slide 1 a stakeholder benefit approach to system architecture for exploration bruce cameron january...

A Stakeholder Benefit

Approach to System

Architecture for Exploration

Bruce Cameron

January 19, 2007

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?

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

Sustainability

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many loop segments are possible?

Industrial Base

Future MarketKnowledge

NASA MarketFunding


ExplorationSystems

Economy

V = 0.19

V = 0.19

V = 0.34Space TourismPossibility

Policy SupportFor NASA

Step 1e: Benefit Sanity Checks

Based on the information provided, we can compute a number of statistics on the model.

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


StableEmployment US People Votes Executive#3

NASA


Policy Direction NASA#5 Executive

NASA

NASA Policy Direction


StableEmployment

US People Votes Executive#5

NASA


Science Opinions And Policy Support NASA#7

NASA Contracts EconomyExploration

systems NASA#8

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

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

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.

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

)

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

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

Architecture Value Test Cases

Ranges for Science Stocks and Inputs

ScienceStocks

ScienceInputs

Note: Blank bars represent variable = 1

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


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


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


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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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 1 a stakeholder benefit approach to system architecture for exploration bruce cameron january...

Documents