From value to architecture - ranking the objectives of space exploration

Paper number

IAC-06-D1.4.02

Author

Prof. Geilson Loureiro, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE), Brazil

Coauthor

Prof. Edward Crawley, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), United States

Coauthor

Mr. Sandro Catanzaro, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), United States

Coauthor

Dr. Eric Rebentisch, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), United States

Year

2006

Abstract

This paper describes and discusses the process developed by the, so called, value team of the NASA CER (Concept of Exploration and Refinement) project, at MIT, from September 2004 to September 2005 when identifying and ranking the objectives of space exploration.
The NASA CER project proposed and studied sustainable architectures for Mars and Moon exploration, according to the new vision for space exploration (White House, 2004). Architectures scope were not restricted to product architectures but included also enterprise architectures. In order to select among those architectures, cost, risk, policy robustness and value criteria were used. Value was translated by 5 groups of stakeholder objectives: public, scientific, exploration, economic and security. The paper presents the process by which objectives were generated and structured. Initial objectives were classified as stakeholder intent objectives, outcomes to stakeholders and assets to be provided by the exploration enterprise to stakeholders. Assets derived objectives at lower level and these were organized into disjoint sets. Objectives were then related to stakeholder groups. Objectives within each stakeholder group were ranked using the Kano model, a model that ranks objectives based on the level of satisfaction of the stakeholder if the objective is fulfilled and based on the level of dissatisfaction of the stakeholder if the objective is not fulfilled.
Architectures were, then, ranked based on their relationship to the ranked objectives. Architectures were ranked, separately, per stakeholder value, per cost, per risk and per policy robustness. There was no one overall metrics composed by each stakeholder group value, cost, risk and policy robustness.
The paper exemplifies the process with the actual objectives, their resulting ranking per stakeholder group and the use of the ranked objectives to rank candidate architectures generated.
The paper discusses the preferred architectures per stakeholder group and concludes with a critical analysis of the process.
Traditionally, architectures are ranked by cost (or mass) criteria. The novelty about this work is to rank architectures by value criteria. The paper is new and original. Although the work finished in September 2005, it has not been publicized yet. There was no time to publish it for IAC 2005.

Abstract document

IAC-06-D1.4.02.pdf

Manuscript document

IAC-06-D1.4.02.pdf (🔒 authorized access only).

To get the manuscript, please contact IAF Secretariat.