1. Project Management Facilitation ROI CustomerA NASA Research Center of ~50 team members working on a mission plan funded for ~$100M+. SituationThe project team consisted of technical resources with unit development experience, but very limitedunderstanding of large projects with end-to-end mission responsibility.There was a general lack of knowledge regarding foreign etiquette and culture, which was a required corecompetency in successfully working with international partners. ProblemThere was a lack of mission-level understanding of the process leading to Integration, Test and Validation(IT&V) and the team was unprepared to face Integrated Baseline Review (IBR).Project leaders were not ready to adequately defend and run a highly visible and relatively large NASA projectat the center.The team was unprepared for the upcoming Mission Critical Design Review (MCDR). Specific weaknesseswere in Requirements Decomposition. ResponseOver a 12-month period, CSM implemented ~10 performance enhancement sessions to address the issuesdiscussed above. These sessions consisted of Mentoring for the Integration Baseline Review, Mentoring toProject Team Leads, IT& V Workshops, French Culture I&II, Mission Assurance Planning, and Consultationand Mentoring Assistance for MCRD review. ResultsThe project team developed a mission-level plan per the schedule, overcame the cultural divide with partners,and passed the Mission Critical Design Review.An initial investment of $125K with CSM enabled the project team to avoid potential cancellation of the mission($100M) and meet all milestones within schedule.The communications with our international partners improved dramatically, enabling us to agree on schedule, deliverables, and maximize value based on CSM intervention. Deputy Program Manager 2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc.

2. Project Management Facilitation ROI CustomerA NASA Research Center project team of ~35 members working on a mission plan valued at ~$100M. SituationThe project was experiencing difficulties in team building, defining team member roles, and functionalresponsibilities. The team lacked expertise in Requirements Decomposition, Document Tree Structure development, Mission Integration, Test and Verification (IT&V) Plan development, and Software Review Management Plan for Flight. Problem The team was unprepared for the upcoming Mission Critical Design Review (MCDR) due to lack of experience with mission-level end-to-end planning and documentation. Pending failure would cancel the mission only one- third of the way through. Response Over 20-months, CSM implemented 15 performance enhancement sessions to address the above issues. These sessions consisted of PDR/MCR Planning Sessions, Requirements and DOORS Sessions, Performance Measurement System Sessions (I&II), Team Building Support, Configuration Management Session, PDR Rehearsal Support, Risk Management Plan Review, IT&V Plan Support, Reliability Analysis & Training, Orbital Mechanics Sessions, and Mission Critical Design Review (MCDR) Rehearsal Support. Results The project team overcame its deficiencies and passed the Mission Critical Design Review, on time and within schedule. The overall cost of the interventions was less than $90K.We could not have completed our IT&V Plan on time without assistance from CSM Dave coached our IT&V personnel and the IT&V Plan was created on time. I must say, Dave was a god send. Project Manager2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc. 3. Project Management Facilitation ROI CustomerA NASA Flight Center project team consisting of ~40 team members and 12 key management personnelworking on a program level reporting system. SituationThe client had several program/project level responsibilities including defining the cost and schedule neededto meet customer technical requirements, defining implementation options to meet those requirements, andacting as the interface with hardware developers to effectively manage the delivery of solutions.No effective program/project reporting methodology or system and a disparity of critical knowledge amongcivil servants and contract employees. ProblemThere was minimal communication on project performance and the clients effectiveness to its variousstakeholders, non-uniform reporting requirements for projects, and lack of program performance metrics.The team also needed help in identifying training requirements for all project personnel to be efficient inproject execution. ResponseOver a 2-month period, CSM define a reporting system that best communicated project performance andoffice effectiveness to all those involved with the project.The identification of training requirements utilized several strategies including: interviews to determinecurrent tasks and team training expectations, identification of constraints on the final training solutions, theuse of formal training, mentoring and job-aides, and the recommendation for a certification program. ResultsThe consultations and assistance provided by CSM, helped ease the transition process and laid theframework for the establishment of a project status reporting system for a cost of less that $60K.The CSM staff have taken on our office organization very effectively and efficiently their input has been very valuable. Project Manager2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc. 4. Leadership & Mentoring Facilitation ROI CustomerA NASA Research Center Strategic Council of 12 key members seeking strategic, mentoring, and leadershipintervention. SituationA strategic Council identified internal needs to develop operating guidelines, active participation by all keystakeholders, and a long-term strategic plan to achieve their goals. ProblemThe Strategic Council needed immediate assistance in the areas of strategic support, businessadministration problem solving, and team leader mentoring.They also need immediate solutions for the following six issues; a charter endorsed by all members,guidelines for membership and rules of operation to identify and prepare analyses on strategic issues, amethodology to identify and discuss common interest on strategic issues between meetings to maximize theagreement and efficiency of meetings, a strategic plan with a roadmap, preparation and facilitation for eachStrategic Council meeting, and a set of guidelines on how agreements from the Strategic Council meetingswould be implemented. ResponseOver a 9-month period, CSM delivered four key leadership and mentoring programs to the leadership councilincluding: Facilitation and Team Building, Development of Strategy for Solidifying Program Relationships,Action Planning Workshop, and Mentoring Management Team Members. ResultsThis support from CSM helped the team address their critical issues in a timely manner and overcome majorobstacles that the project faced. The investment was less than $50K.Your team came to assist us on short notice. This truly reflects the goal of just-in-time support to projects and programs. We appreciate the professional help provided to the management team and are extremely pleased with the overall support by CSM. Systems Management Office 2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc. 5. Project Management Facilitation ROI Customer A NASA Flight Center project team consisting of ~50 individuals working on Safety and Mission Assurance. Situation A functional organization with a core discipline had previously developed personnel through on- the-job-training over a period of years and was subject to attrition and the inability to backfill subject matter experts, resulting in an organization of generalists. Problem With the loss of experts, they had limited knowledge and guidance on how to establish a successful career development path with competency, certifications, and a definitive plan for Project Managers, Lead Systems Engineers Lead Subsystem Engineers and Project Business Managers. Response Over a period of 2-month, CSM developed a training plan to solve the task of defining the training and work experience needed for lead members of project teams. The plan utilized several strategies including interview sessions and the formulation of a roadmap for SMA employees. Results The delivery of a training plan with identified skill sets and core competencies for specific specialties has enabled the organization to successfully develop career paths for personnel. The overall cost of the intervention was less than $75K and provided a model for other centers.The CSM team has done a wonderful job in helping us to put together the training plans. We want to build more plans covering other specialties, with the assistance of CSM. Deputy Director 2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc. 6. Project Management Facilitation ROI CustomerA NASA Research Center program team consisting of ~50 team members supporting a $100M project. SituationThe project team was very inexperienced with national level planning, scheduling, writing requirements, andNASA Headquarter and inter-agency cooperation. ProblemIt lacked multi-center and national level planning, including the Department of Homeland Security, NOAA,Department of Agriculture and others.Short-term deficiencies included non-compliance with Presidents Management Agenda and the Office ofScience and Technology Programs (OSTP) guidelines for Research and Development programs. Lack ofanalysis on a national level and sufficient ROI would cancel the program.The team was not prepared to submit the UAV Formulation package to the Office of Management and Budgetand for appearing at independent management reviews as prescribed by NASA Headquarters. Non-compliance would cancel the program. ResponseOver a period of 6-months, CSM delivered key services and support to the program for both long and short-term issues as follows; Facilitation of WBS and Budget Planning Sessions, Facilitation and Development ofTechnology Roadmap, Formulation Strategy meeting, Program Structure meeting, and Development ofTechnology Initiative Strategy.CSM organized and focused the project, and helped it meet its goals, scheduling deadlines and requirements. ResultsThis program advanced into the well-structured stages of its plan. As a result of the $200K expenditure, theInter-agency cooperation and Memoranda of understanding (MOU) with NOAA, DOD, and DOE was increasedby 10-times to a $1,000,000,000 program.The Initiative Planning team received high praise for developing the most well constructed augmentation request package for all those submitted this year thanks to the NASA APPL performance enhancement team. Business Unit Chief 2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc. 7. Project Management Facilitation ROI Customer A NASA Research Center program team of ~100 team members working on seven individual projects and a program office worth ~$250M over a 5-year period. Situation The program team was loosely put together through a matrix organization and 80% of the team had no formal project management training. There was very little sense of belonging to the program and awareness of NASAs Program/Project Management Development Process There was lack of understanding in the areas of scheduling, budgeting, and cost estimating and a modest understanding of how to mitigate and manage risk for a technology development project. Problem The program team members felt demoralized, due to uncertainty in funding and lack of long- term commitment by the NASA HQ and the Research Center. A Cost Validation and a Non-Advocate Review were pending and the program was not going to pass resulting in delay or potential cancellation of the program. Response Over a 1-year period, CSM proposed a set of 7 Performance Enhancement sessions to address the above problems. These consisted of on-site classes, workshops, team building, as well as consultations/mentoring (both on site and off site). Results The program passed the Cost Validation Review (conducted by Office of Aerospace Technology CFO) with flying colors. The total expenditure was less than $200k. We hit a home run and did a great job on the Cost Validation Review We could notof done it without you! Assistant Program Manager 2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc. 8. Project Management Facilitation ROI Customer A NASA Research Center project team of 70 members working on a turbine development effort Situation The project team was a loosely coupled matrix organization with little sense of belonging. The team members were demoralized due to uncertainty in funding and lack of long-term management commitment. Roughly 80% of the program team members had no formal training on project management with specific lack of understanding in scheduling, budgeting and cost estimating. There was only modest understanding of how to mitigate risks and how to manage risk for a technology development project. Problem A Cost Validation Review was looming and the Program Manager knew that the project was not ready. Failure would result in a two month delay or the potential cancellation of the project. Response Over the course of a year, prior to and following the review, CSM delivered six workshops to address program control and risk management areas. Additionally, the project conducted team building exercises and received 60 days of consulting from our Systems Engineers and Organizational Development team. Results The team passed the Cost Validation Review with minor comments and based on the review presentation received a $50 million budget increase. Because of the $125,000 expenditure, the $250M project avoided the cost of a two month slip (~$1.5 M) or complete cancellationWe hit a home run. Assistant Program Manager2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc. 9. Communications and Team Building ROI CustomerA NASA Research Center team of 25 engineers and scientists upgrading an operational flight meteringproduct SituationThe project team consisted of multiple government agencies and contractors that were geographicallydispersed.Interagency squabbling, both at high and low levels of the project team, was rampant. ProblemThe team was having trouble with communication methods, and as a result, the team was not achieving itsperformance objectives.Deliberate, pointed (bordering on hostile) communications were leading to team member frustration. ResponseA total of four days of intervention during two sessions. The first was a facilitated workshop that establishedteam members roles and responsibilities, identified acceptable communication methods and provided generalteam building practices. Following the session, all members utilized the agreed to tools.The second session, held three months later, discussed accomplishments, lessons learned, and areas forcontinued improvement. The team then celebrated the outstanding progress on work goals identified duringthe previous session. ResultsThe defined roles and responsibilities dramatically reduced confusion over the various agency's deliverables.As a result, duplication of effort was eliminated.Though not measurable, the teams moral and cooperation was clearly improved. Resulting churn fromrumor mongering disappeared and the team unity was palpable.Overall cost of the interventions was less than $10,000. I have never had a whole team be so positive about something they did together ever. Deputy Program Manager2006 The Center for Systems Management, Inc.