Ross.howard

1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Strategic Workforce Management Model

February, 2009

PAE/Howard Ross and PAE/Jason Derleth

Aerospace Corporation/Marcus Lobbia and John Goble

OHCM/Stephen Chesley

PAE/Nancy Searby and Andrew Demo

2


www.nasa.gov

Order of Presentation

• Why do we need something like SWMM?

• How SWMM was built?

• So, how many people does NASA need over the next decade?

• How SWMM can be used to do “what if” scenarios?

• In the absence of other data, can we estimate workforce needs using budget and schedule data?

• How should we forecast the effects of stretching a project or cutting its budget?

3


www.nasa.gov

Why do we need something like SWMM?

• No large organization, with a multitude of projects and numerous physical locations, has perfect insight into long-term workforce demand

– Without a carefully constructed set of data and a model,

• It is difficult to predict workforce needs except over the very near term

• It is even more difficult to do vital ‘what if’ analyses

– This is the real focus of this presentation: to demonstrate we are trying to develop a relatively rapid ‘what if’ forecasting capability

4


www.nasa.gov

Why do we need something like SWMM?• Understanding future workforce

needs allows:

– Strategic budget decisions

– Better-placed work assignments

– Targeted hiring

• Know your workforce (types and numbers) Demand

• Know your workforce Supply• Identify gaps and surpluses

• Present results and forecasts to decision-makers

Civil Service Opportunities Over Time

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Fiscal Year

Wedge of Opportunity - as new CS FTP - as CS temp/term - as contract-able work

Agency Competency Distribution

4%4%

5%

4%

5%

12%

4%

6%

1%

2%

3%

1%1%0%0%1%2%0%0%3%3%5%

19%

8%6%

Mission OperationsQuality/Safety/PerformanceTechnicianStructures, Materials & MechanicsElectrical &ElectronicEngineering of SystemsSensor SystemsComputer Science & Information TechnologyHuman & BiologicalThermal/FluidPower & PropulsionSystems Analysis & Mission PlanningAeronauticsMulti-disciplinary R&DChemicalEarth SciencesSpace SciencesBiological SciencesPhysical SciencesProfessional DevelopmentManagementBusiness OperationsWorkforce Operations & SupportFinancial OperationsInstitutional Operations & Support

SWMM is trying to forecast DEMAND far into the future.

5


www.nasa.gov

Why do we need something like SWMM?

• From HR 2764 Appropriation Language:

– …”Finally, NASA is encouraged to engage in long-term agency-wide workforce planning.”

– “The Administrator shall prepare a strategy for:

• minimizing job losses…

• equitably distribute tasks and workload between the Centers….

• [provide] overall projections of future civil service .. workforce levels”

SWMM is trying to forecast DEMAND far into the future.

6


www.nasa.gov








7


www.nasa.gov

How SWMM was built

Two ways it could be done:

Bottom up: project-by-project (>1000 discrete items in our budget

& workforce systems)

Top Down: parametric estimates (derived from cost estimates)

2.4.1 Space Observatories1.4.1.6 Terrestrial Planet Finder 269,590 1.4.3.2 Hubble Space Telescope Development 530,007 1.4.3.5 Hubble Space Telescope Operat ions 315,404 1.4.2.2 James Webb Space Telescope 411,672 1.4.7.1 Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer 340,396 1.4.10.1 LISA(Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) 430,647 1.4.10.3 Constellation-X 390,492 1.2.6.1 Magnetospheric Mult iscale (MMS) 943,396 1.2.7.2 Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) 576,706 1.4.5.1 Gamma-ray Large Space Telescope (GLAST 378,710 1.4.6.1 Kepler 354,171 1.4.7.5 ASTRO-E II 344,833 1.4.8.5 FUSE 378,154 1.4.8.9 GALEX 657,620 1.4.8.10 WMAP 610,577 1.4.8.11 SIRTF/Spitzer 420,579 1.4.8.12 Chandra 397,424 1.4.8.15 Integral 412,595 1.4.8.16 XMM 411,021 1.2.1.2 Geospace Sc ience 274,542 1.2.7.9 IBEX (10) 316,764 1.2.7.10 NuStar (11) 328,689 1.4.1.1 Space Interferometer (SIM) - PlanetQuest 453,341 1.4.1.7 Large Binocular Telescope Interferometer 481,847 1.4.3.3 Hubble Space Telescope Servic ing Mission 217,774 1.4.7.3 EUSO 919,203 1.4.7.4 SWIFT 789,737 1.4.7.6 Nuc lear Spec troscopic Telescope Array 222,501 1.4.8.6 CHIPS 392,139 1.4.8.7 RXTE 372,059 1.4.8.8 SWAS 367,832 1.4.8.13 HETE-II 425,082 1.4.8.14 GP-B 415,113 1.4.8.17 IPAC 556,464 1.4.9.3 Herschel 550,059 1.4.9.4 Planck 429,559 1.4.10.6 Future Missions 381,269 2.5.2.2 Hubble Space Telescope Servic ing Projec t 329,678

Index Name Code P2.4.1 Space Observatories

1.4.1.6 Terrestrial Planet Finder 269,590 1.4.3.2 Hubble Space Telescope Development 530,007 1.4.3.5 Hubble Space Telescope Operat ions 315,404 1.4.2.2 James Webb Space Telescope 411,672 1.4.7.1 Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer 340,396 1.4.10.1 LISA(Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) 430,647 1.4.10.3 Constellation-X 390,492 1.2.6.1 Magnetospheric Mult iscale (MMS) 943,396 1.2.7.2 Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) 576,706 1.4.5.1 Gamma-ray Large Space Telescope (GLAST 378,710 1.4.6.1 Kepler 354,171 1.4.7.5 ASTRO-E II 344,833 1.4.8.5 FUSE 378,154 1.4.8.9 GALEX 657,620 1.4.8.10 WMAP 610,577 1.4.8.11 SIRTF/Spitzer 420,579 1.4.8.12 Chandra 397,424 1.4.8.15 Integral 412,595 1.4.8.16 XMM 411,021 1.2.1.2 Geospace Sc ience 274,542 1.2.7.9 IBEX (10) 316,764 1.2.7.10 NuStar (11) 328,689 1.4.1.1 Space Interferometer (SIM) - PlanetQuest 453,341 1.4.1.7 Large Binocular Telescope Interferometer 481,847 1.4.3.3 Hubble Space Telescope Servic ing Mission 217,774 1.4.7.3 EUSO 919,203 1.4.7.4 SWIFT 789,737 1.4.7.6 Nuc lear Spec troscopic Telescope Array 222,501 1.4.8.6 CHIPS 392,139 1.4.8.7 RXTE 372,059 1.4.8.8 SWAS 367,832 1.4.8.13 HETE-II 425,082 1.4.8.14 GP-B 415,113 1.4.8.17 IPAC 556,464 1.4.9.3 Herschel 550,059 1.4.9.4 Planck 429,559 1.4.10.6 Future Missions 381,269 2.5.2.2 Hubble Space Telescope Servic ing Projec t 329,678

Index Name Code P

Phase C/D Workforce and Development Cost (FY08$M)

New Horizons

Cassini

MER

Phoenix

MRO

Kepler

Deep Impact

STEREO

Spitzer

Stardust MESSENGERGenesis

Dawn

y = 0.4392xR2 = 0.9241

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Total Workforce

Dev

elop

men

t Cos

t FY0

8$M

$ Dev FY08$MLinear ($ Dev FY08$M)

SWMM is “bottom up” for most of the portfolio (allowing both numbers and types of people, but “top down” for science projects

whose planned start is sometime after 2015

8


www.nasa.gov

How SWMM was built: we have estimates of DEMAND for many projects

JWST Workforce Workflow Projections by Domain

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

FY

FTE

ScienceMission OperationsLeadership and ManagementEngineeringBusiness Management

Assumed

JWST Workforce Workflow: Engineering Competency Suites

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130.0

140.0

150.0

160.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012FY

FTE

2.12 Multi-disciplinary R&D2.11 Thermal/Fluid2.10 Structures, Materials & Mechanics2.9 Sensor Systems2.8 Power & Propulsion2.7 Electrical & Electronic2.6 Computer Science & Information Technology2.5 Chemical2.3 Aeronautics 2.2 Systems Analysis & Mission Planning2.1 Engineering of Systems

Phase DEV

TNAR PDR CDR

WIMS Data Mar 07

Engineers roll off throughout development; science support stays constant; estimated what happens after launch and modified our estimates after discussions with SMD.

Distribution of specific engineering competencies changes throughout development.

Example: JWST Workforce Plan (2007) – drawn from N2 and WIMS and discussions with Program Manager

9


www.nasa.gov

05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

M ulti-d isc iplinary R&D

Therm al/Flu id

Structures, Materia ls &M echanics

Sensor S ystem s

Power & P ropuls ion

E lectrical & E lectronic

Com puter S cience &Inform ation Technology

Chem ical

Hum an and B io logical

Aeronautics

System s A nalys is &M ission P lanning

Engineering of System s

05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

M ulti-d isc iplinary R&D

Therm al/Flu id

Structures, Materia ls &M echanics

Sensor S ystem s

Power & P ropuls ion

E lectrical & E lectronic

Com puter S cience &Inform ation Technology

Chem ical

Hum an and B io logical

Aeronautics

System s A nalys is &M ission P lanning

Engineering of System s

[S][D]

How SWMM was built…• Then aggregate all projects at a center or across the agency to

get total workforce DEMAND.Generate workforce demand for all projects (like Orion and JWST), using N2, WIMS, and assumptions from program managers for outyears

11 Extract all needs for a competency for the Agency or at a center

22 Create a “people” sand chart that can be displayed by Center, by competency, etc.

33

J W S T W o r k f o r c e W o r k f l o w : E n g i n e e r i n g C o m p e t e n c y S u i t e s

0 .0

1 0 .0

2 0 .0

3 0 .0

4 0 .0

5 0 .0

6 0 .0

7 0 .0

8 0 .0

9 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 1 0 .0

1 2 0 .0

1 3 0 .0

1 4 0 .0

1 5 0 .0

1 6 0 .0

2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2F Y

FTE

2 . 1 2 M u l t i -d i s c ip l i n a ry R & D2 . 1 1 T h e rm a l / F lu id2 . 1 0 S t ru c t u re s , M a t e r ia l s & M e c h a n ic s2 . 9 S e n s o r S y s t e m s2 . 8 P o w e r & P ro p u ls io n2 . 7 E le c t r i c a l & E le c t ro n ic2 . 6 C o m p u t e r S c ie n c e & In fo rm a t io n T e c h n o lo g y2 . 5 C h e m ic a l2 . 3 A e ro n a u t ic s 2 . 2 S y s t e m s A n a ly s is & M is s io n P la n n in g2 . 1 E n g in e e r in g o f S y s t e m s

P h a s e D E V

T N A R P D R C D R

W IM S D a ta M a r 0 7

10


www.nasa.gov








11


www.nasa.gov

How many employees do we need?

Obvious question: why does the DEMAND drop? Is this real [no]? Answers will become obvious shortly…

FTE by Domain

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

ScienceMgt.Msn. Ops.Engineer.Business

FTE by Center

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

ARCDFRCGRCGSFCJPLJSCKSCLaRCMSFCSSCHQShrdSvcsUnassgnd

12


www.nasa.gov

SOMD

FTE by Domain

0

500

1000

15002000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


FTE by Center

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


ASSUME:

•Shuttle retirement in 2010

•ISS in 2016

•SCAN, LSP, RPT continue

13


www.nasa.gov

ARMD

FTE by Domain

0

200

400

600800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


FTE by Center

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


ASSUME:

•ARMD FTE are constant beyond 2014

14


www.nasa.gov

OTHER

ASSUME:

• Education FTE are constant at the 2014level

• Reimbursable Business FTE are constant at the 2008 level

• CASP FTE are constant at the 2014level

FTE and Budget ($M) by Domain

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


FTE and Budget ($M) by Center

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


15


www.nasa.gov

ESMD – a year ago

Increase in engineering as more of the Ares and Lunar hardware DDTE kicks in.

FTE by Domain (Generated March '08)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

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

FTE

ScienceManagementMission OpsEngineeringBusiness

16


www.nasa.gov

FTE by Domain (Generated March '08)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

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

FTE

ScienceManagementMission OpsEngineeringBusiness

FTE by Domain

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


ESMD -- today

As with most big, long-term projects, one forecasts more FTE the closer one comes to an execution year.

Nonetheless, the trend of the data through 2014 is good, and can / was used for “what if” analysis

Far fewer total FTE in the outyears now (with the biggest reduction in engineering).

Why: This is an artifact of WAG data received from Cx:

•Little Ares V DDTE

•Very little lunar surface sys.

•No center-assignments re Altair

17


www.nasa.gov








18


www.nasa.gov

How SWMM can be used to do “what if” scenarios?

• Strategic Workforce Management Model is also to enable:

– Analysis of “what-if?” scenarios• What if this project started earlier or if it stretched out?

• What if this project was done inhouse?

• What if we this project was done by international partners?

19


www.nasa.gov

SWMM Scenario BuilderTypes of Scenarios (for now)

• Add and delete projects

• Shift projects in time (delay start)

• Stretch projects (remain longer in formulation; remain longer indevelopment; etc)

• Extend projects (e.g., keep operations going at existing level)

• Change project make/buy

• Besides FTE data, show effects on budget

• Assign projects or project elements to different centers

20


www.nasa.gov

How SWMM is run by a user to do these scenarios

Delay or advance the start of the project

Spend more time than originally planned in a phase

Extend a project longer than originally planned

Include (1) or Exclude (0) a project

21


www.nasa.gov

A simple scenario re Human Space Flight

• Extend ISS to 2020

22


www.nasa.gov

SOMD Current and with ISS Extended to 2020

Current Plan ISS extended

Total FTE by Competency Domain

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

Total FTE by Competency Domain

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

23


www.nasa.gov

All of SOMD and ESMD – JSC, KSC, and MSFC ISS Extended to 2020

JSC - FTE by Domain

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


KSC - FTE by Domain

0200400600800

1000120014001600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


MSFC FTE by Domain

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


JSC - FTE by Domain

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


KSC - FTE by Domain

0200400600800

1000120014001600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


MSFC FTE by Domain

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


Base Case ISS Extended

24


www.nasa.gov

Results of Some Other Human Space Flight Scenarios

• We ran these 3 scenarios:– Baseline

– Stretch 3 projects• Shuttle flies to 2012• Orion stretched / grown by a year • Ares 1 stretched / grown by a year

– Shift 2 projects 2 years to the right• Delay start of Altair• Delay start of Ares 5

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 1

25


www.nasa.gov

Human Spaceflight Scenarios

• How to implement the scenarios:

– Extend Shuttle 2 years • Assume 2009 staffing is duplicated in 2010 and 2011

– Stretch Orion and Ares I for 1 year• Will show algorithm used for any project (not specific to these

projects) later in presentation

– Delay Ares V and Altair staffing up by 2 years• Slide future years’ staffing 2 years to the right

26


www.nasa.gov

FTE by Competency Domain

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

Five projects individually

Space Shuttle

FTE by Domain

0100200300400500600700800900

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

BusinessFTE by Domain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

FTE by Domain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

FTE by Domain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

Orion

Ares I Ares V

Altair

b/c of lack of good data for Ares V, ignore beyond 2015

27


www.nasa.gov

Five projects together

FTE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

28


www.nasa.gov

5 Projects:SSP extended 2 years — staffing peak is higher

FTE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

29


www.nasa.gov

5 Projects: SSP extended, Orion & Ares stretched 1 yr; FTE in 2010-11 less than before

FTE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

30


www.nasa.gov

SSP Ext. 2 yrs, Orion & Ares I Stretched 1 yr, Ares V & Altair delayed 2 yrs; 2012 peak still over baseline, staffing has very different profile

FTE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Science

Mgt.

Msn. Ops.

Engineer.

Business

31


www.nasa.gov

5 Projects, Center SplitJSC - FTE by Domain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


KSC - FTE by Domain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


MSFC FTE by Domain

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


32


www.nasa.gov

Shuttle Extended, Center Split

Large changes for all 3

ctrs

JSC - FTE by Domain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


KSC - FTE by Domain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


MSFC FTE by Domain

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


33


www.nasa.gov

SSP extended, Orion & Ares stretched, by centerJSC - FTE by Domain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


KSC - FTE by Domain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


MSFC FTE by Domain

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


34


www.nasa.gov

SSP Ext. 2 yrs, Orion & Ares I Stretched 1 yr, Ares V and Altair Start delayed 2 yrs – by center

MSFC staffing drops a

lot, compared

to base case

JSC - FTE by Domain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


KSC - FTE by Domain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


MSFC FTE by Domain

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


35


www.nasa.gov

Five Projects, Center Split, ContinuedARC - FTE by Domain

01020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


DFRC - FTE by Domain

01020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


GRC - FTE by Domain

050

100150200250300350400

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


LaRC FTE by Domain

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


36


www.nasa.gov

Shuttle Extended, Center Split ContinuedARC - FTE by Domain

01020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020



01020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


GRC - FTE by Domain

050

100150200250300350400

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


LaRC FTE by Domain

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


37


www.nasa.gov

SSP extended, Orion & Ares stretched, by center Cont.ARC - FTE by Domain

01020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020



01020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


GRC - FTE by Domain

050

100150200250300350400

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


LaRC FTE by Domain

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


38


www.nasa.gov

SSP Ext. 2 yrs, Orion & Ares I Stretched 1 yr, Ares V and Altair Start delayed 2 yrs – by center, cont

Peak staffing has moved to the right, owed to Ares V delay

ARC - FTE by Domain

01020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020



-100

1020304050607080

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


GRC - FTE by Domain

050

100150200250300350400

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


LaRC FTE by Domain

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


39


www.nasa.gov








40


www.nasa.gov

Switching now to SMD

• By far the most complex owed to – the number of projects, – the diversity in acquisition strategies, – the dynamic portfolio of new missions, and– updates on extended operations.

• Synched up – Agency Mission Planning Manifest (the agreed set of >90 SMD

missions with Launch Readiness Dates as late as 2025), – Sand Chart (a PA&E tool for coarse cost estimation), and – Created a new parametric WF estimating tool for new missions

• Given a known annual budget for each project, how many FTE will be employed each year to work on that project

41


www.nasa.gov

SMD

FTE by Domain

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


FTE by Center

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


Key Points:Staffing drops in outyears owed to our assumption of a 0.2 inhouse/total labor ratiofor each new mission that begins outside the budget horizon

Staffing can be made constant by a different assumption, as we will show in a scenario

SWMM allows us to anticipate the effects of such in-sourcing….

42


www.nasa.gov

0 09 2 010 201 1 20 12 2013 20 14 2 015 201 6 20 17 2018 20 19 2 020 202 1 20 22 2023 20 24 2 025 202 6 20 27 2028 20 2

Parametric Model for Workforce EstimatesAgency Mission Planning Manifest (AMPM) Apply Sand Chart Cost Estimate

Project Milestones (CDR, LRD), Start / End Dates Each Project’s Annual Cost

STEREO Annual FTE and Cost (FY08$M)

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Fiscal Year

Ann

ual F

ull T

ime

Equi

vale

nt (F

TE)

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

Ann

ual C

ost (

FY08

$M)

FTE

Cost (FY08$M)

PDR = 3/2002CDR = 2/2003PER = 9/2005Launch = 7/2006

Apply Aerospace Corp. Correlations

Each Project’s Annual TOTAL Workforce

Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) (378289)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fiscal Year

FTE

+ JP

L W

YE

N2 DataParametric Estimate

Each Project’s Annual FTE Workforce

Adjust Make/Buy to best match N2/WIMS

0.32GPM

M/B

Annual Workforce and Operations Cost (FY08$M)

New Horizons-Cruise

Phoenix

Kepler

Cassini-Orbit

Cassini-Cruise

MER

MRO

Spitzer

Stardust

Messenger

Genesis

Dawn Encounter

Dawn Cruise

y = 0.4177xR2 = 0.9663

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

- 50 100 150 200 250

Annual Workforce

Ann

ual O

pera

tions

Cos

t FY0

8$M

Cost FY08$M

Linear (Cost FY08$M)

43


www.nasa.gov

Data Example: Actual Development Cost & WF Chart* * From Aerospace Corporation study sponsored by Discovery New Frontiers Program Office at MSFC

STEREO Annual FTE and Cost (FY08$M)

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Fiscal Year

Ann

ual F

ull T

ime

Equi

vale

nt (F

TE)

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

Ann

ual C

ost (

FY08

$M)

FTE

Cost (FY08$M)

PDR = 3/2002CDR = 2/2003PER = 9/2005Launch = 7/2006

STEREO Annual Workforce and Cost (FY08$M)

Ann

ual W

orkf

orce

(Civ

il Se

rvan

t + C

ontr

acto

r)

Workforce

44


www.nasa.gov

Comparison of TOTAL Workforce vs. Cost** From Aerospace Corporation study sponsored by Discovery New Frontiers Program Office at MSFC

Phase C/D Workforce and Development Cost (FY08$M)

New Horizons

Cassini

MER

Phoenix

MRO

Kepler

Deep Impact

STEREO

Spitzer

Stardust MESSENGERGenesis

Dawn

y = 0.4392xR2 = 0.9241

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Total Workforce

Dev

elop

men

t Cos

t FY0

8$M

$ Dev FY08$MLinear ($ Dev FY08$M)

Annual Workforce and Operations Cost (FY08$M)

New Horizons-Cruise

Phoenix

Kepler

Cassini-Orbit

Cassini-Cruise

MER

MRO

Spitzer

Stardust

Messenger

Genesis

Dawn Encounter

Dawn Cruise

y = 0.4177xR2 = 0.9663

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

- 50 100 150 200 250

Annual Workforce

Ann

ual O

pera

tions

Cos

t FY0

8$M

Cost FY08$M

Linear (Cost FY08$M)

Data fit provides parametric relationship between project’s TOTAL workforce (Civil Servant + Contractor) and cost

45


www.nasa.gov

SMD Workforce Results

Earth Science

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fiscal Year

FTE

+ JP

L W

YE

Dotted line is N2 workforce data through 2014, then assumed staffing was flatlined

for outyears as basis of comparison

Planetary Science

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fiscal Year

FTE

+ JP

L W

YE

Astrophysics

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Fiscal Year

FTE

+ JP

L W

YE

Heliophysics

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fiscal YearFT

E +

JPL

WYE

46


www.nasa.gov

SWMM Scenario Capability Applied to SMD

• See if / how to prevent the reduction in workforce (FTE+JPL WYE) in outyears

– SWMM’s parametric model allows adjusting Make/Buy (M/B) and Launch Readiness Dates to fill in gaps in projected workforce demand

47


www.nasa.gov

SMD Scenario – Adjusting Demand Predictions• Astrophysics example:

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Fiscal Year

FTE

+ JP

L W

YE 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

FTE

+ JP

L W

YE

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

FTE

+ JP

L W

YE

Change M/B for one

mission from 0.2 to 0.5

- Shift LRD for that mission leftone year

- Change M/B for a second mission from 0.2 to 0.4

48


www.nasa.gov








49


www.nasa.gov

‘Stretching’ an Individual ProjectProject Phase Stretch Planned Duration New Duration Notes

Shift 0 yrs 0 yrs 0 yrsShifts start date for a project to the right (only works with projects that have not yet started)

A: Formulation 0 yrs 1 yrs 0 yrs Stretches formulation phase of projectB: Prelmiinary Design 0 yrs 1 yrs 0 yrs Stretches preliminary design phase of projectC/D: Development 0 yrs 6 yrs 0 yrs Stretches development phase of project

Build & Shelf 0 yrs 0 yrs 0 yrs

Stretches time between development and operations and maintains enough workforce for launch

E: Operations 0 yrs 3 yrs 0 yrsProportionately extend operations phase at increased cost

Total Stretch 0 yrs 11 yrs Planned 0 yrs New Total Project Duration

Calculate New Stretch Results

W o rk fo rc e S tre tc h T o ta l P ro je c t F T E

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

F is c a l Y e a r

FTE

P la nne d (F TE yrs = 8 1 5 )

S tre tchM A X (F TE yrs = 8 1 5 )

S tre tchM IN (F TE yrs = 8 1 5 )

S tre tchA V G (F TE yrs = 8 1 5 )

50


www.nasa.gov

Stretch an Individual Project– Stretch Formulation by 3 years

Project Phase Stretch Planned Duration New Duration Notes

Shift 0 yrs 0 yrs 0 yrsShifts start date for a project to the right (only works with projects that have not yet started)

A: Formulation 3 yrs 1 yrs 0 yrs Stretches formulation phase of projectB: Prelmiinary Design 0 yrs 1 yrs 0 yrs Stretches preliminary design phase of projectC/D: Development 0 yrs 6 yrs 0 yrs Stretches development phase of project

Build & Shelf 0 yrs 0 yrs 0 yrs

Stretches time between development and operations and maintains enough workforce for launch

E: Operations 0 yrs 3 yrs 0 yrsProportionately extend operations phase at increased cost

Total Stretch 3 yrs 11 yrs Planned 0 yrs New Total Project Duration

Calculate New Stretch Results

W o rk fo rc e S tre tc h T o ta l P ro je c t F T E

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

F is c a l Y e a r

FTE

P la nne d (F TE yrs = 8 1 5 )

S tre tchM A X (F TE yrs = 8 7 5 )

S tre tchM IN (F TE yrs = 8 1 5 )

S tre tchA V G (F TE yrs = 8 4 5 )Two limiting cases:

1. Don’t increase FTE-years

2. Enter next phase with same number of FTE as originally planned

1

2

3

51


www.nasa.gov

Examples of Some Other Possible Stretch Algorithms

expect a $2 for $1 payback with likely day for day delay to the LRD that will also add cost. If LRD is held constant then about a $3 to $1 payback; For staffing: assume the schedule is slipped as little as possible. Calculatetime left to LRD, increase the schedule by the % of the budget cut, but double the FTE-years in the remaining time in Phase C/D. OR: assume the schedule can’t be slipped, so there is cost growth as well as staffing growth. Don’t know when the budget is cut and for how long, so don’t know when staffing is cut and for how long. Assume the cut takes place and remains for 1/3rd of the remaining time in Phase C/D, then for the 2/3ths left, increase cost and staffing by 3x the percentage of the cut for the rest of Phase C/D. For the 3:1 payback, the risk is way up, multiple paths are taken for the high risk items..

budget cut after CDR with no change in content

probably only $1 to $1 payback. Assume the cut occurs between PDR and CDR, and assume the content but not the LRD has changed. Assume staffing prior to CDR is cut by the % cut in the budget. Then determine the number of FTE-years that were cut. Then add back in same number throughout the rest of Phase C/D.

budget cut prior to CDR and LRD or content is allowed to change

expect a $2 for $1 payback later on; staffing: assume the cut occurs between PDR and CDR. Assume staffing prior to CDR is cut by the % cut in the budget. Then determine the number of FTE-years that were cut. Then add back in twice this number throughout the rest of Phase C/D.

budget cut prior to CDR with no change in LRD or content

expect a $1 for $1 payback later on, with no change in FTE budget cut prior to PDR with no change in LRD or content

cost is minimal to zero, with FTE staffing probably as before, unless a whole instrument was dropped

budget is cut prior to SDR and content is adjusted

minimally increased cost, with inhouse staffing level (FTE) assumed to enter next phase at the originally planned level

budget is cut prior to SDR and LRD date allowed to slip

THENIF

52


www.nasa.gov

Next Steps for SWMM

• Validate with all MDs

• Run a scenario where we estimate WF for Cx using previous ESMD assumptions and apply the Center roles announced in Sept 07

• Refine parametric model– Find and include more historical mission data (beyond the 13

missions we have)

• Program the Stretch Algorithms

53


www.nasa.gov

Concluding Remarks

• The model results are only as good as the input data

• SWMM rapidly provides insight into strategic issues by showing first-order effects of various scenarios

• A new parametric workforce estimating tool has been created, but it is not yet validated

• SWMM will continue to be developed by PAE as part of a suite of tools to help the budget-workforce planning process