The Second Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Ground Terminal (STGT) Program from its technical and programmatic backgrounds is introduced and then several techniques to enhance communication and empower the NASA Contractor team are described. A major factor in our success was an approach used to shorten the time span of the Critical Design Review phase. This approach is described. The relationships involving NASA's O&M contractor are discussed. A set of lessons learned is included

Tierney, Paul G.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

N94-1316 
NASA/Contractor Partnership on the Second TDRSS
Ground Terminal Program - Breaking Barriers
Paul G. Tiemey
Business Development Manager, NASA
General Electric Company/M&DSO w
In December of 1988, NASA awarded a contract to GE Aerospace for development of
the Second TDRSS Ground Terminal, a major addition to NASA's Space Network.
This ground terminal was planned to enhance availability of user service by providing a
backup to the existing White Sands Ground Terminal and to provide the additional
capacity needed to support the growing needs of the '90s.
_'- This paper briefly introduces the STGT Program from its technical and programmatic
backgrounds and then describes several techniques to enhance communication and
empower the NASA Contractor team. A major factor in our success was an approach
we used to shorten the time span of the Critical Design Review phase. This approach is
•described. The relationships involving NASA's O&M contractor are discussed. The
paper concludes with a set of lessons learned.
STGT Description
Figure 1 shows the architecture of the Space Network including the Second TDRSS
Ground Terminal. The purpose of the network is to relay daia from satellites in low
earth orbit to the scientific users and manned flight controllers for such missions as the
Space Transportation System, Hubble Space Telescope and in the not-too-distant future,
Space Station Freedom. The Network is scheduled by the Network Control Center at
the Goddard Space Flight Center and ultimately relays mission data to and from the
•various Project Operation Centers. The relay satellites are in geosynchronous orbits
providing ready access to user satellites. The currently existing White Sands Ground
Terminal is located in Las Cruces, New Mexico, just west of the San Augustine
mountains. The Second TDRSS Ground Terminal is being installed and tested in a
85,000 square foot facility, three miles north of the existing terminal. In the final
•configuration the two stations share operations of the relay satellites and provide the
needed capacity for user service.
Programmatic Background
STGT is a very robust architecture with a highly distributed design, automated
switching to redundant equipment, and sophisticated signal processing. Technically
challenging, STGT is also being developed to an aggressive schedule. These factors
combine with a large number of contributors to the program. We at GE had over 500
F3.2-1
w
w
"I
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940008695 2020-06-16T21:58:43+00:00Z
people at the peak point of the program as well as 15 large subcontracts. NASA
Goddard, as the customer, is supported by a System Engineering contractor and the
contractors who operate the existing White Sands Terminal and who will operate STGT
following achievement of Initial Operational Capability in January 1994. These
ingredients demand frequent and tight communications to meet the challenges of this
development program.
| :
L_
r_
w
T ....
k =
SPACE NETWORK ARCHITECTURE
Figure 1.
TRACKING
DATA
II
WHITE SANDS
GROUND
TERMIN L
m7gWb
CONTROL
CENTER
FUGHT I
DYNAMICS
FACIUTY
Enhanced Communication on STGT
We began our development for STGT with two broad concepts for communication.
First, we (NASA and GE) began by holding prbgress reviews on a six week cycle. After
a few sessions, we established a format for these that everyone was comfortable with.
We had one or two days of detailed technical sessions and then a full day, program level
review, during which we addressed all key areas. One cn'terion we established early was
that these sessions were open to all program participants; NASA Headquarters as well
as our direct customer at Goddard, NASA's associate contractors and our own
subcontractors. We decided that for a team to work effectively all the participants
should be hearing the same data at the same time. With the exception of financial data,
we ran these meetings, and the entire program in fact, as an open book.
On a day to day basis we also insisted on open communications among all participants
at all levels. Both NASA and GE put out _s of personnel showing their areas of
responsibility and phone numbers. This was definitely unstructured and was not
constrained by points of contact or rigid manager to manager interaction. It was not
anarchy either. There were a number of natural NASA-Contractor relationships which
provided a beneficial degree of channeling. One observable of wide open
F3.2-2
communication is the speed with which "hot" news, especially bad news travels. There
are some who want to be the first to fill in the boss on a juicy tid-bit and sometimes that
can get the system agitated. On balance, it produces positive results. If a real problem is
surfacing, it gets attention quickly. If it's a red herring, the rumor gets squashed just as
quickly.
Two kinds of video conferencing were used as tools in our open style. One is the more
typical video room with the capability of several cameras and wide band transmission to
include slides and video tape. The second tool was a desk top system that can be
thought of as a picture phone. They are small desk top units that connected my office
directly with the NASA Project Manager for literally, face-to-face phone conversation.
Both of these techniques worked well saving much travel time and money. On the other
hand, old habits die hard; the desire (and need) for some face-to-face, in-person contact
remains.
Enabling the Team
While the flow of meetings and the use of video conferencing may be indicative of open
communications, there were two specific areas that exemplify the philosophy. As in all
managed organizations, NASA ran a weekly staff meeting. Staff meetings can
frequently be the forum where private data is discussed or where the restricted
participation creates an "us against them" mindset. The NASA staff meetings were
viewed as just another team function. NASA's support contractors and GE participated
fully thereby emphasizing the team feeling.
GE for its part provided open access to project data, schedules, milestones, and
discrepancy reports to name some specifics. What's more, most of this was
computerized, so we granted access to NASA and to their support contractors to our
computerized data files. All individuals were treated the same way in terms of being
granted logon identifiers and passwords. The key observation here is that once a user is
in the system, he or she can browse in other areas of information. In order to grant
access in this broad way requires trust, trust that people are working together to meet
common goals. The attitude that is created is a very positive one and a very powerful
one.
Compressed Design Reviews
In the Critical Design Phase of the development, GE was planning for a series of design
reviews with each of our subcontractors. Our first thought was to review each
subcontractor's work ourselves and then to summarize the process for our customer,
NASA, in a subsequent review. When we laid out a detailed plan, we found that we
needed to fit 55 design reviews into a six month window and if each review meant two
meetings, one with the subcontractor and one with NASA, that over 100 meetings would
F3.2-3
w
w
- Z
w
z
2
Ik,....,
m
L
L
L
[_
L A
, = ,
i s___
|
be needed in the six month period. We concluded that was not practical. Having been
operating under an open communication philosophy, the obvious idea surfaced; let all
the reviewers sit down one time and do the design'review once' That was the plan we
adopted. Yes, there were risks. Suppose a particular design area was weak. Would
NASA criticize GE for not staying in control of the subcontractor? How would we react
when NASA tried to direct our subcontractors? We came up with lots of frightening
scenarios but at the bottom line, we had no choice. Time was too short to conduct all
the reviews in a way that would control all the data and discussion and also meet the
schedule. Raising all these issues explicitly helped us formulate the detailed, do-it-once,
plan of attack. The result was we met the very demanding schedule for the Critical
Design Review. We had excellent synergy in the review team since GE, NASA, and
NASA's associate contractors were all represented. Finally we all kept our relationships
in focus so that subcontractors got their direction from GE; we in turn worked with our
customer, NASA. We clearly took some riSk in this approach, but our team trust and
open discussion won the day.
= .
NASA Operations and Maintenance Approach
The plan for STGT is for a GE development followed by operations and maintenance of
the station by NASA and their O&M contractor. NASA has separate contractual
relationships with the O&M personnel as an integral part of the development approach.
Today there are about 50 O&M personnel in residence at our facility in suburban
Philadelphia. They receive formal training and they also receive hands-on experience
with the hardware and software as we are developing it. The O&M contractor personnel
provide operational insight to our GE developers as well as direct assistance in a number
of development tasks. One barrier that has been surmounted is the fact that we have
competitors in our development facility. This creates an instinctive reluctance to work
together. Here again, we took a very pragmatic approach and did all we could to ensure
success. We feel that all the Government;s objectives have been met. Their O&M
contractor personnel are becoming well trained and experienced and GE has benefited
from the operational expertise and direct labor support.
Lessons Learned
All efforts to instill a sense of teamwork and open communication worked with some
making a larger contribution than others. All of our joint meetings and reviews, whether
live or via video conferencing, worked very well. The single pass design review process
made an impossible task possible. In my experience in this area a few themes rise to the
surface:
I. In dealing with open communication and people's natural desire to be the bearer of
good (or bad) news, it is possible for the same news item in several sets of words to
race around your program community, what I would term an information race
F3.2-4
o,
.
condition. When this happens, a little patience is required to sort out the sometimes
conflicting versions and get down to the real issue.
There will be times when constraints are needed and communications must be
focused through points of contact. This can happen when the organization is
running at a high level of stress because of an impending deadline or some crisis.
On STGT, this also came about because of how we were organized. NASA had a
functional structure (e.g., hardware or software) while GE was more product
focused. This led to situations where a single contractor person spent their time in
open communications with many individuals at the temporary penalty of their
responsibilities being compromised. Generally, these spells ended quickly and
were self-healing.
Open communication, teamwork, and authority can all be consistent if everyone is
aware that the prime contractor works for the government and the subcontractors
have their responsibility to the prime.
As in sports, each player has to trust all of the other team members. When all one's
energy can be focused on winning and no energy is sapped on wondering "what if
he ....... "or "suppose she ....... ", then partnership and full team work develop. At this
level the team is not guaranteed a victory but the team will play the game to its
fullest potential.
F3.2-5


NASA/contractor partnership on the second TDRSS ground terminal program: Breaking barriers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server