Gill.paul

Product Data & Lifecycle Management (PDLM) -- Project Management Implications

Paul GillNASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, [email protected]

Lisa MurphyAtura Integration, Huntsville, [email protected]

NASA PM Challenge 2011

Goals • NASA space flight programs and projects are now expected to plan for Product

Data and Lifecycle Management (PDLM). • PMs will understand more about

• what PDLM is, • why they are being asked to address it, • how to exploit it, and • where to go for information and support.

• Give two ConOps: IFA and DDT&E• Use actual experience from CxP to illustrate challenges

[Content below to be addressed after rest of presentation is done.]• While no PM wants to pay more than needed for manufacturing, the likelihood that proactive

management of product definition data can avoid the cost, time, and risk of recreating data for analysis, modeling, simulation, training, dependent designs (e.g., GSE), and facilities modifications may provide a more cogent motivation to exploit PDLM.

• Finally, we will review the current state of PDLM services at NASA and identify how PMs, lead engineers, designers, systems engineers, and procurement personnel can go about finding the support they need.

Concept of Operation 1: Generic In-Flight Anomaly (IFA)

• 10 years ago we developed a Flag Ship Class spacecraft. • Nearing the end of a very long cruise mode, the

vehicle must be configured for planetary arrival While coming out of cruise, a critical component experiences an operational anomaly.

• Mission team has 12 hours to fix the problem prior to entering into orbit or the mission will be lost. Built-in monitoring system on the central electronics unit indicates a device on the processor card is not functioning properly.

The Question at hand: What data will be needed, and how do we plan for it a decade or more beforehand?

IFA Data Needs < 4 hrs: Partial List• As-designed/as-purchased/as-tested/as-built/as-flown

product structure and definition• Circuit card schematic • Specifications (e.g., materials, acceptance testing)

• Where (else) used• Location and status of spares• Firmware, software, parameters• Circuit card testing and failure history

• Impact analysis of failure (e.g., FMEA)• Failure history of components in similar settings• History of component/card/sub-system behavior over

course of mission• Trades/Design Rationale

System or Function

Communication & Control

Part/AssemblyObject

Mission Vehicle Instance

Only one stream is Product Data

IFA Support Requires Multiple Streams

Part/assy object on current

mission (“as flown”

Assembly & Verification – this instance

Fabrication &

Procurement

Other instances (e.g., prior Deliveries or flights)

DDT&E datafor thisdesign

Part/AssemblyObject

(As-flown)

ADP Object |

Description

Data from ADP for this specific

object on this flight

Design and analysis data

for design history

Data from handling or operations conducted after DD250, e.g., VAB

PRACA items

Delivered data from site that manufactured

this specific part

Data about other

instances of this part and

experience on other missions

IFA ConOp Considerations

• Data created by different groups at different physical locations, at different times, in different formats, and for other purposes And, it’s ten years later

• Need a small, particular subset of all data about this part – and need it in context From different contractors, different centers From different points in a long development cycle From communities with different vocabularies From tools now superseded by later versions

How many IFA scenarios does your Project have?

Q: What is 13 GB?

A: The amount of memory required to open the top-level 3D CAD model of the Crew Module (only) at Orion’s Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

Here’s a hint

ConOp 2: Development Data Deluge• Before we have an IFA, have to get through DDT&E• We are seeing some very large amounts of data created

during Design & Testing alone Scale of product, types of analysis & testing, procurement

strategy all affect this – but no one is immune• Illustrative Cases from CxP

Core Input for Analysis: OML Analysis, Testing & Simulation Deluge Sample Documents & CAD Models: Ares & Orion at PDR

Documents: Ares 1 PDR reviewed ~500 documents and two drawingsWith ~38,000 documents in Ares Windchill Project Folders

CAD: 16 months later at Orion PDR, LMSSC delivered ~11,000 discrete 3D models for Service Module, Crew Module, Launch Abort System

LMSSC had ~250,000 versions, iterations, or variants in their Windchill vault

ConOp 2: DDT&E

Reviews Data does nothing but grow over phases

Integrated Stack OML Challenging to integrate CAD models from different

suppliers Designs at different maturities Not a design object; uses pre-release models Requires special CAD settings and practices

Analysis, Testing & Simulation Volumes of data created for and used for analysis,

verification, and testing

DDT&E: Ares/Orion OML

MSFC Ares Vehicle Integration responsible for integrated stack OML 3D CAD envelope model

• in Low-, Medium-, and High-Fidelity versions for each Design Analysis Cycle (DAC)

Proliferation of demand for OML or data from OML for other design & analysis uses, including:J2 LH2 blade ejection coneAcoustic wind tunnel 4% modelClearance analysis simulationIU/SA compartment for Human FactorsProtuberance dimensionsFairing panel separation dynamicRe-entry configuration for US

Sensor locationsGNC node pointsInboard profileIS-gimbalThrust oscillation modelsRoCs nozzle placementAntenna locations

Source: list of requested models or data from OML CAD models in DAC 2 for Ares 1.

Design Interactions

Ares1 OML Data Exchange: Multiple Sources & Heavily Manual

LMSSC

Boeing

ATK

ESMD ICEProject Folders

JSC DDMS

MSFC DDMS

KSC DDMS

Orion

FirstStage

UpperStage

Source: CxP CAD WG May 2009

Ares Vehicle Integration

(@MSFC)

Manual Processing

CxP Lvl II DIO (@ JSC)

Ground Ops KSC

More Things to Do With CAD Models• 3D prototyping• Verify/analyze design for requirements or standards compliance• Conduct “-ilities” analyses• Create motion models (oscillation, rotation)• Create time-based visualizations (e.g., of assembly processes)• Use in models and simulations (e.g., VRML)• Plan verifications & validations; prepare before & after comparisons• View, manipulate, annotate, mark-up, e.g., for TIMs, Reviews

• Mass properties: mass, CG, surface area, volume, Parts lists, used-on

• Produce illustrations, “viewables” or other representations • Communications, Public Affairs, General Information• Training & Procedures, Documents, & Manuals

12

• ICD skeleton models • Flat pattern for sheet metal parts • Bulk items, (e.g. Spray-on Insulation,

Propellant• Deployed models

• Dynamics models • Pipe Assembly Models• Harness subassembly models • Layout models • Mass properties models

A Taste: Analysis & Testing

• LMSSC test plans included telemetry ranging from 5 MB/sec (slow) to 20 MB/sec (fast) per channel

• Engineering Task Description Sheets (from CAIT) show dependencies on 507 different data packages

• Ares initiated a risk that they would not have enough storage for the testing data expected• [&&&CHECK NOTES RE SIZE OF STORAGE]

• And there would be much, much, more: • Imagery• Simulation data sets (inputs/outputs), simulation

testing set-up/configurations• Assembly, Installation, & Interference checking

Why Product Data & Lifecycle Management?Because we need to answer questions such as:1. How much should we risk (conversely, how much are

we willing to pay) to ensure the relevant data exist and are accessible, discoverable, and understandable to support an IFA?

2. Where should we invest our attention and resources to manage data during development?a. What data do we need from our contractors?b. In what formats do different users need the data?

These concerns led to changes to NPD 7120.4 to include Product Data and Lifecycle Management, and development of PDLM NPR.

What’s Happened:

In 2008, Office of Chief Engineer takes lead on PDLM1. In 2009, updated to NPD 7120.4 to include PDLM2. Started working on PDLM NPR (approved 1/2011)3. Interoperability work (CAD, model exchanges)4. PDLM Steering Committee formed

Definition….• Product Data Management (PDM). A framework that enables

organizations to manage and control engineering and technical information, specifically data surrounding the product's design, definition, and related engineering, test, manufacturing, and logistics processes and is a key element of PLM…

• Product Life-cycle Management (PLM). The process of managing the entire life cycle of a product from its conception, through design and manufacture, to service and disposal. PLM integrates people, data, processes, and business systems and provides a product information backbone for companies and their extended enterprise…

Scope & Coverage• Single Project & Tightly Coupled Space Flight Programs• Entire lifecycle for all types of product-related data

• [See NPR}

Recent experience has shown:• 3D CAD powerful, but requires special attention

• Cannot wait until ADP to get models if you have insight-oversight• Collaborative design requires robust, frequent data exchange

• Requiring same version, build of same tool not sufficient• Must look at who is doing what• Ask who needs it, why and when

• Data exchange standards lag industry practice• So far, proprietary models only sure why to get all of data

• Need to consider software along with hardware in product definition

PDLM NPR Summary (a)

Projects & ProgramsResponsible for Process and Data ArchitectureWrite a Plan and update often

• Authoritative data are identified, captured, cataloged• Agile, flexible, sound practices for data management• Critical product data receives timely attention to acquire what is

needed, assure integrity, reflect maturity state(s) and authority• Know who needs what, when, format – across lifecycle

• MDAA is responsible for seeing the PMs meet requirements

PDLM NPR Summary (b)

Information Systems/Infrastructure (OCIO, Center Director)Assure that infrastructure adequate

• Seek to effectively re-use solutions to common problems, improve performance

Tools are known and providers committed to supportSecurity has received due attention

Project Manager – not center– is responsible for producing plan, building commitments

• Work with Center or other providers to come to agreement on what services, for whom, and how

Continues for now distributed PDM/PLM tool model• No one group assigned to provide agency-wide PDLM

Practical Matters: Plans, Tools & Data Acquisition

Content of PDLM Plan overlaps traditional Project plans such as CM, DM, Records Management, SEMP, program/project plans

• Multiple uses of same applications/similar data• Must initiate plan early and then update regularly• Identify needs, project future needs, coordinate with IT supplier

Data acquisition is critical to PDLM• Challenging to write DRDs that support CAD data exchange• Need to consider the data needed during design and IV&V• Also what is at physical delivery of product, engineering changes

Few NASA personnel have hands-on experience with the new data-centric, model-centric, technology direction

Generally, NASA Projects Face:Distributed Production & Use over an Extended Lifecycle• Need to exchange and use PRE-RELEASE product data

• Mixture of internal and external sources – Centers, primes, partners, universities

• High analysis demands, highvolumes of ancillary data

• Long project life cycles

• Need for IFA reach-back

• Ten independent Centerswith local solutions

• NASA cannot dictate how things are done at primes

Rockets as ProductsDifferent Specifications Needed to Get Data for Different Needs• Do derivative designs such as

tooling, test stands• Sub-contract part of design work• Do design integrations• Conduct design review• Take over design change

authority• Do modeling and simulations • Do physical integration &

verification (e.g., at test site or VAB)

• Re-bid production

More Reasons to Care

• 2D drawings from NASA’s standard CAD tool (PTC Pro/Engineer Wildfire) are made from 3D models

• To integrate the design of the 787 Dreamliner from their four design groups, Boeing • Had 16 Terabytes of data in their master repository• Packaged and delivered quarterly 150 applications for the

distributed design teams to use• Some of the 24 different extensions to CAD models identified by

MSFC CAD standard (only some of which are released):• Interface Control Document (ICD) skeleton

models • Envelope part models (e.g., OML) • Flat pattern for sheet metal parts • Bulk items, (e.g. Spray-on Insulation,

Propellant• Generic of family table part instance

• Deployed models • Dynamics models • Pipe Assembly Models• Harness subassembly models • Layout models • Mass properties models

Questions?