R O L E   O F   T H E   C H I E F   S C I E N T I S T
WE WANT TO AVOID THESE TYPES OF PROBLEMS:
  Course Outline

Challenger Disaster

Disclaimer

National Security Space Programs

Mythical Man – Month

Resolving Engineer – Mgr Conflicts

Analytic & Gaming Sims

Complex Systems

 
NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE


  •   Primary driver cost, not mission success

  •   Unrealistic budgets, unexecutable programs

  •   Competitor not “burdened” by actual cost

  •   Budgets match unrealistic estimates

  •   Requirements creep

  •   Cost growth 50% – 100%

 
SHUTTLE
  •   Success – oriented schedule

•   Top – down testing
        – Ok for design
        – Not for test

•   Redefining success
        – 1/3 burn-through
        – Order of magnitude estimates

•   Hiding failures

•   Ignoring difficult issues

•   Punishing those who notice problems

•   Marketing over engineering




 
O N E   S O L U T I O N – DEFINE A ROLE —

•   Person with clout

•   Ensure these suggestions are followed

•   Loyalty is to technical credibility

    — Not to marketing

•   “The buck stops here”

    — Catch mistakes

    — Catch deliberately misleading work

    — Ensure no “1 in 100,000” whoppers

•   Duties vary with program size

    — To avoid excessive overhead

    — Most tasks should be done anyway

        •   Office ensures not ignored

        •   Need experienced person

        •   Need sufficiently powerful office


  •   Reports/Brfs to Outside Customers

      — Chief Scientist examines these

      — Works w developers from start

      — Ensures meet tech stds

          •   1:   No "whoppers"

          •   2:   Follow good SE practices

          •   3:   Address customer needs

          •   4:   Follow std prog processes

  •   Products to Outside Customers

      — Chief Scientist examines these

      — Works w developers from start

      — Ensures meet tech stds

  •   Does NOT report to Program Mgr
  TOP
POWER ~ P R O G R A M   M A N A G E R




 
ENSURES MEETS TECHNICAL STANDARDS
 
1:   No "whoppers"

2:   Follow good SE practices
 
 
3:   Address customer needs
    <---   WHY IS THIS #3, NOT #1?
 
4:   Follow std program processes
  •   Part of 2nd priority: customer needs

  •   If you have whoppers

      — You lose credibility with customer

      — You lose credibility with the public

  •   Your first priority is YOUR REPUTATION

      — Think Space Shuttle
  TOP  




 
P R O B L E M   P R O J E C T S
 
Projects that have had

      — Schedule slips

      — Cost overruns

      — Trouble meeting tech stds

Programs likely to have problems

      — Look across program

      — Are there trends?

      — Similar problems?

      — Similar fixes?


  •   Problem projects can receive attention

      — Project manager can make request

      — Program Manager can make request

      — Chief Scientist can make request

      — Critical mass of project engineers can

          •   Critical mass defined at program start

          •   Critical mass defined for each project

          •   Project leaders can't hide problems
  TOP  
 




 
How many programs set up, in advance, procedures for dealing with problems?

How many programs prefer to hope they’ll never have any?
 
  TOP
 




 
C H I E F   S C I E N T I S T
RESOURCES
REQUIREMENTS

  •   Need to have Office of Chief Scientist

      — One person too few on big programs

      — About 3% of program

      — 30-person office, one Chief Scientist

          •   Would work multiple projects

          •   3% of each project's budget

      — Smaller programs

          •   Project leader

          •   Work especially tough problems

          •   Other projects as budget allows

  •   Ph.D. in appropriate field

      — Aero engineering

      — Physics

      — Math

  •   20+ years experience

      — Multiple programs

      — Project leadership

  •   ATF/TF/STF (Technical Ladder)

  •   Management experience

      — Project management experience

      — Regular management experience

          •   Not grounds for rejection

          •   No substitute for tech expertise
 
A “tax” of 3% is small enough that it would not wreck contractor rates.   But it’s big enough to allow the Chief Scientist to actually do something.
  TOP