Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Leadership”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1987

Strategies for Revitalizing Organizations: Regaining the Competitive Edge

During the last decade, the United States has lost competitive stature in the world. Challenged daily by a technically sophisticated and vitalized global economy, industry and Government are examining quality and productivity initiatives with which to meet the foreign competitive challenge. At stake are our quality of life and our standard of living for the remainder of this century and beyond. Being competitive is an ongoing process, tuned to an awareness and understanding of the dynamics of the world marketplace and to the changing nature of the work environment. Solutions to America's quality and productivity problems do not exist independently within any organization or industry or at any given level of society. Success depends on commitment, partnership, meshing of goals and responsibilities, mutual respect and understanding, and a desire to be first. A change in organizational management culture is required. Traditional authoritarian management practices must give way to enlightened leadership initiatives that stress employee involvement and participation. There must be a lessening of adversarial relationships between management and labor and between industry and Government. Quality and productivity are understood to be the end result of an integrated process which begins with vigorous, committed leadership and ends with a satisfied customer. The essential elements in the revitalization process are organized in this report into seven strategies which represent the major findings of the Second NASA Symposium on Quality and Productivity. Each strategy is then broken down into its principal themes which are presented as recommendations. No one strategy can stand apart from any other; all are interrelated and work together.

Nysmith, C. Robert↗
NASA NTRS1992

Technology in action

In keeping with the NASA Administrator's announcement that technology transfer will become a fundamental mission of NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has initiated new programs to reach the heartland of U.S. industry. The Center has continued to expand its already well-established outreach program aimed at helping American business, industry, and academia at the grassroots level. The goal is to ensure that America regains and maintains its proper place of leadership among the world's technologically developed nations. MSFC's national goal is to enhance America's competitiveness in the world marketplace, fortify the value of the dollar, and ensure technological breakthroughs by American laboratories benefit taxpayers and industries. The Technology Utilization (TU) Office at MSFC believes a number of measures are possible to slow, then halt, and ultimately reverse the erosion of American technological leadership. MSFC's TU Office is reaching out to American industry on an increasingly broadening scope, facilitating the transfer of NASA derived technologies to American businesses, industries, educational institutions, and individuals. There are many valid approaches to achieving this goal. Some, such as the National Technology Initiative, begin at the top and work down through America's top corporate structure. Others, such as the technology transfer program that MSFC has implemented, begin at the one-on-one, grassroots level -- working with small and medium-sized firms that form the bulk of American industry. What can be done by one NASA center is, admittedly, limited. But by extrapolating this one-on-one approach to the more than 700 Federal laboratories, a great deal can be accomplished. This report contains an examination of outreach and in reach programs, problem statements programs, applications projects, new technology reporting, new technology administration, and the need for increased resources to further facilitate technology transfer.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Weapons to widgets: Organic systems and public policy for tech transfer

Large cuts in defense spending cause serious repercussions throughout the American economy. One means to counter the negative effects of defense reductions is to redirect federal dollars to temporarily prop up defense industries and, over the longer-term, stimulate growth of new nondefense industries. The creation of non-defense products and industries by channeling ideas from public laboratories into the private sector manufacturing facilities, known as technology transfer, is being undertaken in a massive program that has high visibility, large amounts of money, and broad federal agency involvement. How effectively federal money can be directed toward stimulating the creation of non-defense products will define the strength of the economy, (i.e., tax base, employment level, trade balance, capital investments, etc.), over the next decade. Key functions of the tech transfer process are technology and market assessment, capital formation, manufacturing feasibility, sales and distribution, and business organization creation. Those, however, are not functions typically associated with the federal government. Is the government prepared to provide leadership in those areas? This paper suggests organic systems theory as a means to structure the public sector's actions to provide leadership in functional areas normally outside their scope of expertise. By applying new ideas in organization theory, can we design government action to efficiently and effectively transfer technologies?

Cargo, Russell A.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Modular Manufacturing Simulator Users Manual

Since the agency was established in 1958, a key part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's mission has been to make technologies available to American industry so it can be more widely used by the citizens who paid for it. While many people might think that 'rocket science' has no application to earthly problems, rocket science in fact employs earthly materials, processes, and designs adapted for space, and which can be adapted for other purposes on Earth. Marshall Space Flight Center's Technology Transfer Office has outreach programs designed to connect American business, industries, educational institutions, and individuals who have needs, with NASA people and laboratories who may have the solutions. MSFC's national goal is to enhance America's competitiveness in the world marketplace and ensure that the technological breakthroughs by American laboratories benefit taxpayers and the many industries making up our Nation's industrial base. Activities may range from simple exchanges of technical data to Space Act Agreements which lead to NASA and industry working closely together to solve a problem. The goal is to ensure that America gains and maintains its proper place of leadership among the world's technologically developed nations. Some of the many technologies transferred from NASA to commercial customers include those associated with: Welding and fabrication; Medical and pharmaceutical uses; Fuels and coatings; Structural composites and Robotics. These activities are aimed to achieve the same goal: slowing, halting, and gradually reversing the erosion of American technological leadership. Legislation such as the National Technology Initiative starts at the top and works down through the national corporate structure, while MSFC's activities start at the grassroots level and work up through the small and medium-sized business which form the bulk of our industrial community.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

Implementation Plan for the NASA Center of Excellence for Structures and Materials

This report presents the implementation plans of the Center of Excellence (COE) for Structures and Materials. The plan documented herein is the result of an Agencywide planning activity led by the Office of the Center of Excellence for Structures and Materials at Langley Research Center (LaRC). The COE Leadership Team, with a representative from each NASA Field Center, was established to assist LaRC in fulfilling the responsibilities of the COE. The Leadership Team developed the plan presented in this report.

Harris, Charles E.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Atmosphere of Freedom: Sixty Years at the NASA Ames Research Center

Throughout Ames History, four themes prevail: a commitment to hiring the best people; cutting-edge research tools; project management that gets things done faster, better and cheaper; and outstanding research efforts that serve the scientific professions and the nation. More than any other NASA Center, Ames remains shaped by its origins in the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics). Not that its missions remain the same. Sure, Ames still houses the world's greatest collection of wind tunnels and simulation facilities, its aerodynamicists remain among the best in the world, and pilots and engineers still come for advice on how to build better aircraft. But that is increasingly part of Ames' past. Ames people have embraced two other missions for its future. First, intelligent systems and information science will help NASA use new tools in supercomputing, networking, telepresence and robotics. Second, astrobiology will explore lore the prospects for life on Earth and beyond. Both new missions leverage Ames long-standing expertise in computation and in the life sciences, as well as its relations with the computing and biotechnology firms working in the Silicon Valley community that has sprung up around the Center. Rather than the NACA missions, it is the NACA culture that still permeates Ames. The Ames way of research management privileges the scientists and engineers working in the laboratories. They work in an atmosphere of freedom, laced with the expectation of integrity and responsibility. Ames researchers are free to define their research goals and define how they contribute to the national good. They are expected to keep their fingers on the pulse of their disciplines, to be ambitious yet frugal in organizing their efforts, and to always test their theories in the laboratory or in the field. Ames' leadership ranks, traditionally, are cultivated within this scientific community. Rather than manage and supervise these researchers, Ames leadership merely guided them, represents them to NASA headquarters and the world outside, then steps out of the way before they get run over.

Bugos, Glenn E.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Second Generation RLV Space Vehicle Concept

NASA has a long history of conducting development programs and projects in a consistent fashion. Systems Engineering within those programs and projects has also followed a given method outlined by such documents as the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. The relatively new NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI) is taking a new approach to developing a space vehicle, with innovative management methods as well as new Systems Engineering processes. With the program less than a year into its life cycle, the efficacy of these new processes has yet to be proven or disproven. At $776M for phase 1, SLI represents a major portion of the NASA focus; however, the new processes being incorporated are not reflected in the training provided by NASA to its engineers. The NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership (APPL) offers core classes in program and project management and systems engineering to NASA employees with the purpose of creating a "knowledge community where ideas, skills, and experiences are exchanged to increase each other's capacity for strong leadership". The SLI program is, in one sense, a combination of a conceptual design program and a technology program. The program as a whole doesn't map into the generic systems engineering project cycle as currently, and for some time, taught. For example, the NASA APPL Systems Engineering training course teaches that the "first step in developing an architecture is to define the external boundaries of the system", which will require definition of the interfaces with other systems and the next step will be to "define all the components that make up the next lower level of the system hierarchy" where fundamental requirements are allocated to each component. Whereas, the SLI technology risk reduction approach develops architecture subsystem technologies prior to developing architectures. The higher level architecture requirements are not allowed to fully develop and undergo decomposition and allocation down to the subsystems before the subsystems must develop allocated requirements based on the highest level of requirements. In the vernacular of the project cycles prior to the mid 1990's, the architecture definition portion of the program appears to be at a generic Phase A stage, while the subsystems are operating at Phase B. Even the management structure of the SLI program is innovative in its approach to Systems Engineering and is not reflected in the APPL training modules. The SLI program has established a Systems Engineering office as an office separate from the architecture development or the subsystem technology development, while that office does have representatives within these other offices. The distributed resources of the Systems Engineering Office are co-located with the respective Project Offices. This template is intended to provide systems engineering as an integrated function at the Program Level. the program management of SLI and the MAT agree that "program/project managers and the systems engineering team must work closely together towards the single objective of delivering quality products that meet the customer needs". This paper will explore the differences between the methods being taught by NASA, which represent decades of ideas, and those currently in practice in SLI. Time will tell if the innovation employed by SLI will prove to be the model of the future. For now, it is suggested that the training of the present exercise the flexibility of recognizing the new processes employed by a major new NASA program.

Bailey, Michelle↗
NASA NTRS2002

Activation Energy

Teaming is so common in today's project management environment that most of us assume it comes naturally. We further assume that when presented with meaningful and challenging work, project teams will naturally engage in productive activity to complete their tasks. This assumption is expressed in the simple (but false) equation: Team + Work = Teamwork. Although this equation appears simple and straightforward, it is far from true for most project organizations whose reality is a complex web of institutional norms based on individual achievement and rewards. This is illustrated by the very first successful team experience from my early Air Force career. As a young lieutenant, I was sent to Squadron Officer School, which was the first in the series of Air Force professional military education courses I was required to complete during my career. We were immediately formed into teams of twelve officers. Much of the course featured competition between these teams. As the most junior member of my team, I quickly observed the tremendous pressure to show individual leadership capability. At one point early in the course, almost everyone in our group was vying to become the team leader. This conflict was so intense that it caused us to fail miserably in our first outdoor team building exercise. We spent so much time fighting over leadership that we were unable to complete any of the events on the outdoor obstacle course. This complete lack of success was so disheartening to me that I gave our team little hope for future success. What followed was a very intense period of bickering, conflict, and even shouting matches as our dysfunctional team tried to cope with our early failures and find some way to succeed. British physician and researcher Wilfred Bion (Experiences in Groups, 1961) discovered that there are powerful psychological forces inherent in all groups that divert from accomplishing their primary tasks. To overcome these restraining forces and use the potential power of the team, greater emphasis must be placed on establishing and maintaining group cohesiveness. This relationship is expressed in the revised (true) mathematical equation: Team + Work (on the Team) = Teamwork.

Gadeken, Owen↗
NASA NTRS2003

Academy Sharing Knowledge (ASK). The NASA Source for Project Management Magazine, Volume 11, March 2003

APPL is a research-based organization that serves NASA program and project managers, as well as project teams, at every level of development. In 1997, APPL was created from an earlier program to underscore the importance that NASA places on project management and project teams through a wide variety of products and services, including knowledge sharing, classroom and online courses, career development guidance, performance support, university partnerships, and advanced technology tools. ASK Magazine grew out of APPL's Knowledge Sharing Initiative. The stories that appear in ASK are written by the 'best of the best' project managers, primarily from NASA, but also from other government agencies and industry. Contributors to this issue include: Teresa Bailey, a librarian at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Roy Malone, Deputy Director in the Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), W. Scott Cameron, Capital Systems Manager for the Food and Beverage Global Business Unit of Procter and Gamble, Ray Morgan, recent retiree as Vice President of AeroVironment, Inc., Marty Davis, Program Manager of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, Todd Post, editor of ASK Magazine, and works for EduTech Ltd. in Silver Spring, Maryland, Dr. Owen Gadeken, professor of Engineering Management at the Defense Acquisition University, Ken Schwer, currently the Project Manager of Solar Dynamics Observatory, Dr. Edward Hoffmwan, Director of the NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership, Frank Snow, a member of the NASA Explorer Program at Goddard Space Flight Center since 1992, Dr. Alexander Laufer, Editor-in-Chief of ASK Magazine and a member of the Advisory Board of the NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership, Judy Stokley, presently Air Force Program Executive Officer for Weapons in Washington, D.C. and Terry Little, Director of the Kinetic Energy Boost Office of the Missile Defense Agency.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Going Up

The accelerated Leadership Option (ALO) combines business management and systems engineering studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) culminating in a Master of Science degree, with a one year developmental assignment. The program accelerates the development process of exceptionally promising project leaders to positions of increased responsibility. Participants are selected because of technical expertise and proven leadership abilities.

Douglas, Freddie, III↗
NASA NTRS2004

Passing the Baton: Lessons in Regret

I have led six major defense acquisition programs during my civil service career. For most of those, I was the first leader the program had and did not have to adjust to someone else's legacy. This was both good and bad. The obvious good was that I was able, for the most part, to fashion things as I wanted them. These included patterns of interaction inside and outside the project office. I chose who would be in leadership positions. I developed the managerial philosophy and leadership vision. I decided my role vis-a-vis others in the office. I created the expectations and goals. The bad part was that all the while I was doing this I never considered what I might be leaving my successor to deal with. My reasoning was simple: I never intended to leave. I should have known better.

Little, Terry↗
NASA NTRS2004

NASA's Geospatial Interoperability Office(GIO)Program

NASA produces vast amounts of information about the Earth from satellites, supercomputer models, and other sources. These data are most useful when made easily accessible to NASA researchers and scientists, to NASA's partner Federal Agencies, and to society as a whole. A NASA goal is to apply its data for knowledge gain, decision support and understanding of Earth, and other planetary systems. The NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) Geospatial Interoperability Office (GIO) Program leads the development, promotion and implementation of information technology standards that accelerate and expand the delivery of NASA's Earth system science research through integrated systems solutions. Our overarching goal is to make it easy for decision-makers, scientists and citizens to use NASA's science information. NASA's Federal partners currently participate with NASA and one another in the development and implementation of geospatial standards to ensure the most efficient and effective access to one another's data. Through the GIO, NASA participates with its Federal partners in implementing interoperability standards in support of E-Gov and the associated President's Management Agenda initiatives by collaborating on standards development. Through partnerships with government, private industry, education and communities the GIO works towards enhancing the ESE Applications Division in the area of National Applications and decision support systems. The GIO provides geospatial standards leadership within NASA, represents NASA on the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Coordination Working Group and chairs the FGDC's Geospatial Applications and Interoperability Working Group (GAI) and supports development and implementation efforts such as Earth Science Gateway (ESG), Space Time Tool Kit and Web Map Services (WMS) Global Mosaic. The GIO supports NASA in the collection and dissemination of geospatial interoperability standards needs and progress throughout the agency including areas such as ESE Applications, the SEEDS Working Groups, the Facilities Engineering Division (Code JX) and NASA's Chief Information Offices (CIO). With these agency level requirements GIO leads, brokers and facilitates efforts to, develop, implement, influence and fully participate in standards development internationally, federally and locally. The GIO also represents NASA in the OpenGIS Consortium and ISO TC211. The OGC has made considerable progress in regards to relations with other open standards bodies; namely ISO, W3C and OASIS. ISO TC211 is the Geographic and Geomatics Information technical committee that works towards standardization in the field of digital geographic information. The GIO focuses on seamless access to data, applications of data, and enabling technologies furthering the interoperability of distributed data. Through teaming within the Applications Directorate and partnerships with government, private industry, education and communities, GIO works towards the data application goals of NASA, the ESE Applications Directorate, and our Federal partners by managing projects in four categories: Geospatial Standards and Leadership, Geospatial One Stop, Standards Development and Implementation, and National and NASA Activities.

Weir, Patricia↗
NASA NTRS1983

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Twenty-Fifth Anniversary, 1958-1983

This year marks a major milestone for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: its silver anniversary. It seems appropriate, on this occasion, to sum up how NASA has responded to the legislative charter that established the agency. Among the responsibilities the Congress assigned NASA in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 were these: preservation of U.S. leadership in aerospace science and technology; cooperation with other nations in the peaceful application of technology; expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and in space; pursuit of the practical benefits to be gained from aeronautical and space activities. There can be no doubt that NASA's quarter century of effort has preserved the nation's leadership role and strengthened its posture in aerospace science and technology. As for international cooperation. NASA has - since its inception - fostered the concept that the fruits of civil space research are to be shared with all mankind. The agency has provided technical assistance to scores of nations and has actively promoted cooperative ventures; indeed, virtually every major NASA space project today boasts some degree of foreign participation. In the last 25 years, man has teamed more about his planet, the near-Earth environment, and the universe than in all the prior years of history. NASA's space science program has spearheaded this great expansion of human knowledge. And, from the beginning, NASA has vigorously pursued the practical benefits that aerospace research offers. The agency pioneered in weather, communications and Earth resources survey satellites, the prime examples of space technology applied for Earth benefit, and it has built a broad base for expanding into new applications, some of which promise direct benefits of exceptional order. In aeronautical research, NASA has contributed in substantial degree to safer, better performing, more efficient, more environmentally acceptable aircraft.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Photovoltaic Engineering

The Ohio Aerospace Institute through David Scheiman and Phillip Jenkins provided the Photovoltaics Branch at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) with expertise in photovoltaic (PV) research, flight experiments and solar cell calibration. NASA GRC maintains the only world-class solar cell calibration and measurement facility within NASA. GRC also has a leadership role within the solar cell calibration community, and is leading the effort to develop ISO standards for solar cell calibration. OAI scientists working under this grant provided much of the expertise and leadership in this area.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

Proceedings of the 2003 NASA/JPL Workshop on Fundamental Physics in Space

The 2003 Fundamental Physics workshop included presentations ranging from forces acting on RNA to properties of clouds of degenerate Fermi atoms, to techniques to probe for a added space-time dimensions, and to flight hardware for low temperature experiments, amongst others. Mark Lee from NASA Headquarters described the new strategic plan that NASA has developed under Administrator Sean O'Keefe's leadership. Mark explained that the Fundamental Physics community now needs to align its research program and the roadmap describing the long-term goals of the program with the NASA plan. Ulf Israelsson of JPL discussed how the rewrite of the roadmap will be implemented under the leadership of the Fundamental Physics Discipline Working Group (DWG). Nick Bigelow, chair of the DWG, outlined how investigators can contribute to the writing of the roadmap. Results of measurements on very cold clouds of Fermi atoms near a Feshbach resonance were described by three investigators. Also, new measurements relating to tests of Einstein equivalence were discussed. Investigators also described methods to test other aspects of Einstein's relativity theories.

Strayer, Don↗
NASA NTRS2005

The Knowledge Stealing Initiative?

I have the honor of being on the Academy of Program and Project Leadership (APPL) Knowledge Sharing Feedback and Assessment Team (FAA), and as such, I am privileged to receive the feedback written by many of you as attendees of the Project Management (PM) Master s Forums. It is the intent of the FAA Team and APPL leadership to use this feedback as a tool for continuous program improvement. As a retired (sort of) PM in the payload contracting industry, I'm a big supporter of NASA s Knowledge Sharing Initiative (KSI), especially the Master's Forums. I really enjoy participating in them. Unfortunately I had to miss the 8th forum in Pasadena this past Spring, but I did get the feedback package for the Assessment Team work. So here I was, reviewing twelve pages of comments, reflections, learning notes and critiques from attendees of the 8th forum.

Goshorn, Larry↗
NASA NTRS2005

Project Apollo: The Tough Decisions

The report reviews the major Mercury and then Gemini precursors for the Apollo mission program and its development and mission sequence. But, very importantly, it describes the major and often complex deliberations that encouraged inputs from the broad range of informed internal Agency individuals in order to arrive at the resulting actions taken; it recognizes differences among their various views, including even sensitivities within the leadership of the Agency, and it acknowledges NASA's relationships with the President and key executive branch personnel, as well as the very important and often complex relationships with members of Congress. The process of writing this book was searching and comprehensive. The achievement of the world's first manned lunar landings, after the earlier Mercury and Gemini programs played catch-up to match the Soviet Union's advanced position, clearly established the United States' preeminence in space. Early in the book, Bob describes an extended meeting in the White House in which the President's views and those of Mr. Webb were seriously discussed. Bob tells how, through Apollo's lunar landing, NASA clearly met both President Kennedy's goal to overcome the Soviets' leadership image and James Webb's goal to use Apollo as a major part of his program to demonstrate U.S. technological preeminence.

Seamans, Robert C., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Science and the Constellation Systems Program Office

An underlying tension has existed throughout the history of NASA between the human spaceflight programs and the external scientific constituencies of the robotic exploration programs. The large human space projects have been perceived as squandering resources that might otherwise be utilized for scientific discoveries. In particular, the history of the relationship of science to the International Space Station Program has not been a happy one. The leadership of the Constellation Program Office, created in NASA in October, 2005, asked me to serve on the Program Manager s staff as a liaison to the science community. Through the creation of my position, the Program Manager wanted to communicate and elucidate decisions inside the program to the scientific community and, conversely, ensure that the community had a voice at the highest levels within the program. Almost all of my technical contributions at NASA, dating back to the Apollo Program, has been within the auspices of what is now known as the Science Mission Directorate. However, working at the Johnson Space Center, where human spaceflight is the principal activity, has given me a good deal of incidental contact and some more direct exposure through management positions to the structures and culture of human spaceflight programs. I entered the Constellation family somewhat naive but not uninformed. In addition to my background in NASA science, I have also written extensively over the past 25 years on the topic of human exploration of the Moon and Mars. (See, for example, Mendell, 1985). I have found that my scientific colleagues generally have little understanding of the structure and processes of a NASA program office; and many of them do not recognize the name, Constellation. In many respects, the international ILEWG community is better informed. Nevertheless, some NASA decision processes on the role of science, particularly with respect to the formulation of a lunar surface architecture, are not well known, even in ILEWG. At the recent annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, I reviewed the evolution of the program as a function of Agency leadership and the constraints put on NASA by the President in his 2004 announcement. I plan to continue my long-time ILEWG tradition of reporting a personal view of the state of development of human exploration of the solar system, this time coming from within the program office tasked to implement the vision for the United States. The current NASA implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration is consistent with certain classical scenarios that have been discussed extensively in the literature. I will discuss the role of science within the Vision, both from official policy and from a de facto interaction. While science goals are not officially driving the implementation of the Vision, the tools of scientific exploration are integral to defining the extraterrestrial design environments. In this respect the sharing of results from international missions to the Moon can make significant contributions to the success of the future human activities.

Mendell, Wendell↗