The Planet Orbits program is a special space mission program sponsored by the space agency. The assigned program manager, Eric Anderson, is a senior scientist with the agency. The idea for the Planet Orbits program was initiated by Eric Anderson, and had been proposed to the space agency multiple times since 1992. Our idea is to use a transit photometer to build a device that will help increase the understanding of life in the universe and other planets like Earth, Eric described. On several instances, the program cost estimates and proposed scientific methodology were compared (by the program selection committee) with much larger and complicated missions of the past. As a result, with each selection cycle, the program was forced to respond to new committees demands and requests. In particular, the program had to redo its costing several times to validate its accuracy and had to prove the viability of its chosen data collection technique via ground - based demonstrations. Additionally, they had to demonstrate that the Research Center had the capability for the end - to - end management of the program. It was not until December 2001, after persistent attempts to prove the idea for almost a decade that the program was eventually selected.

PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Because the breadth, depth, and complexity of the program are so large, the agency determined that all of the program components (program management, ground segment management, and flight segment management) were too much for the assigned program manager to handle individually. Therefore, in June 2002, the Planet Orbits program, whose main mission location is at the Research Center, selected the Spacecraft Laboratory as the mission management partner in an attempt to reduce risk. Additionally, the Technology Corporation was selected as the industrial partner of the program for development of the hardware. Under this arrangement, the Research Center was still responsible for roughly 70 percent of the direct cost via instrument development and delivery, and science management.

The structure of Planet Orbits is a program form of organizational structure involving multiple sub-teams in three organizations (see Figure 18.3). The structure is atypical since the program is shared by two centers (Research Center and Spacecraft Laboratory). The program has a Program Management Office (PMO), which is an entity created for a specific period of time that is dedicated specifically to the Planet Orbits program. The PMO provides a variety of managerial and administrative support pertinent to managing a major and complex program such as Planet Orbits.

Team members were selected by the programs core team, which represented the functional project managers reporting to Eric. The criteria for selection of the team members included experience, competency, dedication, and enthusiasm. External hiring for the program included employees from the Spacecraft Laboratory and the Technology Corporation, who were also picked by the Planet Orbits team. The Planet Orbits team size varies across program phases as the demand for personnel fluctuates.

A formal team - building exercise (referred to as Four Dimensional (4 - D) training) was held somewhat late after the start of the program. The 4 - D training, provided by an external organization, is a mechanism for the team to get to know one another, form a cohesive group, and create what is called smoothness and harmony across the organizations involved. As program manager, Eric Andersen is responsible for the execution of the entire mission and the scientific integrity of the investigation. The responsibility for day - to - day management of the program is delegated by the program manager to the project team at the Spacecraft Laboratory, where the project manager resides. The Planet Orbits Educational and Public Outreach (EPO) organization and the science teams, consisting of the Investigator Working Group (IWG) and the Science Working Group (SWG), report directly to the program manager. In general, the Research Center and its program manager are responsible for the development and test of the photometer and the overall ground segment.

For the Planet Orbits program, top management of the agency is involved during the gate approvals and program reviews. Three formal review teams are established to evaluate the program. These include the program formal review (PFR) team the standing review board picked from various key organizations; the independent assessment team (IAT) selected from the agency; and the systems management office assessment (SMOA) team selected from the spacecraft laboratory. The PFR has 21 members; the IAT has 6 to 9 members; and the SMOA has 2 to 4 members. Review teams are used as the mechanism to evaluate whether or not the program is in line with the agency mission. Generally, the review teams make recommendations (or so - called findings) and evaluate the readiness of the program to proceed to the next phase.

PROGRAM STRATEGY

The program objectives must align directly with the mission and strategy documented by the space agency. The objective of the Planet Orbits program is to build a spacecraft with a photometer for space exploration. Its scientific goal is to conduct a census of extraterrestrial solar planets by using a photometer in a heliocentric orbit. The fi rst priority or strategic focus of the program is science goals; followed by the clear mandate to stay within a number of constraints (schedule, cost, and technical integrity). The science focus is clearly associated with agency value and is reinforced by the program manager to the core team and other team members throughout the program.

Product definition: The major products of the program include a photometer onboard a spacecraft and its associated ground system. The photometer is an instrument for measuring the luminous flux of a light source to observe the periodic dimming in starlight caused by planetary transit. When a planet passes in front of its parent star, it blocks a small fraction of the light from that star. If the dimming is truly caused by a planet, then the transits must be repeatable. Measuring three transits all with a consistent period, duration, and change in brightness provides a rigorous method for discovering and confirming planets.

Program value: The program is very well - aligned with the agencys strategic plan. The value of the program is to contribute to answering the fundamental questions of Does life in any form, however simple or complex, carbon - based or other, exist elsewhere than on Earth? And Are there Earth - like planets beyond our solar system?. The value also is to contribute to all the Agency s Office of Space Science Themes, addressing the questions that the formulation and evolution of planets pose and to provide exciting scientific results of great visceral interest to the general public about exploration. Success criteria: Time, cost, and performance are the major criteria determining the success of the program.

PROGRAM SCOPE

The Planet Orbits program is built around the following three major deliverables, allocated to three organizations, namely: Research Center, Spacecraft Laboratory, and Technology Corporation. The Research Center is responsible for developing and testing the photometer and the overall ground segment. The work done in the Laboratory includes the development of the flight system (spacecraft, flight segment assembly/test/launch operations) and flight segment on - orbit checkout system. The Technology Corporation is responsible for developing, building, integrating, and testing the flight system. The major customer who will benefit from the program is the space agency, the parent organization of the Research Center and the Spacecraft Laboratory.

PROGRAM PROCESSES

The Planet Orbits has six major program life cycle phases. The first phase is advance studies (Pre-phase A). The objective of this phase is to produce a broad spectrum of ideas and alternatives for missions from which new programs can be selected. Second in the life cycle is preliminary analysis (Phase A). In this phase, the team has to determine the feasibility and desirability of a suggested new major system and its compatibility with the agencys strategic plans. Third is definition phase (Phase B), whose objective is to define the program in sufficient detail to establish an initial baseline capable of meeting mission needs. Next is the design phase (Phase C). In this phase, the team completes the detailed design of the system. Then, the program goes to the development phase (Phase D) to build the subsystems and integrate them to create the system while developing confidence that it will be able to meet the system requirements; and to deploy the system and ensure that it is ready for operations. The last phase in the life cycle is operation (Phase E). In this phase, the team has to make sure that the system actually meets the initially identified need, and then dispose the system in a responsible manner. Figure 18.4 summarizes the program life cycle and the major milestones, including the timeline. Major milestones include Mission Concept Review (MCR), Mission Definition Review (MDR), System Definition Review (SDR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), System Acceptance Review (SAR), Flight Readiness Review (FRR), Operational Readiness Review (ORR), and Decommissioning Review (DR). These phases and milestones are consistent and standard to the agency. There is definition and understanding as to the decisions that need to be made at each milestone review (technical, schedule, and cost). Planet Orbits is currently scheduled to pass the PDR stage by going through the three review teams the PFR, the IAT, and the SMOA. The first review team is the PFR, which is a standing review board. Their job is to verify or recommend the program move forward on the basis of the completeness of its requirements and the understanding of the agency s requirements. The second review team is the IAT, whose job is to make the recommendation whether or not the program should be confirmed. Next, the SMOA team evaluates the aspects of the program based on the interest of the chief engineering office. After the program achieves PDR approval, it must meet a major constraint set by the agency that the program must then launch within 36 months, including one month of commissioning. This means that Phases C and D cannot exceed more than 36 months, collectively.

The tactical management of the Planet Orbits program includes a formal work breakdown structure (WBS), roughly seven levels, where specific team leaders are responsible for certain levels. Charles, the project manager in the Spacecraft Lab, primarily has control over level 1 (program level), 2 (segment level), 3 (system level), and 4 (subsystem level), whereas the project managers in the photometer and flight segments and functional teams have been responsible for the lower levels (assembly, subassembly, parts). Each level contains numerous activities. The spacecraft, as an example, has approximately 4,000 activities. The WBS was used as the baseline to develop the program schedule and cost.

The program is tightly monitored and controlled. All technical performance, cost, or schedule parameters that require approval by the agency administrator, the associate administrator, the lead center director, or program manager are identified in Table 18.1. These controlled parameters are well documented and shared with all team members in progress meetings and reports.

PROGRAM METRICS AND TOOLS

Several project management applications are used in the program. A critical path schedule and Gantt chart are used for scheduling and are entirely based on the WBS. The number of activities in the schedule is in the thousands, disaggregated through the system of hierarchical scheduling based on WBS system levels. Standard enterprise management tools are used for budget and expense tracking. The team is required to do earned value analysis starting with Phase C for the Technology Corporations contract. Off - the - shelf commercial products, such as Live - Link, Project, and Doors are used to collaborate among the three major organizations. However, all team members have not used them universally.

Program performance is measured and tracked very carefully. In particular, aggregate actual - to - plan metrics for the master schedule and total budget are required by the agency.

CONCLUSION

The first concern was that cross - site coordination was not going as well as expected, creating several time delays and inefficiencies. Early cross - organizational training turned out to be relatively ineffective. Implementation of some selected software tools such as Live - Link have helped the situation considerably, but more effective management by the program manager and core team leaders will be essential.

The second key issue related to the schedule constraints imposed by the agency. For the most part, the completion within 36 months was, in essence, dictated by senior management. The program team accepted this date without the appropriate analysis and consolidation of schedule to support it. Additional schedule analysis since the last milestone review indicates that the target completion date may not be achievable and will need to be appropriately discussed at the upcoming PDR meeting.

As they concluded, Eric and Charles recapped where they thought they stood with the program overall. Eric summarized as follows:

We have a strong team with high morale.

We have competent personnel in all key positions who are very experienced and knowledgeable in their respective fields.

We have clearly defined goals, focus, and strategy.

The program aligns well to the strategic goals of the agency which helps in terms of management support.

The program is quite stable in terms of its scope and science.

Eric concluded, I think we are very well prepared for the upcoming committee review. Ill review what we discussed today with the other core team members, and I think we are ready to proceed.

CLOSING

The Planet Orbits example demonstrates how the program management model can scale as a viable management approach for small, multidiscipline development efforts to very large and complex efforts involving multiple organizations. However, as program size and complexity grow, the capabilities and experience of the program manager become more important. Fundamentally, this program is sound; however, it is evident that cross - project and cross - organization collaboration and synergy is breaking down. This shows the importance of leadership and other soft skills on the part of program managers.

Answer the questions

1. Summarize the key takeaways of the case.

2. Why do you think it took Planet Orbits 10 years to get selected?

3. How should the earthly issues and the cosmic glory of Planet Orbits be balanced in terms of the success measures?

4. What are the major challenges of the Planet Orbits structure?

5. Explain why soft skills are so important, especially in this case?