SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “PROGRAM 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.
Designing and Developing Web-Based Administrative Tools for Program Management
The task assigned for this internship was to develop a new tool for tracking projects, their subsystems, the leads, backups, and other employees assigned to them, as well as all the relevant information related to the employee (WBS (time charge) codes, time distribution, certifications, and assignments). Currently, this data is tracked manually using a number of different spreadsheets and other tools simultaneously by a number of different people; some of these documents are then merged into one large document. This often leads to inconsistencies and loss in data due to human error. By simplifying the process of tracking this data and aggregating it into a single tool, it is possible to significantly decrease the potential for human error and time spent collecting and checking this information. II. Objective The main objective of this internship is to develop a web-based tool using Ruby on Rails to serve as a method of easily tracking projects, subsystems, and points of contact, along with employees, their assignments, time distribution, certifications, and contact information. Additionally, this tool must be capable of generating a number of different reports based on the data collected. It was important that this tool deliver all of this information using a readable and intuitive interface.
Quantum Science & Technology A Program Manager’s Perspective
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
EOS Directory
This Earth Observing System (EOS) directory is divided into two main sections: white and yellow pages. The white pages list alphabetically the names and addresses -- including e-mail, phone, and fax when available -- of all individuals involved with EOS, from graduate students to panel members to program management and more. The yellow pages list the names, affiliation, and phone number of participants divided by project management, program management, individual project participants, interdisciplinary investigations (listed alphabetically by PI), the Science Executive Committee, various panels, platforms, working groups, fellowships, and contractors.
Human Research Program Science Management: Overview of Research and Development Activities
An overview of research and development activities of NASA's Human Research Science Management Program is presented. The topics include: 1) Human Research Program Goals; 2) Elements and Projects within HRP; 3) Development and Maintenance of Priorities; 4) Acquisition and Evaluation of Research and Technology Proposals; and 5) Annual Reviews
Postdoctoral and Senior Postdoctoral Resident Research Associateship Program and Research Management Associateship Program for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Information on the status of all Resident Research Associated and Research Management Associates is provided. All Associated whose tenure continued as of June 1, 1985 are listed alphabetically by laboratory. Also included are their countries of citizenship and dates of tenure. The status of reporting obligations are summarized. A list of progress reports received during this reporting period is also provided. All Associates who terminated during the reporting period are listed.
NASA's new technology reporting system: A review and future prospects
A systematic effort is made to describe how NASA's new technology reporting system operates today, and how that system might be enhanced. The system is documented in terms of organization, operational practices, and other program benefits. Identified and assessed are incentives or disincentives to reporting, program management, program follow through, and the feasibility of various means for improving the general process. NASA has the only system in the Federal Government for capturing and disseminating new technology developed under its sponsorship of research and development. This system can be improved in many ways, some of which require additional resources and/or more senior management attention, but many of which can be instituted within the authority of the leadership of the Technology Utilization program. The suggested options and actions presented are mutually compatible. Any single action will contribute to improving the process. However, the first and most important step is undoubtedly to gain senior management's attention to the central role played by a vigorous new technology reporting system in the success and value of NASA's broader technology utilization and technology transfer activities.
Project Management in NASA: The system and the men
An analytical description of the NASA project management system is presented with emphasis on the human element. The NASA concept of project management, program managers, and the problems and strengths of the NASA system are discussed.
NASA's New Technology Reporting System: A Review and Future Prospects
This report represents a systematic effort to describe how NASA's new technology reporting system operates today, and how that system might be enhanced. Although the system has run for more than two decades, it is not well documented in terms of organization, operational practices, or other program benchmarks. The study seeks to identify and assess incentives or disincentives to reporting, program management, program follow through, and the feasibility of various means for improving the general process. Initially, it was hoped that the study team might uncover the kind of information that would permit the determination of some 'average' sequence of events (or a time line) from the point of identifying a solution to technical 'need' to the point where its solution was actually reported to NASA. Information regarding this objective proved to be too elusive, primarily because early probes revealed that con- tractor awareness of the new technology requirements generally was too poor to provide useful information. The report that follows is based primarily upon documents furnished by NASA Headquarters, by Field Center technology utilization officers, and interviews with persons knowledgeable about the system. Visits were made to seven Field Centers: Ames Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, Lewis Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. Other documents were furnished by officials of major aerospace corporations. Detailed interviews were conducted with Field Center technology utilization officials, project engineers or scientists, patent counsels, and other Field Center officials who had knowledge about the new technology reporting system. Interviews also were conducted with knowledgeable officials from a number of the primary aerospace companies. Numeric data was obtained from regular NASA reports, from original sources such as, NASA Tech Briefs, or from contractor reports. I am indebted to dozens of persons in both NASA and industry who took time to assist in the data collection by being interviewed, and through answering follow up questions on the telephone. Individuals interviewed and their affiliations are shown in Appendix A. I am most grateful to them for their kind assistance. A note of thanks is due to the other members of the DRI study team: Jody Briles, Kathy Hirst, and Joel Johnson. The responsibility for this report, its accuracy, and the nature of the observations and conclusions rest solely with the author. Text or citations in the numbered footnotes are to be found at the end of each chapter.
Artificial Intelligence Workshop Report
The 4th NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Workshop, held during March 25-27, 2024, in Huntsville, AL, highlighted the significant potential of AI and machine learning (ML) in scientific research and processes. The workshop, supported by the NASA Office of Chief Science Data Officer (OCSDO), emphasized the critical role of foundation models (FMs) and large language models (LLMs) in advancing scientific disciplines. The event brought together domain scientists, computer scientists, AI experts, program managers, program scientists, and industry partners to address key challenges and explore opportunities in applying these advanced technologies.
Management systems planning on new flight programs.
Management systems planning for control and information systems for Voyager project, with attention to work breakdown and scheduling
Management requirements for large field programs
Management planning for global atmospheric research program /GARP/ applied to climatology and weather forecasting
A Contrast in Use of Metrics in Earth Science Data Systems
In recent years there has been a surge in the number of systems for processing, archiving and distributing remotely sensed data. Such systems, working independently as well as in collaboration, have been contributing greatly to the advances in the scientific understanding of the Earth system, as well as utilization of the data for nationally and internationally important applications. Among such systems, we consider those that are developed by or under the sponsorship of NASA to fulfill one of its strategic objectives: "Study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs." NASA's Earth science data systems are of varying size and complexity depending on the requirements they are intended to meet. Some data systems are regarded as NASA's "Core Capabilities" that provide the basic infrastructure for processing, archiving and distributing a set of data products to a large and diverse user community in a robust and reliable manner. Other data systems constitute "Community Capabilities". These provide specialized and innovative services to data users and/or research products offering new scientific insight. Such data systems are generally supported by NASA through peer reviewed competition. Examples of Core Capabilities are 1. Earth Observing Data and Information System (EOSDIS) with its Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs), Science Investigator-led Processing Systems (SIPSs), and the EOS Clearing House (ECHO); 2. Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) Science Data and Information System (TSDIS); 3. Ocean Data Processing System (ODPS); and 4. CloudSat Data Processing Center. Examples of Community Capabilities are projects under the Research, Education and Applications Solutions Network (REASON), and Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System Science (ACCESS) Programs. In managing these data system capabilities, it is necessary to have well-established goals and to measure progress relative to them. Progress is measured through "metrics", which can be a combination of quantitative as well as qualitative assessments. The specific metrics of interest depend on the user of the metrics as well as the type of data system. The users of metrics can be data system managers, program managers, funding agency or the public. Data system managers need metrics for assessing and improving the performance of the system and for future planning. Program managers need metrics to assess progress and the value of the data systems sponsored by them. Also, there is a difference in the metrics needed for core capabilities that tend to be more complex, larger and longer-term compared to community capabilities and the community capabilities that tend to be simpler, smaller and shorter-term. Even among community capabilities there are differences; hence the same set of metrics does not apply to all. Some provide data products to users, some provide services that enable better utilization of data or interoperability among other systems, and some are a part of a larger project where provision of data or services is only a minor activity. There is also a contrast between metrics used for internal and external purposes. Examples of internal purposes are: ensuring that the system meets its requirements, and planning for evolution and growth. Examples of external purposes are: providing to sponsors indicators of success of the systems, demonstrating the contributions of the system to overall program success, etc. This paper will consider EOSDIS, REASON and ACCESS programs to show the various types of metrics needed and how they need to be tailored to the types of data systems while maintaining the overall management goals of measuring progress and contributions made by the data systems.
The unique management role in the NASA space applications program.
Management role in NASA Space Applications Program
Navigator program risk management
In this paper, program risk management as applied to the Navigator Program: In Search of New Worlds will be discussed. The Navigator Program's goals are to learn how planetary systems form and to search for those worlds that could or do harbor life.
Management information systems - Lessons learned in the Apollo program
Management information systems based on Apollo program experience, considering improvements in data accuracy, display, feedback, etc
Engineering Management Capstone Project EM 697: Compare and Contrast Risk Management Implementation at NASA and the US Army
NASA at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the U.S. Army at Redstone Arsenal were analyzed to determine whether they were successful in implementing their risk management program. Risk management implementation surveys were distributed to aid in this analysis. The scope is limited to NASA S&MA (Safety and Mission Assurance) at MSFC, including applicable support contractors, and the US Army Engineering Directorate, including applicable contractors, located at Redstone Arsenal. NASA has moderately higher risk management implementation survey scores than the Army. Accordingly, the implementation of the risk management program at NASA is considered good while only two of five of the survey categories indicated that the risk management implementation is good at the Army.