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


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



G

G

Y

G

JUN JUL AUG SEP

G

G

R

G

G

G

Y

G

Y

G

G

Y



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


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


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


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)


PDR CDR PER (25 days)


ContractAwarded

SystemAcceptance (33 days)


SRRBeginFab (40 days)

FabComplete


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


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


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


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


Provide key performance indicators (i.e. mass, power, cost, etc. projections) plotted against allocations or targets.

SAMPLE CHART

Power Margin Trends



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



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

Project Name (Monthly/Quarterly) CMC Report Name, Project Manager Name, Deputy Project Manager Name,...

Documents

Transcript of Project Name (Monthly/Quarterly) CMC Report Name, Project Manager Name, Deputy Project Manager Name,...