KSC Next Gen Site ___Questions? Comments?

The "ez-NASA Model", a Strategic Model

January 15, 2009

Purpose of a Strategic Model

• To light a path ahead.
  • A strategic model may not change what's ahead, but it's possible to be better prepared for many possible events.
• To help determine a new course.
  • A strategic model can create "aha" moments by applying knowledge to turn data into useful information. Then new knowledge can arise.

The United States National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) is at the start of great change in the continued exploration of Space. NASA has begun to significantly shift resources within the Space enterprise portion of NASA. The NASA Space enterprise today consists of (1) Space Shuttle operations & production, (2) the International Space Station (ISS) operations & continued construction, (3) space systems related Research & Development (R&D), and (4) future program development. Smaller areas of interest within the prior 4 areas include include Space Flight Support (SFS), the Launch Services Program (LSP), and the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.

The Space enterprise is by it's nature generational. It is necessary to continuously assess the potential consequences of any plan as events unfold and new data and information arises. One way to proactively look to the future is to visualize the growth of Space related capabilities as a distribution of resources. A simple executive dashboard of resources scenarios, where the resources are budgets, can serve to visualize future capabilities in most zero-sum game situations. Budgets, after all, define what happens and what does not. What becomes a capability and what does not. A zero-sum game arises with any assumption of a yearly budget which yearly resources spent can not exceed. Additionally, the relationship of parts of the Space enterprise can be viewed for consistency with goals related to maintaining continuous capabilities that flow into each other, for example the way any enterprise maintains a critical mass of R&D that flows into a critical mass of development so as to flow new product to operations & production.

This work continues evolving the "ez-NASA model", a sort of executive dashboard that can easily manipulate resources to visualize many possible NASA resource scenarios which reflect on future capabilities.

• More significant than just presenting more graphs and more numbers, the ez-NASA model provides an "easy" way of manipulating resources, using sliders.
• The model reduces the agency to just 6 essential thrusts, with a perspective that each requires resources from a limited total budget pool, which is also a variable.

This work began by considering the notion of "Long-Term Affordability" and what that means.

Above - From pre-ESAS, the beginnings of a long term constant purchase power assumption

“Elsewhere, I have written that a careful analysis of what we can do at NASA on constant-dollar budgets leads me to believe that we can realistically be on Mars by the mid-2030's.” – NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, Space Transportation Association Luncheon Jan. 23, 2008

Above - A simple plan. A scenario, one of many possibilities, parting from a constant purchase power assumption (i.e. the "constant-dollar"), showing those resources that are available any year for 6 repeating, continuous, NASA areas.

In order, drilling down along the left...

1. "Space Research and Development (R&D)" - for low technology readiness items, currently called out in the NASA budget as "Exploration Systems, Advanced Capabilities".
2. "Human Presence off-World" - a station and/or an outpost, currently the International Space Station, and in the future the "Surface Systems / Lunar Outpost".
3. "Space Transportation" - currently the recurring production and operations of the Space Shuttle & Space Flight Support (SFS), later the "ISS Ops" which are actually the recurring production and operations of the Orion spacecraft and the Ares I launch vehicle, followed later by "Lunar Ops", concurrently, which are actually the addition of the recurring production and operations of the Altair Lunar lander and the Ares V launch vehicle. At that end-state the Cx "architecture" or "system" composed of 2 launch vehicles, a spacecraft, and a Lunar lander, is full-up, operational.
   • The use of uncrewed launch vehicles such as EELVs, under the Launch Services Project (LSP), also falls in this category, under "SFS". But only the actual LSP costs, that is to manage and lead NASA's acquisition of such services, are in the budget line item (as well as that layer of the ez-NASA Model). *The actual launch costs (as payments to the Expendable Launch Vehicle provider) are incurred under the specific "Science" area project that requires the launch.
4. "Science and Aeronautics" - as a group. Science includes exploratory probes for the Earth, Sun, planets and beyond. Aeronautics includes the other "A" aspect of NASA, which is very research oriented.
5. "NASA Indirect Support" - mostly Cross Agency Support (CAS). This includes everything from front-end administrative functions such as procurement, finance or human resources, to back end infrastructure such as information technology, physical security, non-program specific infrastructure such as roads and many generic support facilities, communications infrastructure and numerous other functions.
6. "Space Systems Development" - of high technology readiness items, currently in the Constellation program, "IOC" or "Initial Operational Capability", that is the development of the Orion spacecraft and the Ares I launch vehicle, capable of flights to the Space Station. In the future, the development of the Human Lunar Return (HLR) capability.
   • This area also currently includes the **Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.

The 6 ez-NASA Model areas are NOT what are currently defined in the NASA budget as "enterprises". This is so the model can better present unique functions that may shift tactically over time, but which strategically must persist as roughly the SAME FUNCTION OVER TIME. For example the NASA budget would break out the largest areas of NASA mission as shown below.

The NASA budget is currently organized into the 7 areas above

By way of example showing how the ez-NASA model deviates from the budget format, the model places the International Space Station apart from Shuttle, ISS being a continuous presence beyond Earth, a unique capability unrelated in function to the transportation capability (albeit dependent), and using the same color code as the planned Lunar outpost. Both the ISS and the Lunar outpost are the "operational" costs once established for the capability achieved "a human presence beyond Earth".

• By reorganizing this way it's possible to see if an entire function, an entire capability, has a gap in resources.
• Such a discontinuity is a sign the area is not being sustained, or is perhaps unsustainable in that it's halt is required in order to have enough resources for something else in the future.
  • An operationally "sustainable" system does not need to be stopped in order that it's resources be used for development of the replacement.
    • i.e., the Space Shuttle in this sense is unsustainable.
    • i.e., if one was dependent on stopping the operation of the International Space Station, diverting such funds to development of transport and a new outpost, in order to years later establish that new human presence in space, then the ISS would also be in this sense "unsustainable".

A user may wish to explore all types of capability mixes or that is "scenarios".

Above - The "ez-NASA Model" controls, mostly sliders, and the dashboard, a graph in two formats

In considering strategy numerous questions lead to animated discussion between proponents and the uninterested, especially as regards the justification for diverting resources to strategic analysis and planning, or acting on any insights (a whole other matter, organizations often being very happy to analyze and plan, but much less so to act). These questions become a running critique about all things "strategy".

• Too far away, it's hard enough worrying about next month, think about the years ahead, impossible!
• The next person on watch will handle it, no one had things "planned" far term for us, and the people we hand off to won't expect we have it all done for them.
• Too dry, it's far more exciting to fight and fail, to firefight, or to be a crisis manager.
• Crisis management offers better career opportunities.
• Too abstract, it's not in today's inbox.
• Addresses things "no one controls", etc, politics, economics, or inversely, the myth "someone else is in control".

All of these observations stem from misconceptions about the way an enterprise changes and grows, or can decline and disappear, over time, as well as about responsibilities of an individual or organization.

• Strategic thinking accepts an obligation of the current enterprise to form the next enterprise.
• Strategic thinking recognizes that innovators will define the future, not current or evolving customer requirements.
  • Strategic thinking considers the possibility that an inferior product, usually offering a single advantage such as convenience or price, but rarely improved performance at first, must be considered in strategic planning.
• Strategic thinking accepts that there are factors no one can change. The value then becomes an improved reaction by understanding possible futures.
  • Strategic thinking accepts disruption will occur, usually the introduction of external factors in the environment or new player in the field. The value then becomes providing insight as to how that disruption is an opportunity, not just an uncontrolled external threat.

There are many valid, obvious questions about diverting resources into strategic planning and analysis in any enterprise, and about trying to use insights about a coming business environment to shape the way resources are applied today. Could a typewriter company really reinvent itself into a computer company or a software word processing company even given a combination of convincing warning, sufficient time and abundant monetary resources? There were such attempts. All failed quickly. The prior disruptive technology example is perhaps worse case. Alternately, many a technology simply matures, such as TV's with cathode-ray-tubes, CRT technology. In such a case seeing the future, early, such as seeing "flat panel technology", can be used to apply resources to simply catch the next wave for that capability, to grow and to prosper.

_____________________

This work is in support of the NASA Constellation program. For further information about the ez-NASA Model and this analysis work contact Edgar Zapata at NASA Kennedy Space Center.

Footnotes:

* The ability to remove transport costs paid for existing, available expendable launch vehicles from each specific "Science" area project would be a significant improvement in the ez-NASA Model, but current data limitations make this a difficult proposition.

** COTS, the "development" of a new launch provider, is under Constellation in the NASA budget, consistent with the broader line items nature as the larger in-house space transportation systems "development" function. The same placement is done in the ez-NASA Model, but "exact" book-keeping introduces some more complicated matters to be worked in the future. For example, would placement under Constellation, Space R&D, be more appropriate? This would reflect that such investment should be more long term as well as continuous, which in current planning, being developmental, it is not.

_____________________

Also see:

• Space Transportation Systems Affordability, Responsiveness, Reliability and Safety

_____________________

Website Contact: Edgar Zapata, NASA Kennedy Space Center