The First 3 of 6 Criteria That Each NASA Project Manager Must Know

 

The First Three Of Six Criteria That Each NASA Project Manager Must Know

“There is one other thing we should discuss, and that is the difference between management and leadership.  Management is figuring out how to get the job done.  Leadership is deciding what needs to be done and inspiring the team to get where you want to go.”  

- Program Manager, JSC

In my last blog, I discussed Project Oversight (a missing chapter in the PMBOK guide?). And, I left you with the intimidating “rule” from the Project and Program Handbook: 

“THE PROJECT MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING AND SUPPORTING THESE (Project) REVIEWS.”

The Project Manager must present six assessment criteria for consideration and review. They are large meetings and once scheduled are never delayed, and never excused. The reviews will happen, and the Project Manager is responsible for the majority of the information to be presented. There is flexibility as to the timing, number and information to be stressed in each review.

I strongly believe that the six project criteria the NASA PM is responsible for addressing - makes sense for all industries and all projects – regardless of size or complexity.  They aren’t a part of NASA practice because they were NASA projects.  They are a part of NASA practice – because they are good common sense.  And, they should apply for nearly every company. 

From a NASA standard (7120D): “There are three reasons for conducting Independent Life Cycle Reviews: first, we want the program/project to receive independent assurance that they are doing the right thing; second, NASA senior management needs to understand that the program/project is on the right track, is performing according to plan, and that externally-imposed impediments to its success are being removed; and third, the Agency needs to provide our external stakeholders assurance we are doing the right thing.”

These reviews are also what I like to refer to these reviews as “PM school.”  It’s where each Project Manager learns what is expected of them, how powerful a position they actually have and best of all – help from more experienced managers, academic experts and other stakeholders.  

PROJECT PHASES

At the top level, program and project life cycles are divided into three phases: Concept, Formulation and Implementation.   The formal project reviews don’t start until the project passes a conceptual study review - (MCR or Mission Concept Review) and enters the formulation stage where requirements are further developed, refined and reviewed.   While these are slightly different words than PMI uses in the PMBOK® and other documents, the concepts are very similar – if not identical.

Above is a high-level diagram of the project life-cycle, I’ll describe the components of this life-cycle model in greater detail in a later blog.  But for now, I’m focusing on the “PM School” or project reviews.  As stated in the NASA standard, “These reviews are essential elements of conducting, managing, evaluating, and approving space flight projects.” 

WHO ATTENDS THESE REVIEWS?

The short answer is: stakeholders.  But it’s a carefully selected mix of stakeholders.  One interesting aspect is the inclusion of a “The Standing Review Board.”  They are a group of independent experts whose role is to “assess and evaluate project activities, advise projects and report their evaluations to the responsible organizations.”  They are responsible for conducting independent reviews of projects and providing objective, expert judgments to both the Project Manager and to upper management.

I can tell you from personal experience, they are smart, quick-witted, incisive and not hesitant to point out what they think is a problem in a Project Manager’s efforts or plans.   The goal is not to punish the project manager, but to ensure that everything that can be reasonably done to insure project success IS being done. 

Reviews are a big deal, a stressful time for a Project Manager, and a truly wonderful learning experience. You can absorb the thinking of experts from many fields – learn what they are looking for, learn what worries them, and continually improve your project management skills.

As I promised at the start, we’ll cover the first 3 of the 6 important areas covered during the reviews.  Each of these can be taken to a MUCH, MUCH deeper dive by the review group.  I’m only listing the high level view of each.

1. Alignment with Agency strategic goals – does this project “fit” within the overall strategic goals set by the agency? 

• Project requirements and constraints – Have the requirements that the project is planned to meet been well defined?  Are they complete, consistent, traceable to an overall mission or need, are they unambiguous (facts not opinions), what is each requirements relative importance and can they be verified once completed?
• Mission needs and success criteria
• Allocation of program requirements to projects
• Proactive management of changes in project scope and shortfalls

2. Adequacy of management approach - Do you have a project management approach that makes sense and the group believes will work? 

• Project authorization
• Management framework and plans
• Acquisition strategies
• Internal and external agreements

3. Adequacy of technical approach and success criteria

• Flow down of project requirements to systems/subsystems architecture and design
• Operations concepts that respond to and satisfy the requirements and mission needs

DOES THE PROJECT MANGER GET YELLED AT?

NO!  The goal is not to attack the work the Project Team has done.  The goal is to make sure that everyone is informed of the status and plans of the project.  Sometimes, mistakes will be discovered and that’s a good thing!  That’s what the review is all about.

It's about trying to do things right the first time, to uncover all of the potential roadblocks and keeping everyone informed.