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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Forging the Forge

As part of the NASA Johnson Space Center’s (JSC) effort to revitalize and recommit to our “Dare Unite Explore” vision for the future, the Center is exploring a new strategy to spread the innovation mindset and increase collaboration across the workforce. In order to maintain JSC’s leadership in human spaceflight, there is a need for working at the speed of commercial industry, breaking down silos between organizations, improving innovation and increasing workforce flexibility. Through brainstorming concepts and benchmarking other facilities, the leadership team evaluated several ideas, assessed constraints and derived that an “Innovation Team” was relatively easy to adopt. Modeled after productive teams like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Innovation Foundry and Glenn Research Center's Compass team, JSC is laying the foundation of a new innovation team called the Forge. This team is as much about getting employees tempered in the ways of innovative thinking as it is about refining design studies and hammering out proposals. By the dictionary definition of the verb, forge can mean either to move ahead slowly and steadily or to move with a sudden increase of speed and power. Driving cultural change in a large government organization like NASA often involves slow perseverance with small injections of momentum to forge ahead. Leveraging lessons learned from the Innovation Foundry and Compass, this paper describes how the collaborative, concurrent engineering framework was tailored to JSC’s needs, as well as the aspects that were considered given JSC’s operation-focused, Program-driven landscape. Our process to drive cultural change, the steps taken, and challenges encountered are discussed. The first two pilots of the teaming framework are described with initial results presented in terms of employee engagement and fostering innovation. We also describe the planned future work and next steps to continue to push the initiative forward. Long has the Center been resting on its operations heritage, now we are forging a new path to Dare to expand frontiers, Unite with our partners and Explore space to benefit humanity.

Culture Change↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Application of Agile for Systems Engineering, Project Management and Modeling and Lessons Learned

The Systems Engineering team within the Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element has been transforming its development processes to be more efficient, robust,and responsive to change and to its stakeholders. To these ends, the Systems Engineering team trialed the integration of agile development techniques into existing and new processes. Agile development methods are well understood within the software development community. Outside ofsoftware development, however, how non-software project management (PM) and systems engineering (SE) teams implement agile development techniques is less well understood. In its transformation efforts, the ExMC SE team focused on three main areas: Improving the project communications among subsystem teams and stakeholders by adopting a scrum-like process, Changing the status and reporting mechanisms to improve schedule coordination between the subsystem team, SE leadership, and ExMC Element leadership, and Unifying the model-based SE workflow to improve understanding of Concepts of Operations across projects.This presentation highlights several of these transformations and what the SE team learned while undergoing the transformation.

S Lumpkins↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

The International Space Station National Lab (ISSNL) was established through Congressional authority in 2005 and has been managed by a nonprofit called the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) since 2011 to support research, development, education, and commercial activities in low-Earth orbit (LEO). NASA leadership is considering next steps for microgravity and orbital activities in LEO in preparation for the retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) and transition to Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) in the 2030 timeframe. Specifically, our study team within the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy addressed the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms? To inform the trade space of potential models, we conducted over 40 discussions with stakeholders internal and external to NASA and reviewed over 35 documents related to LEO legislation, commercialization, models, and activities. Following the extensive literature review and discussions with diverse stakeholders, we defined and evaluated six models, in addition to the current ISSNL model. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios (dynamic, steady, and limited growth of the commercial LEO market and activities) and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria (ability to meet NASA’s needs, adaptability, opportunity for collaboration, market sustainability, and equity and accessibility). The six models in the future trade space were: • Government Research Broker: Customizable research efforts on transport vehicles and CLDs • Innovation Campus: Modern terrestrial campus with workforce focus • Anchor Tenant: Long-term, substantial agreement for leasing space on a single CLD • Fee for Service: Free market approach with NASA-sponsored grants and service/data buys • Matchmaker: Neutral third-party connecting users to platforms • Institute Network: Network of separate but related efforts to enable commercial scaling The Government Research Broker model performed best across the scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibited positive aspects, the two models performed most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. The six models presented in this study are representative of the potential trade space and are illustrative examples. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align to their priorities more closely by using combinations of the unique model features provided in our analysis. The optimal model is likely a combination of features from multiple models. Building upon this work to best position NASA and the diverse stakeholders of LEO activities for success post-ISS, further work will explore the near-term impact of preparing for the transition of the ISS to CLDs by identifying opportunities for modifying the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the many reviewers and discussants, internal and external to NASA, that contributed to the work.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Entry Systems and Vehicle Development Branch (Code TSS)

- TSS was established in 2009 to work with discipline-oriented branches (TSA, TSM, TSF) and provide a leadership approach for sub-system design and hardware components that comprise entry systems. - Currently, branch comprises 11 civil servants and 11 contractors. - 19 NASA Honor Awards in Exceptional Service (2), Achievement (2), Engineering Achievement (5), Early Career Achievement (5), and Outstanding Leadership (5). - In the last decade, TSS has built up core competencies that enable the branch to deliver end-to-end entry systems and vehicle development capabilities.

Antonella Alunni↗
NASA NTRS2023

Know Before You Go: A Community-Derived Approach to Planning for and Preventing Sexual Harassment at Oceanographic Field Sites

Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem on oceanographic research vessels and while conducting fieldwork in general. A variety of factors contribute to inadequate protection against sexual harassment, such as poor training in prevention, support, and response; the remoteness of field sites; academic hierarchies that reinforce uneven power dynamics that extend to fieldwork; and multi-institutional teams with distinct policies or reporting structures that can lead to confusion in reporting and responding to incidents in the field. In compromising individuals’ physical and mental health, sexual harassment can negatively affect research expeditions. For example, harassed individuals may decide to refrain from working on complicated team-based tasks, which can be a safety issue. A broader concern is that sexual harassment deters talented people from pursing or maintaining employment in ocean science. Harassment must be treated with the same gravity as research misconduct and safety policy infringements. When planning a research expedition, science team leaders are responsible for the safety of their team and other colleagues aboard and would benefit from resources aimed at helping team leadership create a plan to ensure safety and inclusivity. To address this resource gap and support consistent safety preparedness, 18 participants in the Workshop to Promote Field Safety in Ocean Sciences, convened by the Consortium for Ocean Leadership and held May 17-18, 2022, in Washington, D.C., developed a checklist for use by scientific leaders and others to assist in planning for participant safety and to prevent harassment the field. The checklist specifies the timing of, and who is responsible for, specific actions that should be taken to improve safety while conducting fieldwork, whether on a research vessel or on land. It also provides additional resources and suggestions for leaders on how to amend the checklist to address their specific fieldwork situations.

Oceanography↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRS2023

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. In light of this transition, NASA senior leadership tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) with answering two questions: 1) what are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms, and 2) in light of these options, what modifications would be helpful to make in the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership and the NASA management processes as NASA plans for the transition of the ISS by 2030? To answer the first question, we conducted a stakeholder-driven analysis to identify a trade space of six differentiated model options. We then evaluated their performance in three potential future scenarios, according to evaluation criteria deemed important to stakeholders. The six models are illustrative and representational of a potential trade space. Additionally, each model requires change to current legislation. To further aid in leadership decision-making, we provided considerations for how to strengthen each model by mixing and matching different model aspects. To answer the second question, we looked to strengths of the top-performing models to evolve the current ISSNL-CASIS relationship and improve NASA’s posture for success post-ISS. We identified four possible modifications to the ISSNL-CASIS partnership and NASA’s management of these activities. By implementing these modifications early, NASA can increase the return from ISSNL-CASIS and help prepare for future models as one or more CLD replaces the ISS by 2030.

ISS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Independent Technical Assessment of NASA and External Quantum Sensing Capability

The recent FY 2020 federal Research and Development Budget Priorities memo addresses the leadership need in Quantum Information Science (QIS) directing agencies to “prioritize QIS research and development (R&D), which will build the technical and scientific base necessary to explore the next generation of QIS theory, devices, and applications.” Quantum Sensing (QS) is an integral part of QIS. NASA is a key part of the directive to forward American space exploration and commercialization by providing “capabilities that have broad potential applications in space and on Earth.” QS provides an arena for NASA to demonstrate leadership in both areas of the administrative directive. QS uses quantum properties to achieve unprecedented measurement sensitivity and performance, including quantum-enhanced methodologies that outperform their classical counterparts. Typical quantum sensors exploit techniques such as atomic systems, matter waves, quantum entanglement, quantum superposition of states, quantum illumination methods, and manipulation of photons and atoms, in general. Guided by advancements in our ability to generate, manipulate, and control quantum systems, the emerging quantum sensing technologies promise unrivalled sensitivity, resolution, and precision, potentially leading to game-changing applications. Significant gains include technologies important for a range of NASA missions such as remote sensing, in situ measurements, metrology, interferometry, quantum communication, ranging, imaging, radar and lidar receivers, and gravity measurements. NASA Engineering and Safety Center has convened an independent external panel, comprising of Quantum Sensing Experts from Government, DoD, academia, and Federally funded Research and Development Center to conduct an independent technical assessment of the agency's capabilities in Quantum Sensing to understand NASA's internal needs and competencies related to Quantum Sensing and compare agency capabilities with those available externally including industry, academia, and other government agencies. The outcomes of the assessment will help the agency in establishing appropriate strategies and investments to develop and maintain the state-of-the-art sensing competence and capabilities required to meet the agency’s future needs. The External Experts Panel (EEP) is collaborating with HQ, various NASA Center and the representatives in the NASA Quantum Sensing Community of Practice (QS CoP), a part of NASA Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Fellow Technical Discipline Team, in obtaining common, current understanding of agency mission needs where QS can be an important enabler for future needs, and any programs, projects, assets, and technologists working in QS. The EEP organized a Quantum Sensing Workshop of practitioners from industry, academia, other government agencies, external experts, and interested NASA personnel to gather the assessment information. EEP also conducted information gathering on the industry at large, educational institutions, and other government agency research efforts for capture in the assessment database. At the conclusion of this assessment, EEP team will develop findings and conclusions describing NASA’s capabilities for the mission needs, NASA's relative position on new, enabling technologies, and an analysis of the gaps that may present any risks to near-term or far-term mission needs. This presentation will give details of the NASA and External Quantum Sensing Assessment outcomes, findings, observations, and its recommendation to NASA as how it can advance Quantum Sensing technologies and techniques for its science and explorations related missions.

External Quantum Sensing Capability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Introduction of an Agile Systems Engineering Process to the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center

This paper will provide background on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) ARMD Test Data Portal (ATDP) effort along with the rationale that motivated the ATDP team to consider implementing an agile systems engineering (SE) process. The primary motivation for using this new SE process was based on the desire to mitigate a major risk to project success. Since the agile SE process had never been used before at the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC), utilizing this new SE process required a trailblazing effort to introduce it to NASA AFRC leadership. As a result, the ATDP team chose to adhere to the agile SE process in addition to the trusted classical waterfall SE process on ATDP. Through successful execution of this hybrid SE process during Phase I, along with demonstrating the value and rigor of the agile SE process, NASA AFRC leadership ultimately permitted the ATDP project to solely use the agile SE process for developments beyond Phase I. While it is the opinion of the authors that the classical SE process is more effective for most projects at NASA AFRC, some projects may deem that the agile SE process is more advantageous. Although this paper is focused on introducing the agile SE process to NASA AFRC, lessons learned will be valuable to other organizations as well. Details of how the ATDP team implemented the agile SE process during Phase I will be summarized, along with how the team met all required classical SE milestones. Lessons learned throughout Phase I of this effort will also be highlighted.

Daniel S. Jones↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NICS (NASA Instrument Capabilities Study) Instrument Schedule and Cost Study

This paper summarizes work performed on the Flight Projects Directorate Planetary Science Projects Division (PSPD, Code 430) NICS (NASA Instrument Capabilities study) instrument schedule and cost study. Included are a short summary of the original NICS (NASA, 2008), and the design and approach, data collection, analysis, preliminary findings and recommendations from select areas of the current study. The NICS (2008) was chartered by then NASA Chief Engineer Michael Ryschkewitsch and chaired by Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) engineer, John Leon. The focus was to identify problem areas in instrument development and, if possible, to offer solutions. In the area of instrument developments, the NICS (2008) identified a lack of resources and authority to successfully manage to instrument cost and schedule requirements; and a lack of critical skills, expertise, and leadership to successfully implement unique (one-of-a-kind) high technology developments (NASA, 2008, pp. 51, 52). Additionally, the NICS (2008) found problems in requirements formulation, reviews and management; unrealistic caps and overly optimistic estimates; and externally directed changes which increased the likelihood of overrunning cost and schedule (NASA, 2008, pp.53, 54). It is noteworthy that NICS findings are consistent with previous studies at the mission level (Robbins, Schmidt & White, 2020). Five years later in 2013, the Instrument Projects Division (IPD) was established to implement and manage instrument projects greater than $20M. The IPD was known as Code 490. Its structure incorporated several of the NICS (2008) recommendations. To see if these incorporated recommendations made a difference, and to identify other potential challenges in instrument developments, two parallel studies were initiated. Originally led by the IPD, now led by the PSPD, and the Instrument and Payload Systems Engineering Branch (IPSE, Code 592), respectively, the instrument schedule and cost study and the instrument technical complexity study began in 2017. Data collection was initiated in 2020 and is on-going. This paper is limited to the IPD/PSPD study. Among other findings, preliminary data indicate IPD/PSPD project management support positively influenced instrument development as related to providing a dedicated level of support staff, including a deputy Instrument Project Manager (dIPM), reducing IPM leadership changes, and providing other project support. Next steps include continued data collection and analysis, and mapping to technical complexity data.

NICS implementation↗
NASA NTRS1995

Cross-cultural issues in CRM training

The author presents six stages of intercultural awareness and relates them to cockpit resource management training. A case study examines cultural differences between South American and United States flight crews and the problems that can occur when pilots minimize differences. Differences in leadership styles are highlighted and strategies for training South American pilots are provided.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 1

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0. NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Uncertainty↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Risk Leadership↗