Project Name (Monthly/Quarterly) CMC Report Name, Project Manager Name, Deputy Project Manager Name,...
-
Upload
barnard-eaton -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
5
Transcript of Project Name (Monthly/Quarterly) CMC Report Name, Project Manager Name, Deputy Project Manager Name,...
Project Name
(Monthly/Quarterly) CMC Report
Name, Project Manager
Name, Deputy Project Manager
Name, Presenter
Date
(Style and background graphics are user choice)
2
General Guidance• This guidance package is structured to provide descriptions of the information that is required in the
Pre-CMC / CMC charts, followed by sample formats. Projects are invited to propose improvements to the content at their Pre-CMC briefing.
• The essential contents are management overview, top issues and risks and schedule and financial status. Projects can include additional, supporting materials at their discretion.
• Pre-CMC may be out of synch with your project’s business update cycle, but please include whatever information you can in order to avoid surprises at the CMC; include last month’s financials in your CMC chart package if the present month financials are not yet available.
• Formats provided are samples. Projects have the flexibility to determine the format that best depicts the status content required.
• The chart descriptions and sample format charts in this guidance package are tailored to flight projects in Phase C/D. It is recognized that there will be variations in the material presented for non-flight projects and for projects in other phases. The fundamental contents, however, remain the same.
• KEY GOAL: The format is up to you, but make sure your charts tell a cohesive story about your project’s status. Do not provide data charts. What do you want the audience (Center and org. management) to know/take-away from each chart? If there are negative variances (behind schedule, over-budget), explain mitigations and possible impacts to the authorized guidelines– should management care or do you have it under control?
– Possible or realized impacts from project issues described need to be reflected in the applicable schedule and financial status charts
3
Responsible Directorate Acronym
CMC Report Content
• Main Section– Title Page– Project Description Chart (only if new project, or changes)– Manager’s Snapshot — Fever Chart– Project Progress/Accomplishments– Problem/Issue Charts– Risk Matrix & Focus Charts– In-house EVM Assessment – if applicable– Schedule Assessment Charts – Financial Status– Threats, Liens and Encumbrances and Project Reserve Trends– Status of all open CMC Actions– Summary / Upcoming Events
• Backup– Project/Mission Description (if no changes)– LaRCstone Slide (narrative chart)– Other Metrics/Trends– Additional charts to backup topics in main section– Acronym List
Use Table of Content to reflect current month’s presentation
4
Project Description
• The Project Description describes the full scope of the project and at a minimum includes the following information:
– Project name
– Names of key personnel including the Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager, Deputy for Resources, Project Scientist and/or PI, Ground System Manager, Systems Safety and Mission Assurance Manager and the Lead Mission Systems Engineer (or equivalents of each)
– Governing NPR; Mission Directorate; Program Office
– Major contractors, Partners, Centers
– Description of Project objectives/deliverables/commitments
– Project Lifecycle Dates and Estimated Costs/Budget
– Current Project Phase, date of next Lifecycle Review
• Put in Back-up if Project Description has already been briefed at CMC and has no changes from previous month
5
Program / Project: Name of program / project title
Program / Project Mgr: Program Manager / Project Manager
Governing PMC / NPR: PMC with decision authority / 7120.X
Project Plan: Date plan signed
Contractor Team: Prime
Partners: Partner Name, Deliverable
Center Participants: NASA Centers, Deliverable
Description: Brief description/objective of project
Phase: Formulation (A or B); Implementation (C/D); Operations (E)
AS9100 Applicable: Y or N
Product Delivery: Due date for product that Center has committed to deliver
LCC: Formulation, $xxx; Development, $xxx; Operations, $xxx; Total, $xxx
Project DescriptionResponsible Directorate Acronym
SAMPLE CHART
Name of Project
Salient Features• Category: • Risk Class:• •
Science• • • •
FOR PROJECTS IN PRIME OR EXTENDED MISSION, USE CURRENT
SCIENCE IMAGE(Include in all presentations)
Project DescriptionResponsible Directorate Acronym
SAMPLE CHART
Project Description: (Class B , Category I)– Core Spacecraft: 65º inclination, 407 km altitude orbit, high-frequency microwave radiometer and dual radar– Other Constellation Spacecraft: Multiple Sun-synchronous low earth orbiting satellites with microwave radiometers and/or sounders– Calibration/Validation Sites at locations worldwide– Precipitation Processing System (PPS): Produces swath and gridded science quality precipitation data products from NASA GPM
satellites as well as brightness temperature data provided by GPM national and international partners for distribution to the GPM archive and distributions centers and the GPM science team
– Ground Command and Control System Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) provides near-continuous space-ground communications. Mission Operations Center (MOC) at GSFC provides command, control for Core spacecraft
Partners:
•JAXA•Other U.S. and international partnerships provide constellation spacecraft/data streams and calibration/validation sites
Science Objectives:•3 year mission (5 year consumables) to:
– Improve scientific understanding of the global water cycle and fresh water availability
– Improve the accuracy of precipitation forecasts and its impact on weather
– Provide frequent and complete sampling of the Earth’s precipitation
Instruments:• Dual Precipitation Radar (DPR)
provided by the Japanese Aerospace and Exploration Agency (JAXA)
• GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) provided by Ball Aerospace & Tech. Corp. (BATC) (prime contractor)
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in-house development:
• Core spacecraft, Ground System and the Precipitation Processing System
Overall Status• Project Opinion: Green• NASA HQ Division Opinion: Yellow
Action• None
Core Observatory
GMI
GPM Constellation of SatellitesGPM Core Observatory2014
Suomi NPP
MetOp B/C)
JPSS-1
DMSP F19/F20 GCOM-
W( 2012)
NOAA 19
Megha-Tropiques (
7
Status as of 2/28/13SAMPLE CHARTProject Description
Responsible Directorate Acronym
8
Manager’s Snapshot (Fever Chart)
• The top-level categories covered by the Manager’s Assessment will vary from project to project, but the format and total quantity of categories should generally conform to the samples shown.
– The background color of the chart title block should correspond to the overall project fever assessment
• As a minimum, the top-level, summary fever categories must include: cost, schedule, technical and overall
– Additional top-level, summary fever categories should be included as appropriate for your project
• Provide a brief comment for each category describing the basis for the fever assessment; in other words, if a category is rated yellow, the comment must explain why the category has received the yellow rating
– Any category rated other than green should be substantiated later in the chart package by the inclusion of a corresponding issue
• A legend should be provided at the bottom of the chart
• It should be possible to distinguish between the red, yellow and green assessments on black and white copies
Red represents a Significant problem *
• Deviating from plans or commitments, with insufficient approved contingency/ reserves to recover and successfully complete the program/project as approved**
• Needs action. Help required beyond the reporting organization to address the problem.
Green represents Progress according to Plan
• Meeting management plans or commitments• No action required
Yellow represents an Area of concern*
• Deviating from plans or commitments, but approved contingency/ reserves exists to recover and successfully complete the program/project as approved**
• Needs attention. Problem can be resolved within the reporting organization.
* Any “Yellow” or “Red” assessment requires an issue focus chart** In Implementation, the appropriate document is the approved program/project plan. If used in Formulation, report against
appropriate approval document (e.g. Formulation Agreement).
R
G
Y
ResourcesEvaluate how the Program/Project budget is performing against the approved Program/Project budget and FY Actual versus Planned performance. Ensure that there is consistency between the overall resource status and the financial stoplight chart.
ScheduleEvaluate how the Program/Project schedule is performing to ensure major milestones and the Program/Project delivery date(s) approved in the Program/Project Plan* are met.
Technical PerformanceEvaluate how the Program/Project is meeting the requirements that are documented in the approved Program/Project Plan*.
ProgrammaticEvaluate management products/processes and other management responsibilities to ensure ability of the Program/project to meet commitments, such as: staffing levels, skill mix, facility infrastructure, external agreements, acquisition, documentation development and approvals, etc.
* If used in formulation, report against appropriate approval document (e.g. Formulation Agreement)
Manager’s Assessment
10
Progress according to plan. Meeting management plans or commitments.No action required.
Area of concern. Deviating from plans or commitments, but approved contingency/ reserves exists to recover and successfully complete the program/project as approved. Needs attention. Problem can be resolved within the reporting organization.
Significant problem. Deviating from plans or commitments, with insufficient approved contingency/reserves to recover and successfully complete the program/project as approved. Needs action. Help required beyond the reporting organization to address the problem.G
Y
R
B Change to original Baseline
Program/Project: xyzStatus as of: xx/xx/xx
Cost
Schedule
Technical
Mgmt. Issues
Plan description, management concern & action plan
Plan description, management concern & action plan
Plan description, management concern & action plan
G
G
Y
G
JUN JUL AUG SEP
G
G
R
G
G
G
Y
G
Y
G
G
Y
Plan description, management concern & action plan
Responsible Directorate Acronym
SAMPLE CHART
Dec Jan Feb Comments
Cost Project has adequate contingency; 22% on cost-to-go; 33% contingency in FY13
Schedule Total schedule reserve is now 31.5 work-days (min required is 37.5 days)
Technical
Spacecraft No technical show-stoppers
Instruments No issues – GMI EMI Yellow Risk: HGAS/GMI RF compatibility test with RF enclosure revealed interference. GMI 89 H/V and183 GHz filters installed on GMI instrument March 5-8. Installation and initial testing successful; Observatory-level RF compat testing planned for week of March 11.
Observatory I&T
Preparing for EMI/EMC testing
Ground System
Ground System Development complete. RF Compatibility Test with Compatibility Test Van completed
Launch Services
Launch Services on track; Launch site visit scheduled for late April 2013
Overall Will scrub schedule more this month to further improve reserve posture; Observatory shipment date late Oct 2013
LEGEND
Progressing on Plan Area of ConcernYG Significant ProblemR
G
G G G
Y
G G G
GG
G G G
G G G
G G G
YY
Y G
G
GPM Project SummaryPhase D: LRD Feb 2014
SAMPLE CHART
12
Significant Progress/Accomplishments
• Summarize the major project accomplishments since the last CMC
• Be brief, keep the level of detail at an appropriate level
• One or two significant progress text charts should suffice in most cases!
• Include photos depicting current accomplishments, if available
13
Top Problems/Issues
• Provide a listing of the project’s open problems/issues. Problems are issues that the project is already facing, not a potential future situation (i.e. risk)
− Each yellow or red item from the fever chart must have a corresponding issue chart
• Make sure the projected completion date is kept up to date
• When a problem/issue is entirely resolved, it should be so indicated in the Current Status section. The entry should then be dropped from future packages.
• The closure of a Problem/Issue is at the discretion of the Project Manager. You should not request that it be closed. Simply say that it has been closed and state why. The members of the CMC will let you know if they disagree.
PROBLEMS/ISSUES PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT ACTIONDATE
ESTAB. EST. COMP
NOAA has provided direction not to implement Short Wave Internal Calibration Source (SWICS) changes, and to implement only the Mirror Attenuator Mosaic (MAM) photodiodes if they can be added within the current budget
PI indicates that it will not be possible to verify that the CERES Level-1 requirements are met on orbit if :(1) neither of these changes are made,(2) there is a reasonable possibility that they can be met with the addition of photodiodes to the MAM, and(3) there is a good chance they can be met with both changes
Meeting being planned at HQ to discuss impact of Level-1 requirements.
If NOAA is unwilling to fund the changes, then the Level-1 requirements will have to be changed to reflect the limitation.
9/29/09 6/15/10
10/23/09: By direction of Dr. Freilich, the project is waiting for NOAA to provide Level-1 requirements before engaging in further discussion of In-Flight Calibration subsystem upgrades.
10/1/09: dSRR review board preparing a Request for Action that recommends the project modify the Level-1 requirements to restrict the requirement for on-orbit verification if MAM and SWICS changes are not funded.
9/29/09: NOAA has reiterated that they are opposed to the SWICS changes, and can only accept the MAM photodiode change if it can be done within the current budget. Issue is further complicated by NOAA‘s contention the NASA reserve posture is excessive.
R
Current Status - Open
Issue #1 Inadequate Funds to Implement In-Flight Calibration Changes
Responsible Directorate Acronym
New this month
SAMPLE CHART
15
Problem/Issue Programmatic Impacts Actions (Due Date) Current Status Summary
<Issue 1> (NEW)
“NEW” identifies new issue being reported; status issue each month until “Closed”
Quantify cost and/or schedule impact and when it will happen
1. Action 1 (Complete)2. Action 2 (Due Date)
Status summary. Underline new status added for the month
<Issue 2> (ELEVATE)
“Elevate” = need help from FPD or another org outside of project
Quantify cost and/or schedule impact and when it will happen
1. Action 1 (Due Date) Status summary. Underline new status added for the month
<Issue3> (CLOSED)
“Closed” = issue has been reported in previous reports and is now resolved, accepted or OBE
Quantify cost and/or schedule impact and when it will happen
1. Action 1 (Due Date)2. Action 2 (Due Date)
Status summary. Underline new status added for the month
<Project Name> Top IssuesSAMPLE CHART
16
Risk Status• Provide the project’s top technical and programmatic risks (typically 10 or fewer,
typically only those rated red or yellow),based upon the 5x5 risk matrix format prescribed
• Discuss any changes to the red and yellow risks from the previous month; green risks may be reflected in the top risk list but do not need to be discussed
• If a risk has changed cells since the previous month, show an arrow going from where it had been to where it is now. You need not show what the rank number had been the previous month.
• Include a table to the bottom of the Top Risk List chart identifying any former risks that are current issues
• Provide a risk focus chart for those top red and increasing yellow risks. The chart provides details of the risks, including impact, handling strategy and status
17
<Project Name> Top Project Risks
LIKELIHOOD
5
4
3 2 1
24, 5,
63
1
1 2 3 4 5
CONSEQUENCELxC Trend Approach Affinity
Decreasing (Improving) M – Mitigate C – Cost
Increasing (Worsening) W – Watch Sc – Schedule
Unchanged A – Accept T – Technical
New Since Last Period R – Research Sa – Safety
Rank &
TrendRisk ID # Affinity Approach Risk Title
1 138 T RDragon Trunk Contamination Requirements(ECD: 3/2014)
2 191 C, Sc WHexapod Delivery (ECD: 3/2014)
3 137 T MSpaceX Launch Processing Contamination Requirements(ECD: 3/2014)
4 ↓ 187 Sc MPrinted Wiring Board Procurement and Assembly (ECD: 8/2013)
5 162C,
Sc, TR
Vibration Testing on Flight ExPA (ECD: 9/2013)
6 208 Sc RInstrument Schedule(ECD: 2014)
Indicates a summary risk (an aggregate risk of two or more risks tracked at a lower project level).
Risk ID# Former Risks that are Current Issues (See Issue Chart)
FP-175 RWA Delivery Slip (Spacecraft Reaction Wheel Assembly Subcontract Continuity)
SAMPLE CHART
18
<Project Name> Risk FocusRisk Risk
ID Risk Statement Impact Approach Status
System Optical Testing
Expected Closure: Feb, 2013
210 If: The double pass Auto-collimating Flat test cannot work to sufficiently tight performance consistent with the error budgets Then: Level 2 imaging requirements cannot be verified
Cost:Schedule:Milestone
Impacted:
Mitigate • TAT, SRB and TDR recommendations being implemented. New plan includes earlier checkout, more efficient testing
• New plan presented at Partner’s Workshop
Region 1 Power Dissipation
Expected Closure: TBD
177 If: Region 1 power dissipations allocations are exceeded by the ISIM instrumentsThen: Instruments will either run warmer or need to be turned off, thus compromising JWST science requirements
Mitigate • ASIC dissipations measured and higher power accounted for with 1K temperature increase
• Continuing to track instrument dissipation at MSE level
OTE/ISIM Thermal Balance Test Failure
Expected Closure:Fall 2012
347 If: Thermal Balance Test at JSC fails to meet success criteriaThen: Disassembly, rework, and a re-test will be required
Mitigate • TAT recommendations being implemented to reduce risk of test via 2nd core test, Pathfinder thermal testing
• New plan presented at Partner’s Workshop
• Risk reduction pathfinder thermal test objectives have been establis
1
3
2
Only ‘Red’ risks and increasing ‘Yellow’
SAMPLE CHART
19
Earned Value Management (EVM) Assessment
• Provide EVM Assessment if required for your project (in-house EVM only). If EVM is only performed by the prime contractor include assessment in back-up only, unless there is a significant issue to communicate.
• The specifics of the EVM Assessment charts will vary for each project, but the format should generally conform to the samples that follow
• As a minimum, show data and trend plots depicting overall project-level EVM status; it is desirable to also include a text block on each chart, interpreting the depicted data
• As minimum, include the following EVM status
– SPI/CPI trend plot
– EAC trend plot, compared to management baseline and commitment baseline
Observations and AnalysisEVM/IEAC Trend
20
Commitment Baseline
Mgmt Baseline
Mgmt Reserve Range
PMB
SAMPLE CHART
EVM Status
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
Index
May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13SPI Actual 0.957 0.958 0.961 0.963 0.967 0.975 0.971 0.974 0.974
CPI Actual 0.974 0.969 0.970 0.969 0.974 0.983 0.982 0.992 0.991
TCPI BAC 1.067 1.087 1.090 1.102 1.089 1.059 1.068 1.033 1.041
TCPI WC EAC 0.932 0.928 0.932 0.932 0.942 0.958 0.954 0.964 0.965
MMS SPI/CPI Trend Analysis (Excludes LV, Phase E, MR)
BAC=Budget at Completion w/o LV, PHE & unencum reserve WC EAC= ((BAC-BCWP) / (CPI*SPI)) + ACWPBCWS=Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled BCWP=Budgeted Cost of Work PerformedACWP=Actual Cost of Work Performed SPI=BCWP/BCWS CPI=BCWP/ACWPTCPI=To complete CPI necessary to achieve corresponding EAC, for example: TCPI BAC=(BAC-BCWP)/(BAC-ACWP)
CPI needed to meet management baseline with no further use of reserves
CPI needed to meet WC EAC
PPBE14
SAMPLE CHART
22
Schedule Status• Provide the updated Master Schedule Chart
– Clearly indicate completed and yet-to-be-completed milestones and LaRCstones
– Clearly depict and label critical path, schedule slack and funded schedule reserve/margin
– You particularly need to speak to this chart, if anything has changed from the previous month
• Provide a summary of the project’s major milestones, including baseline dates, current completion date, total slack and reason for slips, impact and mitigation, if applicable
• Provide a critical path assessment, showing top 2-3 critical paths and schedule drivers
Note: all three of the above are required on all projects in Phase C – E, draft versions should be provided for Phase A-B with plan forward to baseline
Content below are optional:
• Provide a Cumulative Milestone chart (trend metric):
– Show the completion status of milestones over an approximately one-year to two-year period
– Include critical milestones, hardware deliveries, things that retire significant risk, etc.
– Plot enough milestones to be able to demonstrate progress from month to month, but not so many as to make it a bookkeeping nightmare
– These charts are particularly appropriate and meaningful during the build-up and test phase. If you're close to launch and waiting for a vehicle, or if you are so early in the life cycle that a milestone chart really doesn't make sense, don't force it.
• Provide a trend plot depicting the total schedule reserve burn-down plan versus actual
* Provide LaRCstone status chart in back-up section – mandatory inclusion
SAGE III on ISSMilestone Schedule
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
ProjectMilestone
LaRCstone LaRCstoneSlip
LaRCstoneComplete
On ScheduleMinor ScheduleSlip
Significant ScheduleSlip
(Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment)SAGE III
SAGE IIIProject MilestonesStop-
light
Project Phases / Key Decision Points
Major Reviews
Flight Safety Reviews
5.1 SAGE III Experiment Pallet
5.1.1 SAGE Instrument & GSE
5.1.2 Hexapod & GSE
5.1.3 IAM & GSE
5.1.4 CMP & GSE
5.1.5 DMP & GSE
5.1.6 Pallet, Mission Unique Brackets, & Cable Harnesses
5.2 Nadir Viewing Platform (NVP)
5.3 GSE & Simulators
9.0 Ground Systems/Mission Ops
10.0 Integration & Test
Launch Operations
Pre-Phase A Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D
KDP A KDP B KDP C KDP D KDP E
8/11
MCR
12/11
SRR/MDR
5/12
PDR
6/12 for Programmatic
1/13
CDR
8/13
SIR
11/13
PER
4/14
PSR FRR/LRR
Launch8/2014
On Dock@KSC6/18/14
4/12
Phase 0/1 Safety Review
3/13
Phase 2Safety Review
9/13
Phase 3 Safety Review
5/14
CoFR
SRRPre-Refurb
ReviewBeginRefurb PER
SunlookTest (40 days)
Ready for Integration
SRRCheckpoint
JIPSigned
Life Extension Report-out
Hexapod Received Ready for Integration
Receive New PB1 Board
HEU Tested / Ready for Integration with IP
SRR PDR CDR PER (12 days)
Ready for Integration
PDR CDR PER (25 days)
Ready for Integration
ContractAwarded
SystemAcceptance (33 days)
Ready for Integration
SRRBeginFab (40 days)
FabComplete
Ready for Integration
SRR PDR CDR PER Ready for End-to-End Test
(40 days)
SRR Sim Lab
CompleteBCU
Complete All GSE Ready for Integration
Ops AgreementComplete
SPOC/SCFICD Complete
Mission OpsReview (MOR)
SPOC/POICTest
Reh.#1
Reh.#2
Flight Ops Review (FOR)
SIR
Ready for Integration
InstallHEU PER
End-to-End Test
(20 days)
Ship Pallet toLaunch Site
Pallet & NVP Received @ Launch Site
LRD
(10 days)
Baseline Date: August 15, 2012Status Date: October 31, 2012Project Manager: Michael Cisewski, LaRC
Hexapod HEU Board Replacement (Preliminary)
Identify (if appropriate):- Impacts from Project Issues (discussed earlier in package)- Interim milestone slips with reason and impact to end date or critical path/margin- Changes to critical path- Emerging schedule risk areas- Major milestone mods/adds (not a slip)- Significant accomplishments
SAMPLE CHART
24
<Project Name> Milestone Status
MilestoneBaseline
Date<last month>
Date<current month>
Date Total Slack Comments
Slips from previous month shown in red
(Reason for slip, impact to end date, help needed)
IMS Baseline: <Date>
SAMPLE CHART
25
<Project Name> Critical Path Assessment
Show top 3 critical paths with days of margin and slack; Identify changes to margin, slack
SAMPLE CHART
Critical Path Flow Available Schedule Slack/Reserve
1 • FPA Detector #1 (Vendor)• FPA #1 Testing
0 days15 days
0 weeks3 weeks
2 • I&T and Calibration Slack• Aircraft Slack
20 days10 days
4 weeks2 weeks
3 • Flight Ops Slack 38 days 7.5 weeks
TOTAL CRITICAL PATH SLACK 83 days 16.5 weeks
Current CP Driver: Development at VENDOR. Contractual delivery date of February 19, 2004. Assembly failed testing. Rework in progress. Repeat test will begin in one week.
Critical Path 1 - Focal Plane Assembly #1 (FPA)
Baseline Current Required Subsystem Slack
03/17/04 03/17/04 04/07/04 15 days
Critical Path AnalysisSample Data
SAMPLE CHART
Milesto
ne C
um
ulative C
ou
nt
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13
Con
trol M
ilest
ones
Mon
thly
Cou
nt
Month/Year
Oct-11 Nov-11Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13Dec-13Actual Count 6 5 6 6 8 10 6 7 4 10 8 12 9 5 10 7 6
Replanned Count 13 17 9 14 3 16 8 11 15 6 10 7 4 8 0 4 0 2 4 1 3 1 3 3 0 1 1
Forecast 268 271 275 281 288 292 294 297 299 302 302
Cum Actual Count 149 154 160 166 174 184 190 197 201 211 219 231 240 245 255 262 268
Cum Replan Count 156 173 182 196 199 215 223 234 249 255 265 272 276 284 284 288 288 290 294 295 298 299 302 305 305 306 307
MMS Milestones Replan as of 9/30/11
SAMPLE CHART
28
Schedule Reserve Burn-downSAMPLE CHART
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Feb-09 Jun-09 Oct-09 Feb-10 Jun-10 Oct-10 Feb-11 Jun-11 Oct-11 Feb-12 Jun-12 Oct-12 Feb-13 Jun-13 Oct-13 Feb-14 Jun-14 Oct-14
Reserve
by
Days
Month/Yr
Plan
Actual
Phase C/D Starts 7/1/09
Launch Ops Starts 8/1/14
Launch 10/27/14
70 daysL-16 mo6/01/13
Critical Path: Obs #1 I&T activity thru Envir. Test
Schedule Assessment
Critical Path Schedule Reserve
Project Manager Assessment
I&T Activity
Critical Path per Observatory (Slack)
Subsystem/Intsrument
Observatory #1
I&T ActivityObservatory #2
I&T ActivityObservatory #4
NavigatorObservatory #3
Key I&T Completion Dates
FebJan
0 d
3 d
3 d
2 d
3 d
0 d
1 d
4 d
2 d
3 d
0 d
1 d
Dec
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Feb-09 Jun-09 Oct-09 Feb-10 Jun-10 Oct-10 Feb-11 Jun-11 Oct-11 Feb-12 Jun-12 Oct-12 Feb-13 Jun-13 Oct-13 Feb-14 Jun-14 Oct-14
Reserve
by
Days
Month/Yr
Plan
Actual
Phase C/D Starts 7/1/09
Launch Ops Starts 8/1/14
Launch 10/27/14
70 daysL-16 mo6/01/13Critical Path:
Obs #1 I&T activity thru Envir. Test
Task Description Obs #1 Obs #2 Obs #4 Obs #3
Spacecraft Bus I&T 10/19/12 12/4/12 3/29/13 5/15/13Complete Complete
Instru Suite I&T 10/19/12 12/10/12 3/20/13 5/14/13Complete Complete
SDP/EDI I&T 4/24/13 5/7/13 8/6/13 9/20/13SDP Only
Obs CPT 5/24/13 6/10/13 9/10/13 10/22/13
EMI 6/25/13 9/30/13 2/26/14 11/4/13
Vib 7/24/13
Thermal Vac 10/18/13 9/8/13 11/22/13 3/7/14
Stack Vib #1, 2, 3, 4 1/14/14 1/14/14 1/14/14 1/14/14
Legend In Process Complete Critical Path
03/14/2013
• Schedule reserve degraded (-1 days) to 70 days to accommodate Aronson table issue
• Obs #1 I&T activity is currently on critical path; Navigator delivery to Obs #3 is near critical path
• Schedule does not fully reflect impact of FPI or EDI rework; impact will likely result in some instrument removal prior to observatory stack vibration testing
SAMPLE CHART
30
Financial Status
• Provide status chart depicting the Full Cost Summary plan vs. actual for obligations and costs
• Provide status of the Workforce (FTE) plan vs. actual for the current fiscal year
• Provide explanations for any variances depicted for the reporting month. The explanations describe the reason(s) for the variance, impacts to the project’s budget reserves, and mitigation strategies, if appropriate (Explain both cause & effect)
31
Financial Information
Variance Explanation:
Obligations – under-run of $1,183K, or 16.1%, which was driven by the under-run in labor at $1,294K, as offset somewhat by an overage in Procurement of $239K, due to going out-of-house for Fab. Additional Obligations will be realized as the funding for out-of-house Fab work makes it into the system, on an on-going basis as the work is initiated. Additionally, the Service Pool obligations were $85K less than was in the FTA phasing plan for May.
Costs – under-run of $1,233K, or 16.2%, which was driven by the under-run in labor at $1,294K, as offset somewhat by an overage in Procurement of $138K, due to going out-of-house for Fab. Costs will catch up somewhat over the coming months as the out-of-house Fab work is costed. Additionally, the Service Pool costing was less ($85K) than was in the FTA phasing plan for May.
NOTE: FTO is planning to reduce the FTA budget by $835K to offset Orion termination liability costs.
Full Cost Summary
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
$K
Obligation Actuals Cost Actuals Plan Obligation Budget Authority Plan Cost Annual Guideline
SAMPLE CHART
Workforce
32
FTE Variance Explanation:
16 FTE under-run: 10.8 FTE under-run= work done by STC in May (1,358 hours) ~4 FTE under-run = fab not charging against full allocated May fab budgetRemaining under-run = S&E; some staff providing some support/charging to KSC Pathfinder
FTE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Actual FTE Plan FTE
SAMPLE CHART
33
Threats/Liens/Encumbrances Assessment• The specifics of the Contingency Status Chart will vary for each project, but the format should
generally agree with the samples shown.
• Liens are calculated and bookkept at 100% of the estimated cost impact, encumbrances at 100% of the final cost impact, and threats based on the projects assessment of likelihood consistent with placement on the risk matrix according to the following:
– Expected Value of the Threat = Probability (P) x Estimated Cost Impact.
– P = 20% for L of 2 (low)– P = 40% for L of 3 (moderate)– P = 60% for L of 4 (high)
• Impacts of Project Issues and Top Major (Red/Yellow) Risks described earlier should be reflected under Threats, Liens or Encumbrances, when appropriate.
• A historical trend plot depicting budget reserve/contingency through liens and through threats on cost-to-go.
– There may be unusual circumstances where a threat or a lien is not associated with a risk, but, in general, most threats and liens result from identified project risks
– threats are all risks (red, yellow, and green) with a likelihood of 2 to 4 that have potential cost impacts; liens are all risks with a likelihood of 5, (i.e., risks that have become issues), that have potential cost impacts, or costs associated with mitigation activities; encumbrances are risks/issues that are fully realized and have a final cost impact
34
Summary of Liens / EncumbrancesFY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total
Reserves as of 11/06 2,087 896 256 83 3,322
Liens: 0 525 0 0 525
MEADS Funding Held in Reserve 525
Encumbrances: -1,792 -960 18 -157 -2,891
JPL Contractor Scope Increase (LMSSC) -750 -550 -1,300JPL Requested Carryover Funding -212 200 12 0JPL FY08 Phasing Correction -47 47 0
LaRC FTE/WYE Increase -181 -436 -41 -157 -815LaRC Procurement Adjustments -120 -120LaRC Contamination Engineering -86 -60 -146LaRC Add'l funds for T/C Fabrication -3 -3LaRC Phase II Arcjet -90 -90LaRC DC/DC Parts -85 -85LaRC Transducer Procurement -198 -198LaRC MEADS Deputy -67 -67 -134
Request to HQ: Rephasing of Reserves -134 134 0
Revised Reserves 295 461 140 60 956
Responsible Directorate Acronym
SAMPLE CHART
Contingency/Liens/Threats
GPM ProjectFebruary 28, 2013
Mission Baseline: 10/2011Approved LRD: 2/14/2014Approved LCC: $
Level 1 AssessmentScience / Technical: GreenCost / Schedule: Green
FY Budget % Contingency
Total Budget % Contingency (against development-to-go)
Liens ($ Millions)$ Last
Month: Change$ This
Month: Ball Expanded Post-delivery 0.000 Ground System Ops team 0.000 Contamination site planning support 0.000 C&DH contractor support 0.000 HGAS EMI MGSE HW/Contractor supt 0.000 Thermal Contractor support 0.000 Radiation Contractor supt 0.000 Solar Array Contractor supt & test svs 0.000 SMAC Contractor support 0.000 MACE/MCE boards 0.000 Systems Engineering Contractor suppt 0.000 Travel & Ground Val reqts updated 0.000 Total Liens 0.000
Threats ($ Millions)$ Last
Month: Change$ This
Month:
DPR Dent found during I&T $0.00
GMI Exhibited radiated susceptibility during EMI test $0.00
EMI Interference w/LV $0.00
Non-standard TV $0.00
Other Green Risks $0.00
Total Threats $0.00
35
SAMPLE CHART
Project Reserve TrendsResponsible Directorate Acronym
SAMPLE CHART
37
Briefing Summary
• Provide a chart that briefly summarizes the overall health of the project and any requests to Center or Organizational Management for assistance.
• Status any open CMC actions
• Identify significant near-term project events
Note: The above content can be combined on a single chart, if preferred.
38
Action Date Action(s) Status
January 2013 CMC Action Item #:• State the CMC action given to
project.
Open:• Provide status of actions taken
by the project leading to a recommendation to close.
• Recommend closure of action item to CMC when Project Manager feels the requested action is satisfied.
CMC Action StatusResponsible Directorate Acronym
SAMPLE CHART
Upcoming Events
39
Sample of near-term Environmental Testing ExPA Modal Vibration Testing Nov 2012
NVP EDU Vibration Testing Dec 2012
IAM Engineering Unit Vibration Testing Dec 2012
SAGE III Instrument EMC Testing Nov – Dec 2012
Subsystem / System CDR ReviewInterface Adapter Module (IAM) Subsystem CDR Dec 11, 2012
Contamination Monitoring Package Subsystem CDR Dec 12, 2012
Nadir Viewing Platform Subsystem CDR Dec 13, 2012
Mission Operations Review Jan 29, 2013
System CDR Jan 30-31, 2013
Responsible Directorate Acronym
SAMPLE CHART
Back-Up Charts
LaRCstone SummaryOrg. Name of Project Name Of LaRCstone Baseline Due
Date Date
Completed Estimated
Completion DateSlippage Rationale
(Make sure to date and footnote the entries)ESOD-12-01 SPLASH BTA Phase I Testing Complete 1/9/2012 1/9/2012 ESOD-12-02 Commercial Space
Projects Office (CSPO)
SpaceX-Falcon 9 Test in UPWT 1/31/2012 3/15/2012 (12/1/12) SpaceX fabricated the UPWT test article in house. The model is very intricate and they had some difficulty in machining the load beams for the force balances. After machining, the load beams had to be gauged. In addition, there were problems getting the EPR for Annex 1 approved by OCC and NASA HQ.During model installation, the test team experienced difficulty with the load balances; the check loads read lower than anticipated on two of the three load beams. Farther investigation revealed that the low outputs were due to the way the wiring from the gauges was patched. Air-on operations began on March 6. During the testing, the load beam attached to the center engine failed. On March 7, LaRC’s machine shop repaired the load beam. UPWT then experienced cooling water issues. So testing resumed on March 8. After 3 runs, the signals from the two remaining load beams failed. Load beams were removed from the model and taken to Modern Machine and Tool (MMT) to check gauges. MMT inspected gauges and made wiring repairs. Received load beams from MMT on March 12. During installation of load beams into model, the gauges still did not give good readings during check loads. Decision was made by SpaceX test engineer to modify the load beam like the first failed beam. Received modified load beams back from LaRC’s machine shop on March 13. Testing resumed on March 14 and completed on March 15. (R.V.Kerns)
ESOD-12-03 CoEx Award industry task for fabrication of 1/6th-arc panels
1/31/2012 5/17/12 (12/5/12) WebCore, the Contractor for 1/6th-arc tool is experiencing financial problems, they have not made all scheduled payments to the sub-contractor Janicki. Due to the contractor’s non-payment to the sub-contractor NASA has not received the tool. (M.J.Shuart) (3/2/12) MSFC’s Contracting Officer sent a letter to WebCore putting them on notice to resolve financial issues with Janicki or NASA may find them in default of the current contract. MSFC Procurement & Legal Offices are gathering information to determine the next course of action taken to correct the situation with WebCore. This includes ensuring the course of action is in the best interest of the Government and obtaining delivery of the 1/6th–arc tool. Project Manager has recommended to terminate for default. (M.J.Shuart)
ESOD-12-04 MPCV Aerosciences
Project
Test 89-CA Complete 1/31/2012 2/10/2012 (12/15/12) The 89-CA testing had to be slowed during the first week of testing because when run in cryogenic mode,1) Cause -A larger than acceptable temperature gradient across the tunnel cross-section. Effect – tunnel needed to be shut down for hours at a time2) Cause - Intermittent operation of the LN2 plant, due to a tripped circuit. Effect – insufficient LN2 supply (P.C.Parikh)
Place in backup if there are no updates.Please view the notes section of the slide.
New this month
<Project Name Near Term Milestone Schedule>
2012 2013August September October November December January February March April May June July
CriticalMilestones
Line #
ABI Development
PER1
PFM Vibration Testing2
PFM T/V Test3
PFM EMI Testing4
PFM Delivery5
PSR6
SUVI Development
FM1 Front Aperture Assembly7
FM1 (GTA) - Complete Final Assembly for GTA (includes Heaters & wiring)8
CPT#19
PER10
CPT#211
Install Thermal Blankets12
Conduct Thermal Balance Test13
Conduct Thermal Vacuum Testing14
PSR15
FM1 Delivery16
8/3 9/18 10/17
11/1
8/9 9/20 10/17 11/14 12/4
1/21 2/8 2/26
9/20 10/31 12/12 3/4 3/26 4/9
3/25 4/16 5/2
3/25 4/16 5/2
8/3
8/7 9/7
11/16
9/27 10/15 11/29
11/1 11/19 1/14
1/16 2/25
2/8 3/13
3/1 4/3
4/25 5/28
4/30 5/31
4
1
4
5
2
1
1
5
6
3 4
8
3
2
2
1
1
1
6
7
1
5
1
1
9
Mass Margin Trends
• Existing Hardware makes up 42% of on-orbit mass, including Instrument, Hexapod, Disturbance Monitoring Package, and ExPA Hardware.• New Development HW Estimated Margin assumes existing hardware remains within contingency reserves.
NASA Internal Use Only
Responsible Directorate Acronym
Provide key performance indicators (i.e. mass, power, cost, etc. projections) plotted against allocations or targets.
SAMPLE CHART
Power Margin Trends
NASA Internal Use Only
Responsible Directorate Acronym
Provide key performance indicators (i.e. mass, power, cost, etc. projections) plotted against allocations or targets.
SAMPLE CHART
RFA Closure Trends
Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12
Total RFAs Actions 13 13 13 13 23 23 23 23 23 23 41 41 41 41 41 41
RFA Submitted 5 7 7 8 12 5 5 5 5 4 4 7 10 16 7 2
RFAs Closed 3 3 3 4 11 16 16 16 17 19 19 19 19 23 29 36
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
RFAs
Responsible Directorate Acronym
NASA Internal Use Only
SAMPLE CHART
Contractor EVM Status
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
Index
May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13SPI Actual 0.957 0.958 0.961 0.963 0.967 0.975 0.971 0.974 0.974
CPI Actual 0.974 0.969 0.970 0.969 0.974 0.983 0.982 0.992 0.991
TCPI BAC 1.067 1.087 1.090 1.102 1.089 1.059 1.068 1.033 1.041
TCPI WC EAC 0.932 0.928 0.932 0.932 0.942 0.958 0.954 0.964 0.965
MMS SPI/CPI Trend Analysis (Excludes LV, Phase E, MR)
BAC=Budget at Completion w/o LV, PHE & unencum reserve WC EAC= ((BAC-BCWP) / (CPI*SPI)) + ACWPBCWS=Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled BCWP=Budgeted Cost of Work PerformedACWP=Actual Cost of Work Performed SPI=BCWP/BCWS CPI=BCWP/ACWPTCPI=To complete CPI necessary to achieve corresponding EAC, for example: TCPI BAC=(BAC-BCWP)/(BAC-ACWP)
CPI needed to meet management baseline with no further use of reserves
CPI needed to meet WC EAC
PPBE14
SAMPLE CHART