Results for “risks” — Page 11

NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek A Whitman↗

NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek Whitman↗

NASA NTRS2011

Understanding Pre-Quantitative Risk in Projects

Standard approaches to risk management in projects depend on the ability of teams to identify risks and quantify the probabilities and consequences of these risks (e.g., the 5 x 5 risk matrix). However, long before quantification does - or even can - occur, and long after, teams make decisions based on their pre-quantitative understanding of risk. These decisions can have long-lasting impacts on the project. While significant research has looked at the process of how to quantify risk, our understanding of how teams conceive of and manage pre-quantitative risk is lacking. This paper introduces the concept of pre-quantitative risk and discusses the implications of addressing pre-quantitative risk in projects.

risk levels.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Risk Reduction for the System Design of an Enhanced MMRTG

Engineering of an enhanced Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (eMMRTG) began 3 years ago with agreement between the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is leading the transfer of skutterudite thermoelectric couple technology to industry and leading the systems engineering of the proposed eMMRTG. Should NASA fund the flight development of an eMMRTG, the DOE would lead the flight system development. The analytical models and design of the MMRTG have been enhanced to use skutterudite couples developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory over the last two decades. This required a thorough evaluation of the MMRTG design, and concurrent engineering of an enhanced MMRTG to shed light on potential design issues or risks. At the end of the U.S. fiscal year (FY) 2015, a complete catalog of risks was produced. Tests, hardware development, and analyses have now been put in place to mitigate those risks to acceptable levels. Few risks can ever be truly eliminated unless a design is modified to eliminate specific risks and not introduce more severe risks. The design imperative for the eMMRTG is to change only a few MMRTG features; therefore, risks can largely only be mitigated, not eliminated, through design changes. However, many risks can be effectively - though not totally - eliminated without design changes. This paper briefly describes some of the documented risks and mitigations or reduction approaches to be applied in the coming 3 years, on the way to completing the eMMRTG concept.

eMMRTG↗

NASA NTRS1997

Landscape characterization of peridomestic risk for Lyme disease using satellite imagery

Remotely sensed characterizations of landscape composition were evaluated for Lyme disease exposure risk on 337 residential properties in two communities of suburban Westchester County, New York. Properties were categorized as no, low, or high risk based on seasonally adjusted densities of Ixodes scapularis nymphs, determined by drag sampling during June and July 1990. Spectral indices based on Landsat Thematic Mapper data provided relative measures of vegetation structure and moisture (wetness), as well as vegetation abundance (greenness). A geographic information system (GIS) was used to spatially quantify and relate the remotely sensed landscape variables to risk category. A comparison of the two communities showed that Chappaqua, which had more high-risk properties (P < 0.001), was significantly greener and wetter than Armonk (P < 0.001). Furthermore, within Chappaqua, high-risk properties were significantly greener and wetter than lower-risk properties in this community (P < 0.01). The high-risk properties appeared to contain a greater proportion of broadleaf trees, while lower-risk properties were interpreted as having a greater proportion of nonvegetative cover and/or open lawn. The ability to distinguish these fine scale differences among communities and individual properties illustrates the efficiency of a remote sensing/GIS-based approach for identifying peridomestic risk of Lyme disease over large geographic areas.

Topography, Medical↗

NASA NTRS2018

Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) Risk Management

The Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) project is an international collaboration to build and fly a polarization sensitive X-ray observatory. The IXPE Observatory consists of the spacecraft and payload. The payload is composed of three X-ray telescopes, each consisting of a mirror module optical assembly and a polarization-sensitive X-ray detector assembly; a deployable boom maintains the focal length between the optical assemblies and the detectors. The goal of the IXPE Mission is to provide new information about the origins of cosmic X-rays and their interactions with matter and gravity as they travel through space. IXPE will do this by exploiting its unique capability to measure the polarization of X-rays emitted by cosmic sources. The collaboration for IXPE involves national and international partners during design, fabrication, assembly, integration, test, and operations. The full collaboration includes NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Ball Aerospace, the Italian Space Agency (ASI), the Italian Institute of Astrophysics and Space Planetology (IAPS)/Italian National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF), the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), the University of Colorado (CU) Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP), Stanford University, McGill University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The goal of this paper is to discuss risk management as it applies to the IXPE project. The full IXPE Team participates in risk management providing both unique challenges and advantages for project risk management. Risk management is being employed in all phases of the IXPE Project, but is particularly important during planning and initial execution-the current phase of the IXPE Project. The discussion will address IXPE risk strategies and responsibilities, along with the IXPE management process which includes risk identification, risk assessment, risk response, and risk monitoring, control, and reporting.

IXPE↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

3D Representation of UAV-obstacle Collision Risk Under Off-nominal Conditions

Safe operations of autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in low-altitude airspace with beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) flights demand robust risk monitoring of airspace as well as of people and property on ground. One of the safety critical factors for UAV flights is the risk of collision with static and dynamic obstacles in proximity to its flight path. This paper presents a detailed formulation of risk of obstacle collision incorporating the effects of off-nominal conditions introduced by component failures, degraded controllability and environmental disturbances such as wind gusts. The risk is represented in terms of a matrix with rows corresponding to the likelihood of occurrence of collision and columns representing severity of collision to the vehicle and surrounding structures. Risk likelihood is generated using a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) that compiles knowledge from related Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEAs) and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to determine the probability of collision based on on-board sensor measurements indicative of vehicle health and controllability. Risk severity is computed utilizing a point-mass 3D kinematic model of the vehicle in presence of wind. The proposed risk factor is demonstrated on real flight data from experimental flights of an octocopter at NASA Langley Research Center in presence of simulated obstacles and wind conditions. Effect of varying wind conditions, level of controllability and obstacle measurement noise on the risk factor is demonstrated. The proposed approach enables risk-informed decision making for timely mitigation of current and future unsafe events in autonomous systems.

risk analysis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

Risk Posture↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Depth Modeling and Simulation Analysis of Artemis Missions Using the Impact Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND The Artemis campaign is a Moon exploration program with a series of six planned missions, five of which will be crewed. These five crewed missions will contain a single mission segment (space flight), or multiple mission segments involving space flight (Orion), lunar landing (LTV) and/or space habitat (Gateway). Each crewed segment faces the risk of unique medical conditions, necessitating medical sets/kits tailored to those specificities. To support and enable a data-driven and evidence-based decision-making process through out a mission’s life cycle, a software tool called IMPACT was developed. Using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies, IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool built for analyzing the possibility of encountering complex medical risks during space flight, and for identifying the medical resources and capabilities needed to treat those potential at-risk medical conditions. IMPACT achieves this by performing hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. During an extended simulation modeling phase, IMPACT generated analytical results for medical risks, and the medical resources and capabilities to address those risks, for every segment of every crewed Artemis mission. This presentation will highlight the reliability, consistency and validity of IMPACT’s computational modeling techniques and will showcase the library of analytical outcomes generated for the Artemis missions. OVERVIEW During the early stages of IMPACT’s design, architecture and technical requirements collection, “scenarios” (use cases) - achievement goals required for acceptance testing, were identified by stakeholders. IMPACT successfully completed the scenario testing requirements and undertook an extensive operational run phase utilizing a wide range of input combinations with a goal of delivering a cohesive, trustworthy, reliable, vast, and diverse body of evidence. The intent of these modeling runs was to validate consistency in output, ensure solidity of executable operations and to streamline processes by identifying areas requiring efficiency improvements. Using the many missions of Artemis, IMPACT ran variations of operational runs to assess the output for acceptable, as well as unusual characteristics. This rigorous long-term “shakedown” analysis was implemented to help build a collective body of evidence to aid in securing a high level of confidence, reliability, and validity in the output, whether from the applicational components of IMPACT, or the entirety of the operational process. ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION This presentation will discuss the various categories of input criteria; the comparisons in the application of these input criteria to various Artemis missions; the preparation and collection of the body of evidence, and reliability of the computational modeling techniques. This paper serves as an initial analytical overview of IMPACT’s probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) medical risk outputs covering Artemis missions and is not intended to be deemed the official medical response for the Artemis campaign.

Crew Composition↗

NASA NTRS1993

Risk management for the Space Exploration Initiative

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a quantitative engineering process that provides the analytic structure and decision-making framework for total programmatic risk management. Ideally, it is initiated in the conceptual design phase and used throughout the program life cycle. Although PRA was developed for assessment of safety, reliability, and availability risk, it has far greater application. Throughout the design phase, PRA can guide trade-off studies among system performance, safety, reliability, cost, and schedule. These studies are based on the assessment of the risk of meeting each parameter goal, with full consideration of the uncertainties. Quantitative trade-off studies are essential, but without full identification, propagation, and display of uncertainties, poor decisions may result. PRA also can focus attention on risk drivers in situations where risk is too high. For example, if safety risk is unacceptable, the PRA prioritizes the risk contributors to guide the use of resources for risk mitigation. PRA is used in the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) Program. To meet the stringent requirements of the SEI mission, within strict budgetary constraints, the PRA structure supports informed and traceable decision-making. This paper briefly describes the SEI PRA process.

Buchbinder, Ben↗

NASA NTRS1999

Kennedy Space Center Coronary Heart Disease Risk Screening Program

The number one cause of death in the U.S. is coronary heart disease (CHD). It is probably a major cause of death and disability in the lives of employees at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) as well. The KSC Biomedical Office used a multifactorial mathematical formula from the Framingham Heart Study to calculate CHD risk probabilities for individuals in a segment of the KSC population that required medical evaluation for job certification. Those assessed to be high-risk probabilities will be targeted for intervention. Every year, several thousand KSC employees require medical evaluations for job related certifications. Most medical information for these evaluations is gathered on-site at one of the KSC or Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) medical clinics. The formula used in the Framingham Heart Study allows calculation of a person's probability of acquiring CHD within 10 years. The formula contains the following variables: Age, Diabetes, Smoking, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Blood Pressure (Systolic or Diastolic), Cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. The formula is also gender specific. It was used to calculate the 10-year probabilities of CHD in KSC employees who required medical evaluations for job certifications during a one-year time frame. This KSC population was profiled and CHD risk reduction interventions could be targeted to those at high risk. Population risk could also be periodically reevaluated to determine the effectiveness of intervention. A 10-year CHD risk probability can be calculated for an individual quite easily while gathering routine medical information. An employee population's CHD risk probability can be profiled graphically revealing high risk segments of the population which can be targeted for risk reduction intervention. The small audience of NASA/contractor physicians, nurses and exercise/fitness professionals at the breakout session received the lecture very well. Approximately one third indicated by a show of hands that they would be interested in implementing a similar program at their NASA Center. Questions were asked pertaining to standardization for age, the validity of using the idealized male values also for the female population, and indications of the screening test's sensitivity and specificity.

Tipton, David A.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Continuous Risk Management at NASA

NPG 7120.5A, "NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements" enacted in April, 1998, requires that "The program or project manager shall apply risk management principles..." The Software Assurance Technology Center (SATC) at NASA GSFC has been tasked with the responsibility for developing and teaching a systems level course for risk management that provides information on how to comply with this edict. The course was developed in conjunction with the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, then tailored to the NASA systems community. This presentation will briefly discuss the six functions for risk management: (1) Identify the risks in a specific format; (2) Analyze the risk probability, impact/severity, and timeframe; (3) Plan the approach; (4) Track the risk through data compilation and analysis; (5) Control and monitor the risk; (6) Communicate and document the process and decisions. This risk management structure of functions has been taught to projects at all NASA Centers and is being successfully implemented on many projects. This presentation will give project managers the information they need to understand if risk management is to be effectively implemented on their projects at a cost they can afford.

Hammer, Theodore F.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Multiple Changes to Reusable Solid Rocket Motors, Identifying Hidden Risks

The Space Shuttle Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) baseline is subject to various changes. Changes are necessary due to safety and quality improvements, environmental considerations, vendor changes, obsolescence issues, etc. The RSRM program has a goal to test changes on full-scale static test motors prior to flight due to the unique RSRM operating environment. Each static test motor incorporates several significant changes and numerous minor changes. Flight motors often implement multiple changes simultaneously. While each change is individually verified and assessed, the potential for changes to interact constitutes additional hidden risk. Mitigating this risk depends upon identification of potential interactions. Therefore, the ATK Thiokol Propulsion System Safety organization initiated the use of a risk interaction matrix to identify potential interactions that compound risk. Identifying risk interactions supports flight and test motor decisions. Uncovering hidden risks of a full-scale static test motor gives a broader perspective of the changes being tested. This broader perspective compels the program to focus on solutions for implementing RSRM changes with minimal/mitigated risk. This paper discusses use of a change risk interaction matrix to identify test challenges and uncover hidden risks to the RSRM program.

Greenhalgh, Phillip O.↗

NASA NTRS2003

An Extensible Information Grid for Risk Management

This paper describes recent work on developing an extensible information grid for risk management at NASA - a RISK INFORMATION GRID. This grid is being developed by integrating information grid technology with risk management processes for a variety of risk related applications. To date, RISK GRID applications are being developed for three main NASA processes: risk management - a closed-loop iterative process for explicit risk management, program/project management - a proactive process that includes risk management, and mishap management - a feedback loop for learning from historical risks that escaped other processes. This is enabled through an architecture involving an extensible database, structuring information with XML, schemaless mapping of XML, and secure server-mediated communication using standard protocols.

Maluf, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Radiation Risk Assessment of the Individual Astronaut: A Complement to Radiation Interests at the NIH

Predicting human risks following exposure to space radiation is uncertain in part because of unpredictable distribution of high-LET and low-dose-derived damage amongst cells in tissues, unknown synergistic effects of microgravity upon gene- and protein-expression, and inadequately modeled processing of radiation-induced damage within cells to produce rare and late-appearing malignant cancers. Furthermore, estimation of risks of radiogenic outcome within small numbers of astronauts is not possible using classic epidemiologic study. It therefore seems useful to develop strategies of risk-assessment based upon large datasets acquired from correlated biological models useful for resolving radiogenic risk-assessment for irradiated individuals. In this regard, it is suggested that sensitive cellular biodosimeters that simultaneously report 1) the quantity of absorbed dose after exposure to ionizing radiation, 2) the quality of radiation delivering that dose, and 3) the biomolecular risk of malignant transformation be developed in order to resolve these NASA-specific challenges. Multiparametric cellular biodosimeters could be developed using analyses of gene-expression and protein-expression whereby large datasets of cellular response to radiation-induced damage are analyzed for markers predictive for acute response as well as cancer-risk. A new paradigm is accordingly addressed wherein genomic and proteomic datasets are registered and interrogated in order to provide statistically significant dose-dependent risk estimation in individual astronauts. This evaluation of the individual for assessment of radiogenic outcomes connects to NIH program in that such a paradigm also supports assignment of a given patient to a specific therapy, the diagnosis of response of that patient to therapy, and the prediction of risks accumulated by that patient during therapy - such as risks incurred by scatter and neutrons produced during high-energy Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy. Value of assessment of radiogenic outcome for individuals exposed to radiation is suggested to be common to both NASA and NIH.

Richmond, Robert C.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Bridging the Divide between Safety and Risk Management for your Project or Program

This presentation will bridge the divide between these separate but overlapping disciplines and help explain how to use Risk Management as an effective management decision support tool that includes safety. Risk Management is an over arching communication tool used by management to prioritize and effectively mitigate potential problems before they concur. Risk Management encompasses every kind of potential problem that can occur on a program or project. Some of these are safety issues such as hazards that have a specific likelihood and consequence that need to be controlled and included to show an integrated picture of accepted) mitigated, and residual risk. Integrating safety and other assurance disciplines is paramount to accurately representing a program s or projects risk posture. Risk is made up of several components such as technical) cost, schedule, or supportability. Safety should also be a consideration for every risk. The safety component can also have an impact on the technical, cost, and schedule aspect of a given risk. The current formats used for communication of safety and risk issues are not consistent or integrated. The presentation will explore the history of these disciplines, current work to integrate them, and suggestions for integration for the future.

Lutomski, Mike↗

NASA NTRS2008

Root Source Analysis/ValuStream[Trade Mark] - A Methodology for Identifying and Managing Risks

Root Source Analysis (RoSA) is a systems engineering methodology that has been developed at NASA over the past five years. It is designed to reduce costs, schedule, and technical risks by systematically examining critical assumptions and the state of the knowledge needed to bring to fruition the products that satisfy mission-driven requirements, as defined for each element of the Work (or Product) Breakdown Structure (WBS or PBS). This methodology is sometimes referred to as the ValuStream method, as inherent in the process is the linking and prioritizing of uncertainties arising from knowledge shortfalls directly to the customer's mission driven requirements. RoSA and ValuStream are synonymous terms. RoSA is not simply an alternate or improved method for identifying risks. It represents a paradigm shift. The emphasis is placed on identifying very specific knowledge shortfalls and assumptions that are the root sources of the risk (the why), rather than on assessing the WBS product(s) themselves (the what). In so doing RoSA looks forward to anticipate, identify, and prioritize knowledge shortfalls and assumptions that are likely to create significant uncertainties/ risks (as compared to Root Cause Analysis, which is most often used to look back to discover what was not known, or was assumed, that caused the failure). Experience indicates that RoSA, with its primary focus on assumptions and the state of the underlying knowledge needed to define, design, build, verify, and operate the products, can identify critical risks that historically have been missed by the usual approaches (i.e., design review process and classical risk identification methods). Further, the methodology answers four critical questions for decision makers and risk managers: 1. What s been included? 2. What's been left out? 3. How has it been validated? 4. Has the real source of the uncertainty/ risk been identified, i.e., is the perceived problem the real problem? Users of the RoSA methodology have characterized it as a true bottoms up risk assessment.

Brown, Richard Lee↗

NASA NTRS2009

Determining the Relative Criticality of Diverse Exploration Risks in NASA's Human Research Program

The mission of NASA s Human Research Program (HRP) is to understand and reduce the risk to crew health and performance in exploration missions. The HRP addresses 27 specific risks, primarily in the context of Continuous Risk Management. Each risk is evaluated in terms of two missions (a six month stay on the Moon and a thirty month round trip to Mars) and three types of consequences (in-mission crew health, post-mission crew health, and in-mission performance). The lack of a common metric between the three consequence scales, such as financial costs or quality adjusted life years lost, makes it difficult to compare the relative criticality of the risks. We are, therefore, exploring the use of a ternary scale of criticality based on the common metric of influencing an operational decision. The three levels correspond to the level of concern the risk generates for a "go/no-go" decision to launch a mission: 1) no-go; 2) go with significant reservations; 3) go. The criticality of each of the 27 risks is scored for the three types of consequence in both types of mission. The scores are combined to produce an overall criticality rating for each risk. The overall criticality rating can then be used to guide the prioritization of resources to affect the greatest amount of risk reduction.

Kundrot, Craig E.↗