1. SRB Handbook and Process
Michelle Calloway and Tahani Amer
Independent Program Assessment Office
Seventh Annual NASA
Program Management Challenge 2010
February 10, 2010
Used with permission
Page 1

2. Outline
SRB Handbook Overview
SRB Handbook Purpose
Section 1: Context for Independent Lifecycle Review (ILCR) Process
Section 2: High level principles that govern the SRBs
Section 3: Scope and expectations of ILCR
Section 4: SRB Initiation process
Section 5: SRB Products
Section 6: Notional review timeline
Appendices: Agency Independence Policy, PIR guidance
Summary
Page 2

3. SRB Handbook Overview
• NASA established Standing Review Boards (SRBs) for independent life-
cycle reviews (ILCR) to ensure that high priority Agency Programs and
projects (P/p) are reviewed by groups of uniquely qualified experts.
• The SRB Handbook (HB) is a tool to assist the NASA community and
SRBs in defining working interfaces with Mission Directorates,
Programs, projects, Centers, review organizations, and Management
Councils based on best practices.
• The SRB HB is a Special Publication release from the NASA Office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) which expands on the concept
of the SRB introduced in the NPR 7120.5, Space Flight Program and
Project Management Requirements.
• The SRB Handbook was published by Program Analysis &
Evaluation/IPAO with concurrence from Office of the Chief Engineer.
Page 3

4. SRB Handbook Purpose
• The SRB Handbook provides the philosophy and guidelines
for the setup, processes, and products of SRBs in support of
the Agency‘s implementation of its independent lifecycle
review process.
• The SRB Handbook is written to provide guidance to the
NASA program and project communities and the SRBs
regarding the expectations, processes, products, timelines,
and working interfaces with NASA Mission Directorates
(MDs), Centers, review organizations, and Management
Councils.
• The SRB Handbook can be supplemented and tailored to
meet the needs of the Agency and P/p being reviewed.
Page 4

5. The SRB Handbook Section 1
• The SRB process integrates the NPR 7120.5 requirements and the NPR
7123.1 requirements, into a single ILCR set.
• NPR 7120.5’s governance of the SRB is consistent with NASA Policy
Directive (NPD) 1000.0, Governance and Strategic Management
Handbook.
• SRBs lower the burden of multiple ILCRs on P/p and enhance
efficiency through the development of common review definitions and
processes.
• The SRB implementation also ensures that P/p, Decision Authorities
(DAs), and Technical Authorities (TAs) benefit from consistent,
efficient, and value-added ILCRs and products.
• Needs and objectives of convening authorities and decision
authorities are intended to be met through the SRB.
Page 5

6. The SRB Handbook Section 2
• The HB provides guidelines for SRB processes and products.
• Identifies the major principles and assumptions that govern the
execution of SRBs.
• Provides guidance for SRB member independence:
– Civil servants (CSs) must have a complete Office of Government Ethics (OGE) 450 or
Standard Form (SF) 278 form on file. CS will be screened for personal Conflict of
Interest (PCI) and position screening.
– Office Chief Council (where contract is located) screens consultant for Organizational
Conflict of Interest (OCI) and PCI with assistance from contracting officer.
– In the event of PCI, procedures have been established by the Agency to determine if
the impairment is considered acceptable. If the impairment is acceptable, it will be
documented and approved by the applicable NASA legal officials and the CAs.
– In the event of OCI for any prospective SRB member, “firewalls” within the company,
the “non-disclosure agreement” and “evidence” that personal bias has been
sufficiently mitigated shall be provided in an OCI mitigation plan by the contractor.
– CS and consultants will be vetted on an annual basis.
Page 6

7. The SRB Handbook Section 3
SRB Engagements
• SRBs independently assess P/p throughout their life-cycles at Key
Decision Pointe (KDPs) in accordance with NPR 7120.5.
• The SRB remains inactive between life-cycle reviews except as
requested by the CAs or DAs.
• The SRB is intended to support the reviews in the P/p life cycle with a
consistent core membership.
• Category 1 project SRBs report to the Agency PMC, all other project
SRBs complete their reporting at the MD PMC level.
• The actual reporting requirements for each review with SRB
participation are determined with the preparation of the Addendum
ToRs for that review.
Page 7

8. The SRB Handbook Section 3
P/P Categorizations
• Projects are broken down by robotic or human flight projects.
• Robotic mission projects and human mission projects have different
life-cycle reviews, assessment requirements, and reporting venues.
• Programs are broken down by Uncoupled or Loosely Coupled Projects
and Single or Tightly Coupled Programs.
• Programs consisting of multiple projects that are not directly
connected to one another (either by schedule, cost, technical
interfaces, or management structures) are characterized as uncoupled
or loosely coupled programs.
• Programs consisting of one large project or multiple projects that are
directly connected to one another (e.g., Space Shuttle Program) are
characterized as single-project or tightly coupled programs.
Page 8

9. SRB Engagement Life-Cycle Roadmap
for Robotic Mission Projects
Page 9

10. The SRB Handbook Section 4
SRB Composition and COI
• The Agency has established the following options for conducting
independent reviews by SRBs.
• Appendix C and D contain the COI Policy, COI Disclosure and Non-
Disclosure Certification related to SRBs.
Page 10

11. The SRB Handbook Section 4
SRB Membership
• Members are selected from within the Agency, industry, academia,
and other government agencies.
– Consideration should be given to other NASA Centers and cross-mission
opportunities, e.g., robotic versus human project expertise.
– For project SRBs, a suggested diversity rule of thumb is that no more than half of the
members should come from the host Center.
– Nominees must satisfy the independence criterion and should represent a balance of
diverse backgrounds and professional and organizational perspectives.
• Minimizing the SRB size has been considered best practice. Multiple
disciplines can be covered by one member. Specialists may be added
temporarily to review specific critical areas.
• It is important to balance competence with current or recent
experience in the selection of well-qualified SRB members.
• The SRB chair will be a well recognized expert with a depth of
technical knowledge and the breadth of experience.
• The review manager ensures consistency in the implementation of
Agency policy, process, and products as defined in the ILCR process.
RM may also serve on the SRB as a discipline expert.
Page 11

12. The SRB Handbook Section 4
SRB Membership/ToRs
• The Chair has the responsibility for developing the candidate
membership list for the SRB. However, the CAs approve the
membership.
• The disciplines necessary to form the team are derived from the P/p
content, such as the work breakdown structure (WBS). Consideration
is also given to risk areas of the P/p.
• The ToR is the agreement between the SRB and the convening
authorities and documents the SRB charter, scope, and agreements
between the convening authorities and the SRB.
• The Chair and RM work collaboratively with the CAs and the P/p to
develop a ToR that meets the expectations for the Agency.
Page 12

13. The SRB Handbook Section 5
SRB Products
3 primary functions of SRB Assessment:
1. Perform complete comprehensive independent assessments of the P/p
2. Develop findings and formulate recommendations based on these assessments
3. Report results to the P/p and TAs and DAs
Page 13

14. The SRB Handbook Section 5
SRB Assessment Criteria
SRB assessments use NPR 7120.5D’s set of six assessment criteria
Criteria 7120.5 D Definition Notes
System Requirements Document (SRD) and Requirements
Alignment with and contribution to Agency needs,
Traceability Report are two key documents
Goals goals, and objectives and the adequacy of
requirements flow down from those.
Adequacy of technical approach, as defined by NPR
Technical
7123.1 entrance and success criteria.
Includes ICAs/ISAs/SRAs/JCLs
Cost / Adequacy of the integrated cost and schedule estimate
Schedule and funding strategy in accordance with NPD 1000.5.
Includes manpower, fabrication/assembly/test facilities and
Adequacy and availability of resources other than equipment, ground support equipment, launch sites,
Resources communication networks, and mission operation centers;
budget.
either government or privately held resources.
Assessment of the P/p management of risk for its adequacy
Adequacy of the risk management approach and risk to deal with all significant threats to its success.
Risk
identification and mitigation per NPR 8000.4.
Management approach, management practices, acquisition
planning adequacy ,and methods of
Mgmt Adequacy of management approach. communication/reporting
Page 14

15. The SRB Handbook Section 5
SRB Products
• SRB findings are defined as either Strengths or Weaknesses
– A Strength is a finding of the SRB that describes a feature of the P/p that in the
judgment of the SRB is better than expected at a particular stage of the life-
cycle
– A weakness is a finding that the SRB believes constitutes a threat to the future
success of the P/p
• If it is deemed critical, it should be treated as an “issue”. Each issue should
be accompanied by observations that substantiate the criticality of the
issue to P/p success and a recommendation(s) for correcting the weakness,
including a timetable that is consistent with the subsequent
implementation/operation activities planned
• If the SRB determines a weakness is worthy of mention, but is not critical to
the future success of the P/p, it should be treated as a “concern”. Each
identified concern may be accompanied by a recommendation(s) for
correcting the weakness that the P/p is encouraged to consider
Page 15

16. The SRB Handbook Section 5
SRB Products
SRB Findings are provided in a Management Briefing and a companion detail report
Criteria Adequacy SRB Comments
Goals G
Technical Y
Cost /
Schedule
R
Resources G
Risk Y
Mgmt R
Page 16

17. The SRB Handbook Section 6
Notational Review Timeline
Page 17

18. Appendices C thru E:
Agency Independence Policy
• Defines the policy and procedure guidance established to assure the
integrity of Standing Review Board (SRB) reports.
• SRB Membership Background Information, Confidential Conflict of
Interest Disclosure, and Non-Disclosure Certification.
• Outlines the SRB Options for Independent Life-Cycle Reviews.
Page 18

19. Appendix F:
Program Implementation Review (PIR) Guidance
• For uncoupled and loosely coupled programs, the Implementation
Phase only requires Program Status Reviews (PSRs)/Program
Implementation Reviews (PIRs) at to assess the program’s
performance and authorize its continuation at biennial KDPs
• PSRs are conducted by the Program to examine the Program’s
continuing relevance to the Agency’s Strategic Plan, the progress to
date against the approved baseline, the implementation plans for
current and upcoming work, budget, schedule, and all risks and their
mitigation plans. PIRs are conducted as part of this review to provide
Agency management with an independent assessment of the readiness
of the Program to continue with implementation.
• Additional purposes of these reviews are to :
– Identify to Agency management the Program strengths, issues and concerns
– Identify specific areas where improvement is needed and provide recommendations on
means to strengthen the Program
– Identify broader Agency issues that have potential impact on present or future Program
performance
Page 19

20. Appendix F:
Program Implementation Review (PIR) Guidance
Page 20

21. Summary
• The SRB Handbook was developed to provide the philosophy and
guidelines for the setup, processes, and products of SRBs in support
of the Agency’s implementation of its ILCR process.
• The SRB Handbook is written to provide guidance to the NASA
program and project communities and the SRBs regarding the
expectations, processes, products, timelines, and working interfaces
with NASA Mission Directorates (MDs), Centers, review organizations,
and Management Councils.
Page 21