C
Findings and Recommendations from Primary References
In addition to identifying the causes of cost growth, the primary references (see the References chapter) have made dozens of specific findings and recommendations. This appendix summarizes the findings and recommendations contained in these historic studies. In some cases the findings and recommendations listed are quoted from other prior studies.
TABLE C.1 Cost Growth Findings from the Primary References
Finding |
Page Number Primary Reference |
||||||||
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
9 |
10 |
|
Cost growth and schedule slips are nearly universal among the projects studied. |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The highest percentage schedule growth tends to occur after the start of spacecraft integration and test. |
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
There is no discernable correlation between actual cost performance and planned cost reserve level. |
|
33 |
|
10 |
|
67 |
|
|
|
There is no discernable correlation between actual cost performance and percent of funds spent during Phase B formulation. |
|
34 |
|
10 |
|
63 |
|
|
|
For the projects in this study, there is no discernable correlation between actual cost performance and percent of funds spent up to CDR. |
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a possible correlation between completing substantial activity prior to CDR and lower cost growth for the total development effort. |
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There appears to be little-to-no correlation between total flight system dry mass growth and Phase BCD cost growth or between instrument mass growth and instrument Phase BCD cost growth for the 30 SMD missions and 100+ individual instruments included in this study. |
|
|
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
TABLE C.2 Cost Growth Recommendations from Prior Studies
|
Page Number in Primary Reference |
||||||||
Recommendation |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
9 |
10 |
NASA should be realistic with itself, Congress, and the public in terms of the goals, capabilities, costs, schedule, and technical risks of a new project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Improve technical and programmatic definition at the beginning of a project (increase time and funding for Phase A and Phase B and extend them as necessary for complex projects) to allow more time for development of technology, baseline costs, funding profiles, and the overall implementation plan before making significant investments in other mission elements. |
15 |
38 |
7 |
11 |
12 |
|
11 |
|
|
SMD should work with projects beginning at the start of Phase B, or earlier if possible, to establish a credible baseline plan that fits within the available funding with sufficient margin instead of waiting for projects to present a plan at the end of Phase B. |
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Require more robust initial cost and schedule estimates, including project-level management costs. |
17 |
38 |
7 |
11 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
Do a better job of independently validating costs and schedule (this includes improving cost and schedule estimating tools). |
|
|
7 |
|
12 |
|
|
|
5 |
SMD should perform independent cost estimates on all decadal planning and similar exercises. |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
Independently validate instrument resources and resulting spacecraft resources needed to meet mission requirements (cost estimators cannot be expected to validate system designs). |
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
Give more attention to risk identification and mitigation prior to CDR. |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Select AO missions with lower risk. |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove funding constraints from AOs for more credible funding profiles for initial planning. |
|
39 |
7 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
For AO missions, consider funding profiles, mission-specific launch date constraints, and program funding availability when making selections. |
|
39 |
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
For AO missions, consider alternates to down-selecting to two finalists, delay setting the cost cap until PDR, and require proposes to address cost and schedule feasibility. |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct that source selections evaluate contractor cost credibility and use the estimate as a measure of their technical understanding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Hold basis-of-estimate discussions at the start of Phase A. |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spend more money on research and development programs to mature technology readiness levels. |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support early instrument development to reduce risk (phased development approach). |
15 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carefully evaluate design heritage credits. |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improve tools for early estimation of science instrument costs. |
|
41 |
|
13 |
|
12 |
|
|
|
Increase cost reserves. |
15 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimize or eliminate blanket requirements on the level of cost reserves. Instead, match reserves to implementation risk. |
|
|
|
12 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hold a budget reserve at the program level at headquarters, in part to address impacts from changes external to the projects (such as changes in launch costs). |
|
43 |
20 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|