NASA Strategic Plan 2011

“If you don’t know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.”
–Yogi Bera

Last week, my colleagues across the agency and I received an email from NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden sharing highlights from the new NASA strategic plan nearing final release in early 2011.  Here is an outline.

– NASA Strategic Plan 2011 Highlights –

Vision: NASA leads scientific and technological advances in aeronautics and space for a Nation on the frontier of discovery.

Mission: Drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the Earth.

Goal 1:  Extend and sustain human activities across the solar system.

1.1     Sustain the operation and full use of the International Space Station and expand efforts to utilize the ISS as a national lab for scientific, technological, diplomatic, and educational purposes and support future objectives in human space exploration.

1.2     Develop competitive opportunities for the commercial community to provide best value products and services to Low Earth Orbit and beyond.

1.3     Conduct robotic missions to scout destinations, find resources, and lower risk for future human exploration.

1.4     Develop an integrated architecture and capabilities for safe crewed and cargo missions beyond Low Earth Orbit.

Goal 2:  Expand scientific understanding of the Earth and the universe in which we live.

2.1     Advance Earth System Science to meet the challenges of climate and environmental change.

2.2     Understand the Sun and its interactions with the Earth and the solar system.

2.3     Ascertain the content, origin and evolution of the solar system and the potential for life elsewhere.

2.4     Discover how the universe works, explore how it began and evolved, and search for Earth-like planets.

Goal 3:  Create the innovative new space technologies for our exploration, science, and economic future.

3.1     Sponsor early stage innovation in space technologies in order to improve the future capabilities of NASA, other government agencies, and the aerospace industry.

3.2     Infuse game-changing and cross-cutting technologies throughout the nation’s space enterprise, to transform the nation’s space mission capabilities.

3.3     Develop and demonstrate the critical technologies that will make NASA’s exploration, science, and discovery missions more affordable and more capable.

3.4     Facilitate the transfer of NASA technology and engage in partnerships with other government Agencies, industry, and international entities to generate U.S. commercial activity and other public benefits.

Goal 4:  Advance aeronautics research for societal benefit.

4.1    Develop innovative solutions and advanced technologies through a balanced research portfolio to improve current and future air transportation.

4.2   Conduct systems-level research on innovative and promising aeronautics concepts and technologies to demonstrate integrated capabilities and benefits in a relevant flight and/or ground environment.

Goal 5:  Enable program and institutional capabilities to conduct NASA’s aeronautics and space activities.

5.1     Identify, cultivate, and sustain a diverse workforce and inclusive work environment that is needed to conduct NASA missions.

5.2     Ensure vital assets are ready, available, and appropriately sized to conduct NASA’s missions.

5.3     Ensure the availability to the Nation of NASA-owned strategically important test capabilities.

5.4     Implement and provide space communications and launch capabilities responsive to existing and future science and space exploration missions.

5.5     Establish partnerships, including innovative arrangements, with commercial, international, and other government entities to maximize mission success.

Goal 6:  Share NASA with the public, educators, and students to provide opportunities to participate in our mission, foster innovation and contribute to a strong National economy.

6.1     Improve retention of students in STEM disciplines by providing opportunities and activities along the full length of the education pipeline.

6.2     Promote STEM literacy through strategic partnerships with formal and informal organizations.

6.3     Engage the public in NASA’s missions by providing new pathways for participation.

6.4    Inform, engage and inspire the public by sharing NASA’s missions, challenges, and results.

The previous NASA strategic plan was released in early 2006 and reflected NASA’s direction following the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia.  A number of the items in the 2006 plan have come to pass, are nearing fruition or have been overcome by events.

– NASA Strategic Plan 2006 Highlights –

Vision:  To advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.  (See the Vision for Space Exploration.)

Mission: To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.

Strategic Goal 1: Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010.

1.1. Assure the safety and integrity of the Space Shuttle work- force, systems and processes, while flying the manifest.

1.2. By September 30, 2010, retire the Space Shuttle.

Strategic Goal 2: Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with NASA’s International partner commitments and the needs of human exploration.

2.1. By 2010, complete assembly of the U.S. On-orbit Segment; launch International Partner elements and sparing items required to be launched by the Shuttle; and provide on-orbit resources for research to support U.S. human space exploration.

2.2. By 2009, provide the on-orbit capability to support an ISS crew of six crewmembers.

Strategic Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration.

Sub-goal 3A: Study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs.

Sub-goal 3B: Understand the Sun and its effects on Earth and the solar system.

Sub-goal 3C: Advance scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of life, and prepare for human exploration.

Sub-goal 3D: Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets.

Sub-goal 3E: Advance knowledge in the fundamental disciplines of aeronautics, and develop technologies for safer aircraft and higher capacity airspace systems.

Sub-goal 3F: Understand the effects of the space environment on human performance, and test new technologies and countermeasures for long-duration human space exploration.

Strategic Goal 4: Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement.

4.1. No later than 2014, and as early as 2010, transport three crewmembers to the International Space Station and return them safely to Earth, demonstrating an operational capability to support human exploration missions.

4.2. No later than 2014, and as early as 2010, develop and deploy a new space suit to support exploration, that will be used in the initial operating capability of the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

Strategic Goal 5: Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector.

5.1. Develop and demonstrate a means for NASA to purchase launch services from emerging launch providers.

5.2. By 2010, demonstrate one or more commercial space services for ISS cargo and/or crew transport.

5.3. By 2012, complete one or more prize competitions for independently designed, developed, launched, and operated missions related to space science or space exploration.

Strategic Goal 6: Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.

6.1. By 2008, launch a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) that will provide information about potential human exploration sites.

6.2. By 2012, develop and test technologies for in-situ resource utilization, power generation, and autonomous systems that reduce consumables launched from Earth and moderate mission risk.

6.3. By 2010, identify and conduct long-term research necessary to develop nuclear technologies essential to support human-robotic lunar missions and that are extensible to exploration of Mars.

6.4. Implement the space communications and navigation architecture responsive to Science and Exploration mission requirements.

What similarities to you see between the two strategic plans?  Key differences?

 

Update February 14, 2011. The NASA Strategic Plan has been released.  Get it here.

A New Challenge

“The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution”
–Bertrand Russell

About this time last year I was kicking off a team to begin a strategic planning effort for future contracts needed by mission operations in Houston.  The changes in human spaceflight policy, first unveiled publically with the President’s budget on February 1, re-vectored that activity into a very short-term tactical planning effort.  As 2010 draws to a close, the tactical planning effort has served its intended purpose, and once again the time has come to examine the case for a longer-range strategic plan to move mission operations towards the future.  In other words, I’m seeking a way to state the problem in a way that will allow a solution.

I’m sure that many of you reading Leading Space have faced uncertainty and ambiguity in your own areas, yet you’ve decided ahead of time, or realized after the fact, that neither is a valid basis for choosing not to move ahead.  Likewise, we’ve bought some time while the new human spaceflight policy runs through its process involving the White House and Congress, with the only remaining piece left is to attain passage of appropriations in line with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.  Even with that key remaining piece left to do, and despite the threat of a full-year continuing resolution hanging in the air, I find myself in a position to influence an important decision: how can we move forward?

In recent days I’ve read two different blog posts that have reinforced my resolve to state the problem in a way that will allow the team to take action, to move ahead.  The first, “How Much Trouble is the Economy Really In?” by Joan Koerber-Walker, makes a very strong case that, even in the current uncertain climate, one can still manage risk and opportunity based on research, realignment, response, revisiting, and repeating the cycle.  The second, “How to Drive Change with a Leadership Point of View” by Scott Eblin, mentions that a reality-based leadership point-of-view grounded in observable facts and trends that can be projected into the future is of better utility than a vague, fuzzy idea of the future.

I’m still digesting these.  I see the beginnings of the road to a solution based upon research, creating new ideas (i.e., realigning) based upon projecting trends, and towards the end bounding the risk based upon known unknowns and educated guesses about the unknown unknowns.  I still have the luxury of time with the coming holidays, and certainly welcome any ideas you may have.

What would you do to move ahead?

Competition, Cooperation, Collaboration, and Consolidation

“Interdependence is a fact, it’s not an opinion.”
–Peter Coyote

 

Last week I read a prepublication report issued by the National Research Council on interagency collaboration.  The NRC recently conducted a study of NASA’s interagency cooperation on Earth science missions called for in the NASA Authorization Act of 2008.  The key finding in the report was quite telling: “…engaging in collaboration carries significant cost and schedule risks that need to be actively mitigated. Agencies are especially likely to seek collaborators for complex missions so that expected costs can be shared. However, … inefficiencies arise when collaborating agencies’ goals, authorities, and responsibilities are not aligned.”  Setting aside for a moment the slightly confusing interchange of “cooperation” and “collaboration”, let’s examine the fundamental question here: when should two parties engage in various forms of interchange, and what value is there in it?

You can tell I’m setting the table in a particular way because I said “value” above.  Yes, we will look at this question from the perspective of the value equation I introduced previously.  But first, some background.

A number of years ago I was involved in a NASA-wide special project called “One NASA”.  This O’Keefe-era initiative (discontinued by Griffin in 2006) focused on enhanced coordination, collaboration and communication among all Agency elements to reach common goals.  At the time of the initiative, I was involved in my Center’s formal mentoring program, and my mentor was the person in charge of representing our Center to One NASA.  One of my mentoring tasks was analyzing a set of survey results collected by One NASA from Civil Servants and contractors from across the Agency, touching upon topics of coordination and collaboration.  This experience was formative for me in that I started to picture what it means to coordinate and collaborate, and those thoughts recently resurfaced both as I read the above report as well as prepare for my coming assignment.  It’s this framework that I’ll share next, and I’d love to get your feedback on it.

First of all, what is the most essential ingredient to an interchange?  Well, it’s quite simple: there has to be two or more parties involved.  Seems obvious, yet this is important in that it establishes the foundation for how an interchange occurs.

The important variable in characterizing the interchange between two or more parties is the degree of their interdependency in achieving outcomes.  I’ll have more to say about this in a moment.

Finally, the decision to choose one degree or another of interdependency is a function of the value equation, where value equals benefit minus costs.

Using the above, I’ve formed a spectrum of interchanges between two or more parties as a function of interdependency.  I’ve provided names to particular points on the spectrum that equate roughly to the definitions I formed on the basis of the One NASA survey results, and that align fairly well to the definitions in the NRC report.

Competition.  Two or more firms compete for work.  On the scale of interdependency between firms, we are at one extreme: there is none, nor is there any required.  (In fact, if there is any, we call that “collusion.”) Furthermore, the goals, authority, and responsibility of the firms involved are completely independent.  The idea behind competition is to solicit for ideas and approaches in an almost Darwinistic vein of “survival of the fittest”, using the value equation: seek the combination of benefit and cost that provide the best value.  (Sometimes it is increased benefit, or lower cost; sometimes it is both.)  The concepts behind competition govern most of my daily work life as I lead the development of procurement strategies for mission operations, yet the concept of competition surfaced repeatedly as an idea in the One NASA survey results: why not let different NASA elements compete for work?  Although this concept did not meet with the strategic direction of the Agency, the basic idea stuck with me as one of the anchor points for describing interdependency between elements.

Cooperation.  Moving further along the interdependency spectrum, we next encounter cooperation.  Here, two or more firms engage in some form of exchange or coordination that provides some measure of increased benefit that would not be available should the parties go it alone.  The cost associated with the exchange is negligible and can be ignored.  The parties still keep to their relatively independent goals, authority, and responsibility, although there may be a small amount of congruence.  The classic case in my mind is international cooperation: each party sticks to its own goals and maintains relative autonomy relative to the other; however, each party sees some increased benefit whether it is in terms of a unique contribution from another party, or in terms of secondary benefits (such as international diplomacy).

Collaboration.  Continuing ahead, we next encounter collaboration.  Here, two or more firms engage in a higher degree of exchange characterized by a high degree of interdependency.  The firms work towards a common shared goal and work out a formal arrangement on authority and responsibility.  In a collaborative setting, the interchanges can be quite numerous and complex, leading to the need to examine carefully and distinguish between inherent complexity and imposed complexity, with the desire being to reduce imposed complexity as much as possible.  In terms of the value equation, the benefit of collaboration (primary, secondary, or otherwise) has to outweigh the extra costs associated with a collaborative effort.  It is the benefit-cost trade that is at the heart of the NRC report I mentioned earlier.  Entering into a collaborative effort without an examination of goal alignment and the value equation is irresponsible and can lead to the failure of the collaborative effort.

Consolidation.  At the other end of the spectrum is consolidation.  In this case, the goals, authority, and responsibility are highly aligned (or are forced to be so, which is a whole different story).  The degree of interdependency is total and complete.  An examination of the value equation says that tremendous value can be achieved if the separate parties are combined into one, usually around the parameter of cost.

In the end, I formed the following picture:

Competition	Cooperation	Collaboration	Consolidation
(No interdependency)	(Little interdependency)	(High interdependency)	(Total interdependency)

What would you add to this picture?

 

The Value Equation

“Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.”
–Warren Buffett

 

Last week I did an interview on Pars3c.com as part of the ongoing High5 series.  In one question I touched upon business models and offered the idea of “the value equation” as being a possible means to evaluate different business models.

What is the value equation, and it is really possible to compare and contrast equivalent approaches using this relationship?

In my current line of work of developing and implementing strategies for acquiring the goods and services needed by mission operations in Houston, the value equation plays a central role.  In soliciting for goods and services, we weigh the proposed benefit in terms of technical, management, and business approaches, along with demonstrated reliability based upon past performance, and contrast that against the cost for the proposed approaches.  The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) defines “best value” as “a combination of competitive pricing and improved performance” (i.e., benefit).

With the above we have some clues.  In a very simplistic way, the relationship between benefit and cost and the resulting value can be expressed in terms of the following equation:

value = benefit – cost

Let’s look at some results for value in terms of benefit and cost.

One way to increase value is to provide the same benefit at a reduced cost; that is, if the benefit is the same, reducing cost provides more value.  Focusing for a minute on the commercial-versus-Government debate on access to low Earth orbit, one can surmise a logical explanation behind the philosophy for handing over routine cargo and crew transportation services to the commercial sector.  It is rooted in the belief that standard commercial business practices and the free market will lead to lower costs in the longer run for the same services (i.e., benefits) provided by systems in existence today.  This is the relationship that many have in mind as to why it is desirable to reduce cost; as long as one can reduce cost yet continue to provide the same goods or services, it is perceived of greater value.  I certainly do.  Wal-Mart is the master of this approach with its volume buying and pressure on it suppliers to reduce costs.

That’s the easy part.  Let’s get a bit more complicated and look at another way to use the equation.

Another way to increase value is to find new benefits at an additional cost that makes it worth the benefit-cost trade.  One way to find new benefits would be to create additional business lines or identify additional customers beyond NASA that can use cargo and crew transportation services to low Earth orbit.  Space tourism is the hot item right now, yet I believe other avenues will be needed to make the business case sustainable in the long run. Could space-based solar power be one of those business lines?  Or harvesting and recycling dead satellites for valuable materials?  I’m sure the leaders in the commercial sector are mulling over these, and a host of others, as potential business lines; I suspect they need additional business lines like these to help close the business case for entry into commercial transportation services.  The examples I cite are areas in which NASA is not really active as far as I know, so these represent new benefits around which additional value can be created, as long as the costs are worth the trade.

Oh yes, I’ve been avoiding intentionally the one question you had as soon as I wrote the value equation (especially if you’re my high school physics teacher, Mrs. Matney).  Time to deal with it.  How can one “subtract” cost from benefit to arrive at value?  Aren’t they measured in different units?

That takes us to the extremely hard part.

One of the key differences between mission-driven Government organizations and the commercial sector is this very element; the fact that for many mission-driven Government organizations such as NASA, benefit is not expressible readily in terms of the unit used for cost: money.  Profit has no meaning.  Attempts to monetize benefit in terms of some kind of return on investment use complicated and obfuscated secondary effects such as spinoffs or economic multipliers.  (The latter says that for every dollar invested in NASA, NASA returns X in economic benefit.  I’ve seen no definitive number for X, with values ranging anywhere from 2 to 9 depending on the source.)  Reasonable people can disagree on how benefit is monetized, and thus we can end up with differing results for value.

(Oh, I probably angered a bunch of CBA analysts with that last paragraph.  So be it.)

In the commercial sector, as much as one may want to see altruistic reasons for getting into a business, often the key measure of benefit comes down to money: what is the profit, and what is the return on investment?  I know, I know – a company built to last does not use the profit motive as its purpose for being in business, yet the bottom line does have a significant role in whether a business stays in business, or not.  Even Disney with its “Make People Happy” purpose has to turn a profit; if it doesn’t, no more Disney shows on TV and no more amusement parks, and I know of at least two young girls who would be up in arms over that.

I don’t have a ready-made solution to this challenge.  Yet perhaps that in itself is a clue: the solution for what is best in the long run for the future of human spaceflight is not to be found through a detailed best value comparison of commercial-versus-Government approaches to low Earth orbit.  Might it be found elsewhere, in terms of the larger picture perhaps?

This goes back to another idea I raised later in the same interview, and touched upon in a recent blog post by Wayne Hale: the need for strong leadership.

That is a topic for another time.

 

Part of the Solution, not of the Problem

“To solve any problem, here are three questions to ask: First, what could I do? Second, what can I read? Third, who can I ask?”
–Jim Rohn

 

Last week’s election results are in, and as predicted the House will change political leadership when the next Congress convenes in January.  Speculation is rampant in the news (see this, this, this, and this) that the new leadership will push for cuts in non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels.  As I wrote last time, for NASA that might mean a reduction in its budget for the current fiscal year from the $19 billion in the President’s budget and NASA Authorization Act of 2010, to something around $17.3 to $17.5 billion once it is passed (the difference is whether one takes inflation into account, or not).

Really, this question about funding levels for NASA is nothing new.

NASA is often lumped by critics into the largesse that typifies their view of all federal spending.  Despite the fact that NASA’s fraction of both the total budget and of non-Defense discretionary spending is going down (currently about 0.5% of the total federal budget, and less than 3% of just the non-Defense discretionary spending piece), it is viewed as part of the larger problem of Government spending out of control, period.

This critical view has influenced me throughout my career here, and whether directly or indirectly I’ve made it a part of my approach to always seek ways to optimize how tax dollars are spent.  In my current role, I’m getting the opportunity to practice what I preach on a larger scale, by leading the development of strategies within mission operations that reduce cost while improving performance.  This is an extremely difficult task due to two interrelated factors: (1) much of our budget is devoted to maintaining a highly-skilled world-class workforce; and (2) at what point does reducing cost begin to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” and jeopardize the half-century of excellence that we’ve been known for?

For me, the road to success is to be a part of the solution and not of the problem.  The way to do that is to think of the solution, not of the problem.  As I see it, such a solution will start with creative and innovative approaches to how human spaceflight operations are conducted in partnership with the commercial sector in sustainable ways.  Holly G. Green, author of More than a Minute, recently wrote in her blog about the importance of building clarity around the following for any strategic planning effort:

• The mission statement (why you exist)
• Guiding principles (how you will behave)
• Value propositions (what you offer to key stakeholders)
• Destination points (where you’re going)
• Strategic priorities (areas of focus for the organization)
• Key initiatives (what you will do to get there)

I’m using her excellent ideas along with others I’ve accrued over the years to define a framework for seeking a creative, innovative approach to further reduce the recurring costs of human spaceflight while identifying the right kinds of lasting partnerships to build with the commercial sector that will improve the overall performance of human spaceflight.  This framework states why mission operations exists, what our guiding principles are (which I’ve written about before), what we have to offer value-wise to stakeholders, where the organization is headed, and what the strategic priorities are for the organization.  Furthermore, success has to be predicated around casting this framework in a larger perspective that goes beyond the self-interests of the organization and addresses what is best in the interests of human spaceflight.

In other words, I’m striving to be a part of the solution, not the problem.

Defining a strategic planning framework is a good start towards thinking of the solution, not the problem. What other ideas do you have that I can do, or that I can read, or whom I can ask?

 

Show Me the Money

“Show me the money!”
—Tom Cruise

A few weeks ago, Congress approved and the President signed the NASA Authorization Act for 2010, outlining a human spaceflight policy that will grow a commercial transportation service to low Earth orbit and focus NASA’s human spaceflight community on exploration beyond low Earth orbit.  The proposed top-line budget number for NASA contained in both the President’s original budget submittal in February as well as in the Authorization is $19.0 billion for fiscal year 2011.  However, Congress adjourned for the mid-term elections before passing a budget, instead option for a continuing resolution to fund the government through December 3 at last-years levels.  Authorization is not the same as appropriations, and it is the latter that will ultimately determine what NASA does, and what it won’t do.  Therefore, we’re left with some uncertainty lingering in the air until Congress reconvenes and deals with appropriations.  Will NASA’s top-line budget number remain at or near $19.0 billion for 2011?

To frame this question and discuss potential impacts to NASA, let’s consider the possibility that the House majority switches parties in the coming election.  (As of today, Nate Silver’s “Five Thirty Eight” places the odds at 83% that the Republicans will control the 218 seats needed for majority.)  In its Pledge to America, the Republican party pledges to “…cut government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels…” which I’ve heard interpreted as “to fiscal year 2008” levels.  What has NASA’s budget history looked like, and what would such a pledge mean to NASA’s top-line budget?

Here is a plot showing NASA’s budget in current dollars without inflation factored in, and in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars.

And in particular, let’s focus on the budget since 2000:

In inflation-adjusted dollars, NASA’s budget has been relatively flat since 2000, averaging about $17.9 billion.  The fiscal year 2011 proposed budget of $19.0 billion is actually above the recent historic norms.

Suppose for a minute a Republican House makes good on its Pledge to America, and starts the conversation in appropriations for NASA’s budget at 2008 levels.  Where would that place it?  In inflation-adjusted dollars, NASA’s 2008 budget was $17.5 billion.  Therefore, I think it reasonable to expect that the House appropriations committee might start the conversation for NASA’s budget at $1.5 billion lower than the authorization and the President’s budget.  The result likely won’t be that value, since the Senate is projected to remain in Democratic hands (as of today, Silver says 88% chance the Democrats will control at least 50 seats in the Senate).   The art of compromise will lead to an appropriated NASA budget somewhere in between $17.5 and $19.0 billion.  Where?  Your guess is as good as mine.

The key takeaway for me is that the future is no sure thing.  Although NASA’s historical budget has been flat in constant dollars for the last decade, there is no guarantee that trend will continue; if anything, other fiscal pressures may lead to further reductions in non-defense discretionary spending.  As a quick aside, everyone knows that the percentage of the federal budget spent on NASA has been shrinking ever since Apollo, now around 0.5% of the total Federal budget; what most may not know is that NASA’s piece of the non-Defense discretionary spending pie has already been shrinking since 1990:

Pragmatism suggests that I should be aware of all the above pressures as I construct a future procurement strategy for my organization.  The piece contributed by current Government-sponsored human spaceflight programs will continue to come under fiscal pressure; perhaps it is prudent to consider something more than a reliance on existing Government programs for the strategy to come.

Hmm, that is an intriguing thought….

_____

Here are the sources for the budgetary information I used in the charts above:

Click to access NP-2008-05-513-HQ.pdf

Click to access 168653main_NASA_FY08_Budget_Summary.pdf

Click to access 210020main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates_Summary.pdf

Click to access 344612main_Agency_Summary_Final_updates_5_6_09_R2.pdf

Click to access 420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist08z7.xls

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist03z1.xls

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z1.xls

Click to access summary.pdf

Click to access summary.pdf

Inflation Calculator

 

What I’m Reading

“Books are the bees which carry the quickening pollen from one to another mind.”
–James Russell Lowell

I read… a lot.

I’m constantly reading, and it’s not unusual for me to have several books going at the same time.  I read to learn something new that I didn’t know before; I consider continued learning as critical to being a good leader, a good husband and father, and a good person.  I like to read professional development-related books, from which I seek new ideas that I can incorporate into my leadership view and use in my ongoing work to build and lead high performance teams.  I also read for relaxation at home. Finally, I listen to audiobooks during my daily commute, since we all know radio stinks, right?

Here is the list of books I’ve read or listened to this year.

First, the professional development category:

• Powered by Instinct and Pure Instinct by Kathy Kolbe
• Beyond Crisis by Gill Ringland, Oliver Sparrow, and Patricia Lustig
• The Recipe by Amilya Antonetti
• The 12 Factors of Business Success by Kevin Hogan, Dave Lakhani, and Mollie Marti
• How NASA Builds Teams by Charlie Pellerin
• Good to Great and the accompanying monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors by Jim Collins

From each of these, I’ve taken anything from a snippet to wholesale ideas and have incorporated it into my mental leadership and organizational model.  I would do an injustice by contrasting the contributions of any one of these works; each has made a special and unique contribution, without which I’d be all the lesser for it.  I will make a few special mentions: to Kathy Kolbe, with whom I connected initially though social media, and whom I’ve now met in real life; and to Tricia Lustig, Amilya Antonetti, and Mollie Marti, all of whom I’ve conversed with through social media and hope to meet in real life one day.  Thanks to all of you for your unique contributions!

Next, in the entertainment category:

• Notes from a Small Island by Bill Bryson
• In A Sunburned Country by Bill Bryson
• I’m a Stranger Here Myself by Bill Bryson
• Shakespeare – The World as Stage by Bill Bryson
• The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid by Bill Bryson
• All eleven books in the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind
• The Law of Nines by Terry Goodkind
• His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman
• The first four books in the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling

I really enjoy Bill Bryson’s works.  Besides giving me exposure to places I’ve never been (England, Australia, and the northeast US), I find his way of writing very entertaining.  Terry Goodkind’s writings have embedded within them a series of rules called “Wizard’s Rules”, one of each is revealed in every book. (It seems I run into one or more of the rules each day.  But I digress.)  Finally, I read Pullman’s and Rowling’s works since they are listed near the top of the BCC Top 100 works, and I hadn’t read them previously.

At this moment I have three books going.

• More Than a Minute by Holly Green
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (the fifth in the Harry Potter series) by J.K. Rowling
• A Man on the Moon by Andy Chaikin

I became acquainted with Holly Green through social media, and I’m a regular reader of her blog.  I find it interesting that Holly’s writings are so topical for me; it seems that when I’m encountering a situation or question, Holly magically blogs about it within a few days.  It’s as if she has a pipeline into my office, or something.

I’m still working through the rest of the Harry Potter series on audiobooks during my daily commute.  Did I mention that radio stinks?

Finally, I’m reading Andy Chaikin’s book for two reasons.  First, he visited JSC a few weeks ago to teach a three-day class on the history of the US manned space program, which I enjoyed thoroughly.  Second, I’m finding his book provides insights into historical space policy decisions that help provide context to the space policy decisions being made today.

Here is my near-term future reading list:

• Built to Last by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras
• The Next Level by Scott Eblin
• Business Model Generation by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneu

I met Dr. Jerry Porras a few weeks ago, thanks to Kathy Kolbe, and was very intrigued by his introduction as to why certain companies have succeeded for so long.  Perhaps there is something there to help illustrate why my own organization has persisted for 50 years, yet is facing some of its greatest challenges to its future to date.

Scott Eblin is another person with whom I’ve connected because of social media.  Scott’s blogs are also timely with my current work events, and I’ve incorporated many of his ideas into my leadership model, as well as touching upon them in several of my own blog entries.

Business Model Generation is a recommendation from a fabulous entrepreneur and “brother from another mother” Matt Williams.  He suggested I read it to gain ideas that I likely will find helpful as I continue to develop strategic plans for my organization.

Finally, for entertainment reading, I’ll continue to work my way down the BBC Top 100 list to read those remaining books I haven’t read yet.

What are you reading?

Foundations of Mission Operations

“We were the ones in the trenches of space and with only the tools of leadership, trust, and teamwork, we contained the risks and made the conquest of space possible.”
–Gene Kranz

At the 2010 Kolbe Personal Growth Seminar in Tempe, AZ, I was asked to give a brief presentation to the audience of 180-plus Kolbe Certified Consultants in attendance.  One of the ties between Kolbe and NASA is the use of a clip from the movie “Apollo 13” as a learning exercise.  Since all of the consultants are familiar with the clip, with NASA, and with Mission Control, I decided to use the clip as the basis to share an insider’s perspective on Mission Operations.

On the previous day, Dr. Jerry Porras, author of the best selling leadership book, “Built to Last”, gave an overview of the fundamental basis for what underlies companies and organizations that are built to last: Purpose, Core Values, and Vision.  I seized upon the ideas of core values and the “Apollo 13” clip, and chose those as the basis of providing a behind-the-scenes context to Mission Operations for the Kolbe consultants.  I decided to share the Foundations of Mission Operations.

The Foundations of Mission Operations, in its simplest description, is a set of core values and guiding principles that governs everything we do in Mission Operations, whether it is operations in Mission Control, astronaut and flight controller training, or mission planning, design and analysis work.

Foundations of Mission Operations

1. To instill within ourselves these qualities essential to professional excellence

Discipline…Being able to follow as well as to lead, knowing that we must master ourselves before we can master our task.

Competence…There being no substitute for total preparation and complete dedication, for space will not tolerate the careless or indifferent.

Confidence…Believing in ourselves as well as others, knowing that we must master fear and hesitation before we can succeed.

Responsibility…Realizing that it cannot be shifted to others, for it belongs to each of us; we must answer for what we do, or fail to do.

Toughness…Taking a stand when we must; to try again, and again, even if it means following a more difficult path.

Teamwork…Respecting and utilizing the abilities of others, realizing that we work toward a common goal, for success depends upon the efforts of all.

Vigilance… Always attentive to the dangers of spaceflight; Never accepting success as a substitute for rigor in everything we do.

2. To always be aware that suddenly and unexpectedly we may find ourselves in a role where our performance has ultimate consequences.

3. To recognize that the greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in the trying we do not give it our best effort.

The Foundations were mostly born from a series of challenges and crises that the team faced in the early days – during Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.  As Gene Kranz has told it, the first teams were adapting from the high-performance aircraft flight test world the techniques used there as the basis for space flight control, refining and learning as they went.  Quickly, “discipline”, “confidence”, “responsibility”, and “teamwork” became obvious as essential core values of the flight control team in Mercury and Gemini.  After the Apollo 1 pad fire in 1967, Gene wrote a memo to the team that emphasized “competence” and “toughness” as being the means to build upon the lessons learned and to move forward from that tragic event.  (Gene even had each member of the flight control team write “tough and competent” on their office blackboards that was not to be erased until the first moon landing mission was conducted successfully.)  The Foundations – discipline, competence, confidence, responsibility, toughness, and teamwork – served Mission Operations extremely well.

Then the Columbia accident happened in 2003.

In the aftermath of Columbia, we learned that we had become over-confident and complacent in our track record of success.  From that, we embraced the core value “vigilance”.

The beauty of the Foundations of Mission Operations is that they weren’t dreamed up by a focus team on a management retreat, later to be forced down the throats of the work force. They were revealed and became evident and obvious as a part of the way everyday business of human spaceflight is conducted, and has been conducted, for 50 years.  The Foundations speak to a higher calling and sense of duty we have to accomplish the mission and to derive value from our activities in space.  They are as much about us as individuals as they are the organization.

Imagine the possibilities if every organization had a set of core values and guiding principles as good as these.  Along with a sense of purpose and vision, these organizations would be unstoppable.  They, like Mission Operations, would be built to last.

Establishing Expectations

“High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.”
–Jack & Gary Kinder

Recently I had a conversation with some colleagues about recent experiences on teams.  Through the course of the conversation we talked about what worked well, and not so well, from our perspectives regarding individual contributors and leaders.  As we were talking, a picture formed in my head about a common theme underlying many of the comments: “this worked well because we established an expectation concerning…” or “that situation could have been better if the leader would have stated an expectation about…”.  As I look forward to my next assignment in leading a team, I wonder: how should establishing expectations fit into the picture?

I see three ways to establish expectations early, and that by doing so can start a team on the right foot.

1. The Boss’s Expectations. I’ve written about this before, yet it bears repeating.  As leader of a team, one of my roles is to “lead up” by soliciting the expectations of the management above me.  This takes the form of asking my boss for directions, ask how he wants to be kept in the loop, and put myself in his shoes.  Understanding the boss’s expectations can help provide needed context for the team to address the remaining items.
2. My Expectations as Leader. As a step in building a high performance team, I can set my expectations at the outset.  In addition to defining the skills, aptitude, and instincts needed on the team, I can set the tone for the team up front by establishing my standards of performance. Doing so can be a useful step in ensuring I get the right people on the bus and the wrong people off, early.
3. Mutual Expectations in the Team Charter. A team charter defines the purpose of the team, expected outcomes (see #1, above), and how the team will work together.  It’s created by the team at the outset and builds a shared understanding of why the team exists and what it is trying to accomplish.  One of the key elements of the team charter is mutual expectations, which defines the ground rules on how the team members will interact, collaborate, support each other, and give feedback.  Especially with a new team, establishing mutual expectations up front can build the culture of the team in a purposeful way.

By establishing the boss’s expectations, my expectations as leader, and mutual expectations of the team members, we can become a functional team much more quickly and deliver outstanding results faster.

What have I missed?  What would you add to the list?

The Right People

“It is better to first get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats, and then figure out where to drive.”
–Jim Collins

In building a high-performance team, I often wondered about influencing the likelihood of success at the outset.  One of the supposedly controllable factors at the start is the selection of team members.  Being in the public sector as I am, often I don’t have a large say over the selection of team members – I’m highly dependent upon the appointments made by management above me.  Yet as my intuition tells me, and as mentioned as a key point in the book “Good to Great” by Jim Collins getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off, and the right people in the right seats is critical to the success of a team and is one of the hallmarks of a high-performance team.  Therefore, in view of the constraints inherent in the public sector, what can I do to get the right people on the team?

Here is an outline of the methodology, with some further refinements to come, that I plan on using.  I recognize that my positional authority as team leader has little to no bearing on the selection process (i.e., I won’t be “drafting” members directly from the line organizations).  Therefore, at the heart of the plan is using an influence approach on the managers who will appoint members to the team.

The first step of influence is to be proactive with the managers on the importance of the work and caliber of people necessary to increase the likelihood of success of the team, and in turn each of their organizations due to the success of the team.  From there, I’ll outline the types of people needed, as follows:

1)  The Right Skills. I’m blessed to be in an organization of exceptionally talented individuals, ranging from college new-hires to seasoned veterans.  From that larger population of talented individuals, I will need those who have demonstrated excellence over time in certain technical skill areas relevant to the team’s purpose, which I’ll provide to the managers prior to the selection.  Call this the “hard skills.”  For determining fits, I’ll be relying upon descriptions of normal job duties and past experience.

2)  The Right Aptitude. I’ll screen the above for those who demonstrate behaviors conducive to a team setting and today’s environment.  For instance, people who have an open mind, ask questions, challenge the status quo, work well with others, believe in the future of our organization, are willing to work hard, etc.  Call this the “soft skills.”  For determining aptitude or preferences, I envision using one or more preference surveys, whether Myers-Briggs, FIRO-B, DiSC, or whatever human resources recommends.

3)  The Right Instincts. I’m a firm believer that we all have natural talents that, when utilized, allow us to be our most effective as individuals.  When combined, an ideally diverse distribution of natural talents within the team will widen the overall problem-solving capabilities of the team itself.  Therefore, selecting a further subset of the above based upon a particular combination of natural talents will increase the diversity of natural problem-solving approaches.  For determining natural talents and instincts, I see using the Kolbe A index.

However, I recognize that no approach is perfect, so I also envision reserving the right to make slight, “onsie-or-twosie” adjustments to the team membership once the team is running, based upon demonstrated contributions.  The nature of the work to come does have a natural break between phase 1 and phase 2, so that would be the ideal time to make any adjustments needed in team membership.

As I envision it today, using the above three measures – the right skills, the right aptitude, and the right instincts – will increase the likelihood that I’ll get the right people on the bus and in the right seats at the outset.

What have I missed?  What factors would you use to influence the selection of members for a high-performance team?