Can
NASA’s Integrated Product Teams
become
“Hot Groups” ?
Randy Lovell
United Space Alliance
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Evolution of Teams
Team Classification
Obstacles to Success
Solutions to the Obstacles
Conclusions
Evolution of Teams
• B2 Stealth Bomber Project
– The Early Years, Entirely Functional Organizations
• B2 Stealth Bomber Project
– Introduction of the IPT
• Space Shuttle Modifications
– Concurrent Engineering Team
• Space Shuttle Major Upgrades
– Integrated Product Development utilizing IPTs
• Hot Group
Evolution of Teams
1986-1992
B2 Stealth
Bomber
Pre-IPT
Lightweight
1992-1997
B2 Stealth
Bomber
IPT
1997-1998
Space
Shuttle
CE
Heavyweight
1998-????
????
Space
Shuttle
NASA
IPD
Hot Group
Autonomous
Classification of Teams
• Lightweight
– Functional
– Junior Leaders
– No empowerment
• Heavyweight
– Member diversity
– Strong Leadership
– Minimum Empowerment
• Autonomous
– Hand picked members
– Very strong leadership
– Large amount of empowerment
Functional Organization
Classification: Lightweight Team
•
•
•
•
Hierarchy Organizational Management
One clear functional manager
Grouped by specialty
Inefficient
Engineering
Integrated Product Team
Classification: Heavyweight Team
• Improvement over no team
– Saved time and reduced costs
• Chaotic/Dysfunctional
• Project Engineer conducted
meetings and chased actions
• Members had little or no
authority
• Little team training offered
Team Meetings
Concurrent Engineering Team
Classification: Heavyweight Team
Pros
• All stake holders are permanent
members
• Eliminated errors earlier in the
life-cycle
• Improved communication &
team building
Cons
• No strong leader
• Minimum amounts of
empowerment
• Ineffective and costly
CE Team
Integrated Product Team
Classification: Heavyweight
Pros
• Full member empowerment
• True team synergy
• Increased attention to details
Cons
• Management commitment to change
• Continued lack of training
NASA IPT
• Communication between teams
• Member dedication to one team
• Team empowerment
Hot Group
Classification: Autonomous
•
•
•
•
•
Strong Group Leader
Little communication with upper management
Group members are “owned” by the group
Collocated & dedicated to only one group (Kelly 2001)
Team AND group empowerment
So…
Why Can’t IPTs become Hot Groups?
Obstacles
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Teams start with an unclear purpose.
Teams do not have committed management.
Teams are too big.
Teams have the wrong people.
Team members have little or no
empowerment.
6) Team members have no team training.
7) Teams have a lack of communication.
8) Teams are too spread out.
Obstacles
1) Teams start with an
unclear purpose.
2) Teams do not have
committed
management.
3) Teams are too big.
4) Teams have the wrong
people.
Solutions
1) Hot Groups start with
crystal clear high goals
and charter.
2) Hot Groups have intense
management
commitment.
3) Hot Groups have a
maximum of 20 members.
4) Hot Groups start with
hand selected talented
people.
Obstacles
Solutions
5) Team members have little
or no empowerment.
5) Hot Groups’ management
ensures empowerment.
6) Team members have no
team training.
7) Teams have a lack of
communication.
6) Hot Groups ensure their
management, leaders and
members are trained.
7) Hot Groups’ management
facilitates communication.
8) Teams are too spread out.
8) Hot Groups are
collocated.
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
NASA IPTs are currently successful.
Hot Groups are a viable option for NASA.
Senior management commitment required.
Hot Groups optimize costs and schedule.
Hot Groups overcome obstacles that keep teams
from being highly innovative.
So… Can or Should NASA’s IPTs
become Hot Groups?
YES they can!
YES they should!
Especially at NASA, “given the importance of innovation,
it’s an effort worth making.”