-based research

• Use evidence base to make recommendations to create/alter health and medical human system standards and/or requirements

• The Human Research Program discipline reviews began the review of the best available evidence in 2006-2007

• Evidence review is now weekly in the Human System Risk Board (HSRB began April 2008)

Page 13: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Developed Master List of Human System Risks

• Collected all risks currently being worked in SLSD organizations

• Re-worded to reflect proper risk statement: clear statement of condition and consequence

• Categorized by threat– Hypo, hyper gravity environments– Closed and hostile environment– Remote deployment

• Modified by missions– Length– Vehicle configuration– Distance from Earth

13

Page 14: Jeff davis

Example from Master ListID Disposition RISK STATEMENT

Applicable Mission Timeframe

Responsible Program

7 Risk

Risk of Inability to Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew Member

Given that there is limited mass, volume, power, and crew training time which therefore limits the amount of equipment and procedures available to treat medical problems, there is a poss

Lunar OutpostMars During Mission HRP

8 Risk

Risk of Compromised EVA Performance and Crew Health Due to Inadequate EVA Suit Systems

Given the possibility that EVA Suit Systems are inadequate, the crew may be unable to perform mission objectives.

Given the possibility that EVA Suit Systems are inadLunar OutpostMars During Mission ESPO/HRP

11 Risk

Risk of Error Due to Inadequate Information

Given the condition of lack of adequate information available to the crew, there is a possiblity that operator error could occur on critical tasks resulting in failure to perform assigned tasks within required

CEV to ISSLunar SortieLunar OutpostMars During Mission HRP

12 Risk

Risk of Behavioral and Psychiatric Conditions

Given that behavioral issues are inevitable, there is a possiblity that psychiatric conditions will occur on long duration space flight.

ISSLunar OutpostMars During Mission HRP

34 Risk

Given that the Intra-Vehicular Charged Particle Directional Spectrophotometer has Exceeded its Expected Lifetime, thus limiting our ability to monitor the radiation environment, there is a probability that crews will exceed career radiation exposure limit ISS 14

Page 15: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life15

Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool (RMAT)

• Collects the current status of work in developing and addressing compliance with standards for identified risks and/or risk factors

• Assesses the need for mitigation to stay within the standard for a particular mission

• Facilitates documentation and base lining of the risk management approach - allows us to assess gaps and provide traceability of our work

• The tool flows from a standard to a deliverable for a particular mission

• Progress is assessed at the Human System Risk Board

Page 16: Jeff davis

Radiation Carcinogenesis: Risk Management Analysis ToolArchitectures

CEV(CEV to ISS)

ISS (6 Months)

ISS(1 Year)

Moon(<14 days)

Moon (Lunar Habitat)

Mars

Has the risk factor been verified? (Y/N)

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Probability of the adverse outcome (without current or proposed mitigation)

*PRA calculations:Females 0.7%, Males 0.6%

*PRA calculations:Females 1.3%, Males 1.2%

*PRA calculations:Females 1.5%, Males 0.8%

*PRA calculations:Females 5.0%, Males 4.5%

Uncertainty associated with outcome

0.3-1.9%0.2-1.5%

0.5- 4.0%0.4- 3.0%

0.5- 5.0% 0.5- 4.0%

1.5-18%1.5-15%

Impact of the Adverse Outcome

1) individual, acute health2) mission impact

1) individual, acute health2) mission impact

1) individual, acute health2) mission impact3) program impact

1) individual, acute health2) mission impact3) program impact

1) individual, acute health2) mission impact3) program impact

Mitigation, Current and/or Proposed

1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat

1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat

1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat

1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat3) maximize surface time to use planetary shielding

1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat3) maximize surface time to use planetary shielding

1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat3) maximize surface time to use planetary shielding

Probability of the Adverse Outcome (with

current/proposed mitigation)

Cost/Benefit Trades(Including risks of

mitigation)

1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning

1) cost impacts2) mission planning impacts

1) cost impacts2) mission planning impacts

1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning

1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning

1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning

Current Work1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval

1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval

1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval

1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval

Future WorkDescribe appropriate mitigation for lunar habitat mission

Describe mitigation for Mars mission; transit, & surface operations

Revision of the standard to conform with ALARA

Revision of the standard to conform with ALARA

16

Page 17: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life17

• Established at JSC – April 2008• Working group develops and brings to the HSRB

– RMAT– Presentation of evidence base

• HSRB chaired by JSC Chief Medical Officer (CMO) – Manager, Human Research program is a voting member– Divisions, technical specialties, operations and research– Ames, Glenn, KSC, Langley and KSC participate– Stops, starts and modifies research – Identifies gaps and assigns actions for research and technology

development– Recommends updates to standards and transition to operations of

new findings

Human System Risk Board

Page 18: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Human System Risk Board

• Future work– ISS international partners invited Jan 2010 (International

Space Medicine Summit III recommendation)• Will participate quarterly

– Develop RMATs for all 90 human system risks– Recommend future work for all gaps to a development

control board to try new collaborative approaches– Risks can be modified to mission requirements

• Suborbital to Mars– An example of organizational innovation

• Operations and research integrated• Best available evidence continuously reviewed

• Gaps are evaluated for closure through innovative approaches

18

Page 19: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life19

Driving Innovation Through Collaboration

• Driving Innovation through Collaboration

– SLSD Strategic Plan– Why collaborate?– Critical success factors, best practices, and

challenges

Page 20: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life20

Driving Innovation Through Collaboration

SLSD Strategic Plan 2007

• Four strategic goals:• Manage balanced internal/external portfolio• Drive health innovations• Drive human system integration innovations• Education and outreach

• Key strategies for implementation• Alliances (supported by benchmark report)• Risk management and research/ops integration• Open collaboration/innovation• Support commercial space for LEO

Page 21: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Why Collaborate?• Collaborative innovation and alliances are used to:

– Innovate quickly and cost effectively– Improve quality of innovation– Address technical challenges in a rapidly changing

environment– Enhance portfolios by supplementing internal core

capabilities with external capabilities– Remain competitive (for profit or funding)– Transfer knowledge– Share risks– Grow and develop market– Leverage brand name

“Alliances are crucial to driving growth and innovation”

Page 22: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

How Alliances and CollaborationsDrive Innovation

• Transfer of compatible competencies• Joint research and development• Access to new technologies• Accelerated research• Knowledge acquisition • Variability resulting in novel ideas• New applications for existing technologies• Shared investment/cost efficiency• Facilities sharing resulting in enhanced innovation

“Can we get there faster with a partner than by ourselves?”

Page 23: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Enabling Collaborative Innovation

• Critical Success Factors and Best Practices– Demonstrate senior management commitment and

support– Identify and manage cultural issues – Embed strategy into the overall strategic planning process– Adopt a structured approach for implementation – Establish a support structure to enable and facilitate

alliances and collaborative innovation– Enhance communications

• Internally: culture, skills, awareness, flexibility• Externally: improving ways to connect to outsiders

– Institute a reward system aligned with strategy

Page 24: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life24

• Create a unifying vision and clearly defined goals and objectives

• Evaluate strategy and objectives annually• Conduct gap analysis to determine areas of greatest need• Conduct core competencies assessment to determine the

greatest opportunities for partnerships• Clearly articulate and communicate gaps/innovation needs• Assess and map gaps/needs to optimal collaboration mode • Establish processes to scout for ideas and scan/access the

external environment for emerging technologies and collaborations

• Pursue open innovation models and/or strategic alliances based on overall assessment

Optimizing Innovation Requires a Deliberate, Structured Approach

Page 25: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Challenges

• Hurdles to creating a collaborative environment and fostering innovation– Conflicts between sourcing internally v. externally

• “Not Invented Here” syndrome• Risk/change averse culture• Limited interaction with potential resources/problem solvers

– Limited external network (serendipitous partnerships/opportunities)

– Bureaucratic barriers to collaboration (policies, regulations, security)

– No overarching process to analyze gaps at strategic/organizational level

– Misaligned job expectations and/or performance evaluations

Page 26: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life26

• Strategy Execution and Implementation Office 2008• Human System Risk Board April 2008

– Multiple centers participate (Ames, Glenn, KSC, Langley, HQ)

– Expanding to international and academic partners 2010– Evidence driven, manages all 90 human system risks

• Rice Business Plan Competition for Earth/Space Innovation prizes began 2008

• Ongoing student projects with Dr. Karim Lakhani, Harvard Business School (HBS)– MBA Project: Leveraging Collaborative Innovation for SLSD

April 2009– Collaboration/innovation course winter 2010

Results to Date

Page 27: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Results to Date (cont.)

• Alliances Benchmark Report July 2009– Implementing recommendations and exploring partnerships with GE

and Philips based on best practices• Portfolio mapping July 2009 – Dr. Gary Pisano (HBS)

– Determine best collaborative strategy to address portfolio gaps• Open Innovation Service Providers/Competition September 2009

– TopCoder (ongoing, 3500 lines of code to date)– InnoCentive (training Nov 18-20, launch Dec 15)– Yet2.com (training Dec 2-3, launch Jan 2010)

• Strategic communications/education on collaborative innovation processes and benefits (ongoing)– SLSD Innovation Lecture Series– Lunch with Director– Tagline: Exploring Space, Enhancing Life– Weekly Newsletter

27

Page 28: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life28

• Develop and execute a deliberate system for pursuing life sciences alliances and collaborative innovation opportunities

• Restructure Boards Jan 2010• Current board architecture manages 90 human system risks• Gaps are identified and novel approaches considered through

development control board• Assures knowledge management and lessons learned (flow chart

draft in backup)• Continue to enhance communication

– Internally: Website 1Q 2010, Quarterly Focus Groups– Externally: Website 1Q 2010: human system and innovation

needs/gaps, contact info re: partnering• Continue to evaluate collaborative innovation models/new

ways of doing business– GE – reverse innovation: smaller, lower cost technical solutions

for space flight

Forward work

Page 29: Jeff davis

Exploring Space, Enhancing Life

Back Up Slides

Page 30: Jeff davis

Evidence Base Analysis

Data Collection:Performance, Medical, Research, Terrestrial

Evidence Base Analysis

Data Collection:Performance, Medical, Research, Terrestrial

Evidence Base Analysis

Data Collection:Performance, Medical, Research, Terrestrial

IDENTIFY ANALYZE

PLANTRACK/

CONTROL

Identify Human Health &

Performance Risks by Mission

Master List

SFHS Standards (V1, V2,)

Validated RiskAcceptable

Level

Analyze Human Health &

Performance Risks by Mission

Cx Vehicle Requirements

Operational ProgramRequirements

(MORD, Flt Rules)

Research Requirements(Quantify/Substantiate)

Research Requirements

(CM/Technology Development)

Validated RiskUnacceptable

Mitigation

Invalidated Riskor Risk Factors

needing research

MissionCountermeasure Implementation

Medical Monitoring

EnvironmentalMonitoring

Research Data

Med Ops Data

Env. Data

Exploration Mission

Operations Concepts

Research Reviews

30

Page 31: Jeff davis

Space Flight History, Research, Lessons learned

3 Threats: μG, remote deployment, closed environment

Health and Medical Technical Authority

Standards

90 Human System Risks

Pre-board Working Group

FACB HSRB

Solution? Solution?

YES NO YESNO

Gaps(Mapping ; Novel Approaches)

Development Control Board

Open InnovationPrizes

Commercial Collaborations

↓ Novel/Disruptive Innovation

↓ N/DI

SLSD Ops(STS, ISS, Cx, Commercial Space)

HRPIntegrated Research Plans

↑ Continuous ProcessImprovement Innovation

↑ CPI/I

Know

ledg

e Ca

ptur

eKnow

ledge Capture

SEIO