1. Interagency Collaboration:
Leveraging Innovation and
Technology for NASA Missions
NASA PROJECT MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 2010
John Emond
Innovative Partnerships Program
NASA Headquarters
Used with Permission
2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
• WHY PARTNER?
• GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
• BENEFITS OF PARTNERSHIPS
• CHALLENGES TO PARTNERSHIP
– DEVELOPMENT
– IMPLEMENTATION
• ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR SUCCESS, COMMON
GROUNDS
• PARTNERSHIP EXAMPLES, FUTURE DIRECTIONS
• PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES
2
• CONCLUSIONS
3. WHY PARTNER?
Advantages:
“Teamwork divides the task and multiplies the success” (unknown)
“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much” (Helen Keller)
“I think both companies benefit from this partnership in terms of
increasing their odds to win” (Bill Tolpegin)
And Challenges:
• “A camel is a horse designed by a committee”
(Alex Issigonis, English Engineer, 1906-1988)
3
5. ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC
CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
30 MEMBER COUNTRIES
Australia Hungary Norway
Austria Iceland Poland
Belgium Ireland Portugal
Canada Italy Slovak Republic
Czech Republic Japan Spain
Denmark Korea Sweden
Finland Luxembourg Switzerland
France Mexico Turkey
Germany Netherlands United Kingdom
Greece New Zealand United States 5
6. SAMPLE OF OECD 2009
REPORT DATA—GROWTH IN GDP
Country 1998-2008 2007-2008
Canada 2.9% .4%
Germany 1.5% 1.3%
Ireland 5.7% -2.3%
Japan 1.3% -.7%
Korea 5.3% 2.2%
Mexico 2.9% 1.3%
Poland 4.2% 4.9%
Slovak Republic 5.1% 6.4%
United Kingdom 2.6% .7%
United States 2.6% 1.1%
Sample of 10 OECD member countries, U.S./U.K. tied for
7th place GDP growth 1998-2008, U.S. 6th place 2007-20086
7. Science and Technology R&D 2007
Government Budget
GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE ON R&D Appropriations for R&D, 2008
% OF GDP % Government % Industry Per Capita USD % of GDP % of prior GDP
COUNTRY
column for Defense
Canada 1.88 31.42 49.40 $724 .57 4.0
Germany 2.54 27.76 68.07 $874 .79 6.0
Ireland 1.31 30.13 59.26 $591 .55 0
Japan 3.44 15.63 77.71 $1,157 .7 5.2
Korea 3.47 24.80 73.65 $861 .96 18.0
Mexico .46 45.34 46.49 $57 .19 0
Poland .57 58.61 34.26 $91 .32 1.4
Slovak .46 53.92 35.60 $92 .26 4.4
Republic
United Kingdom 1.79 29.33 47.19 $640 .67 24.2
United States 2.68 27.73 66.44 $1,221 1.00 56.6
OBSERVATIONS of OECD Chart
• Overall, industry is making a much greater investment in R&D than government
• The U.S. is investing a greater portion of overall GDP on R&D compared to most other OECD member countries
but is still 8th out of 10 in government investment and lags Japan and Korea in corporate R&D investment
• U.S. expends a substantially greater share of its government R&D appropriations for defense as a measure of 7
GDP compared to other nations. OECD report cites Russian Federation as closest with 52.1% of their GDP R&D
commitment dedicated to defense
8. Science and Technology R&D 2007
PATENTS AND TRADE IN TECHNOLOGY
Patent Applications Filed Export Market Shares
Tech Balance of Payments— % of total OECD
Patent Cooperation Treaty
Million USD, 2007 Info and Export as % import
Receipts Payments Balance High Tech Medium All mfg High tech mfg
COUNTRY Total Com.Tech Biotech
Canada 2514 1358 1157 2898 1132 289 62 75 4 2
Germany 42739 38350 4389 17147 3984 639 115 200 17 14
Ireland 31704 30850 854 346 137 21 231 232 2 3
Japan 21080 6034 15046 23505 9994 1103 125 373 8 8
Korea 1897 4838 -2941 6396 2885 270 182 156 5 7
Mexico 180 2094 -1913 193 23 5 108 94 3 4
Poland 1700 3994 -2294 128 33 12 49 91 2 1
Slovak 349 573 -224 43 7 4 83 117 1 1
Republic
United 34622 17816 16806 6322 2225 420 84 82 5 5
Kingdom
United 85919 48957 36962 49909 19145 4124 83 73 13 19
States
OBSERVATIONS of OECD Chart
• The U.S. has a strong technology balance of payments, is a leader in patent applications, and has a
strong export market share of manufacturing within the OECD member countries.
• The U.S. lags behind Germany, Ireland, Japan, and Korea whose technology exports are at a 8
higher ratio than their respective technology imports.
9. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
• U.S. remains a leader in technology development but ongoing
challenges from countries i.e. South Korea, China and India that see
technology development as major factor in economic growth. U.S.
government, academia and industry must meet the challenge:
• National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2008
U.S. portion of world share in high technology manufacture 1995-2005
decreasing from 23% to 12%;
China rose to 20% in same timeframe
• Sample of OECD 10 countries GDP growth 1998-2008
U.S. tied with U.K. for 7th and 8th place out of the 10 sampled.
• OECD sample of 10 countries for gross domestic expenses for
R&D and the government’s portion of that expense
Listed U.S. as 8 out of the 10 countries in the sample.
• The investment in technology development has dramatically shifted
from government to the private sector
14. CHALLENGES TO AGENCY
PARTNERSHIPS
• DEVELOPING THE PARTNERSHIP
ORGANIZATION, CULTURE, BUREAUCRACY DIFFERENCES
INCREASED COMPLEXITY OF GOAL DEVELOPMENT
INTERPRETATION OF PARTNERSHIP ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES, GOALS AND METRICS MAY DIFFER
SCHEDULE FOR AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT MAY DIFFER
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS MAY DIFFER
• SUSTAINING THE PARTNERSHIP
CHANGES IN PARTNER PRIORITIES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
CHANGES IN PARTNER ABILITIY TO SUSTAIN ITS
COMMITMENT, FINANCIAL OR IN-KIND 14
COMPETING DEMANDS FOR RESOURCES EMERGE
15. ELEMENTS FOR SUCCESS
NASA SHARED
GOALS
AGENCY
PARTNER(S)
AGENCY UNIQUE AGENCY UNIQUE
MISSION MISSION
• “SKIN IN THE GAME”, REAL INVESTMENT/COMMITMENT
• CLARITY IN OBJECTIVES OF BOTH PARTIES, IDENTIFIED AT OUTSET
• ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK OF PROGRESS
Comparison of actual progress against initial expectations
Maintain present course with no change
Expand collaboration based on successful results
Change direction to address emerging issues/concerns
End partnership if results do not warrant effort
• ATTAIN, SUSTAIN SUPPORT BY AGENCY LEADERSHIP, STAKEHOLDERS
• “INSTITUTIONALIZE” PARTNERSHIP SO THAT MOMENTUM BUILDS FOR
RECOGNIZED VALUE AND CONTINUITY BEYOND INITIATORS
17. COMMON TECHNOLOGY
GROUNDS
HUMAN HEALTH
DOD: Warfighter, battlefield treatment
NASA: Astronaut health and performance
NIH: Health care advances in prevention, diagnostics,
and treatment of disease, treatment of infection,
addressing the challenges of aging (i.e. bone loss)
SENSORS, SYSTEM DIAGNOSTICS
DOT: Infrastructure, monitoring bridge integrity, etc.
NASA: Spacecraft systems monitoring
DOD: Sensors in UAV operations for surveillance
EPA: Environmental monitoring 17
18. COMMON TECHNOLOGY
GROUNDS
IMAGING TECHNOLOGY
NIH: Cancer detection
DOT: Bridge infrastructure, traffic patterns, detecting road hazards
NASA: Shuttle safety, post-launch observation of Shuttle condition
NASA: Spacecraft missions
DOD: Surveillance
ROBOTICS
DOT: Assessment of infrastructure above ground and under water
DHS: Robotics for use by First Responders
DOD: Use of robots for combat (i.e., drones) and bomb
location/disposal
NASA: Spacecraft missions 18
20. During the past 5 years, NASA has had 364 active
interagency partnerships
♦ Partnerships
predominantly with LaRC
(191), GRC (90) and ARC
(53) (MD’s not identified)
♦ Majority of interagency
partnerships are with the
Department of Defense
(DoD), e.g.
♦ USAF, Army – LaRC
facilities
♦ Navy - GRC ONR
Dupont program
♦ DARPA – LaRC
Vulture, Falcon
20
22. Inflatable Human Habitat
(Human Lunar)
Team:
• Johnson Space Center
• National Science Foundation
• ILC Dover
•Deployed in less
than 50 minutes
• Operated for 250
days down to
-75° F and winds
gusts to 50 knots
• May be used in
Arctic research
23. Partnerships in On-Line Gaming
• The IPP Office at NASA’s
Goddard Space Flight Center is
currently negotiating a Space
Act Agreement with Virtual
Heroes Inc. and Project
Whitecard Inc., whose joint
proposal was selected for
creation of a NASA Massively
Multi-player Online Game
(MMOG).
• Virtual Heroes created the America's Army MMOG for the US Army, and is
located in Research Triangle Park, NC.
• Project Whitecard is a Canadian company with over ten years of experience in
implementing national online web applications.
• The game will be developed via a partnership, at no cost to NASA.
• This joint IPP-Education project has the goal of increasing interest in STEM
careers among US high school and college students. 23
24. Wildfire Research and
Applications Partnership (WRAP)
• JOINT EFFORT BETWEEN NASA AND USDA FOREST SERVICE TO EXPLORE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN REMOTE SENSING OBSERVATIONS TO MONITOR
AND FIGHT FIRES USING UAV TECHNOLOGY.
• IN 2008 THE IKHANA UNMANNED AIRCRAFT PROVIDED INFORMATION ON MORE
THAN 300 WILDFIRES BURINING IN CALIFORNIA.
• PARTICIPATING AGENCIES INCLUDED NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER, NASA
DRYDEN RESEARCH CENTER, USDA FOREST SERVICE REMOTE SENSING
APPLICATION CENTER, NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER, AND DOT/FAA
24
• RECIPIENTS OF THE FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM 2009 PARTNERSHIP AWARD
25. NASA COSPAS/SARSAT
• Originated in the 1970’s, several countries independently
began space-based detection and location of emergency
beacons, more effectively than airborne or ground-based
systems through satellite deployment in Low Earth Orbit
• MOU among then Soviet Union, U.S., Canada, and France
signed in 1979 to develop an international coordinated satellite
system for search and rescue. A second MOU was signed in
1984; COSPAS-SARSAT became fully operational in 1985.
• Today COSPAS-SARSAT is composed of 39 countries with more
than 900,000 maritime, aviation and land-based distress beacons.
•COSPAS-SARSAT credited with assisting in rescue of
25
over 18,500 people since the first satellite launch in 1982.
27. FUTURE DIRECTIONS--
INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS IN
DEVELOPMENT
• DOD/AIR FORCE
Commercial launch vehicles
• DOD/ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
Technology to aid wounded warfighters return to workplace,
strong civilian application
• DOT
Non-Destructive Testing and Evaluation
Gaming Industry Concept applied to Transportation
Modeling and Simulation
Robotics for monitoring in difficult environments
28. FUTURE DIRECTIONS--
INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS IN
DEVELOPMENT
• NIH/FDA
Range of technologies including optical imaging,
computational modeling, wireless technologies, biosensors
• USDA
Technology transfer collaboration as part of broader Earth
observation/Earth science agreement partnership
30. IPP Center Contacts
Center Name Email
ARC Lisa Lockyer Lisa.L.Lockyer@nasa.gov
DFRC Ronald Young Ronald.M.Young@nasa.gov
GRC Kathy Needham Kathleen.K.Needham@nasa.gov
GSFC Nona Cheeks Nona.K.Cheeks@nasa.gov
JPL Andrew. A. Grey Andrew.A.Grey@nasa.gov
JSC Michele Brekke jsc-techtran@mail.nasa.gov
KSC Dave Makufka David.R.Makufka@nasa.gov
LaRC Elizabeth Plentovich elizabeth.b.plentovich@nasa.gov
MSFC Jim Dowdy Jim.Dowdy@nasa.gov
SSC Ramona Travis Ramona.E.Travis@nasa.gov
HQ John Emond John.l.Emond@nasa.gov
30
31. FEDERAL LABORATORY
CONSORTIUM
National Web Site: www.federallabs.org
Regional Web Sites:
• Northeast Region: www.flcnortheast.org
• Mid-Atlantic Region: www.flcmidatlantic.org
• Southeast Region: www.flcsoutheast.org
• Mid-West Region: www.flcmidwest.org
• Mid-Continent Region: www.zyn.com/flcmc/
• Far-West Region: www.zyn.com/flcfw/
32. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
• TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IS GLOBAL AND
TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC POWERHOUSES ARE BEING
CHALLENGED BY EMERGING DEVELOPING NATIONS.
• U.S. REMAINS STRONG BUT OTHER NATIONS ARE
MAKING THE COMMITMENT, AND INVESTMENT, TO BE
CONTENDERS IN THE WORLD MARKETPLACE
• TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT HAS SHIFTED FROM
GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
IF TECHNOLOGY GROWTH AND ECONOMIC HEALTH IS A
NATIONAL PRIORITY, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLAY A
LARGER, THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DOMINANT, ROLE,
GIVEN THE RESOURCES PRESENT IN OUR NATIONAL
32
CENTERS/LABS
33. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
• PARTNERSHIPS CAN OPTIMIZE RESOURCES, FOSTER
CREATIVITY, AND ENCOURAGE DIVERSE IDEAS TO
MEET A COMMON GOAL
• NASA BENEFITS FROM PARTNERSHIPS PRESENT
AND FUTURE WHICH:
ADVANCE THE AGENCY’S EXPLORATION, SCIENCE AND
AERONAUTICS OBJECTIVES
FURTHER PARTNER GOALS
TOGETHER PROVIDE BENEFITS TO SOCIETY
33
34. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
• PARTNERSHIPS ARE “ORGANIC”: THEY HAVE A
LIFESPAN, CAN THRIVE OR WITHER AND DIE, OR
BECOME QUIESCENT, DORMANT
• CARE MUST BE TAKEN AT THE OUTSET TO
ESTABLISH CLEAR OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES OF
PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS
ATTAIN AND SUSTAIN:
MOMENTUM
LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
CONTINUITY BEYOND INITIATORS
34
