Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Portfolio 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 19 records

Creating Portfolio Management Concepts for Highly Agile and Innovative Government Research Programs Using Design Thinking and Lean Startup Methodologies

Managing a research and development (R&D) portfolio presents numerous challenges, such as prioritizing research areas, remaining agile, strategic workforce planning, and measuring return on investment, impact, and innovation. One government R&D program is charged with producing a high degree of innovative, transformational breakthroughs in aviation technology. A practical, structured methodology for strategically prioritizing emerging aviation R&D in such an environment is lacking. The existing multi-criteria decision aid tools are primarily utilized at an enterprise level, take months to set up and collect data, require large teams of experts, are used on an infrequent basis, and are not conducive to a highly innovative, high-risk portfolio. Prior to audaciously creating a new portfolio prioritization process, the exact challenges with portfolio management for R&D projects were identified using the design thinking and lean start-up methods. A key part of this discovery process was interviewing stakeholders, as well as other managers of organizations charged with producing innovative portfolios. These interviews, as well as additional techniques, were used to develop a deeper understanding of the challenges and, subsequently, lay the foundation for development of an effective portfolio prioritization process. Four potential concepts that represent key findings emerged: carefully selected criteria for portfolio assessment and selection, targeted portfolio turnover rate, dynamic portfolio prioritization framework, and streamlined transition or commercialization of R&D. Acting on any one of the resulting portfolio management concepts will increase the transparency and confidence in portfolio decisions and, ideally, result in a greater degree of transformational breakthroughs in aviation technology.

project portfolio management↗

Development of a Portfolio Management Approach with Case Study of the NASA Airspace Systems Program

A portfolio management approach was developed for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA s) Airspace Systems Program (ASP). The purpose was to help inform ASP leadership regarding future investment decisions related to its existing portfolio of advanced technology concepts and capabilities (C/Cs) currently under development and to potentially identify new opportunities. The portfolio management approach is general in form and is extensible to other advanced technology development programs. It focuses on individual C/Cs and consists of three parts: 1) concept of operations (con-ops) development, 2) safety impact assessment, and 3) benefit-cost-risk (B-C-R) assessment. The first two parts are recommendations to ASP leaders and will be discussed only briefly, while the B-C-R part relates to the development of an assessment capability and will be discussed in greater detail. The B-C-R assessment capability enables estimation of the relative value of each C/C as compared with all other C/Cs in the ASP portfolio. Value is expressed in terms of a composite weighted utility function (WUF) rating, based on estimated benefits, costs, and risks. Benefit utility is estimated relative to achieving key NAS performance objectives, which are outlined in the ASP Strategic Plan.1 Risk utility focuses on C/C development and implementation risk, while cost utility focuses on the development and implementation portions of overall C/C life-cycle costs. Initial composite ratings of the ASP C/Cs were successfully generated; however, the limited availability of B-C-R information, which is used as inputs to the WUF model, reduced the meaningfulness of these initial investment ratings. Development of this approach, however, defined specific information-generation requirements for ASP C/C developers that will increase the meaningfulness of future B-C-R ratings.

Neitzke, Kurt W.↗

System Architecture Modeling for Technology Portfolio Management using ATLAS

Strategic planners and technology portfolio managers have traditionally relied on consensus-based tools, such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in planning the funding of technology development. While useful to a certain extent, these tools are limited in the ability to fully quantify the impact of a technology choice on system mass, system reliability, project schedule, and lifecycle cost. The Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System (ATLAS) aims to provide strategic planners a decision support tool for analyzing technology selections within a Space Exploration Architecture (SEA). Using ATLAS, strategic planners can select physics-based system models from a library, configure the systems with technologies and performance parameters, and plan the deployment of a SEA. Key parameters for current and future technologies have been collected from subject-matter experts and other documented sources in the Technology Tool Box (TTB). ATLAS can be used to compare the technical feasibility and economic viability of a set of technology choices for one SEA, and compare it against another set of technology choices or another SEA. System architecture modeling in ATLAS is a multi-step process. First, the modeler defines the system level requirements. Second, the modeler identifies technologies of interest whose impact on an SEA. Third, the system modeling team creates models of architecture elements (e.g. launch vehicles, in-space transfer vehicles, crew vehicles) if they are not already in the model library. Finally, the architecture modeler develops a script for the ATLAS tool to run, and the results for comparison are generated.

Thompson, Robert W.↗

Simulating energy performance of buildings: a study using eQUEST and Energy Star ® portfolio manager

Commercial buildings consume significant energy in the United States and exhibit high potential for energy use reduction through retrofits. Benchmarking and energy simulation are well established tools in the industry to identify potential improvements and measure performance. Analysis to identify most sensitive retrofit parameters to energy performance can optimize investment and available energy savings. Presented study demonstrates methodology using a static model to determine sensitivity of building design and retrofit parameters with respect to energy performance. Calibrated simulation energy models (eQUEST) of two distribution centers (A, B) are presented. A fractional factorial analysis is conducted on retrofit parameters of efficiency measures targeting the highest energy consumers, and the results are benchmarked using Energy Star® Portfolio Manager. A custom Microsoft Excel® based simulation model is created to simulate occupancy levels, lighting, plug loads, and other equipment used in various spaces throughout the day. For Building A, efficient lighting was the most influential parameter for energy savings, carbon savings and benchmarking score; whereas, for Building B, HVAC efficiency was most influential for energy and demand controlled ventilation and economizers was most influential for benchmarking score. While retrofit projects can save energy and carbon emissions, variation in source-site ratios and state grid emissions, benchmarking scores may not always reflect equivalent improvement. State grid emissions factors, natural gas composition are difficult to model and hence not considered in this study. In conclusion, the synergistic analysis presented, emphasizes the importance of benchmarking and efficiency retrofits in promoting sustainable building practices to reduce energy consumption.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Energy Star Portfolio Manager (ESPM) Training [Slides]

This is a presentation developed by the NREL-Alaska team for the Nonprofit Retrofits for Health and Housing (NORTHH) Program. This presentation will be shared with nonprofits and community members in and around the Interior Alaska region to share information about Energy Star Portfolio Manager (ESPM). ESPM is used to track the energy performance of buildings in the United States and was used on the NORTHH Project to understand the performance of nonprofit owned buildings in the program. This presentation will allow users to learn how to leverage the benefits of this tool.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Portfolio Management

Enterprise Business Information Services Division (EBIS) supports the Laboratory and its functions through the implementation and support of business information systems on behalf of its business community. EBIS Five Strategic Focus Areas: (1) Improve project estimating, planning and delivery capability (2) Improve maintainability and sustainability of EBIS Application Portfolio (3) Leap forward in IT Leadership (4) Comprehensive Talent Management (5) Continuous IT Security Program. Portfolio Management is a strategy in which software applications are managed as assets

Information Technology Applications↗

Probabilistic R&D Portfolio Management Applied to Energy Storage

Here this paper proposes a methodology to analyze the potential of several alternative technologies in advancing a research and development portfolio. The methodology considers technology maturation, use case requirements, performance goals, cost projections, and existing research and development (R&D) efforts to predict the impact of various R&D investment tracks across several energy storage technologies. Technology maturation and cost projections are derived from a probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation, yielding results that incorporate uncertainty in modeling the impact of future R&D. This framework allows the researcher to perform a robust sensitivity analysis to uncover critical pathways and areas where investment will have a high impact.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Safety Risk Knowledge Elicitation in Support of Aeronautical R and D Portfolio Management: A Case Study

Aviation is a problem domain characterized by a high level of system complexity and uncertainty. Safety risk analysis in such a domain is especially challenging given the multitude of operations and diverse stakeholders. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) projects that by 2025 air traffic will increase by more than 50 percent with 1.1 billion passengers a year and more than 85,000 flights every 24 hours contributing to further delays and congestion in the sky (Circelli, 2011). This increased system complexity necessitates the application of structured safety risk analysis methods to understand and eliminate where possible, reduce, and/or mitigate risk factors. The use of expert judgments for probabilistic safety analysis in such a complex domain is necessary especially when evaluating the projected impact of future technologies, capabilities, and procedures for which current operational data may be scarce. Management of an R&D product portfolio in such a dynamic domain needs a systematic process to elicit these expert judgments, process modeling results, perform sensitivity analyses, and efficiently communicate the modeling results to decision makers. In this paper a case study focusing on the application of an R&D portfolio of aeronautical products intended to mitigate aircraft Loss of Control (LOC) accidents is presented. In particular, the knowledge elicitation process with three subject matter experts who contributed to the safety risk model is emphasized. The application and refinement of a verbal-numerical scale for conditional probability elicitation in a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) is discussed. The preliminary findings from this initial step of a three-part elicitation are important to project management practitioners as they illustrate the vital contribution of systematic knowledge elicitation in complex domains.

Shih, Ann T.↗

Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture

The Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture project was established to meet the certification requirements of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) V2.0 Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification (FEAC) Institute program and to provide added value to the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Application Portfolio Management process. The MARS Architecture aims to: (1) address the NASA MSFC Chief Information Officer (CIO) strategic initiative to improve Application Portfolio Management (APM) by optimizing investments and improving portfolio performance, and (2) develop a decision-aiding capability by which applications registered within the MSFC application portfolio can be analyzed and considered for retirement or decommission. The MARS Architecture describes a to-be target capability that supports application portfolio analysis against scoring measures (based on value) and overall portfolio performance objectives (based on enterprise needs and policies). This scoring and decision-aiding capability supports the process by which MSFC application investments are realigned or retired from the application portfolio. The MARS Architecture is a multi-phase effort to: (1) conduct strategic architecture planning and knowledge development based on the DoDAF V2.0 six-step methodology, (2) describe one architecture through multiple viewpoints, (3) conduct portfolio analyses based on a defined operational concept, and (4) enable a new capability to support the MSFC enterprise IT management mission, vision, and goals. This report documents Phase 1 (Strategy and Design), which includes discovery, planning, and development of initial architecture viewpoints. Phase 2 will move forward the process of building the architecture, widening the scope to include application realignment (in addition to application retirement), and validating the underlying architecture logic before moving into Phase 3. The MARS Architecture key stakeholders are most interested in Phase 3 because this is where the data analysis, scoring, and recommendation capability is realized. Stakeholders want to see the benefits derived from reducing the steady-state application base and identify opportunities for portfolio performance improvement and application realignment.

Belshe, Andrea↗

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Creating a Resilience Risk Management Plan

This fact sheet provides actionable planning steps for developing a resilience roadmap in your organization. These steps can serve as an outline to help portfolio managers and other stakeholders manage the financial performance of a commercial building portfolio.

Resilience, Resiliency, Commercial building, comme↗

Spatio-temporal impacts of a utility’s efficiency portfolio on the distribution grid

Energy Efficiency has historically focused on delivering savings to offset growth in energy supply. Today’s growing emphasis on decarbonization of the energy supply is driving renewables adoption and increased interest in electrification. As a result, energy efficiency is being assessed not just in its ability to offset load growth, but also for its ability to alleviate location-specific constraints on transmission and distribution infrastructure. This work demonstrates that advanced measurement and verification modeling techniques can be used to estimate the spatio-temporal grid impact of a portfolio of energy efficiency programs. It extends measurement-based methods to an entire Demand Side Management portfolio and uses a single model to predict annual as well as seasonal building energy use with near-zero bias. In addition, new metrics are introduced to assess grid level impacts of energy efficiency. The results show that the efficiency program portfolio delivers savings of over 12% at the territory-wide proxy level, with substation and feeder level savings ranging from 0.4% to 26%, and ~5%-42% respectively. Overall, these savings impacted 1.0%–1.4% of the energy used at these locations in the grid. This work provides a methodology with potential to connect efficiency with distribution planning, carrying implications for non-wires alternatives and targeted delivery of efficiency programs.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗