AIAA Management Technical Committee (TCM)

AIAA Management Technical Committee (TCM) February 17-28, 2015 Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ

The AIAA TCM members assembled at approximately 7:30AM at

Raytheon Missile Systems 1151 E Hermans Road, Tucson, AZ Building 805, Golden Gate Conference Room at approximately 7:30AM on 17 Feb 2015. We were greeted by Laura McGill, who escorted the group to the Golden Gate Conference Room for the meeting. The agenda, with notes regarding the presentations and discussions, follows. Briefing materials were obtained when appropriate, and are posted on the TCM website.

7:50AM Tom Irvine started the meeting, with Introductions around the table:

John Dowdle, Paul Nielson, Andy Amram, Larry Stephens, Adarsh Deepak, Tom Irvine, Wilson Felder, James Keeney, Laura McGill, Aubrey (Tom) Smith

We had one visitor – a young professional, Cedric Macadangdang.

8:00AM Laura McGill: Senior Executive Welcome

8:05AM Laura McGill: Overview of Raytheon Missile Systems

Laura provided a corporate level briefing of RMS. She discussed their business units, the major missile programs, and talked about international sales as part of their business.

During the course of her presentation, we digressed into a lengthy conversation about performance appraisals. RMS has a review system similar to many matrix organizations that employ a ranking system to slot employees’ performance into different grades. The discussion generally addressed the pluses and minuses of such a system, along with some alternatives. Ultimately this topic was tabled, and perhaps it will become an agenda item for a future meeting.

9:05AM Louis Moncada, Deputy Vice President – Air Warfare Systems Product Line: PM Perspective on Managing Complex Development Programs

Louis discussed challenges associated with programs that are in development, near transition to fielding. He gave examples of Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Standard Missile, and Small Diameter Bomb, and talked about lessons learned from verification and early operational testing. In each case, there were challenges that were uncovered during testing that often required substantial unplanned effort to resolve.

He summarized the common theme in these programs: each had unforeseen (infrequent) problems that occurred because of unanticipated interactions between subsystems. The subsystems met objectives, but some interactions are not discoverable outside of a full system test in the actual flight environment so were not uncovered until late in the development program, or even in Operational Test. 10:03AM Troy Goertz, Level One Chief Engineer: Chief Engineer Perspective on Managing Complex Development Programs

Troy began by making a distinction between the PM’s job and the Chief Engineer’s responsibilities. He stated that although performance, cost, and schedule all have to be considered, the PM has primary responsibilities regarding schedule and cost, while the Chief Engineer has primary responsibilities involving technical and schedule. Thus, the schedule component is in common. Similar to Louis’ presentation, Troy provided his perspective by discussing two examples: Block IV Tomahawk and Standard Missile 3.

Regarding Block IV Tomahawk, the original program for a limited redesign was modified as a result of new requirements that emerged from operational usage. The revised program became a redesign that did not significantly reuse prior work (the only things that were in common were a “cable cutter and the paint”). The first system-level ground test failed, but was recovered and followed by 8 for 8 successes in the initial flight tests. Then LRIP did not go as well as hoped due to design issues that appeared during manufacturing. However, these were addressed early in LRIP and full-rate production has since gone very well.

On Standard Missile 3, funding was sufficient to execute the program. Raytheon was applying cutting edge technology with inherent risk, on a program that had very low tolerance for failure in formal testing. This presented challenges, pushing testing to informal methods. Additionally, the missile is being jointly developed with Japanese participation. The Japanese partner has inherently different approaches to design, verification and testing, which at times presents challenges to Raytheon. Additionally, there are US legal constraints on the communication between Raytheon and their Japanese subcontractor, which sometimes impedes their ability to resolve problems.

11:03AM Group Discussion on Challenges and Risk Management

Tom Irvine brought up two points: (1) the discussion of the infrequent subsystem interaction failures that Louis brought up in his talk; (2) Troy’s comment that there is a tension between the PM and the Chief engineer – PM – cost and schedule, Chief Engineer –technical and schedule.

Wilson Felder went back to the topic of the infrequent problems (see (1) above wrt Tom Irvine). In discussion, it was concluded that we need to build in margin to address these problems, but that we don’t really know how to measure margin in these types of complex development systems.

Laura McGill discussed IMU problems on their MALD (Miniature Air-Launched Decoy) platform. It turned out that the MEMS IMU was sensitive to a platform vibrational response, that occasionally disrupted the system to the point of failure . The discussion related to how a system integrator would know about these types of issues during design. Paul Nielson observed that people who spend a career in this business enjoy the challenges of working on the technical, while challenged by cost, schedule and customer constraints, and finding ways of being successful.

Tom Irvine brought us back to Standard Missile 3 and the fact that it employed advanced technologies. On these kinds of programs, does Raytheon provide resources to deal with incorporating cutting edge technology into their systems? Laura responded that for their systems technology needs to mature to TRL-8, with the exception of DARPA programs.

Larry Stephens indicated that this is all about transitioning technology. Many times the technologies are too immature to be at the transition stage.

1:00PM Young Professionals Perspective

The following Raytheon Young Professionals participated in a panel discussion with the AIAA TCM:

1. Cedric Macadangdang (SW)

2. Cody Martin (Systems Design and Performance; GN&C)

3. Bradley Williams (University of Arizona)

4. Zaynah Harbin (Systems Test, now Systems Design) – participated in JHU APL Master’s in Systems Engineering program that Raytheon offers in-house

5. Kristen Stone – a Coop finishing her degree in Industrial Engineering

The discussion generally addressed young engineers, transitioning from an educational environment to a professional setting. Additionally, a significant emphasis related to mentoring and career development. Some of the Q&A is captured below:

Q1: How do you think differently now that you’re working in industry vs college?

. Working with people, schedule, cost, not just learning theory.

. MALD IMU failure – learning common sense about what should be analyzed, what is practical.

. The complexity of systems, the tradeoffs in architecting systems.

. Learned fundamentals of SE from school, but did not learn how to apply it. Likes making process improvements so that it is easier for engineers to apply.

Q2: What are your observations regarding the evolution of your careers?

. Need for new graduates to be shown how their part of the design/project fits in with the rest of the design/project.

. Mentioned the utility that rotational programs give people regarding experiences that are program-wide – encourages breadth vs depth. . Need to start bottoms-up.

. Raytheon Missile Systems has a mentoring program.

. Some have mentors, some are mentors.

Q3: Senior engineers are held accountable for being mentors. Is there more that can be done here?

. Likes the approach that they have. Picked a mentor, agreed to topics, when they would meet, etc.

. Generally, the group seemed happy with the various options that RMS provides for mentoring, including brown-bag lunches, etc.

Q4: What has been a surprise since coming to work at Raytheon?

 Everyone is excited about working on missiles.

 Likes the buddy system. Her buddy is very helpful, both for work and social.

 You get stuck doing what you’re good at, preventing you from doing other things. Alternatively, it is bad to be split on too many jobs.

 Raytheon invests in their employees.

 There is a sometimes a disconnect between what people want to do, and what they end up doing.

 There was a long discussion that was connected to various aspects of mentoring.

Q5: What are you doing to improve/change Raytheon

 Missile tests are very expensive, so they cannot fail. There is no tolerance for failure, which is a learning process. Need to devote resources to learning within the organization.

 Raytheon is rolling out a TechShop model for their employees.

 There was discussion of “getting stuck” in a particular job; HR survey revealed it; Raytheon set up a Career Exposition event to broadly show the types of jobs available.

The discussion continued onto many diverse topics.

2:45PM Break

3:00PM Catherine Merrill, University of Arizona – OCAMS Lead Systems Engineer for NASA OSIRIS-Rex Science Mission

We were briefed on the OSIRIS-REx Science Mission by Heather Enos, OSIRIS-Rex Project Planning and Control Officer, and Catherine (Cat) Merrill, the Lead Systems Engineer. Ms Enos provided the program objectives, timeline, cost, and teaming arrangements under which the program is being executed. The expectations are to rendezvous with Asteroid Bennu, map the asteroid, land, collect a sample, and return the sample to earth for analysis. The expectation is that this mission will help scientists better understand the formation of the solar system.

Lockheed Martin (Littleton, CO) is responsible for the spacecraft, which is 2m on a side, has a 8.5m2 solar panel, and a suite of instruments for data acquisition that is sent to earth for analysis.

Ms Enos discussed the management challenges and technical risks associated with the program, then turned the presentation overt to Catherine Merrill.

Ms Merrill is the lead systems engineer and has responsibility for the suite of cameras called OCAMS. Her presentation addressed the challenges for her technical team, and particularly addressed the technology maturation of instruments from SRR to PDR to CDR, taking technology from TRL-5 to TRL-8.

The presentation concluded at 4:15pm, and discussion with the TCM concluded at 4:40PM.

18 February 2015

Same meeting location

8:00AM Arrival at Meeting Location

8:25AM Announcements and Introductions (TCM Chair)

Tom formally thanked Laura for hosting a great meeting; he discussed yesterday’s activities and his perspectives on the high points (e.g., the Young Professionals).

Tom Smith is interested in joining the group; Tom Irvine will send a note to the TCM members regarding Tom’s membership.

8:30AM Chairman’s Report and Review of Subcommittee Membership (TCM Chair)

Reviewed the AIAA TCM Charter

Tom has been particularly pleased with the “environment for individual and corporate growth and a forum for committee members to exchange knowledge”.

He indicated that we have members who are adequately engaged with other AIAA activities as to satisfy “providing significantly useful and relevant products” to the AIAA at large.

Reviewed TCM Goals

Membership has dropped below 25 (now at 23 with Laura); the meeting attendance goal is 15, which we often do not achieve. The alumni members who have not engaged in the TCM for a significant period of time needs to be reviewed. Tom has removed two alumni members whose email addresses bounced.

Reviewed the AIAA TCM Organization Chart

Tom discussed subcommittee responsibilities and status. Concern was expressed regarding membership, and the need to more actively seek new members. Laura McGill expressed an interest in being engaged with the membership committee, and perhaps Conferences.

Reviewed AIAA Awards Supported by TCM

We discussed the Hap Arnold Award for Excellence in Aeronautical Program Management.

Steve Walker was selected in 2104. Two nominees from last year can be carried over to this year ((1) Paul Adams, President of Pratt & Whitney, and (2) Carl Johnson, Vice President, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems) (needs verification). We need more nominations by 30 Sep 2015. Suggestions for additional nominations included JSF (F- 35), Boeing 787, X-51, X-2, LEAP Engine, and A-10.

There was an extended discussion regarding the nomination process.

Action: Provide names of nominees and/or POCs for nomination to James Keeney. James is to send out email requests to active and alumni membership of the TCM for nominees and POCs.

We discussed the Von Braun Award for Excellence in Space Program Management.

The 2014 award was bestowed upon Frank Cepollina, NASA GSFC. The TCM is not the lead for this award in 2015, the Space Systems TCM is this year’s lead.

Reviewed Engineering & Technology Management Technical Group

Discussed significant recent activity.

Reviewed Aerospace America Year in Review Article

Tom Goudreau wrote the article this year.

Reviewed Location, Dates, & Topics for 2015 Meetings

Spring – Greenbelt, MD; host: GSFC/Tom Irvine and Rick Obenschain. Available dates are May 6-8, 12-15, June 9-12, 15-26. These dates did not work for many people.

Fall: Oct 13-14 in Pittsburgh is set, at SEI and Paul Nielson is our host.

Reviewed Special Request Possible AIAA Foundation Scholarship

Reviewed TCM Membership Selection Guidelines

Reviewed TCM Active Member Guidelines Reviewed TCM Alumni Member Guidelines

Reviewed May 2013 (should have been Feb 2015) TCM Membership

Reviewed Membership Status and Info

I noted that at least some of the information was incorrect (Dowdle is a Fellow).

Reviewed Reducing Acquisition Cycle Time or Product Development and Delivery Cycle Time

This will be a topic at CASE 2015.

10:00AM Break

10:15AM Committee Business and Subcommittee Reports

10:15AM Operations (Dowdle)

Dowdle needs to post the minutes of the last meeting, as well as the current meeting and any presentation materials from the current meeting

10:15AM Programs (Felder)

Wilson reviewed charts provided by Suren. The primary discussion topic discussed was the upcoming June meeting, which will be at GSFC in Greenbelt, MD, hosted by Tom Irvine.

The options for the topic were discussed at some length, and interest was expressed for discussions related to “Successful approaches to workforce development and diversity”. The potential dates are June 15- 17.

11:00AM Lunch

12:30PM Tour of Raytheon Labs and Final Integration

 Integration and Test Facility

 Immersive Design Center

 Fusion Integration Lab and Fusion Areas

3:30PM Adjourn

Action Items: 1) Membership – Tom Irvine will send Larry Stephens membership information to Tom Goudreau; see if he wants to continue as membership Chair? Possible Laura McGill role if Tom wants to rotate out of this role

2) Carol Cash will reach out to Neil XX at GE who will be a POC for Diversity and Inclusion information at next TCM meeting (Not sure if this is correct) 3) Tom Irvine to send Hap Arnold Award names and contacts to James Keeney

4) Spring meeting date: June 15-17; possible Young Professional panel (see Marvine’s email – possibly let her organize this panel). Tom Irvine to correspond with Marvine about this.