slide 1 a stakeholder benefit approach to system architecture for exploration bruce cameron january...
Post on 12-Jan-2016
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Slide 1
A Stakeholder Benefit
Approach to System
Architecture for Exploration
Bruce Cameron
January 19, 2007
Slide 2
Questions we’re trying to help answer
How do decide between operational requirements and value activities?
Ex: “How much mass should you allocate for science equipment?”
What value should you design for, and what value is independent of the design?
Slide 3
Agenda
Part 1 : Executable Stakeholder Models Building stakeholder models Sanity checks
Part 2 : Linking Value to Architecture Proximate Metrics Results
Part 3 : Recent NASA Studies
Slide 4
Sustainability
Slide 5
Research Question
Can benefit delivery models be used to differentiate between architectures?
Methodology: Create a benefit model Define test architecture variables Link architecture to benefit using proximate metrics Determine sensitivity of benefit to architectures
Secondary Question: How should the organization be designed to facilitate value delivery?
Slide 6
Step 1: Create a Benefit Model
a) Define stakeholders
b) Construct benefit input-output models of stakeholders
c) Link outputs and inputs in a network model
d) Define rules for propagation of benefit in the model (how are inputs turned into outputs?)
e) Calibrate model using network statistics
Slide 7
Step 1a) Define stakeholders
Beneficiaries benefit from your actions You have a outcome or output which addresses
their needs You are important to them
Stakeholders have a stake in your project They have an outcome or output which addresses
your needs They are important to you
We chose eight stakeholder groups US People Executive and Congress Educators Media Science Security International Partners Economic
Stakeholders
Beneficiaries
Slide 8
Step 1b): Building a benefit model
US People
Awareness of benefits
Pride and inspiration
Quality of Life
Knowledge of science and tech
Goods & services, including health,derived from space technology
Space tourism services
Stable & rewarding employment
Public opinion and policy support
political support (votes)
Personal taxes
NASA Mission and Event Content
Science and Engineering Inspired Students
Media entertainment & information
Security benefits
Slide 9
Economic
Industrial base
Technology transferability
Commercial spaceactivity
GDP Contribution
Human capital
Commercial launch ability`
Skilled & motivated workforce
Space Acquired data
Space resource knowledge
Economy opinions and policy support
Corporate Taxes
Exploration systems
Stable and rewarding employment
Scientific knowledge
NASA market funding
Plans and Progress Reports
Goods and services, including health, derived from space technology
NASA Space Technology
NASA Launch and Space Services
NASA contract funding
Commercial launch services
Space Tourism ServicesMedia entertainment and information
Security Contract Funding
Slide 10
Exploration
International Collaboration
Exploration Missions
Knowledge SupportingExploration
Human Capital
Stable and rewarding employment
Science systems
Science opinions and
policy support
Exploration systems
International launch services
Plans and progress reports
Funding
NASA science funding
NASA Events
NASA market funding
NASA contract funding
Protection against claims of sovereignty
Space acquired data
Space resource knowledge
NASA Mission and Event content
NASA space technology
Internationally provided space systems
Commerical launch services
NASA launch and space services
Access to high visibility events
Science knowledge
Media entertainment and information
NASA educational material
NASA science data
NASA Instruments & Modules
Part. in NASA exploration missions
Participation in international exploration missions
Skilled and motivated
workforce
Policy Direction
Slide 11
Policy
Money
Workforce
Technology
Goods and Services
Knowledge
Executive &Congress
Executive &Congress
EconomicEconomic
US PeopleUS People
EducatorsEducators
MediaMedia
ExplorationExploration
ScienceScience
International Partners
International Partners
SecuritySecurity
PolicyDirection
PoliticalSupport (Votes) International
Agreements
TaxesFunding
Plans andProgress Reports
Science Data
Science Knowledge
Science Knowledge
SkilledWorkforce
Science andEng Students
MissionContent
Entertainment& Information
Contracts
ExplorationSystems
Goods &Services,inc Health
Space Technology
Int. Space Systems
PolicySupport
Commercial launch
SpaceData
Employment
Step 1c) Value Network
Slide 12
Step 1d) : Propagating Benefit
Trade between all types of flows using ‘perceived importance’ to the stakeholder
Assign a value to each link
Loop value is a product of links
Loop is only as strong as weakest link
NASA Contracts EconomyCommercial
Launch Security
NASA Funding
ExecutiveOpinions and
Policy Support
Total Score = 0.26*1*0.19*1 = 0.049
One DimensionalVery Important
V = 0.26
Must HaveExtremely Important
V = 1
One DimensionalImportantV = 0.19
Must HaveExtremely Important
V = 1
Slide 13
How many loop segments are possible?
Industrial Base
Future MarketKnowledge
NASA MarketFunding
Plans andProgress Reports
ExplorationSystems
Economy
V = 0.19
V = 0.19
V = 0.34Space TourismPossibility
Policy SupportFor NASA
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Step 1e: Benefit Sanity Checks
Based on the information provided, we can compute a number of statistics on the model.
Slide 17
NASA
NASA Funding
NASA
StableEmployment US People Votes Executive
NASA
ScienceFunding Science
Science Systems NASA
NASAFunding #1
NASA
StableEmployment US People Votes Executive NASA
Policy Direction #2
#3
ScienceFunding Science
StableEmployment US People Votes Executive#3
NASA
Plans andProgress Reports
Policy Direction NASA#5 Executive
NASA
NASA Policy Direction
ScienceFunding Science
StableEmployment
US People Votes Executive#5
NASA
ScienceFunding Science
Science Opinions And Policy Support NASA#7
NASA Contracts EconomyExploration
systems NASA#8
Slide 18
Distribution of values
Distribution of Rankings
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361 391 421 451 481 511 541 571 601 631 661
Loop V
alu
e
Top 62
Top 8
Top 17
Slide 19
Stakeholders weighted by ranking
Weighted Stakeholder Occurences in Loops
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
med
ia
educ
ator
s
scienc
e
intp
art
exec
cong
secu
rity
econ
omy
peop
le
Slide 20
NASA Outputs Weighted by RankingWeighted NASA Outputs
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
NASA Scie
nce Fundin
g
Stable
and R
ewar
ding E
mplo
ymen
t
NASA Con
tract
Fundin
g
Human
Exp
lora
tion F
irsts
Space
Acquire
d Dat
a
Unman
ned E
xplora
tion F
irsts
Science
Dat
a
Plan
s an
d Pro
gress
Rep
orts
Human
s in
Spac
e Ev
ents
NASA Mar
ket F
unding
Nasa
Space
Tech
NASA Miss
ion &
Eve
nt Con
tent
NASA Scie
nce E
vents
Space
Resou
rce
Knowledge
Space
tech
dem
onst
ratio
n eve
nts
NASA Lau
nch a
nd Spac
e Ser
vice
s
NASA Educa
tion M
ater
ial
Acces
s to
Hig
hly V
isible
Eve
nts
Prot
ectio
n Sov
ereignty
Part
in N
ASA Exp
lora
tion
NASA Inst
rum
ents
and M
odule
s
Why is NASA Science Funding so high? Most loops (89, c.f. 59 next highest) Science knowledge is linked to so many other flows Science data and Science Funding both input to Science Knowledge, but Science
Funding also linked to other Science stocks, whereas Science Data isn’t.
Slide 21
NASA Inputs Weighted by Ranking
Weighted Inputs to NASA
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
fundin
g
Polic
y dire
ction
Skille
d wor
kfor
ce
Explo
ratio
n Sys
tem
s
Science
Opin
ions
and p
olicy
suppor
t
Ente
rtain
men
t and In
form
ation
Science
sys
tem
s
Comm
ercia
l lau
nch
Science
know
ledge
Inte
rnat
ional
launch
Cu
mu
lati
ve V
alu
e (
Norm
alized
)
Slide 22
Step 2: Linking Architecture to Value
Value is subjective in the eyes of the beneficiary and hard to measure
We use proximate measures i.e. trajectory measures toward value
Metrics must differentiate between architectures!
In our last test, only 67% flows enabled architecture differentiation
Slide 23
Science Data Metric
Quantity of Data Quality of Data
Total Crew Science Hours
Utility Curve
0
1
Hours
Rover Speed Accessible Area
Data AcquisitionRate Diversity of Sites
Utility Curve
0
1
Speed
Utility Curve
0
1
Area
Utility Curve
0
1
MPI
Utility Curve
0
1
Diversity
Each utility
curve represents
stakeholder input
Product
Product
Slide 24
Architecture Value Test Cases
Slide 25
Ranges for Science Stocks and Inputs
ScienceStocks
ScienceInputs
Note: Blank bars represent variable = 1
Slide 26
Study 1: NASA Lunar Architecture
Robotic pre-cursors for environment and test capabilities
Focused campaign for outposts at polar site
Released December 2006
Photo courtesy NASAESAS Report
Slide 27
Study 1: NASA Lunar Architecture
Difficult to make use of a prioritization Requires indication of how progress can be measured against these goals Danger of ‘ticking the box’ for theme support, rather than defining what level of effort is
required to accomplish the goal
Goal Statement
Slide fromDeputyAdministrator'spresentation ofDec. 4, 2006
Slide 28
Study 1: NASA Lunar Architecture
180 objectives from broad stakeholder process
Objectives are written with widely different architecture scopes, which could be avoided by examining real stakeholder value
Only ~40% of LAT objectives will reasonably differentiate between architectures
Mix of solution-specific and solution-neutral objectives Develop interactive video games based on lunar exploration to generate
revenue and engage the public Provide surface mobility capabilities to move crew outside the local area of
a lunar outpost
Slide 29
Study 1: NASA Lunar Architecture
Does not capture ‘exploration firsts’ either robotic or manned, as a public engagement mechanism
No detailed surface mobility objectives, no coupling to science or exploration
Our process would have caught these! Stakeholder analysis enables a sort of ‘completeness check’
Our process enables a weighting among themes via decomposition to value flows Required mapping objectives to theme satisfaction
Slide 30
Study 2: Lunar Robotic Architecture Study
60 day exploratory study “Do we need robotic [precursor] missions at all? If so, why and
under what conditions?” Baselines orbiter, fixed lander, mobile lander, rover, and
communications relay
Apollo robotic probe - Surveyor 3 NASA Polar Rover concept
Slide 31
Study 2: Lunar Robotic Architecture Study
Goals of the study generally well written Metrics include extensibility / flexibility, but rate requirements instead of
architectures But no evidence of evaluation against metrics!
Requirements process: ID full scope of requirements Evaluate which ones might be useful in different scenarios If requirement appears in any scenario, becomes part of LRAS baseline Time phasing of requirements against design deadlines Rough matching of requirements to timing through construction of different
excursion option against pre-decided mission options.
Bias #1: Because of lack of ‘constellation’ requirements, biased towards including lots of capabilities in requirements
Bias #2: Because fixed mission types beforehand, emphasis is ‘what can we do on this mission’ rather than ‘what minimum work needs to be done’
Problem: Eventual missions not related back to goals, value
Slide 32
Organizational Implications
Areas of the organization impacted by architecture should be positioned to: Provide input to the architect Receive and translate the benefit to stakeholders Be closer to the architecture than areas not affected
Where architectural choices settle conflicts between stakeholders, these decisions should be expressed to stakeholders to build buy-in.
Slide 33
Organizational Implications
Organization should be aligned with its output: How does NASA coordinate relationships with other agencies? No arbiter / system architect making trade-offs between the types of
outputs International collaboration with NASA is a decentralized process
Where should this work be useful? Many stakeholders Fractionated power base We differentiate, for better or worse, between activities related to
external value, and internal activities.
Slide 34
What Does Stakeholder Analysis Mean?
1. Define stakeholders & beneficiaries
2. Elicit needs and their relative importance. Look at projected output - incremental & fractionated, or simple & all at once?
3. Determine relative breakdown of stakeholder power via inputs
4. Look for realistic mechanisms for stakeholder input (late in process?)
5. Determine up front conflicts between needs before they become conflicting requirements. Cost or schedule or performance?
Slide 35
Conclusion
Created network to help prioritize needs in a public engineering project
Demonstrated architecture discrimination by benefit delivery
Applicable to current NASA decisions
Weaknesses No time-phasing Metrics must be well calibrated, and are only approximations Doesn’t trade internal capabilities against external value
Slide 36
top related