The Juno management team assembled managers with diverse experiences who worked well together. They prioritized safety, communication, and identifying issues early. Through consensus-based decision making and an emphasis on respect between JPL and the contractor, the team successfully developed the complex Juno mission on budget and schedule, launching as planned in August 2011 to study Jupiter.

1. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology
Successful Attributes of the Juno
Project Management Team
NASA Project Management Challenge
February 22-23, 2012
Jan Chodas
Juno Project Manager
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
© 2012 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.
1

2. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
What makes a successful
California Institute of
Technology project management team?
• How is a strong team assembled?
• How can the positive attributes of the team be maintained and
improved?
• What types of backgrounds are helpful for key managers to have?
• What processes should the management team follow?
• How can the relationship with the spacecraft contractor work well?
• In what ways can the Principal Investigator interact with the team?
• What are the management team’s top priorities?
2

3. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Juno Project Overview
Salient Features
• Juno is a Category 1, Class B mission with a $1.1B life cycle cost
• First solar-powered mission to the outer planets
• Eight instrument payload to conduct gravity, magnetic and atmospheric
investigations plus an E/PO camera
• Polar orbiter spacecraft launched on August 5, 2011
– 5 year cruise to Jupiter, JOI in July 2016
– 1 year operations, EOM via de-orbit into Jupiter in October 2017
• Elliptical 11 day orbit swings below radiation belts to minimize radiation
exposure
• Partners include SwRI, JPL, ASI, LM-Denver, GSFC, APL, U of Iowa,
MSSS, KSC, ULA
Science
To improve our understanding of the origin of our solar system by understanding
the origin and evolution of Jupiter, Juno will:
• Determine the global O/H ratio (water abundance) in Jupiter’s
atmosphere
• Measure latitudinal variations in Jupiter’s deep atmosphere
(composition, temperature, cloud opacity, and dynamics)
• Map Jupiter’s magnetic and gravitational fields
• Characterize Jupiter’s polar magnetosphere and aurorae
3

4. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Completion of Juno’s Final Tests
4

5. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Successful Juno Launch on August 5!
5

6. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Juno Project Phase C/D Organization
NASA Science Mission Advisory Board
Science Investigation Office
Directorate (SMD) PI, Chair
John Eterno (SwRI)
Firouz Naderi (Dir, SSED, JPL)
New Frontiers Program Office
Jim Crocker (VP, LM)
Science Team Jim Burch (VP, SwRI)
Principal Investigator
Dr. Scott Bolton (SwRI) Dr. Enrico Flamini (Scientific Programs, ASI)
Education & Public Outreach Deputy Principal Investigator Mission Assurance Manager
Alice Wessen (JPL) - Manager Dr. Jack Connerney (GSFC) Sammy Kayali (JPL)
Project Scientist Deputy Mission Assurance Manager
CTM for Flight System Contract Dr. Steve Levin (JPL) Linda Facto (JPL)
James Holden (JPL) Radiation Control Manager
Flight Sys. Insight-Oversight Team Bill McAlpine (JPL)
Project Manager
Shin Huh (JPL) Jan Chodas (JPL) Environments Lead
Marc Natour (JPL)
Deputy Project Manager
Business Manager
Rick Nybakken (JPL)
Suzanne Oyama (JPL) Systems Safety Engineer
Deputy Business Manager Karen Moran (JPL)
& Subcontracts Manager
Geoffrey Pomeroy (JPL) Project Systems Engineer
Project Resource Analyst Dr. Doug Bernard (JPL)
Scott Johnston (JPL) Deputy Project Systems Engineer
Project Schedule Analyst Dr. Rob Abelson (JPL)
T.K. Baayoun (JPL)
LSP Mission Telecom PEM* Payload Manager Mission Manager Science Ops &
Flight Systems Manager
Integration Mgr. Anthony Mittskus (JPL) Phil Morton (JPL) Chuck Scott (JPL) Data Center Mgr.
Tim Gasparrini (LM)
John Calvert (KSC) John Eterno (SwRI)
KaT (TASI) Deputy Payload Manager Systems Engineering Manager Deputy Mission Manager
Mark Boyles (JPL) Chris Brosious (LM) Ed Hirst (JPL)
--MWR (JPL)
July 2011 --Gravity Science (JPL) *Note: Telecom PEM reports directly to PM/DPM
--MAG Flux Gate (GSFC) for cost, schedule, and technical performance;
--JADE (SwRI) and to LM FSM for technical and schedule
--UVS (SwRI) delivery
--WAVES (Univ. of Iowa)
--JEDI (APL)
--JunoCam (MSSS)
--JIRAM (SG)
6

7. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Assembly of the Juno Management Team
• Management team was assembled during early Formulation Phase
by Rick Grammier, Juno’s first Project Manager
– Rick selected members for their specific experiences as well as for their
breadth of experiences
– Also key was their ability to work together as a team
• Juno was selected for a 2009 launch but was delayed until 2010 at
selection then subsequently slipped to a 2011 launch about a year
later
– Extended Phase B was used to unify the team and to establish strong
communication mechanisms
– Frequent face-to-face discussions augmented the usual telecons for
working meetings and reviews
7

8. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Maintaining and Improving the Positive
California Institute of
Technology Attributes of the Juno Management Team
• Rick selected 4-D Systems, led by Dr. Charlie Pellerin (author of
“How NASA Builds Teams”), to bring the team together and
maintain strong teaming behaviors
• 4-D Systems approach for a successful project team is to
articulate a context that makes work more enjoyable and in which
the team performs better
• Juno held a 4-D Systems Workshop during Phase B (2/07)
• Juno followed up with periodic assessments (11/07, 11/08, 8/10,
3/11)
• About 6 months before launch, I pulled out the “Behaviors” chart
as a reminder of how we wanted to interact
8

9. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mutually Reinforcing Behaviors & Contexts
California Institute of
Technology from 4-D Systems (courtesy of Dr. C. Pellerin)
Expresses Addressing
Authentic Shared Being 100%
Appreciation Interests Committed
Mutual Willing &
Respect & Energizing
Enjoyable Work Collaboration
Appropriately Keeping All Resisting Clarifying Roles,
Including Your Blaming & Accountability
Others Agreements Complaining & Authority
Authenticity High Outcome Focus Clear and
& Aligned, Trustworthiness with no Blamers Achievable
Efficient Action & Efficiency or Victims Expectations
9

10. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Backgrounds of Juno Managers
• Juno managers had:
– Extensive project and line experience before joining the Juno Project
– Experience in areas other than their Juno one which helped them
understand each others’ viewpoints
– Prior experience in Implementation Phase and Operations
• Several managers had worked with each other before which
helped with knowing each other’s strengths and idiosyncrasies
• Deputies were “full service” deputies which was essential given
Juno’s workload, its distributed development and the 8-instrument
payload
10

11. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Juno Management Experience Base
• Most managers were performing their Juno positions for the first
time
– Roles were novel and stimulating
– Mistakes were made occasionally
11

12. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Juno Management Team Processes
• Processes were built around consensus but with clearly defined
lines of authority and participation
– PI has the overall responsibility for the Juno mission
– PI delegated most decisions to the Project Manager but remained an active
participant in management team’s processes
• Principal Investigator, Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager
and all System Managers participated in management processes
• Key managers were formally polled for decisions and the results
were documented in minutes
12

13. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Juno Management Team Processes
• Held the usual Project Staff meetings, Quiet Hours, etc.
• About 7 months before launch, added a Daily Coordination Tagup
to keep a tight communication loop amongst the key managers
– Held at a fixed time (7 am PST) so that managers could call in from any
time zone (JPL, LM-Denver, SwRI, KSC)
13

14. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Relationship with the Juno Spacecraft Contractor
• Project Manager (PM) and Lockheed Martin Program Manager
(LM-PM) both emphasized a respectful relationship and a seamless
team at all levels
– Several JPLers were embedded in LM’s activities and worked as part of the
spacecraft team
– Juno managers ensured a continuous presence at LM-Denver
• PM and LM-PM both advocated an approach of “getting the work
done”
• Open communication was vital, especially when mistakes occurred
– There was no fear of retribution, rather the attitude was “what are our options
going forward?”
• LM-PM valued JPL “letting us do our job and work the issues and
request help when needed as opposed to ‘forcing’ help on us”
14

15. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Interactions with the Juno Principal Investigator
• Even though Juno Principal Investigator, Dr. Scott Bolton from
SwRI, was not co-located with the Juno management team, he was
an instrumental part of the collaborative decision making process
– PI articulated the science needs and empowered the managers and engineers
to do their jobs
– PI maintained close communication via telecons into meetings, ad hoc
telecons, emails
– PI joined the team periodically at JPL, LM-Denver, Science Team meetings
• On-site Project Scientist was a valuable enabler
– Project Scientist provided a direct communication path to PI
– Project Scientist spoke for PI when PI was not able to participate
– Project Scientist had strong systems engineering capability and kept up to
speed on technical issues – brought science perspective into engineering
trade discussions and addressed science impacts
15

16. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Juno Management Team’s Top Priorities
• My top priorities for the management team were:
– Safety (personnel and hardware)
– Communication
• I often asked the managers to behave in a “schizophrenic” manner
– To manage within their budgets
– To identify issues early especially if solutions involved additional funds
• My favorite saying from Tom Gavin is “Don’t let me make a
mistake”
16

17. National Aeronautics and Space
Juno Project
Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology Summary
• Despite the daunting technical challenges of the long mission and
the Jovian environment, Juno completed its development on
budget and on schedule, and launched on the first day of its
launch period
• No sacrifices were made in the original Level 1 requirements, the
instrument suite was not descoped during the Implementation
Phase, and the spacecraft retained its Class B reliability
• These accomplishments would not have been possible without the
hard work and dedication of many skilled personnel at all levels
in the Project’s organization
• Juno’s management team was very effective in leading the team to
accomplish this success
17