Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Assurance Management”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗
NASA NTRS2018

Dynamic Adjustment of Simulation Parameters for Efficient Vehicle Prognostics

Model-based diagnostics and prognostics rely on state estimation and uncertainty management algorithms to produce useful information for system operators and maintainers. This information enables more informed operational decisions, condition-based maintenance, and overall mission safety assurance. Typically, uncertainty is associated with vehicle state-of-health estimation and prediction results because of modeling errors, internal or external sources of noise, and sensor inaccuracy. Probabilistic uncertainty management methods including Sequential Monte Carlo simulation are commonly used to reason about state-of-health estimates and predictions in the presence of these sources of uncertainty. However, such algorithms can be computationally expensive as they require a very large number of samples to obtain a sufficiently accurate quantification of the end of life probability distribution. As a result, highly mobile autonomous systems that leverage the prognostic results for mission-level replanning are often constrained in their processing capability because of these computationally expensive simulation approaches. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate algorithmic methods for dynamically adjusting simulation time step as well as number of samples to achieve highly efficient prognostic results while maintaining results accuracy. Results obtained from simulated flight experiments of an electric unmanned aerial vehicle are presented to verify the efficacy of such algorithms.

Prognostics↗
NASA NTRS2017

Risk-Significant Adverse Condition Awareness Strengthens Assurance of Fault Management Systems

As spaceflight systems increase in complexity, Fault Management (FM) systems are ranked high in risk-based assessment of software criticality, emphasizing the importance of establishing highly competent domain expertise to provide assurance. Adverse conditions (ACs) and specific vulnerabilities encountered by safety- and mission-critical software systems have been identified through efforts to reduce the risk posture of software-intensive NASA missions. Acknowledgement of potential off-nominal conditions and analysis to determine software system resiliency are important aspects of hazard analysis and FM. A key component of assuring FM is an assessment of how well software addresses susceptibility to failure through consideration of ACs. Focus on significant risk predicted through experienced analysis conducted at the NASA Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Program enables the scoping of effective assurance strategies with regard to overall asset protection of complex spaceflight as well as ground systems. Research efforts sponsored by NASAs Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) defined terminology, categorized data fields, and designed a baseline repository that centralizes and compiles a comprehensive listing of ACs and correlated data relevant across many NASA missions. This prototype tool helps projects improve analysis by tracking ACs and allowing queries based on project, mission type, domain/component, causal fault, and other key characteristics. Vulnerability in off-nominal situations, architectural design weaknesses, and unexpected or undesirable system behaviors in reaction to faults are curtailed with the awareness of ACs and risk-significant scenarios modeled for analysts through this database. Integration within the Enterprise Architecture at NASA IV&V enables interfacing with other tools and datasets, technical support, and accessibility across the Agency. This paper discusses the development of an improved workflow process utilizing this database for adaptive, risk-informed FM assurance that critical software systems will safely and securely protect against faults and respond to ACs in order to achieve successful missions.

IV&V↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives

Traditionally, NASA has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for space flight missions are achieved. While prescriptive re-quirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly-constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are prob-abilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with support-ing evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understand-ing and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Pro-tection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return. This presentation will explore the development and implementation of an assurance case approach in the context of planetary protection, the shift from prescriptive requirements and the ongoing culture change in the technical community, and the support and guidance from NASA’s OPP in adopting the assurance case approach for achieving planetary protection objectives on NASA’s space flight missions.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives

Traditionally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for planetary protection are achieved during space flight missions. While prescriptive requirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are probabilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with supporting evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understanding and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return.

Assurance Case↗
NASA NTRS2016

Technical Reference Suite Addressing Challenges of Providing Assurance for Fault Management Architectural Design

Research into complexities of software systems Fault Management (FM) and how architectural design decisions affect safety, preservation of assets, and maintenance of desired system functionality has coalesced into a technical reference (TR) suite that advances the provision of safety and mission assurance. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IVV) Program, with Software Assurance Research Program support, extracted FM architectures across the IVV portfolio to evaluate robustness, assess visibility for validation and test, and define software assurance methods applied to the architectures and designs. This investigation spanned IVV projects with seven different primary developers, a wide range of sizes and complexities, and encompassed Deep Space Robotic, Human Spaceflight, and Earth Orbiter mission FM architectures. The initiative continues with an expansion of the TR suite to include Launch Vehicles, adding the benefit of investigating differences intrinsic to model-based FM architectures and insight into complexities of FM within an Agile software development environment, in order to improve awareness of how nontraditional processes affect FM architectural design and system health management.

Fitz, Rhonda↗
NASA NTRS1993

Mission Operations and Command Assurance: Flight Operations Quality Improvements

Flight mission operations systems place human operators in demanding, high risk environments. The objective of Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is to help improve the operational reliability of flight projects by reducing error -- Pareto Analysis shows that the human is the largest error category. MO&CA is a system level task reporting to project flight management and JPL Systems Assurance Division. MO&CA provides direct transfer of knowledge, continuous process improvement, and communication facilitation.

mission↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Standards Roadmapping for Mission Assurance in Commercial Spaceflight

This paper explores the application of established roadmapping approaches in standards planning and roadmap development to support mission assurance objectives. Mission assurance requires proactive planning across multiple domains including technical, schedule, cost, organizational, and policy. The intersection of these domains happens at the enterprise level, and enterprise systems engineering processes can systematically guide mission assurance activities, including development of standards roadmaps. Standards planning and development is a critical contributor to an effective mission assurance strategy, although standards are often developed and adopted reactively. Technology and standards planning is a key Enterprise Process Management activity, as identified by the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, and technology and standards roadmaps are strategic tools used to enable that process. Technology roadmapping has proven effective in guiding enterprise architecture and concept design, and standards planning supports enterprise requirements definition and management. However, there are limited methodologies to guide such standards planning activities. The application of technology roadmapping principles to standards planning formalizes the process and establishes a repeatable framework for standards development and integration. The framework development described in this paper fills a methodological gap by adapting proven roadmapping techniques to standards planning. Through a comparison of roadmapping methodologies and a case study analysis, this approach outlines a systematic process for anticipating and planning standards needs. In the case of developing a standards integration roadmap for NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), technology roadmapping principles were adapted to develop a roadmap framework to allow NASA and OSMA to define an agency-wide standards integration plan for commercial and industry safety and mission assurance standards. The outcome highlights key adaptations required for roadmapping in a standards context and describes the process steps to formalize a standards planning activity. The roadmapping framework adapted for standards development and integration enables more strategic, forward-looking standards planning and allows for better alignment between evolving capabilities and mission assurance requirements. Beyond its application to mission assurance, this methodology can be transferred to other domains requiring standards development, providing a systematic approach that integrates systems engineering principles into policy strategy and decision-making processes.

Enterprise Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS1991

Capturing, using, and managing quality assurance knowledge for shuttle post-MECO flight design

Ascent initialization values used by the Shuttle's onboard computer for nominal and abort mission scenarios are verified by a six degrees of freedom computer simulation. The procedure that the Ascent Post Main Engine Cutoff (Post-MECO) group uses to perform quality assurance (QA) of the simulation is time consuming. Also, the QA data, checklists and associated rationale, though known by the group members, is not sufficiently documented, hindering transfer of knowledge and problem resolution. A new QA procedure which retains the current high level of integrity while reducing the time required to perform QA is needed to support the increasing Shuttle flight rate. Documenting the knowledge is also needed to increase its availability for training and problem resolution. To meet these needs, a knowledge capture process, embedded into the group activities, was initiated to verify the existing QA checks, define new ones, and document all rationale. The resulting checks were automated in a conventional software program to achieve the desired standardization, integrity, and time reduction. A prototype electronic knowledge base was developed with Macintosh's HyperCard to serve as a knowledge capture tool and data storage.

Peters, H. L.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Safety and Mission Assurance Performance Metric

The safety and mission assurance (S&MA) performance metric is a method that provides a process through which the managers of a large, complex program can readily understand and assess the accepted risk, the problems, and the associated reliability of the program. Conceived for original use in helping to assure the safety and success of the International Space Station (ISS) program, the S&MA performance metric also can be applied to other large and complex programs and projects. The S&MA-performance-metric data products comprise one or more tables (possibly also one or more graphs) that succinctly display all of the information relevant (and no information that is irrelevant) to management decisions that must be made to assure the safety and success of a program or project, thereby facilitating such decisions.

Holsomback, Jerry↗
NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment

A number of specific benefits that fit within the hallmarks of effective development are realized with implementation of model-based approaches to systems and assurance. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) enabled by standardized modeling languages (e.g., SysML®) is at the core. These benefits in the context of spaceflight system challenges can include [1]: • Improved management of complex development • Reduced risk in the development process • Improved cost management • Improved design decisions With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community also can improve early oversight and insight into project development. NASA has shown the basic constructs of SysML in an MBSE environment offer several key advantages, within a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) initiative [2, 3]. These include the following: • Model viewpoints that promote rapid and systematic assessment of requirements coverage, hazard tagging and risk management • Embedded safety assessments for launch vehicles • Deployment of model assisted development of reliability products - Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and Fault Trees • Test Planning • Validation and Verification of complex functions • Support of Assurance Case development for complex systems In addition, while there are benefits to be harvested, there is a realization that these do not come without effort and cost. Enabling model-based approaches requires structure, not only in an organizational context, but in a modeling context as well. There can be a steep learning curve and costs associated to train skilled modelers. But, on the other hand, not all of the assurance community need to be modelers. Models themselves must conform to ontologies that enable assurance. This places constraints upon the models and modelers. Optimums have yet to be developed where resources and constraints on modeling must be traded off in the organization and modeling efforts for projects. A number of barriers need to be overcome, as well, which pose challenges to the developers of the software that supports MBSE/MBMA. Information and data must be made to flow seamlessly through the life cycle. Because there is a wide variety of tools used in the community, to avoid the problems of the past of silos, delays, and diverging interests, information should flow among these tools to support the “single source of truth” paradigm of MBSE. This will greatly facilitate MBMA and advancement of assurance functions.

Evans, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Managing the Risk of Command File Errors

Command File Error (CFE), as defined by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) is, regardless of the consequence on the spacecraft, either: an error in a command file sent to the spacecraft, an error in the process for developing and delivering a command file to the spacecraft, or the omission of a command file that should have been sent to the spacecraft. The risk consequence of a CFE can be mission ending and thus a concern to space exploration projects during their mission operations. A CFE during space mission operations is often the symptom of some kind of imbalance or inadequacy within the system that comprises the hardware & software used for command generation and the human experts involved in this endeavour. As we move into an era of enhanced collaboration with other NASA centers and commercial partners, these systems become more and more complex and hence it is all the more important to formally model and analyze CFEs in order to manage the risk of CFEs. Here we will provide a summary of the ongoing efforts at JPL in this area and also explain some more recent developments in the area of developing quantitative models for the purpose of managing CFE's.

Bayesian Belief Networks↗
NASA NTRS2005

A Review of Diagnostic Techniques for ISHM Applications

System diagnosis is an integral part of any Integrated System Health Management application. Diagnostic applications make use of system information from the design phase, such as safety and mission assurance analysis, failure modes and effects analysis, hazards analysis, functional models, fault propagation models, and testability analysis. In modern process control and equipment monitoring systems, topological and analytic , models of the nominal system, derived from design documents, are also employed for fault isolation and identification. Depending on the complexity of the monitored signals from the physical system, diagnostic applications may involve straightforward trending and feature extraction techniques to retrieve the parameters of importance from the sensor streams. They also may involve very complex analysis routines, such as signal processing, learning or classification methods to derive the parameters of importance to diagnosis. The process that is used to diagnose anomalous conditions from monitored system signals varies widely across the different approaches to system diagnosis. Rule-based expert systems, case-based reasoning systems, model-based reasoning systems, learning systems, and probabilistic reasoning systems are examples of the many diverse approaches ta diagnostic reasoning. Many engineering disciplines have specific approaches to modeling, monitoring and diagnosing anomalous conditions. Therefore, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to building diagnostic and health monitoring capabilities for a system. For instance, the conventional approaches to diagnosing failures in rotorcraft applications are very different from those used in communications systems. Further, online and offline automated diagnostic applications are integrated into an operations framework with flight crews, flight controllers and maintenance teams. While the emphasis of this paper is automation of health management functions, striking the correct balance between automated and human-performed tasks is a vital concern.

Patterson-Hine, Ann↗
NASA NTRS2004

My Summer Experience as an Administrative Officer Assistant

The motto of the Safety and Assurance Directorate (SAAD) at NASA Glenn Research Center is "mission success starts with safety." SAAD has the functions of providing reliability, quality assurance, and system safety management to all GRC projects, programs and offices. Product assurance personnel within SAAD supervise the product assurance efforts by contractors on major contracts within GRC. The directorate includes five division offices and the Plum brook Decommissioning Office. SAAD oversees Glenn's Emergency Preparedness Program which handles security, hazmat, and disaster response and supervision.

Jones, Janelle C.↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Kennedy Space Center Indian River Lagoon Health Initiative Plan

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Medical and Environmental Services Division, which includes both the Environmental Management Branch (EMB) and Environmental Assurance Branch (EAB), identified lagoon health as a high priority for the mission. This document provides NASA KSC and its partners a plan which considers the unique relationship between the approximately 140,000-acre Federal property and the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) estuary on and adjacent to KSC, and proposes projects and restoration actions that will ensure NASA KSC’s continued role as a responsible steward promoting IRL health and biodiversity. Additionally, this document provides NASA KSC a reference document to enable informed decisions regarding future IRL health projects.

Indian River Lagoon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

What Is the OPP Approach to the Next Generation of Laboratory Requirements

Planetary Protection Quality Management System NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection uses a quality-based process evaluation approach to verify planetary protection bioburden compliance over a project’s life cycle. The verification strategy shifts from a comparative direct assay approach validating hardware bioburden at a “moment in time,” to one that implements a continual quality assurance demonstration of the analytical process via established data requirements, laboratory operational, and management parameters throughout the mission’s entire assembly process. Laboratory quality-based systems and management strategies are standardized and implemented across government and industry. A standardized laboratory quality system approach increases transparency throughout the project’s life cycle and aligns planetary protection analytical approaches with government and industry practices to support both NASA and commercial endeavors. Strategies include the implementation of a laboratory quality management structure that documents and routinely validates parameters critical to experimental design and data collection, provides data quality assessment parameters, and ultimately validates that the collected data is of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the specified technical goals. Planetary protection can draw on these practices to provide a systematic process-based quality approach to support planetary protection validation and compliance requirements. Quality approaches including data quality objectives, method performance, data acceptance criteria and the associated laboratory quality management system are presented to provide an overview and framework for a planetary protection laboratory quality management system.

Amy Baker↗
NASA NTRS2014

Enabling Civilian Low-Altitude Airspace and Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations

UAS operations will be safer if a UTM system is available to support the functions associated with Airspace management and geo-fencing (reduce risk of accidents, impact to other operations, and community concerns); Weather and severe wind integration (avoid severe weather areas based on prediction); Predict and manage congestion (mission safety);Terrain and man-made objects database and avoidance; Maintain safe separation (mission safety and assurance of other assets); Allow only authenticated operations (avoid unauthorized airspace use).

Unmanned↗
NASA NTRS2018

Supply Chain Research and Analysis for Space Systems

The implementation of NASA GSFC's portfolio of mission projects relies upon inter-connected, multi-tiered supply chains of organizations operating under direct and indirect contracts and other agreements throughout the U.S. and around the world. These supply chains are subject to an inter-related array of technical/production, business, market and security risks that are amplified by the ongoing globalization of industry and technology and which can disrupt or threaten the production and delivery of products and services when needed and in conformance with requirements. In recognition of such risks and associated challenges, GSFC's SMA directorate launched an innovative Supply Chain Research and Analysis capability three years ago to gain greater insight into the operating environment, performance, capabilities and viability of current and prospective suppliers for GSFC projects and proposals. The capability uses business intelligence techniques and primarily open source information resources as part of a cost-effective, non-intrusive methodology to produce several types of research and analysis reports. The reports are based on a holistic analytical framework encompassing key technical/production, business enterprise management, market and security factors, and feature in-depth information, summary information profiles, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis, and candidate risk concerns in order to pro-actively support SMA and project management needs. The SRA capability, which is designed to complement and support ongoing SMA/project management activities and practices, has produced over 105 reports since its start-up in early 2015.This presentation addresses the approach, methodology and performance of the Supply Chain Research and Analysiscapability and its value in assuring the success of NASA mission projects. In doing so, the presentation provides lessons-learned, best practices, case examples and address how it fits into the development of an enterprise-level Supply Chain Risk Management capability.

supply chain risk management↗