Decision Making Process Program Planning and Control Deana Hackfeld Management Systems Office November 17, 2006

The NASA Governance Model The Governance Model provides for checks and balances between the constellation program and other offices within NASA For the Constellation Program: –The Program Manager and his staff provide the program functions. mission performance programmatic cost schedule –The Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE), Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), and the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) provide the technical authority function over: Engineering, SR&QA, and Health and Medical standards respectively Provide Informed technical recommendations on programmatic issues throughout all stages of a program life cycle. Provide an appeal path for program office personnel or line organization personnel who disagree with a program decision.

Decision Making Structure The Constellation Program uses a board/panel structure for making decisions that affect the project, as well as for making technical implementation decisions. Example of the decisions that affect the project: –Anything that requires a change to an already approved designed component. Example of a technical implementation decision: – Whether to approve a design modification requiring additional funding, or selecting which launch pad the program will use and develop at Kennedy Space Center.

Board and Panel Structure The representatives on the board cannot be program office personnel, nor can they be funded by the program to avoid conflict of interest.

Proposed CxP Board Structure

Board and Panel Process In this board structure, program office personnel are responsible for providing a recommendation to the Program Manager. The same program office personnel are responsible for setting up discussion groups and forums necessary to establish a recommendation or position. –This may include, but is not limited to, lower level boards and panels, technical reviews, etc. Board members representing the technical authority are responsible for either providing a recommendation to the program manager. In order to establish their recommendation or position, the technical authority board members are responsible for participating in the discussion board established by the Program. –This does not preclude the technical authority from calling its own meeting on a given topic, or from engaging an independent assessment.

Decision Making Process Boards and Panel structure established as the Program’s decision making bodies Formal Program decisions are documented on Program Directives – Change Directive – Management Directives

Notional Decision Model Identify Problem/Issue Document via white paper (archived) Does a decision need to be made No, archive white paper Yes, follow decision process Prepare the Decision Maker, Brief the Decision Maker Formulate decision package Identify stakeholder – Define evaluators Elevate discussion through working groups to Boards and Panels for decision – Create a Program Directive and presentation material, including white paper

Notional Model Cont. Make a decision and implement Authorize Directive and create actions to implement decision Track actions through closure Dissenting Opinion Documented in decision package Elevate through appropriate independent review – Chief Engineer, NESC Return to decision body for implementation Archive to Authoritative repository – ICE

Identified change Change Engineer to coordinate OPR for Budget/ Schedule Priority Constellation Program Program Integrated Change Management Process Example flow CE to coordinate (as needed) with PP&C for Support: Change Management Assessments Resources Procurement Evaluation of change content. Evaluators submit impacts, issues, or concurrence Conduct Technical Coordination Meeting CE to initiate CR with description of Change, With technical and programmatic language CE to Develop preliminary technical requirements CE to present IDP to SIGs and other Panels as required CE/OPR to develop New or Mod existing ITA, if required CE/Procurement to develop New or Mod existing contract Change Screening Group to validate CR & determine required evaluators and board dates Resources to generate a budget change directive (BCD), if required Develop Directive/Decision Package (IDP) Complete Directive out of Board If Meets Boarding Requirements NO YES 13 CE to present IDP to Control Board with Technical, Budget, and Schedule Analysis 14 Revise or disapprove Board approves NO YES 15 Board Member Authorization/ signature NO YES 6 Cancel or rework Obtain Head of Contracting activity Approval UCA required YES NO 16 Change Management status and report open actions and track CR/Directive to closure 20 Procurement Issues UCA YES NO CM Receipt Desk receives request 7 Fast Track Archive Records 21

Reflection Can you think of other systems where decisions are made using a board and panel process? What are the advantages of this type of decision making process? What are the disadvantages? Why is documentation so important throughout the decision making process?