PROJECT MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 2008

John EmondInnovative Partnerships Program

NASA Headquarters

FORGING PARTNERSHIPS:TEAM BUILDING AS CRUCIAL ELEMENT

2

Food for Thought

“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much”– Helen Keller

“Strength lies in differences, not in similarities”– Steven Covey

“Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them”– Henry David Thoreau

“Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction”“Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there”– Will Rogers

3

• TEAMWORK IS ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESS, WHETHER FOR GOODS AND SERVICES PROCURED UNDER CONTRACT OR ACHIEVED THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS AND AGREEMENTS.

• EMPHASIS ON THIS PRESENTATION IS TEAMWORK IN TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS

4

ELEMENTS OF TEAMWORKAND SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS

• COMMITMENT BASED ON:– MUTUAL NEEDS/REQUIREMENTS– RESOURCES TO COMMIT/INVEST

• FINANCIAL/IN KIND, “SKIN IN THE GAME”

• MUTUAL RESPECT• UNDERSTANDING PARTNER ENVIRONMENT & CULTURE• CLEAR COMMUNICATION• BELIEF IN MUTUAL BENEFIT THROUGH COLLABORATION

• TWO EXAMPLES FROM NORTHERN IRELAND– “PLAY SCHEME” DESIGN, DERRY, NORTHERN IRELAND– REFLECTION FROM YOUTH WORKER

5

WHY PARTNERSHIPS?• NASA POLICY

– NASA STRATEGIC GOAL #5• ENCOURAGE PURSUIT OF APPROPRIATE PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE EMERGING COMMERCIAL SPACE SECTOR

– OUTCOME /IPP#1, INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

• PROMOTE AND DEVELOP INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS AMONG NASA, U.S. INDUSTRY AND OTHER SECTORS FOR BENEFIT OF AGENCY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

– IPP MANDATE AS:• FACILITATOR TO BRING PARTIES TOGETHER INSIDE AND

OUTSIDE THE AGENCY, BRIDGE COMMUNICATION GAPS• CATALYST AS PATHFINDER AND CHANGE AGENT, CREATING

NEW PARTNERSHIPS AND DEMONSTRATING EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW APPROACHES AND METHODS.

6

WHY PARTNERSHIPS?

• LEGISLATION– TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED BY NASA FOR COMMERCIAL

APPLICATION AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE NATION (15 USC SEC. 3710, UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY

– STEVENSON WYDLER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT, PL 96-480, 1980• ESTABLISHED OFFICES OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

APPLICATIONS/TECH TRANSFER OFFICES– ASSISTANCE TO FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

OFFICIALS IN TECH TRANSFER– PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

DESIGNED TO FACILITATE TECH TRANSFER

– FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT 1986 MANDATES TECH TRANSFER AS FEDERAL RESEARCHER RESPONSIBILITY

– AMERICA COMPETES ACT, PL 110-69, 2007• DIRECTS NASA TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR BASIC RESEARCH

AND FULLY PARTICIPATE IN INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES TO FOSTER COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION.

7

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIESOF PARTNERSHIPS

• CHALLENGES– NO UNILATERAL CONTROL. INVOLVEMENT ATTAINED, SUSTAINED

THROUGH MUTUAL INVESTMENT AND REALIZED BENEFITS

– PARTNERSHIPS ARE FLUID, DYNAMIC, SUBJECT TO CHANGING MISSIONS, LEADERSHIP, CIRCUMSTANCES

• OPPORTUNITIES– RESOURCES ARE OPTIMIZED BY SHARED EFFORTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES

– INNOVATION FOSTERED BY FREE-RANGING INTERPLAY OF IDEAS

– MUTUAL OBJECTIVES NOT LIMITED TO FIXED DELIVERABLES, THOUGH THE GOALS THEMSELVES MAY BE WELL DEFINED

– RELATIONSHIPS ARE ADAPTIVE, EVOLVING, FLEXIBLE

8

PARTNERSHIP MODEL

9

Partnership Model – Value Proposition

No partnership potential

Standard partnership mechanism

Innovative partnerships

Value to Partner[perceived benefit to cost of partnership]

Valu

e to

NA

SA[p

erce

ived

ben

efit

to c

ost o

f par

tner

ship

]Low [Ben/Cost<1]

Moderate[Ben/Cost>1]

High[Ben/Cost>>1]

Low [Ben/Cost<1]

Moderate[Ben/Cost>1]

High[Ben/Cost>>1]

* IPP objective should be to maximize partnership value for both NASA and partner.* Refer back to the partnership model for value and ask:

What impact will this aspect of the partnership have on value?What are other opportunities to increase value?

10

IPP PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITYFY 2007 REPORT TO OMB

• 306 NEW SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS

• 598 SOFTWARE USAGE AGREEMENTS

• 1883 ACTIVE LICENSES IN FY 2007

11

Summary of Partnering Tools

No Formal Reg. No Formal Regulation37 CFR Part 404, also referred to as the

“Licensing Regulations”

No Formal Regulation; NASA has “Guidelines”documented in an SAA

Guide

Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (14 CFR Part 1260)

Federal Acquisition Regulations

Regulation

15 USC 3710aSpace Act; 42 USC 2459j

35 USC 207Space ActSpace Act; 31 USC 6304; 31 USC 6305

Space Act; 31 USC 6303; 10 USC 2302

Authority

No Cash Contribution Allowed

From NASA

Limited to Two NASA Centers

Royalty Payments as Consideration

Historically, SAAs are contain less rigor vs. a procurement contract.

Standard Regulations and Provisions (but not nearly as large as the FAR)

StandardRegulations and

Provisions

Notable Disadvantage

Advanced Licensing of Inventions Not Yet

Invented

In-Kind Consideration for Real Property

Possible Exclusive Rights to an Invention

that may be Patentable

Flexibility$$$$Notable Advantage

Undefined at this time.

ARC and KSCOffice of General Counsel*

Technology Transfer Office

Office of ProcurementOffice of Procurement

Process Owner

NoNoNoYes, but it’s very rare.YesYesNASA Cash to the Non-NASA Party

-Federal Lab-R&D

-Real Property-Intellectual Property-Royalty-BasedCommercialization

-No Formal “Requirements”-NASA does have “Guidelines”

-Public Purpose-NASA Substantial Involvement (for Cooperative Agreement)

-Goods or Services-Mission Need

Notable Requirement(s)

NoNoNoNoNoGenerally, YesCompetition Required?

Rarely used by NASA for cooperative research and development.

Used by Ames Research Center (ARC) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to lease under-utilized real property assets.

Used by NASA to transfer specific rights associated with a NASA-owned invention.

Used by NASA for collaborations, excess capacity, leases, property loans, or any combination.

Used by NASA to sponsor activities that relate to a public purpose (generally R&D).

Used by NASA to acquire goods, services, or both.

Purpose

CRADAEnhanced Use

LeasePatent LicenseSpace Act Agreement

Cooperative AgreementGrantContract

12

EXAMPLES OF ACTIVE ORGANIZATION TEAMWORK/PARTNERSHIPS

• NASA PARTNERSHIPS

• INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION– INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP TECH TRANSFER

• FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM (FLC) MID-ATLANTIC REGION COLLABORATION– FLC/WASHINGTON METRO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

– FLC/EASTERN SHORE MD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

– FLC/VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

– FLC/EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NASA RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HIGHLIGHTS BY CENTER

AMES RESEARCH CENTERInformation Technologies, Aerospace Systems, Autonomous Systems for Space Flight, Nanotechnology, Space Life Science/Biotech, Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aviation Operations

DRYDEN FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTERAerodynamics, Aeronautics Flight Testing, Flight Systems, Revolutionary Flight Concepts, Thermal Testing, and Integrated Systems Test and Validation

GLENN RESEARCH CENTERAeropropulsion and Power, Communications, Information Technology, High-Temperature Materials Research, Microgravity Science and Technology, including Bioengineering, and Instrumentation and Control Systems

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTEREarth and Planetary Science Missions, LIDAR, Cryogenic Systems, Tracking, Telemetry, Command, Optics and Sensors/Detectors

JET PROPULSION LABDeep and Near Space Mission Engineering and Operations, Microspacecraft, Space Communications, Remote and In-Situ Sensing, Microdevices, Robotics and Autonomous Systems

JOHNSON SPACE CENTERLife Sciences/Biomedical, Medical

NASA RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HIGHLIGHTS BY CENTER

KENNEDY SPACE CENTERFluid Systems, Spaceport Structures & Materials, Process & HumanFactors Engineering, Command, Control & Monitoring Technologies,Range Technologies, Biological Sciences

LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTERAerodynamics, Flight Systems, Materials, Structures, Sensors, Measurements and Information Sciences

MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTERMaterials, Manufacturing, Non-Destructive Evaluation, Biotechnology, Space Propulsion, Controls and Dynamics, Structures and Microgravity Processing

STENNIS SPACE CENTERPropulsion Systems, Test/Monitoring, Remote Sensing and Non-Intrusive Instrumentation

15

EXAMPLES OF RECENT NASA AGREEMENTS

NASA Ames Research Center Astrobionics Program, U.S. Army Soldier and Biological, Chemical Command

Interagency Agreement for Establishing a Collaborative R&D Relationship for the Human Operator in Extreme Mission Conditions and Joint Partnership with Industry and Academia

NASA, City of ClevelandAircraft Crash Disaster Drill

NASA, Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles

Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles

Mississippi Enterprise for Technology

Major Storm Evacuation System Development Project-Central Gulf of Mexico Region

NASA, U.S.G.S.U.S. Geological Survey

NASA Ames Research Center, Air Force Research Lab, Air Vehicles Directorate

Software Usage Agreement for an Interagency Release of the Chimera Grid Tools software package

NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Jet Propulsion Lab

Non-Disclosure and Software Usage Agreement for Data Parallel Line Relaxation Code

AGREEMENT AGREEMENT PARTNERS

16

NASA PARTNERSHIPSSPACECRAFT/COMMERCIAL SPACE

• NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER – COLLABORATION WITH AIRLAUNCH LLC TO PROMOTE ROBUST COMMERCIAL SPACE INDUSTRY ON WEST

COAST

• NASA EXPLORATION SYSTEMS MISSION DIRECTORATE TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE CONFERENCE– NOVEMBER, 2007 WITH SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FROM NASA JSC IN CONFERENCE PLANNING

• NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER– DEC. 2007 JSC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH AD ASTRA ROCKET COMPANY– COLLABORATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF PLASMA TECHNOLOGY FOR SPACE PROPULSION

• FOLLOW-ON AGREEMENT TO INITIAL AGREEMENT SIGNED JUNE 2005

• NASA KENNEDY SPACE CENTER– KSC AND SPACE FLORIDA COLLABORATION WITH COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPANIES. INCLUDES “FAST”

INITIATIVE TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL SPACE VENDORS AND FOSTER MICRO-G RESEARCH

• NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER– AUGUST, 2007 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP

• NASA WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER– COLLABORATION WITH VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND ON COMMERCIAL SPACEPORT INITIATIVE BASED IN

WALLOPS--MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL SPACEPORT/MARS

OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE NASA HAS SIGNIFICANT PARTNERSHIP ROLES: TELEMEDICINE, MEDICAL IMAGING, AGRICULTURE, ADVANCED MATERIALS,

SENSORS, ROBOTICS, ETC.

17

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

• WASHINGTON D.C. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON TECH TRANSFER MEETS MONTHLY TO DISCUSS ISSUES, EXCHANGE IDEAS, NETWORK

• REPRESENTATIVES:• DOC• DOD• EPA• NASA• NIH• NIST• USDA

• WITH PHASING OUT OF D.O.C. TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION AND LEADERSHIP ROLE OF WORKING GROUP, MEMBERS DEVELOPED A CONTINUITY PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE NETWORK

18

FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM• NATIONAL ORGANIZATION CHARTERED BY CONGRESS (FEDERAL

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT) TO FOSTER TECH TRANSFER FROM FEDERAL LABS TO PRIVATE SECTOR, OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES, ACADEMIA, STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

– FLC MEMBERS PRIMARILY FEDERAL R&D TECH TRANSFER PROFESSIONALS PARTICIPATING AS VOLUNTEERS

• ORGANIZED NATIONALLY INTO SIX REGIONS. FLC MID-ATLANTIC REGION:– DELAWARE– PENNSYLVANIA– MARYLAND– WASHINGTON D.C.– VIRGINIA– WEST VIRGINIA

• PLANNING TEAM TO FOSTER TECH TRANSFER IN MID-ATLANTIC REGION– DOD/NAVY—Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania– DOE—West Virginia– NASA—Washington D.C. – NIH--Maryland– NIST-Maryland– USDA-Maryland

19

WASHINGTON METRO SEMINARFLC AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 24, 2007, GW UNIVERSITY

20

WASHINGTON METRO PLANNING TEAM

• Center for Innovative Technology (C.I.T.)

• Fairfax VA Department of Economic Development

• Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO)

• Montgomery County Economic Development (MONTCO)

• Rockville Economic Development Inc. (REDI)

• University of Maryland

• NASA

• NIH

21

• State of MD Department of Economic Development

• Maryland Technology Development Corp.

• Talbot County Economic Development

• Caroline County Technology Park

• Dorchester County Economic Development

• Worcester County Economic Development

• NASA

• NIH

• USDA

EASTERN SHORE MARYLAND PLANNING TEAM

22

VIRGINIA SEMINARFLC AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APRIL 25, COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG

23

VIRGINIA PLANNING TEAM

• Virginia Economic Development Partnership

• Technology and Business Center, Department of Economic Development, College of William and Mary

• Luna Innovation, Hampton, Virginia

• Technology Commercialization Center, Inc., Hampton, Virginia

• NASA

• NAVY

• (Other names/organizations in discussion)

24

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIAPLANNING TEAM

• Wilkes University

• Ben Franklin Technology Partners

• Northeast Pennsylvania Alliance

• Great Valley Alliance

• NASA

• DOD/NAVY

• NIH

25

SPECIFIC REGION NETWORK INITIATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION

• Web-Based Information Exchanges

• “Transaction” Based Networking– Forum linking specific, available technology presentations with networking

• Technology Briefings to Stakeholders:– Corporate leaders– State/Local Government– University Management

• Business/Lab Open House– Targeted technology forum, facility tour

• Young/New Career Professionals Forum

• Focus Groups– Ongoing role to provide sounding board to initiatives/issues

26

WHAT BRINGS THESE PARTNERS/TEAMS TOGETHER?

27

NASA CENTERS AND PARTNERS

Economic DevelopmentJobs, Growth,Quality of Life

Private SectorSale of Goods,

Services

University R&D Goals; Commercialize

Technology

Other Agency Mission

NASA Agency Mission

28

INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP

Agency Mission

Agency MissionAgency Mission

Agency Mission

Agency Mission

29

FLC/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/ACADEMIA

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS REGION GROWTH,QUALITY OF LIFE, JOBS, HOUSING, ETC.

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH GOALS;COMMERCIALIZING

UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY

PRIVATE SECTORSALE OF GOODS,

SERVICES

FEDERAL LABS ADDRESSINGTECH TRANSFER OBJECTIVESAND AGENCY MISSION(S)

CONCLUSION• TEAMWORK IS INTEGRAL TO PARTNERSHIP FORMATION & DEVELOPMENT

• TEAMWORK–BUILT ON A FOUNDATION OF MUTUAL NEEDS, RESOURCES TO INVEST, SHARED VISION, RESPECT, AND COMMITMENT–STRENGTHENED BY DIVERSITY OF PARTNER BACKGROUNDS

• PARTNERSHIPS ARE DYNAMIC, NOT STATIC–SUSTAINED BY COMMITMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE TEAM AND TO THE CONTINUED NEED FOR THE PARTNERSHIP

• PARTNERSHIPS FORGED IN TEAMWORK CAN BE STRONG, CREATIVE RESOURCES FOR LEVERAGED EFFORTS TOWARDS MUTUAL GOALS

• TEAMWORK AND PARTNERSHIPS EXIST AND FLOURISH–WITHIN NASA–BETWEEN NASA AND OTHER AGENCIES–BETWEEN NASA AND OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, STATE/LOCAL–BETWEEN NASA AND ACADEMIA–BETWEEN NASA AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR–AMONG ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE FLC AND GOVERNMENT, ACADEMIA, AND PRIVATE SECTORS

“Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it is the only thing”

- Albert Schweitzer