On Continuing Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science Letter Report (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Letter Report
Letter Report
Pages 1-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Weiler Associate Administrator 1:or Space Science Code S NASA Headquarters Washington, DC 20546 Dear Dr. Weiler: In your letter of February 17, 1999,1you requestedthat the Space Studies Board (SSB)
|
From page 2... ...
Other activities, such as selection ofnear-term technologies for a particular mission, could be delegated to the Centers when they are not competing for these technology development activities. Many of the recommendations in the 1998 report called for external review and advice, including planning, program reviews, evaluation of competing proposals, core competency selection, and Center quality review.
|
From page 3... ...
toward an objective and impartial technology program selection process administered at the NASA Centers. NASA's report that Center tasks were competitively peer reviewed during the FY 2000 selection process reflects a very positive change.
|
From page 4... ...
In this case, the added cost of the new communications technology should not be charged against the near-Earth spacecraft, but could be borne by a flight validation effort such as the New Millennium or Focused Programs. However, the validation of flight blardwareon such science missions must be balanced against possibly increased mission risk.
|
From page 5... ...
The task group understandsthat the action had been assignedto the Office of the Chief Engineer, but a scheduling conflict apparently prevented a representative's attendance at the task group meeting. The task group did hear views from the Goddard SpaceFlight Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and, while these presentations were interesting, there was no evidence of agency-wide guidance or direction to the process of selecting (and de-selecting)
|
From page 6... ...
An approach to the problem can be gleaned from a paper by Quinn and Hilmer,5 who use a classical "nine-block" to develop a matrix for selecting core competencies versus those that could be outsourced. Their criteria include industrial measuressuch as competitive edge versus strategic vulnerability .Such an approach can be modified to make judgments about NASA' s core competencies.
|
From page 7... ...
Adapted from Quinn and Hilmer, 1994 Recommendation 4. ~lith the support of external reviewers, NASA Headquarters should conduct make-or-buy decisions :md competitive procurements for all long-term Am.
|
From page 8... ...
l.;jASA should ensure that adequate resources, especially personnel, are available for Headquarters to org;anize, conduct, and respond to the needed number of external reviews to support competitive A TD procurements. [1998 Assessment, p.
|
From page 9... ...
If the Centers are to have essentially non-overlapping responsibilities in the d<:velopmentof new technologies, then it is essential that Headquarters management understand the status of the various projects to balance funding allocations in a manner that achieves a maximum ntlmber of significant enhancementsto the science missions.
|
From page 10... ...
External reviews were cited for all major program elements, including the New Millennium Program, the CrossEnterprise Technology Development Program, and the Focused Programs. Task Group's Assessnlent The task group recognizes that NASA is increasing the level of technology and programmatic external reviews.
|
From page 11... ...
Canizares, Chair Task Group on Technolo! ~y Development Space Studies Board in NASA' s Office of Space Science
|
From page 12... ...
.You provided an outstanding analysis of our management of technology development in the context of" c\) rrent needs, concerns expressed by Congress, and previous recommendations of the Space Studies Board in the 1995 report "Managing the Space Sciences" and provided eleven insightful and incisive recommendations.
|
From page 13... ...
0;ing the tiro.e from your busy schedules to assist NASA in improvin9 its Space Science Technology proqram. Sincerely, Edward .lir.
|
From page 14... ...
We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Lew Allen, Jr., Jet Propulsion Laboratory (ret.)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.