NASA Procedures and Guidelines
This Document is Obsolete and Is No Longer Used. Check the NODIS Library to access the current version: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov
NPR 7120.5C Eff. Date: March 22, 2005 Cancellation Date: November 03, 2008	NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements
| TOC | Preface | Change_Log | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | Chapter7 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | AppendixH | AppendixI | AppendixJ | AppendixK | AppendixL | AppendixM | AppendixN | AppendixO | ALL |

Chapter 1. Overview of the NASA Environment

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This document defines the management requirements for formulating, approving, implementing, and evaluating NASA programs and projects¹. Because NASA is a diverse organization whose mission was established for multiple scientific and engineering purposes under the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the "Space Act"), this document is intended to reflect the flexibility needed to serve the many types of NASA programs and projects. At the same time, it is intended to build a cohesive management approach, while retaining the creative freedom to innovate techniques that improve safety and quality, and reduce the cost of expanded knowledge and of delivered products and services.

1.1.2 NASA is an agency in the process of transforming itself. This transformation is largely being driven by the new, unifying Vision for Space Exploration, but it is also a response to the recognition of the need to manage more efficiently, and with greater management responsibility and accountability². Not forgotten too, are the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommendations for improving responsibility and accountability in the area of safety. The establishment of an Independent Technical Authority (ITA) represents a direct response to the CAIB recommendations³, and a critical shift in NASA's program and project management strategy relating to safe and reliable operations. This document implements NASA's revised management strategy by defining responsibilities, accountabilities, and efficiency-enhancing measures in the form of program and project management requirements.

1.1.3 This chapter provides an introduction to NASA's strategic framework for managing programs and projects, NASA's investment areas, manager roles and responsibilities, and management strategies. Subsequent chapters deal with program management requirements, project management requirements common to all projects, and investment area-specific management requirements.

1.1.4 In this document, a requirement is identified by "shall," a good practice by "should," permission by "may," or "can," expectation by "will," and descriptive material by "is."

1.2 NASA's Strategic Framework

1.2.1 NASA's Strategic Management System, described in detail in the NASA Strategic Management Handbook (NPR 1000.2), consists of integrated activities that enable the Agency to establish and execute strategy, make decisions, allocate resources, formulate and implement programs and projects, and measure its performance. There are four parts in the strategic management process: Strategic and Performance Planning, Budget Formulation and Implementation, Implementing Strategies and Execution, and Performance Evaluation and Reporting. These activities involve all levels of the Agency, from the individual employee's performance and evaluation plans to Agency-level strategic planning and evaluation activities.

1.2.2 National priorities broadly dictate NASA's strategic direction. At the Agency level, strategic planning is documented in the NASA Strategic Plan (NPD 1000.1) and the associated Mission Directorate Strategies and Mission Support Office Functional Leadership Plans. The Strategic Plan specifies Agency-level goals derived from these priorities, objectives supporting each goal, and the themes responsible for achieving each of the objectives. The Mission Directorates and Mission Support Offices provide the details of how each organization will help achieve Agency mission and goals. Other top-level plans address Agency supporting capabilities that require a strategic approach-- for example; the Integrated Space Plan describes NASA's long-term strategy for space, while other Agency-level plans address human capital, information technology, and facilities. NASA also produces an Annual Performance Plan containing performance measures as part of the Integrated Budget and Performance Document (IBPD).

1.2.3 The NASA Strategic Plan is designed to find a balance between the constantly evolving state of space and aeronautical science, exploration, and current space operations on the one hand, with the stability needed to successfully accomplish the Agency's broad portfolio of programs and projects on the other. The Strategic Plan links broad national priorities with specific themes, programs, and projects. This simple flow down is more complicated in practice. Programs and projects can, for example, support multiple themes. The general flow of NASA's strategy is, however, reflected in the left side of Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1: The Flow from Strategy to Implementation

1.2.4 The Agency's budget framework is derived from the strategic framework. NASA's budget planning process is a vehicle for integrating programs and projects among the themes and Mission Directorates. It also allows financial control of Agency investments and visibility into program and project execution. The budget framework, shown in the right side of Figure 1-1, is built into NASA's integrated financial management system and leads inextricably down to project work breakdown structures (WBS). Some placeholders are provided in the budget framework to allow managers the flexibility in creating operational financial structures that best match the nature of the work being performed. New knowledge and technological capabilities influence national priorities. Over a shorter timeframe, new scientific knowledge and engineering capability may require adjustments in projects, and over the longer term, in programs, themes, strategic goals, and national priorities for NASA investments.

1.2.5 The Strategic Plan's themes are addressed by a portfolio of programs and projects. As with any portfolio, the portfolio holder tasked with selecting how best to invest must choose an allocation of cost (resources) so as to balance expected performance and risk. The NASA budget is closely linked to the Strategic Plan, and both are constructed in a manner that allows the policymaker to understand the costs, performance, and risks associated with the various thematic portfolios. This integrated picture of Agency investments is documented in the annual Integrated Budget and Performance Document.

1.2.6 Although a broad corporate strategy and the creation of theme-based collections of programs and projects are important Agency planning practices, they do not replace the critical importance of superior program and project management. Further, program and project management philosophy at NASA must reflect NASA values. Accordingly, NASA does the following:

1.3 Defining Programs and Projects

1.3.1 Programs and projects are different, and require different skills and professional resources. The following definitions are used to distinguish the two:

1.3.2 The Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) and Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) maintain the official database of NASA programs and projects (including basic and applied research portfolios) known as the Master Management Mapping (M3). This list includes the designated project category as defined in Section 1.5. The database forms the structure for program and project status reporting across all Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices, and the NASA Office of Education. (See paragraph 1.7.7.)

1.4 NASA's Investment Areas

1.4.1 Although NASA's Mission Directorates and Mission Support Offices operate under a single Strategic Plan, management practices must be designed to match the various types of NASA investments. This document distinguishes four investment areas or product lines:

1. Basic and Applied Research - NASA's basic and applied research is funded using competitively awarded grants to universities, in-house NASA researchers, and other research institutions. When NASA funds basic and applied research intended to directly support a project, it uses cooperative agreements and contracts, or appropriate funding mechanisms for in-house NASA researchers. NASA scientists also perform research for others under the Space Act and other similar agreements. This product line is also the source of fundamental breakthroughs in our knowledge and understanding of science, and many new technologies that are used in space systems, aeronautics, and terrestrial applications, and in meeting NASA's own operational and infrastructure requirements. Basic and applied research is generally funded on a level-of-effort basis with periodic progress reviews. Results are typically peer-reviewed and reported in journals and technical reports.
2. Advanced Technology Development - Across NASA, a substantial amount of work is done to translate new ideas generated in the laboratory into new systems that can be used to improve the performance of aircraft and spacecraft. Managers in this area typically employ spiral development or rapid prototyping practices to mature new technology in a stepwise fashion. Some of the work associated with this product line may be performed in-house with contractor support; some portion may be accomplished through grants and contracts.
3. Flight Systems and Ground Support - This product line results in a variety of advanced aircraft, atmospheric vehicles, spacecraft, suborbital vehicles, launch vehicles, space networks, ground networks, deep space networks and ground systems in direct support of a theme or program. NASA Program and Project Managers lead the development of these flight and ground products ⁸, and sometimes this means working with unprecedented designs, unknown environments, and new technologies. ⁹ These flight and ground products are often developed via contracts with industry. Following a successful flight system and ground support investment, a spacecraft may enter a protracted period of operations and sustainment. Some of NASA's largest investments are made in this area. ¹⁰ During operations and sustainment, managers are sometimes required to oversee the work of a large number of government and contractor professionals. Flight systems and ground support projects are extremely important from a strategic point-of-view because they typically lay the foundation for future investments and desired capabilities. With the substantial opportunity for human impact, this product line most often requires an Independent Technical Authority for technical requirements to ensure safe and reliable operations.
4. Institutional Infrastructure- To support its diverse activities, NASA invests in a complex set of supporting infrastructure developments and enhancement efforts. For example, NASA personnel manage the construction and renovation of buildings, the development of advanced communication systems, and the creation of new institutional control systems. ¹¹ NASA personnel also manage efforts to improve the public's understanding and appreciation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Institutional projects are planned, executed, and managed by NASA's Mission Support Offices. Institutional projects can be funded directly by mission programs, or indirectly through mission support budget accounts (overhead). Program and Project Managers must account for directly funded institutional projects in the estimation of life-cycle funding requirements.

1.4.2 Accurately placing a project in the correct investment area is important when using this document because different management requirements and oversight techniques will apply according to product line. Investment area-specific management requirements are found in subsequent chapters. The cognizant Program Manager is responsible for identifying the appropriate product line for each project.

1.5 Categorization of NASA Projects

1.5.1 NASA strives to execute all projects with excellence, but management requirements and Agency attention and oversight should track with the investment's magnitude and Agency priority.

1.5.2 Project categorization will be used extensively in the chapters that follow. ¹² Most importantly, categorization defines Agency expectations of Project Managers by determining both the oversight committee and the level of detail that must be present in Program and Project Plans. This document provides a simple schema, shown in Table 1-1, to assist the Program Manager in determining the project's category from the magnitude of project's financial investment and priority. ¹³ In connection with the project category determination, the Project Manager is responsible for providing defensible estimates of the project's life-cycle cost and priority levels, whereas the Program Manager is responsible for concurrence. The Mission Directorate Associate Administrator (MDAA) or Mission Support Office Director (MSOD) approves the categorization of projects. Independent review teams will later confirm these estimates as the project reaches initial progress milestones.

1.5.3 For purposes of project categorization, project cost is measured in real-year (i.e., budget) dollars.¹⁴ For flight systems and ground support projects, project life-cycle cost includes launch vehicle costs. Project priority depends on a number of factors:

Table 1-1. Project Categorization Schema

1.6 Roles and Responsibilities

1.6.1 The roles and responsibilities of senior management are defined in NPR 1000.2, the NASA Strategic Management Handbook, and NPD 1000.3, The NASA Organization. This document, along with NPD 7120.4, Program/Project Management, define the responsibilities for all program and project managers, except if in conflict with statutory or regulatory requirements. Other NASA-wide policy directives (NPDs) and procedural requirements (NPRs) have been developed for specific management, science, and engineering disciplines. Similarly, Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices, and Centers have developed lower-level management and discipline-specific policies and procedural requirements. Program and Project Managers are responsible for reviewing these and ensuring that subordinate managers and engineers are in compliance with applicable documents.

1.6.2 As part of the strategic management process, NASA Program Managers are appointed by the Mission Directorate Associate Administrator (MDAA)¹⁵ or Mission Support Office Director (MSOD) in consultation with the Center Director if applicable.¹⁶ The Program Manager may report to the MDAA (or MSOD) or to a Center Director, but in either case must work with the Mission Directorate or Mission Support Office staff in performing assigned responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the Program Manager to develop an accurate and complete Program Plan to ensure agreement among participants on program requirements, and technical, budget, and management commitments. The Program Manager is then responsible for implementing the program.

1.6.3 Project Managers and Project Scientists are appointed by the Mission Directorate, Mission Support Office, or Center Director in consultation with the applicable Program Manager and Program Scientist. The Project Manager is responsible for developing an accurate and complete Project Plan, and then for implementing the project. The Project Scientist (or Technologist) is responsible for developing and implementing the Science and Technical Science Requirements Document.

1.6.4 The Headquarters Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) is responsible for conducting independent reviews and for leadership of the Agency's independent assessment (IA) activities, including leadership of the Independent Program Assessment Office (IPAO) and the coordination of policy development and implementation with Center Systems Management Offices (SMOs), all of which conduct reviews. The OCE will work in coordination with the appropriate MDAA or MSOD to establish and execute independent review within the Mission Directorate or Mission Support Office. These reviews are expressly designed to provide Program and Project Managers with a source of unbiased examination and plainly articulated feedback. Review teams have a responsibility to provide Program and Project Managers with candid results, and to provide senior managers with a fair assessment of a program's or project's planning and execution. The OCE is available to answer program and project management questions, and training is available to ensure that NASA's procedures are thoroughly communicated and the necessary management skills are developed.

1.6.5 The NASA Chief Engineer, per NPD 1000.3, The NASA Organization, is the Technical Authority for the Agency, and is responsible for leading and implementing Independent Technical Authority (ITA) policies and practices per NPD 1240.4, NASA Technical Authority, and NPR 1240.1, NASA Technical Warrant System. The NASA Chief Engineer implements ITA through experts, called Technical Warrant Holders (TWHs), who are issued warrants delegating the technical responsibility, accountability, and authority to establish technical requirements so as to ensure safe and reliable operations. The purpose of ITA is to establish the technical baseline, once the high-level requirements have been defined by the Mission Directorate (or Mission Support Office). Accordingly, the TWH approves technical requirements and any variances thereto. For matters involving safe and reliable operations as related to human safety, the ITA has final decision authority. The Program or Project Manager, Independent Technical Authority, and Safety and Mission Assurance all have important roles with respect to safety, reliability, and quality of the products generated by a program or project. The individual perspectives that these three parties provide throughout a program or project establish a balance that ensures that all aspects of safety and reliability are adequately addressed.

1.7 Overview of Management Process

1.7.1 The management of programs and projects is a four-part process consisting of:

1.7.2 To initiate individual programs, a responsible manager, usually designated by the MDAA or MSOD, must first prepare a program Formulation Authorization Document (FAD). A MDAA (or MSOD) has the authority to invest resources in the preparation of a program FAD. The FAD authorizes a Program Manager to initiate the planning of a new program and to perform the analyses required to formulate a sound Program Plan that contains project elements, schedules, risk assessments, and budgets. Because the creation of a new program represents a major commitment of the Agency, the FAD requires the approval of the MDAA (or MSOD). The program FAD does the following:

1.7.3 Another key management document is the Program Commitment Agreement (PCA). The PCA is the agreement (essentially a contract) between the MDAA (or MSOD) and the NASA Deputy Administrator that documents the program's objectives, technical performance, schedule, cost, safety, and risk factors, internal and external agreements, and independent reviews. The PCA can be considered an executive summary of the Program Plan. Project implementation within a program is not authorized until a signed PCA is on file within the OCE. A Project Manager developing a new Project Plan is acting within the structure of the Program Plan and under the authority of the PCA.

1.7.4 To ensure the appropriate level of management oversight, NASA has established a hierarchy of Program Management Committees (PMCs). One of these committees, referred to as the Governing PMC (GPMC), is assigned primary responsibility for evaluating the cost, schedule, safety, and technical content of a particular program or project to ensure that it is meeting the commitments specified in the key management documents described above. The Agency PMC is responsible for evaluating proposed programs, assessing the performance of approved programs and projects, and providing recommendations to the Deputy Administrator. The Agency PMC convenes two types of meetings: (1) decision review meetings, in which recommendations are made to the Deputy Administrator regarding whether a proposed program or project will be authorized to proceed, and (2) Quarterly Status Reports (QSRs), in which the Agency PMC is updated by each Mission Directorate (and Mission Support Offices for designated programs and projects).

1.7.5 Other PMCs are established and executed by Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices, and Centers. As programs and projects are approved and move into implementation, the Agency PMC may delegate evaluation authority/responsibility to one of these PMCs. That decision is documented in the PCA and Program Plan. Regardless of where the GPMC resides (e.g., Agency, Mission Directorate, Mission Support Office, or Center), it is responsible for evaluating the program or project, and for providing recommendations and direction to the Program or Project Manager and, as applicable, the Center Director. For projects, the GPMC is determined by the established project category. This relationship is shown in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Governing PMCs and Review Team Leads

1.7.6 A NASA-led independent review process has been designed to help assure mission success and the continued ability of programs and projects to meet commitments. This review process is described in more detail in Section 2.5 for programs and in Section 3.5 for projects. Results of these independent reviews are reported to the Agency, Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices, Center PMCs and, where appropriate, the NASA Science Council, the Mission Directorate Science Management Council (SMC), and the Institutional Committee (IC). Table 1-2 establishes the lead Independent Assessment (IA) organization based on project category. Figure 1-2 depicts the relationship of mission and mission support investments, and the oversight of these programs and projects. Programs can contain some or all of the product lines defined in Section 1.4.

Figure 1-2. Program and Project Oversight Structure

1.7.7 Another step to improve direct interaction between Program and Project Managers and senior Agency managers is the use of an Agency wide electronic "dashboard" (currently Erasmus) to report program and project status in terms of cost, technical, schedule, management, safety, and performance parameters. This ensures that consistent status information is communicated across management interfaces. ¹⁷

1.8 Document Structure

1.8.1 Requirements for programs organized into the four-part management process of paragraph 1.7.1 are detailed in Chapter 2. Some institutional programs have modified program management requirements identified in Chapter 7.

1.8.2 Common requirements for projects organized into the four-part management process of paragraph 1.7.1 are detailed in Chapter 3. Project Managers must also refer to their respective investment area chapter for product line-specific requirements. Flight systems and ground support Project Managers, for example, will use Chapters 3 and 6. Basic and applied research projects and some institutional projects have modified project management requirements identified in Chapters 4 and 7, respectively.

1.8.3 Each of the following chapters has the same structure and each discusses the context for the four-part management process: formulation, approval, implementation, and evaluation. In the larger chapters, both formulation and implementation are broken into major activities, for example, systems engineering. These major activities have separate subsections that convey the purpose of the activity and the activity requirements. (See Figure 1-3.) This document recognizes that many of the major activities, like systems engineering, are undeniably lifecycle processes. It also recognizes that these major activities have detailed process requirements that are fulfilled at different stages of the project cycle--that is, the tasks and focus of the activity may shift through the project cycle. Consequently, for expositional purposes, this document identifies the activity requirements under the more applicable section.

Figure 1-3. Chapter Structure with Detail for Formulation Section

1.8.4 Applicable controlling legislation, circulars, policy directives, and procedural requirements relevant to program and project management activities are cited in Appendix L.1. Although the applicable documents may not be specifically cited in the text of this document, they are provided as the authoritative sources of policy and requirements on the relevant subject. Other references are provided in Appendix L.2 for information only.

DISTRIBUTION:
NODIS