ct f a s tcenter for aerospace systems, policy and...
TRANSCRIPT
C t f A S tCenter for Aerospace Systems, Policy and Architecture ResearchPolicy and Architecture Research
I ti P th i T h l I t iBiography
Innovation Pathways in Technology Intensiveg p y
Zoe Szajnfarber is currently working towards her Ph.D in ESD at MIT Innovation Pathways in Technology Intensive j y gZoe has worked as a systems engineer at MDRobotics and Dynacon YourInnovation Pathways in Technology Intensive y g yInc; and at the European Space Agency as a researcher studying Picture
y gy p p g y y gtechnology development in space science missions. Zoe received a
Picture
Go ernment Organi ations Insights from NASAgy p p
B.A.Sc. in Engineering Science from the University of Toronto (2006)Government Organizations: Insights from NASA g g y ( )and M.S. degrees in Aero/Astro and TPP from MIT (2009).Government Organizations: Insights from NASA g ( )
[email protected] gRelated PublicationsRelated PublicationsSzajnfarber Z and A L Weigel (2010) “Towards an Empirical Measure of SpacecraftSzajnfarber, Z., and A. L. Weigel (2010) Towards an Empirical Measure of Spacecraft
Innovation: The Case of Communication Satellites” Acta Astronautica 66(7-8)
Z S j f bInnovation: The Case of Communication Satellites Acta Astronautica, 66(7 8),1266-1279Zoe Szajnfarber Ph D in Engineering Systems (expected in 2011)1266 1279
Szajnfarber Z Stringfellow M V and Weigel A L (2010) “The Impact of customer-Zoe Szajnfarber, Ph.D. in Engineering Systems (expected in 2011) Szajnfarber, Z., Stringfellow, M. V. and Weigel A. L.. (2010) The Impact of customercontractor interactions on communication satellite innovation: insights fromj , g g y ( p ) contractor interactions on communication satellite innovation: insights fromcommunication satellite history” Acta Astronautica 67(9-10), 1306-1317.
C f ( ) f Ccommunication satellite history Acta Astronautica 67(9 10), 1306 1317.
Szajnfarber, Z., Richards, M. G. and Weigel, A. L., “Implications of DoD Acquisition
Committee: Prof Annalisa L Weigel (chair); Prof Edward F Crawley;Szajnfarber, Z., Richards, M. G. and Weigel, A. L., Implications of DoD Acquisition
Policy for Innovation: The Case of Operationally Responsive Space,” AIAA SpaceCommittee: Prof. Annalisa L. Weigel, (chair); Prof. Edward F. Crawley; y p y p p , p2008, AIAA, San Diego California, Sept. 9th-11th 2008. (R&R in IJDAM)
Prof Daniel E Hastings; Prof James M Utterback, , g , p ( )
Prof. Daniel E. Hastings; Prof. James M. Utterbackg ;Problem Framing Research Approach Model OverviewProblem Framing Research Approach Model Overview
Problem: NASA’s mission requires technological innovation; yet current performance Current stage-gate conceptualization fails to explain observed q g ; y pis inadequate. Although multiple innovation systems have been tried, there remains a fundamental lack of understanding of how innovation actually works at NASA.
“loopiness” of pre-infusion innovation pathways • Core concepts: g y
Applied R&D Project specificBasic R&DMaturity (TRL)
p– System exhibits a punctuated equilibrium (i e epochs of persistent stable
(1986-1992) (1992-1994) (2001-2004)
(1998-2007) NIACApplied R&D Project-specific
Tech Dev. Basic R&D
NRANRAQWIPs Camera
Space‐qualified QWIPs
System exhibits a punctuated equilibrium (i.e., epochs of persistent stable behavior punctuated by transition inducing shocks)( )
R&T in Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST)= Basic cross
(1992 1994)Aeronautics to Office of A ti
(1996-1999)Cross-Enterprise
Technology
( 00 00 )“Pioneering
Revolutionary Technology”as
ic Obama’s b d t
SBIR P1NRA
ROSESPre/
Phase ASBIR P1NRA
ROSESPre/
Phase A6 9aQuantum Wells for photo‐detection
Camera PrototypeContacts
Called Technical problems on
behavior, punctuated by transition inducing shocks) (OAST) = Basic, cross-
cutting research (~250M)Aeronautics
(1992-1994)
Technology Development
(under Code S)
gy~$100M
Advanced~$180M
Ba budget
proposal SBIR P2SBIR P2Concepts
Fli h
7
8
91
detection project
Congress:(1992-1994)Space to Office
of Advanced (1999 2001)
$180MIT/Comm.
? RTOPRTOPIRAD Pathfinder
missionsIRAD Pathfinder
missionsFlight8
QWIPsS i ti t
Readiness Communicated
Congress: must fly IR
camera!
Concepts (OSAT, ~200M)
(1999-2001)Office of
Aerospace T h l (2004+)
DDF MPTODDF MPTO3
QWIPs detector arrays
Scientist recruited
20052000199519901985
(1996 1998)
Technology (OAT)
~$40M NRA$100M
(2004+)Exploration Technology
Developmentpeci
fic
Office of Commercialization
ESTOOffice of Commercialization
ESTO4 LegendNew capability
Slid 1 Slid 2 Slid 3(1996-1998)
Office of Space Science ( 100M)
~$100M cross-cutting
Development program
~75% cut in 2005oj
ect-s
p
Sh l d
p yEventActionChanceC ll b tiSlide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3(~100M) 2005
Pro Shelved
capabilitiesShelved
capabilitiesShelved concepts
5 DecisionContract
Chance encounter2Collaboration
policySlide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3Definition: An Innovation Pathway describes the set of events, decisions and actions that mature a new technology or concept from initial conception to implementation on a flight project
R h Q tiResearch Questions:1 Wh i h f NASA’ i i ?1. What is the structure of NASA’s innovation system?2 H d biliti t th i ti t th2. How do new capabilities traverse the innovation system as they are
t d d i f d i t fli ht j t ?– Epochs and shocks common across pathways, orders of progression not.
matured, and infused into flight projects?3 Are there patterns of innovation mechanisms important across multiple
• 4 distinct and identifiable epochs between path initiation and termination3. Are there patterns of innovation mechanisms, important across multiple
innovation pathways? • 3 classes of shocks (problems, solutions, context changes)innovation pathways? p g
3
Descriptive Process Model Where does this get us? Future DirectionsDescriptive Process Model Where does this get us? Future DirectionsGestation: Pre-path initiation; sets initial conditions for path (incl. relationships, technical & application knowledge, access to
resources). Typically, Multiple disjointed small groups are separately engaged in other, tangentially related projects Solve relative resource allocation problem; Recognize implication of different epochs; harnessEpoch Description People Technology FundingTech Simultaneous pursuit of multiple Small core team of Proliferation of ideas Slack resources at branch
Solve relative resource allocation problem; improved gate criteria
Recognize implication of different epochs; harness directional shocks
Tech Exploration
Simultaneous pursuit of multiple new technological approaches.Goal: fund the effort long enough
Small core team of internal experts, augmented by ad hoc
Proliferation of ideas, parallel experimentation,
Slack resources at branch-level; different institutional sources applied for
p gCurrently have:to find some strategy that works
and proves the conceptexternal collaborations.
inexpensive mock-ups indiscriminately, without differentiating among target maturity levels
Context
Currently have:1. Detailed innovation pathways FY2010maturity levels
Arch Exploration
Focused form of exploration,guided by articulated
Similar to Tech Ex, with addition of end-
Reconfiguration of existing components to
Similar strategy as Tech Ex, with higher funding burden Funding/Con
OpEx
eta ed o at o pat ays2. Descriptive, empirically grounded
FY2010g yperformance-oriented goal.Goal: demonstrating flight feasibility (breadboarding/ detailed
user (i.e., scientists)g
solve a new problemg g
(i.e., more NRA vs. IRAD)
ding
DevOp
ConceptsEarly-stage Applied Project Flight VS vO
pEx
p p y gprocess model
feasibility (breadboarding/ detailed simulations)
Exploitation Structured actions taken to mature Major expansion of Focus on testing and Typically project-specific or Treadin
Wate
r
Early stage Contracts
Applied Development
Project Tech. Dev.
Flight VS.
readin
g ter
DevO
Future Work:pthe selected systems architecture towards flight readiness.
j pteam size; bring on engineers and PMs (internal additions)
gimplementation issues.
yp y p j plarge NRA (cost of activities is proportionally much higher than other epochs)
WFundi Shelved Sh l d Shelved
TreWate
Fund
utu e o3. Prescriptive framework linking FY2011(internal additions). than other epochs)
Treading Water &
This is survival mode: keep key team members funded so they
Reduction to original core; external
Proliferation of applications
Drought. Applying to every possible source and creating
ing/Con
Shelved concepts
Shelved capabilities
Shelved capabilities
nding/Cont
p gtracks and routines to model.
FY2011
Slid 6Water & Branchingout
team members funded, so they won’t be permanently reassigned to other unrelated projects .
core; external collaborations motivated by branching out
applications, leveraging same core innovation
possible source and creating new ones.
ntext
text 4. Observed systems principles
Slid 4 Slid 5 Slide 6branching out
Termination 1: innovation infused into approved flight project (phase B).Termination 2: Drought persists to point where key team members are forced to join other funded projects While constituent ideasSlide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6Termination 2: Drought persists to point where key team members are forced to join other funded projects. While constituent ideas
may resurface in later projects, this will only occur based on significant efforts from an individual champion.
Shock Description Direction of Impact Assumptions of stage‐gate view Observations captured in process modelSlide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6Shock Description Direction of ImpactSolutions A. Tech A: Laboratory demonstration that a new concept
i ld th d i d ff t ( ft ithA. Can open up new search space; shift in current
t j t R i l l l f l tiSnapshots from Cases
Assumptions of stage gate view1. New technologies mature from left to right
Observations captured in process model1. New technologies embody multiple levels of Slide 4 Slide 5can yield the desired effect (often with poorer
performance than incumbent). B. Tech B: Demonstration of practical utility.
trajectory. Raises or lowers level of exploration (from tech to arch or visa versa)
B. Weaker than Tech A (legitimate rather than
pmaturity simultaneously, challenging the concept of monotonically increasing “maturity ” Tr
eadin
g Wate
rMap linkages between observed behaviors Timing: unpredictable/unpredictable
initiate). Necessary precursor to exploitation, but rarely forces transition.
P bl C D O Fl R l i f d i i C T i ll i i i hi l l i 2 Process is controllable through funding allocation
monotonically increasing maturity.2. Experts apply to multiple levels of funding
Treadin
g W
ater
Treadin
g Wate
r
W
p gand the routines & individual incentives that
t thProblems C. DevOpFlag: Revolutionary, focused aspirations prompts search for radically new approach in target areas.
D. DevOpEx: Explicitly non-specific, relatively small
C. Typically initiates architectural exploration (explicitly corresponds to resource availability)
D. Enables transition from exploration to exploitation
readin
g ate
r
readin
g
ater
2. Process is controllable through funding allocation and gate decisions
2. Experts apply to multiple levels of funding indiscriminately, confounding basic and applied
d l h f D i ti 500
600
700
generate them.p p y p , y
opportunity. Still serve as important focus.E. DevOpNeed: Identification of key technical roadblock in
the context of existing architectural concept
p p(assuming recent Tech B).
E. Can initiate new innovation pathway (per Tech A) or lower the level of exploration from arch to
TreWate Tre
Wate resources, and limiting that avenue for management control. Descriptive
300
400
500
600
700
0
100
200
300
400
500
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
the context of existing architectural concept.
Timing: cyclical/semi-cyclical/unpredictable
or lower the level of exploration from arch to tech.
3. Adding more stages will ease transition (mitigate
control.3. The valley of death is more than just a funding gap;
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
100
200
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Identify key management levers and propose Context F. Drought: Sudden and/or sustained inability to secure
resources (including yearly center- and directorate-level). F. Initiates transition to treading water & branching
out epoch, regardless of current epoch.
g g ( gvalley of death) there are explorers and exploiters, but few
individuals who excel at both modes of R&D Treadin
g Wate
r
Treading
Water
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
center "level 2" Study Project related projectstrategies for interventions.( g y y )
Often related to change in administration.G. Context: captures key events and activities exogenous to
innovation pathway not covered by other label (e g
g
G. Impact is highly dependent on nature of context change (e g in Astro case it precipitatedTr 4 Rejection at a decision point leads to a shelved
individuals who excel at both modes of R&D.4. “Shelf life” is as much a matter of keeping the team
TreWat
Prescriptiveinnovation pathway, not covered by other label (e.g., failures of Astro E/EII change risk assessment on H).
Timing semi c clical/ npredictable
change (e.g., in Astro case, it precipitated DevOpEx).
Treadin
g W
ater
Treading
Water
4. Rejection at a decision point leads to a shelved capability that can be re‐infused as long as it’s not
4. Shelf life is as much a matter of keeping the teamintact as a question of obsolescence.
pTiming: semi-cyclical/unpredictable
Collabora-tion
H. Join: In the context of a small team, each member brings unique and important skills/equipment that often shaped
H. Join (+), particularly when the addition was external precipitated several Tech As and Bs
obsolete.
4
tion unique and important skills/equipment, that often shaped the pathway.
Ti i i li l ( t l)
external, precipitated several Tech As and Bs, but didn’t tend to induce transitions. Internal additions tended to correspond to/follow
th i i d d t itiTiming: semi-cyclical (external) otherwise induced transitions.
For more information please visit: http://seari mit edu© 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology For more information, please visit: http://seari.mit.edu© 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology