Mr. Estess, Director of the Stennis Space Center, welcomed the EMC and provided an overview of SSC and its current programs. Dr. Mulville opened the meeting with an overview of the agenda and a discussion of major issues.

Most Action items are either closed or actively in work.

The planned Agency Infrastructure Assessment has been deferred until Agency budget issues are resolved. The administrator has tasked the Chief Engineer to conduct an assessment of the Zero Base Review Initiatives to review what was recommended, what has been accomplished, what remains to be done and what items were deferred or re-directed. The ZBR assessment will address both Center and Enterprise actions. Any assessment of the engineering workforce to be done as part of the ZBR assessment will be coordinated with the EMC.

A study will be conducted by the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) and the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the National Research Council (NRC) in response to the Administrator's challenge to aggressively advance NASA's leadership role in engineering. The NRC study will assess NASA's engineering capability and identify near and long term approaches for improvement. The study will also address NASA’s role in improving national capabilities to maintain international competitiveness. The defined "needs" for the NASA study focus around critical technologies and desired capabilities to enable more rapid, cost effective, and cooperative use of technology. The National Academy of Engineering will address engineering education and skill development as part of the study. Within NASA, one issue of concern is continuing pressure to re-direct program implementation to industry vs. the need for continuing internal, hands-on efforts to maintain engineering skills and capabilities.

Mr. Yuska expressed concern with the dominant emphasis on information technologies to the exclusion of others.

The objective of this internal study is to identify available engineering tools, future needs, and an investment strategy to improve NASA capabilities. The output of the NASA internal study will be provided as input to the ASEB/CSTB study discussed above. A study architecture has been developed to allow individualized implementation by the Centers. Dr. Mulville indicated the ASEB/CSTB study will evaluate both NASA and industry capabilities in making their recommendations to NASA. Mr. Wallace emphasized that the value of continuing in-house work to maintain skills and capabilities; Mr. McHenry asked how much capability we should assume is retained in NASA.

The outline and rational for the Leadership Plan assumes a program based on "bold steps" and collaborative engineering. One fundamental need is an engineering requirements flowdown process, similar to those in place for technology and missions. Mr. Hanks presented a formulation of project/program evolution that integrated discipline teams, Integrated Product

Teams, and Mission timelines that is proposed as a basis for demonstrating the need, value and cost of engineering support functions. Candidates for the Team must still be named by DFRC, JPL, LARC and SSC as per Action 97-31.

This plan is being developed under EMC Action 97-11 in response to the action from the Administrator. Center need surveys are still underway and will be synthesized in a Workshop to be held in February or March, 1998. Code F will coordinate the workshop to ensure integration in overall agency planning.

Review of Center inputs suggests that existing Center programs are well tailored to local needs. Dr. Mulville encouraged the Centers to identify qualified candidates for the NASA Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal (EEAM). Mr. Yuska questioned why and how EEAM recommendations were being re-classified as Service Awards. Dr. Mulville specifically requested JSC to consider making nominations for the EEAM. Mr. Hudkins will distribute samples of writeups for engineering awards. Dr. Mulville distributed a call for Rotary National Awards for Space Achievement for voluntary follow-up.

Mr. Gindorf described results to date, namely: a series of information dissemination guidelines to enabling each Center to develop an individual plan tailored to their own needs. A matrix of Information types/audiences was developed with the conclusion that in-depth discussions, workshops and working groups are considered the most useful mechanisms. Dr. Mulville described an initiative by Gen. Armstrong (Code F) to address the "Communicate Information" crosscutting process, and recommended our results be integrated with the agency-wide process. Several members of the Council agreed strongly that communication needed to be enhanced and that there was much duplication because of lack of knowledge about activities elsewhere.

Dr. Mulville asked each Center to consider developing their own information dissemination plan.

The agency remains committed to PBC, but there is concern that the methods are not uniformly understood or effectively implemented. Although it has achieved positive results at some Centers, implementation at others has been limited and there appears to be little change at the working level. More training at lower levels may be needed, and the PBS Statement of Work guidebook, which addressed many important issues, has not yet been issued. Mr. Hudkins noted that Code H will provide "just-in-time" training for PBC.

The expired NMI has been re-drafted into the new NASA Policy Charter format with addition of several new functions and changes in membership. Council members believe participation of Center OSMA representatives as full members is useful, and liaison between engineering and safety is productive. Mr. Piland recommended that each Center be allowed to select an appropriate representative rather than specifying specific officials; he also noted a Center interest in having the Council address more in depth technical issues. Mr. McHenry recommended adding a statement to that effect.

Mr. Jobe's prime objective was to develop data specifically useful to engineering managers in the continuing planning process. The key to the analysis is an MSFC-wide skills data-base currently with 76 principal skill categories and 204 sub-categories that differ substantially from normal personnel classifications. Engineering personnel fit 143 of the sub-categories. The analysis did not address support contractor skill mixes. Work being done is defined by task agreements which are ISO compliant and include specification of deliverables, schedules, workforce estimates, but major program and institutional uncertainties currently prevent detailed prediction of outyear requirements. A skill use analysis has been done by program/project, but the data is very sensitive in the current culture. Mr. Jobe recommended that other Centers ensure that project deliverables be specified in local implementations of the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). The study has also suggested that total consolidation of skills to eliminate all overlap (e.g. through rigid Expert Center assignments) is neither practical nor manageable, in part because of the need to manage diverse resources in response to emergency tasks.

Dr. Mulville requested comments on the above presentation for use in the ZBR assessment.

JSC - JSC has developed a skills data base for engineering with 110 skill sub-categories, but use of the data base has not been finalized.

GSFC - GSFC is planning to use a skills data base to support the current re-organization.

JPL - JPL has a skills data base with 20 skill categories.

LERC - The Chief Financial Officer is just starting a survey. The Engineering organization did a limited survey to define training requirements.

ARC - The ARC skills data base is totally oriented to budget issues, not program independent skills.

KSC - The skills inventory has started, but will be severely affected by mission changes.

LARC - LARC has done workforce assessments for three years, driven by decisions to eliminate support service contractors, reduce administrative professionals, and transition to the Integrated Financial Management System. Inaccuracy of current data in the current Form 918 system is a concern and affects results.

LARC initiated a feasibility study of an earth orbital space power system as a result of Congressional interest and a request to Mr. Goldin. Studies have been halted pending better definition of NASA's eventual role in such a program. Continuing activity is limited to potential photo-voltaic applications.

The Engineering Standards Program is establishing a "preferred" standards data base as a resource for NASA programs. OMB Circular A-119 requires use of Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS) in lieu of Government standards unless impractical, prompting accelerated "adoption" of VCS for the data base. The Engineering Standards Program has identified 414 VCS now in use by

NASA Centers, made tentative assignments for Offices of Prime Responsibility to monitor changes to the standards, and recommended formal adoption and approval by the Engineering Management Council.

Mr. Hudkins reviewed the basis for the subject document in the NASA Strategic Plan and the Strategic Management Plan, and the requirements it places on management of NASA programs. The document now applies to all programs and projects, including technology, with major re-structuring of the program development cycle, addition of risk management as a required element, and other changes. Implementation will be monitored through the ISO 9000 process. The NPG review is in process; publication is expected in February, with a "roll-out" program for agency managers.

SPI was initiated by the DoD to achieve contract cost reductions through acceptance of common processes at contractor facilities. Based on experience to date, concerns include ensuring all potentially affected contracts are notified, flowdown to sub-contractors, timely disposition of actions, clear identification of cost benefits, and the need for better quality concept papers. Some 381 proposals have come through the system to date, but direct savings are not clear. NASA has been criticized by DCMC for exceptions to and delays in the process.

CCSDS communication standards have been developed since 1982 by an extended international committee. It was proposed that NASA "adopt" the CCSDS standards as part of the preferred standards lists. At present, however, only GSFC and JPL are actively involved in development and approval of the documents; the full involvement of SOMO is not clear, although Dr. Adrian Hook at JPL has SOMO responsibility for standards. More agency participation in review of the documents is necessary and for new documents, Mr. Townley recommended use of the existing NASA Standards process.

Dr. Mulville was pleased with the Program review held the previous day.

EMC participation may be required for the ZBR Assessment and possibly an Agency Infrastructure Assessment. Dr. Mulville will communicate requirement as they evolve.

The next meeting of the EMC will be scheduled for March 1998.