ImageVerifierCode 换一换
格式:PDF , 页数:3 ,大小:67.84KB ,
资源ID:1019450      下载积分:10000 积分
快捷下载
登录下载
邮箱/手机:
温馨提示:
如需开发票,请勿充值!快捷下载时,用户名和密码都是您填写的邮箱或者手机号,方便查询和重复下载(系统自动生成)。
如填写123,账号就是123,密码也是123。
特别说明:
请自助下载,系统不会自动发送文件的哦; 如果您已付费,想二次下载,请登录后访问:我的下载记录
支付方式: 支付宝扫码支付 微信扫码支付   
注意:如需开发票,请勿充值!
验证码:   换一换

加入VIP,免费下载
 

温馨提示:由于个人手机设置不同,如果发现不能下载,请复制以下地址【http://www.mydoc123.com/d-1019450.html】到电脑端继续下载(重复下载不扣费)。

已注册用户请登录:
账号:
密码:
验证码:   换一换
  忘记密码?
三方登录: 微信登录  

下载须知

1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。
2: 试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓。
3: 文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 本站仅提供交流平台,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。

版权提示 | 免责声明

本文(REG NASA-LLIS-4436-2011 Lessons Learned from Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Programmatic Review.pdf)为本站会员(testyield361)主动上传,麦多课文库仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知麦多课文库(发送邮件至master@mydoc123.com或直接QQ联系客服),我们立即给予删除!

REG NASA-LLIS-4436-2011 Lessons Learned from Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Programmatic Review.pdf

1、Public Lessons Learned Entry: 4436 Lesson Info: Lesson Number: 4436 Submitting Organization: GRC Submitted by: Trudy Kortes Subject: Lessons Learned from Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Programmatic Review Abstract: The Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program Office recently completed a System Req

2、uirements Review (SRR), System Definition Review (SDR) (per NPR 7123.1) and an Independent Life Cycle Review (ILCR) Program Approval Review (PAR) (per NID 7120.5) from May, 2010 - August, 2010 in preparation for Key Decision Point (KDP) I which takes the Program from a formulation phase to an implem

3、entation phase. During these reviews, some lessons learned noted were; Use review success criteria as a basis for the review agenda Ensure that the scope of the review is well communicated to all parties Arrange for a neutral party to observe during the review and provide feedback to the program/pro

4、ject office. Description of Driving Event: The Radioisotope Power Systems Programmatic SRR/SDR (May - August, 2010) and PAR (8/30/10 - 9/2/10) were conducted at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) in preparation for KDP I (11/30/10). Lesson(s) Learned: Planning: The Program utilized its draft Program Pl

5、an as an outline for the PAR based on benchmarking with other loosely coupled Agency programs. In hindsight, we would have served the Standing Review Board (SRB) better if we had developed the outline and agenda based on the review success criteria as detailed in NPR 7120.5 Section 2.5.4 and any suc

6、cess criteria noted in the Terms of Reference (TOR) Document. Know your audience! The SRB is an independent board formulated by the HQ Independent Program Assessment Office (IPAO). Once we had the names and titles of people confirmed as SRB members, it would have served us well to have a detailed me

7、eting with all presenters so that they were well aware of who would be in attendance, their areas of focus, and the key issues they might look to understand. The more dry runs, the better. The Program held several dry runs, a table top review with each individual presenter as a first glance at draft

8、 charts, a dry run of charts with the entire Program Office present, an “in-situ“ dry run held at the actual location of the event (very helpful to ensure your administrative support is familiar with AV equipment and that support need requests can be submitted in a timely fashion), and a chart run-t

9、hrough with Directorate management. However, it is recommended to include someone with Program or Project management experience who is familiar with Program or project reviews and completely independent from the office to take a fresh look at the chart package and how it will be presented. (If done

10、right, this could take up a persons entire day, so make sure that person has time and is willing to commit that time to helping out.) Another dry run that could be scheduled is specifically a “tough questions“ session in order to prepare presenters and also come to a common office understanding of h

11、ow to answer particular questions. Determine early in the planning process what is in and out of scope of the review and hold to that. SRB members may want to investigate an area that is outside of the scope of the review and it is completely appropriate to ensure that the scope of the review is und

12、erstood and adhered to. IPAO can assist with this agreement in the Terms of Reference Document. Make sure there is a lead integrator who knows the content of the presentation extremely well. Program management is focused on answering questions, and this function is necessary to facilitate the meetin

13、g especially when the SRB may want to skip topics or jump to particular topics. Scheduling an outside activity or two for an independent board was encouraged and appreciated, but do this early in the review. Once they get into the main part of the process, they will get busy and probably work well P

14、rovided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-into the evenings to complete the review on time, depending on the agenda laid out for them. Ensure all stakeholders/Program or project participants or representatives of those participants are present f

15、or a review of this proportion. This may mean Headquarters personnel (Program Executive or Director) or outside external agencies or other centers or matrixed personnel who are pivotal and key to your Program or project. If possible, have a neutral party present during the review. This should be som

16、eone who knows something about the Program or project but isnt necessarily directly involved. This allows things like real-time feedback so that adjustments can be made and also ensures valuable post-review feedback. Provided a pre-brief of the PAR material to functional line and programmatic line m

17、anagement, such as the HQ Program Executive and Director. Pay attention to repeat information. A certain amount of that is fine (for example showing the same chart a couple of times in different locations) to make sure the audience is familiar with key information. But, too much repetition could lea

18、d to a perception of “glossing over“ certain key information, so strike a good balance with chart integration. Emphasize to presenters that they thoroughly know the content of what they are presenting. Ensure that a comprehensive chart package is pulled together using the same formatting and templat

19、e. Our review had multiple presenters providing multiple chart packages. Provide a format up front for all to follow, but then have a chart making expert on staff put the final package together. Do not underestimate the time it takes to do this and do it well. RPS started producing charts for this r

20、eview in early July for an August 30 review and it was a difficult to complete in that timeframe. Allow 2 or more months for chart preparation. The amount of time and effort to plan and execute a review of this magnitude was underestimated. Review: If an SRB wants to spend more or less time on parti

21、cular topics, be flexible. Be prepared, but be willing to “call an audible“ real time in order to ensure the SRB is focusing on key topics. One of the unwritten goals of a review like this is to build credibility with the SRB which means being forthcoming in answering questions and providing informa

22、tion. Recommendation(s): Use review success criteria as a basis for the review agenda. Negotiate and finalize review success criteria with the IPAO early in the process. Ensure it is documented in the TOR. Inform the presentation team/program or project office of the audience and its focus. Perform

23、as many dry runs as possible within the constraints of the review schedule. Ensure that the scope of the review is well communicated to all parties. Ensure proper stakeholder participation during and at the review. Arrange for a neutral party to observe during the review and provide feedback to the

24、program/project office. Provide a pre-brief of the PAR material to functional line and programmatic line management, such as the HQ Program Executive and Director. Ensure that the Lead Integrator serves as the facilitator for the duration of the planning process and review. Allow enough time in the

25、schedule to develop a comprehensive, professionally produced chart package. Recommend a minimum of 3 months. Begin the planning process as early as possible. Recommend 6 months for a major review. Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: N/A Documents Related to Lesson: NPR 7120.5 Section 2.5.4

26、 and success criteria noted in the Terms of Reference (TOR) Document Mission Directorate(s): Aeronautics Research Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Additional Key Phrase(s): Program Management Program level review processes Review boards Mission definition and planning Review systems Additional Info: Project: Radioisotope Power Systems Approval Info: Approval Date: 2011-01-26 Approval Name: mbell Approval Organization: HQ Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-

copyright@ 2008-2019 麦多课文库(www.mydoc123.com)网站版权所有
备案/许可证编号:苏ICP备17064731号-1