1、Lessons Learned Entry: 2316Lessons Learned Entry: 2316Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 2316a71 Lesson Date: 2009-12-15a71 Submitting Organization: JPLa71 Submitted by: David Oberhettingera71 POC Name: P.J. Guske; Karen A. Boylea71 POC Email: Patrick.J.Guskejpl.nasa.gov; karen.a.boylejpl.nasa.gova71 PO
2、C Phone: 818-354-4950; 818-354-2281Subject: Sharing Access to the Requirements Management Database for the Project Abstract: Maintaining an engineering requirements management database is especially challenging when there are multiple, geographically dispersed, project participants, but JPL has been
3、 successful in exchanging data and accommodating incompatibilities. If project partners are to share use of a project requirements management database on a remote server, consult the administrators of the requirements management tool on process compatibility at the beginning of the project, and foll
4、ow established procedures.Description of Driving Event: Throughout the development and test of spaceflight projects, the NASA/Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) uses a popular commercial software application- the market leader- for the definition and management of project requirements. Use of t
5、his requirements management database promotes design compliance and facilitates design verification, and JPL sharing of the database with contractors and partners greatly aids engineering collaboration and communication. It allows the project to organize requirements into a standard structure that c
6、an be shared between organizations. In addition, without such a tool, the task of accurately tracing complex and frequently changing project design elements to the sponsors performance requirements would be even more daunting. The benefits of sharing the requirements management database with contrac
7、tors and other stakeholders may not be fully realizable if the partners lack a common level of knowledge and experience in using the tool and in exchanging/linking/maintaining data between remote servers. For Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from I
8、HS-,-,-Lessons Learned Entry: 2316example, the large, geographically dispersed, Mid Infrared Instrument (MIRI) for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) involves collaboration between JPL, contractors, a consortium of European partners, and an international science team. The MIRI solution was for ea
9、ch partner to maintain a subset of the MIRI document modules and regularly exchange data using principally Excel spreadsheets for commonality and to ease importing, exporting, and manual editing. Data are updated at each respective location using redlines from the “higher level“ document, and it is
10、then often easiest for a partner to identify changes by means of manual comparison. This has permitted JPL to build and verify its requirement modules and deliver them to a partner who integrates them into the modules for which that partner is responsible, and on down the line. Each partner can use
11、local tools and practices and maintain link information within their database. Because the JPL Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) project was not as widely dispersed geographically, JPL decided that all the OCO modules would reside on a JPL server and the system contractor would access the database r
12、emotely. However, the contractor viewed remote access as too slow, and maintained local versions of the modules; JPL did not recognize the need to re-establish links between those requirements and the requirements within the JPL-maintained modules. The modules on the JPL server soon became obsolete.
13、 The solution was to frequently archive the contractor modules and inter-module links in an online JPL engineering library so that JPL could retrieve current data. References: 1. P.J. Guske, “OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) Project Lessons Learned Document (Final),“ JPL Document No. D-26172, July
14、7, 2009, Paragraph 3.1.1.2. “Verify CAD/CAM Software Compatibility Between Organizations Before Proceeding to Hardware Fabrication,“ NASA Lesson Learned No. 0577, NASA Engineering Network, November 17, 1997. http:/www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/imported_content/lesson_0577.html.Lesson(s) Learned: Mai
15、ntaining an engineering requirements management database is challenging when there are multiple, geographically dispersed, project participants, but JPL has been successful in exchanging data and accommodating incompatibilities.Recommendation(s): If project partners are to share use of a project req
16、uirements management database on a remote server, consult the administrators of the requirements management tool on process compatibility at the beginning of the project, and follow established procedures.Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or n
17、etworking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Lessons Learned Entry: 2316JPL has referenced this lesson learned as additional rationale and guidance supporting Paragraph 6.4.5 (“Engineering Practices: System Engineering“) in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory standard “Flight Project Practices, Rev. 7
18、,“ JPL DocID 58032, September 30, 2008.Documents Related to Lesson: N/AMission Directorate(s): a71 Sciencea71 Aeronautics Researcha71 Exploration SystemsAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 1.Early requirements and standards definitiona71 1.Spacecraft and Spacecraft Instrumentsa71 1.Level II/III requiremen
19、ts definitiona71 1.Engineering design and project processes and standardsa71 1.Procurement, Small Business & Industrial Relationsa71 1.Communications between different offices and contractor personnela71 1.Configuration and data managementa71 1.Configuration control and data managementa71 1.Spacecra
20、ftAdditional Info: a71 Project: Orbiting Carbon Observatory, Mid Infrared Instrument for the James Webb Space TelescopeApproval Info: a71 Approval Date: 2010-04-29a71 Approval Name: mbella71 Approval Organization: HQProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-
