A System for Innovation
Jeffrey R. Davis, M.D.Director, Space Life Sciences
Elizabeth E. RichardSenior Strategist, Wyle
Project Management ChallengeFebruary 9-10, 2010
Exploring Space, Enhancing LifeUsed with Permission
2
Presentation Overview
• Background
• The System for Innovation– Human System Risk Management– Collaborative Innovation
• Human System Risk Management Process– Standards to deliverables– Master list of human system risks– Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool– Human System Risk Board
• Driving Innovation through Collaboration– SLSD Strategic Plan– Why collaborate?– Critical success factors, best practices, and challenges
• Future Work Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
System for Innovation
• The Space Life Sciences Directorate’s (SLSD) system for innovation involves two key components: – 1) an evidence-based risk management system that
continuously evaluates all human system risks across current and future operations, and identifies gaps in the research, technology, operations and service portfolios, and
– 2) a strategic system to drive innovation through strategic alliances and collaboration to optimize SLSD research, technology, operations, and service portfolios.
• SLSD’s change process was stimulated by internal and external changes to the environment
3
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life2/19/20104
Change Drivers
• 2001, Institute of Medicine Safe Passage published
• 2003, CAIB Report issued
• 2004, Vision for Space Exploration released
• 2005, Exploration Systems Architecture Study
• 2005, Institute of Medicine Report regarding the Bioastronautics Roadmap
• 2006 NASA Strategic Plan
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life5
Institute of Medicine Recommendations
• From Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions– Develop and use an occupational health
model for the collection and analysis of astronaut health data, giving priority to the creation and maintenance of a safe work environment
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life6
• Establish an independent Technical Authority, with responsibilities that include:– Develop and maintain technical standards – Sole waiver-granting authority for all technical
standards– Conduct integrated hazard analyses– Review and approve research deliverables
CAIB Report Recommendations
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life7
• Review of Bioastronautics Roadmap– Incorporate an evidence-based risk assessment
and communication process into the risk identification and reduction approach
– Risks and mitigation strategies should be represented separately for assessment and comparison
Institute of Medicine Recommendations
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life8
Human System Risk Management
• Human System Risk Management Process– Standards to deliverables– Master list of human system risks– Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool– Human System Risk Board
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life9
Standards to Deliverables Process
• Standards to deliverables first developed 2005-2006: first response to environmental changes
• Standards - implement health and medical policy– The first step in risk mitigation is establishing standards
to define an acceptable level of risk – Standards are based on the best available information
and evaluated against the space flight environment– Operational experience is assessed to inform the
standards – Research projects are defined to fill the gaps in
knowledge
• Deliverables – Desirable solutions to research and/or technology
questions that mitigate human system risks
10
Transportation to LEO
2025Human Expl Mars Vicinity
2015Human Lunar Exploration
2014Crewed CEV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 . . . . 2025 . . . 2030
2030Human
Exploration of Mars
Standards to Deliverables Process2005-2006
Vision for Exploration
Human Rating Requirements
Exploration Requirements
Deliverables•Ops Experience•Countermeasures•Knowledge
NASA Strategic PlanHuman Exploration
StrategyHealth and Med Policy
Procedural Rqts
Human System Standards
Research Requirements
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life11
Risk Management: An Evidence Based Approach
• A risk management system was needed to implement the standard to deliverables process– A master list of 90 human system risks was identified– A rigorous evidence-based system to mitigate the
approximately 90 human system risks for space is tracked and monitored through a Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool (RMAT)
– A flight activities control board and human system risk board manage all standards development, risks, and mitigation approaches to the 90 human system risks
– When solution to mitigate risks are not readily available from the research and technology portfolios, gaps are identified that must be closed for successful risk mitigation
– Gaps are evaluated for closure through innovative, collaborative approaches
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life12
Risk Management: An Evidence Based Approach
• Need to regularly collect/evaluate the accumulated data and evidence from space flight operations and space and ground-based research
• Use evidence base to make recommendations to create/alter health and medical human system standards and/or requirements
• The Human Research Program discipline reviews began the review of the best available evidence in 2006-2007
• Evidence review is now weekly in the Human System Risk Board (HSRB began April 2008)
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Developed Master List of Human System Risks
• Collected all risks currently being worked in SLSD organizations
• Re-worded to reflect proper risk statement: clear statement of condition and consequence
• Categorized by threat– Hypo, hyper gravity environments– Closed and hostile environment– Remote deployment
• Modified by missions– Length– Vehicle configuration– Distance from Earth
13
Example from Master ListID Disposition RISK STATEMENT
Applicable Mission Timeframe
Responsible Program
7 Risk
Risk of Inability to Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew Member
Given that there is limited mass, volume, power, and crew training time which therefore limits the amount of equipment and procedures available to treat medical problems, there is a poss
Lunar OutpostMars During Mission HRP
8 Risk
Risk of Compromised EVA Performance and Crew Health Due to Inadequate EVA Suit Systems
Given the possibility that EVA Suit Systems are inadequate, the crew may be unable to perform mission objectives.
Given the possibility that EVA Suit Systems are inadLunar OutpostMars During Mission ESPO/HRP
11 Risk
Risk of Error Due to Inadequate Information
Given the condition of lack of adequate information available to the crew, there is a possiblity that operator error could occur on critical tasks resulting in failure to perform assigned tasks within required
CEV to ISSLunar SortieLunar OutpostMars During Mission HRP
12 Risk
Risk of Behavioral and Psychiatric Conditions
Given that behavioral issues are inevitable, there is a possiblity that psychiatric conditions will occur on long duration space flight.
ISSLunar OutpostMars During Mission HRP
34 Risk
Given that the Intra-Vehicular Charged Particle Directional Spectrophotometer has Exceeded its Expected Lifetime, thus limiting our ability to monitor the radiation environment, there is a probability that crews will exceed career radiation exposure limit ISS 14
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life15
Risk Mitigation Analysis Tool (RMAT)
• Collects the current status of work in developing and addressing compliance with standards for identified risks and/or risk factors
• Assesses the need for mitigation to stay within the standard for a particular mission
• Facilitates documentation and base lining of the risk management approach - allows us to assess gaps and provide traceability of our work
• The tool flows from a standard to a deliverable for a particular mission
• Progress is assessed at the Human System Risk Board
Radiation Carcinogenesis: Risk Management Analysis ToolArchitectures
CEV(CEV to ISS)
ISS (6 Months)
ISS(1 Year)
Moon(<14 days)
Moon (Lunar Habitat)
Mars
Has the risk factor been verified? (Y/N)
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Probability of the adverse outcome (without current or proposed mitigation)
*PRA calculations:Females 0.7%, Males 0.6%
*PRA calculations:Females 1.3%, Males 1.2%
*PRA calculations:Females 1.5%, Males 0.8%
*PRA calculations:Females 5.0%, Males 4.5%
Uncertainty associated with outcome
0.3-1.9%0.2-1.5%
0.5- 4.0%0.4- 3.0%
0.5- 5.0% 0.5- 4.0%
1.5-18%1.5-15%
Impact of the Adverse Outcome
1) individual, acute health2) mission impact
1) individual, acute health2) mission impact
1) individual, acute health2) mission impact3) program impact
1) individual, acute health2) mission impact3) program impact
1) individual, acute health2) mission impact3) program impact
Mitigation, Current and/or Proposed
1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat
1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat
1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat
1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat3) maximize surface time to use planetary shielding
1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat3) maximize surface time to use planetary shielding
1) shielding2) monitoring to reduce SPE threat3) maximize surface time to use planetary shielding
Probability of the Adverse Outcome (with
current/proposed mitigation)
Cost/Benefit Trades(Including risks of
mitigation)
1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning
1) cost impacts2) mission planning impacts
1) cost impacts2) mission planning impacts
1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning
1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning
1) vehicle design impacts2) cost impacts3) mission planning
Current Work1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval
1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval
1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval
1) optimize modeling technique2) refine confidence interval
Future WorkDescribe appropriate mitigation for lunar habitat mission
Describe mitigation for Mars mission; transit, & surface operations
Revision of the standard to conform with ALARA
Revision of the standard to conform with ALARA
16
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life17
• Established at JSC – April 2008• Working group develops and brings to the HSRB
– RMAT– Presentation of evidence base
• HSRB chaired by JSC Chief Medical Officer (CMO) – Manager, Human Research program is a voting member– Divisions, technical specialties, operations and research– Ames, Glenn, KSC, Langley and KSC participate– Stops, starts and modifies research – Identifies gaps and assigns actions for research and technology
development– Recommends updates to standards and transition to operations of
new findings
Human System Risk Board
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Human System Risk Board
• Future work– ISS international partners invited Jan 2010 (International
Space Medicine Summit III recommendation)• Will participate quarterly
– Develop RMATs for all 90 human system risks– Recommend future work for all gaps to a development
control board to try new collaborative approaches– Risks can be modified to mission requirements
• Suborbital to Mars– An example of organizational innovation
• Operations and research integrated• Best available evidence continuously reviewed
• Gaps are evaluated for closure through innovative approaches
18
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life19
Driving Innovation Through Collaboration
• Driving Innovation through Collaboration
– SLSD Strategic Plan– Why collaborate?– Critical success factors, best practices, and
challenges
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life20
Driving Innovation Through Collaboration
SLSD Strategic Plan 2007
• Four strategic goals:• Manage balanced internal/external portfolio• Drive health innovations• Drive human system integration innovations• Education and outreach
• Key strategies for implementation• Alliances (supported by benchmark report)• Risk management and research/ops integration• Open collaboration/innovation• Support commercial space for LEO
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Why Collaborate?• Collaborative innovation and alliances are used to:
– Innovate quickly and cost effectively– Improve quality of innovation– Address technical challenges in a rapidly changing
environment– Enhance portfolios by supplementing internal core
capabilities with external capabilities– Remain competitive (for profit or funding)– Transfer knowledge– Share risks– Grow and develop market– Leverage brand name
“Alliances are crucial to driving growth and innovation”
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
How Alliances and CollaborationsDrive Innovation
• Transfer of compatible competencies• Joint research and development• Access to new technologies• Accelerated research• Knowledge acquisition • Variability resulting in novel ideas• New applications for existing technologies• Shared investment/cost efficiency• Facilities sharing resulting in enhanced innovation
“Can we get there faster with a partner than by ourselves?”
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Enabling Collaborative Innovation
• Critical Success Factors and Best Practices– Demonstrate senior management commitment and
support– Identify and manage cultural issues – Embed strategy into the overall strategic planning process– Adopt a structured approach for implementation – Establish a support structure to enable and facilitate
alliances and collaborative innovation– Enhance communications
• Internally: culture, skills, awareness, flexibility• Externally: improving ways to connect to outsiders
– Institute a reward system aligned with strategy
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life24
• Create a unifying vision and clearly defined goals and objectives
• Evaluate strategy and objectives annually• Conduct gap analysis to determine areas of greatest need• Conduct core competencies assessment to determine the
greatest opportunities for partnerships• Clearly articulate and communicate gaps/innovation needs• Assess and map gaps/needs to optimal collaboration mode • Establish processes to scout for ideas and scan/access the
external environment for emerging technologies and collaborations
• Pursue open innovation models and/or strategic alliances based on overall assessment
Optimizing Innovation Requires a Deliberate, Structured Approach
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Challenges
• Hurdles to creating a collaborative environment and fostering innovation– Conflicts between sourcing internally v. externally
• “Not Invented Here” syndrome• Risk/change averse culture• Limited interaction with potential resources/problem solvers
– Limited external network (serendipitous partnerships/opportunities)
– Bureaucratic barriers to collaboration (policies, regulations, security)
– No overarching process to analyze gaps at strategic/organizational level
– Misaligned job expectations and/or performance evaluations
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life26
• Strategy Execution and Implementation Office 2008• Human System Risk Board April 2008
– Multiple centers participate (Ames, Glenn, KSC, Langley, HQ)
– Expanding to international and academic partners 2010– Evidence driven, manages all 90 human system risks
• Rice Business Plan Competition for Earth/Space Innovation prizes began 2008
• Ongoing student projects with Dr. Karim Lakhani, Harvard Business School (HBS)– MBA Project: Leveraging Collaborative Innovation for SLSD
April 2009– Collaboration/innovation course winter 2010
Results to Date
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Results to Date (cont.)
• Alliances Benchmark Report July 2009– Implementing recommendations and exploring partnerships with GE
and Philips based on best practices• Portfolio mapping July 2009 – Dr. Gary Pisano (HBS)
– Determine best collaborative strategy to address portfolio gaps• Open Innovation Service Providers/Competition September 2009
– TopCoder (ongoing, 3500 lines of code to date)– InnoCentive (training Nov 18-20, launch Dec 15)– Yet2.com (training Dec 2-3, launch Jan 2010)
• Strategic communications/education on collaborative innovation processes and benefits (ongoing)– SLSD Innovation Lecture Series– Lunch with Director– Tagline: Exploring Space, Enhancing Life– Weekly Newsletter
27
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life28
• Develop and execute a deliberate system for pursuing life sciences alliances and collaborative innovation opportunities
• Restructure Boards Jan 2010• Current board architecture manages 90 human system risks• Gaps are identified and novel approaches considered through
development control board• Assures knowledge management and lessons learned (flow chart
draft in backup)• Continue to enhance communication
– Internally: Website 1Q 2010, Quarterly Focus Groups– Externally: Website 1Q 2010: human system and innovation
needs/gaps, contact info re: partnering• Continue to evaluate collaborative innovation models/new
ways of doing business– GE – reverse innovation: smaller, lower cost technical solutions
for space flight
Forward work
Exploring Space, Enhancing Life
Back Up Slides
Evidence Base Analysis
Data Collection:Performance, Medical, Research, Terrestrial
Evidence Base Analysis
Data Collection:Performance, Medical, Research, Terrestrial
Evidence Base Analysis
Data Collection:Performance, Medical, Research, Terrestrial
IDENTIFY ANALYZE
PLANTRACK/
CONTROL
Identify Human Health &
Performance Risks by Mission
Master List
SFHS Standards (V1, V2,)
Validated RiskAcceptable
Level
Analyze Human Health &
Performance Risks by Mission
Cx Vehicle Requirements
Operational ProgramRequirements
(MORD, Flt Rules)
Research Requirements(Quantify/Substantiate)
Research Requirements
(CM/Technology Development)
Validated RiskUnacceptable
Mitigation
Invalidated Riskor Risk Factors
needing research
MissionCountermeasure Implementation
Medical Monitoring
EnvironmentalMonitoring
Research Data
Med Ops Data
Env. Data
Exploration Mission
Operations Concepts
Research Reviews
30
Space Flight History, Research, Lessons learned
3 Threats: μG, remote deployment, closed environment
Health and Medical Technical Authority
Standards
90 Human System Risks
Pre-board Working Group
FACB HSRB
Solution? Solution?
YES NO YESNO
Gaps(Mapping ; Novel Approaches)
Development Control Board
Open InnovationPrizes
Commercial Collaborations
↓ Novel/Disruptive Innovation
↓ N/DI
SLSD Ops(STS, ISS, Cx, Commercial Space)
HRPIntegrated Research Plans
↑ Continuous ProcessImprovement Innovation
↑ CPI/I
Know
ledg
e Ca
ptur
eKnow
ledge Capture
SEIO
Top Related