Port, Daniel | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2010

Identification and Classification of Common Risks in Space Science Missions

Due to the highly constrained schedules and budgets that NASA missions must contend with, the identification and management of cost, schedule and risks in the earliest stages of the lifecycle is critical. At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) it is the concurrent engineering teams that first address these items in a systematic manner. Foremost of these concurrent engineering teams is Team X. Started in 1995, Team X has carried out over 1000 studies, dramatically reducing the time and cost involved, and has been the model for other concurrent engineering teams both within NASA and throughout the larger aerospace community. The ability to do integrated risk identification and assessment was first introduced into Team X in 2001. Since that time the mission risks identified in each study have been kept in a database. In this paper we will describe how the Team X risk process is evolving highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. The paper will especially focus on the identification and classification of common risks that have arisen during Team X studies of space based science missions.

Risk Identification↗

NASA NTRS2007

Robust Derivation of Risk Reduction Strategies

Effective risk reduction strategies can be derived mechanically given sufficient characterization of the risks present in the system and the effectiveness of available risk reduction techniques. In this paper, we address an important question: can we reliably expect mechanically derived risk reduction strategies to be better than fixed or hand-selected risk reduction strategies, given that the quantitative assessment of risks and risk reduction techniques upon which mechanical derivation is based is difficult and likely to be inaccurate? We consider this question relative to two methods for deriving effective risk reduction strategies: the strategic method defined by Kazman, Port et al [Port et al, 2005], and the Defect Detection and Prevention (DDP) tool [Feather & Cornford, 2003]. We performed a number of sensitivity experiments to evaluate how inaccurate knowledge of risk and risk reduction techniques affect the performance of the strategies computed by the Strategic Method compared to a variety of alternative strategies. The experimental results indicate that strategies computed by the Strategic Method were significantly more effective than the alternative risk reduction strategies, even when knowledge of risk and risk reduction techniques was very inaccurate. The robustness of the Strategic Method suggests that its use should be considered in a wide range of projects.

risk reduction↗