C t f A S tCenter for Aerospace Systems, Policy and Architecture ResearchPolicy and Architecture Research

I ti P th i T h l I t iBiography

Innovation Pathways in Technology Intensiveg p y

Zoe Szajnfarber is currently working towards her Ph.D in ESD at MIT Innovation Pathways in Technology Intensive j y gZoe has worked as a systems engineer at MDRobotics and Dynacon YourInnovation Pathways in Technology Intensive y g yInc; and at the European Space Agency as a researcher studying Picture

y gy p p g y y gtechnology development in space science missions. Zoe received a

Picture

Go ernment Organi ations Insights from NASAgy p p

B.A.Sc. in Engineering Science from the University of Toronto (2006)Government Organizations: Insights from NASA g g y ( )and M.S. degrees in Aero/Astro and TPP from MIT (2009).Government Organizations: Insights from NASA g ( )

zszajnfa@mit.edug gRelated PublicationsRelated PublicationsSzajnfarber Z and A L Weigel (2010) “Towards an Empirical Measure of SpacecraftSzajnfarber, Z., and A. L. Weigel (2010) Towards an Empirical Measure of Spacecraft

Innovation: The Case of Communication Satellites” Acta Astronautica 66(7-8)

Z S j f bInnovation: The Case of Communication Satellites Acta Astronautica, 66(7 8),1266-1279Zoe Szajnfarber Ph D in Engineering Systems (expected in 2011)1266 1279

Szajnfarber Z Stringfellow M V and Weigel A L (2010) “The Impact of customer-Zoe Szajnfarber, Ph.D. in Engineering Systems (expected in 2011) Szajnfarber, Z., Stringfellow, M. V. and Weigel A. L.. (2010) The Impact of customercontractor interactions on communication satellite innovation: insights fromj , g g y ( p ) contractor interactions on communication satellite innovation: insights fromcommunication satellite history” Acta Astronautica 67(9-10), 1306-1317.

C f ( ) f Ccommunication satellite history Acta Astronautica 67(9 10), 1306 1317.

Szajnfarber, Z., Richards, M. G. and Weigel, A. L., “Implications of DoD Acquisition

Committee: Prof Annalisa L Weigel (chair); Prof Edward F Crawley;Szajnfarber, Z., Richards, M. G. and Weigel, A. L., Implications of DoD Acquisition

Policy for Innovation: The Case of Operationally Responsive Space,” AIAA SpaceCommittee: Prof. Annalisa L. Weigel, (chair); Prof. Edward F. Crawley; y p y p p , p2008, AIAA, San Diego California, Sept. 9th-11th 2008. (R&R in IJDAM)

Prof Daniel E Hastings; Prof James M Utterback, , g , p ( )

Prof. Daniel E. Hastings; Prof. James M. Utterbackg ;Problem Framing Research Approach Model OverviewProblem Framing Research Approach Model Overview

Problem: NASA’s mission requires technological innovation; yet current performance  Current stage-gate conceptualization fails to explain observed q g ; y pis inadequate. Although multiple innovation systems have been tried, there remains a fundamental lack of understanding of how innovation actually works at NASA.

“loopiness” of pre-infusion innovation pathways • Core concepts: g y

Applied R&D Project specificBasic R&DMaturity (TRL)

p– System exhibits a punctuated equilibrium (i e epochs of persistent stable

(1986-1992) (1992-1994) (2001-2004)

(1998-2007) NIACApplied R&D Project-specific

Tech Dev. Basic R&D

NRANRAQWIPs Camera

Space‐qualified QWIPs

System exhibits a punctuated equilibrium (i.e., epochs of persistent stable behavior punctuated by transition inducing shocks)( )

R&T in Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST)= Basic cross

(1992 1994)Aeronautics to Office of A ti

(1996-1999)Cross-Enterprise

Technology

( 00 00 )“Pioneering

Revolutionary Technology”as

ic Obama’s b d t

SBIR P1NRA

ROSESPre/

Phase ASBIR P1NRA

ROSESPre/

Phase A6 9aQuantum Wells for photo‐detection

Camera PrototypeContacts

Called Technical problems on

behavior, punctuated by transition inducing shocks)  (OAST) = Basic, cross-

cutting research (~250M)Aeronautics

(1992-1994)

Technology Development

(under Code S)

gy~$100M

Advanced~$180M

Ba budget

proposal SBIR P2SBIR P2Concepts

Fli h

7

8

91

detection project

Congress:(1992-1994)Space to Office

of Advanced (1999 2001)

$180MIT/Comm.

? RTOPRTOPIRAD Pathfinder

missionsIRAD Pathfinder

missionsFlight8

QWIPsS i ti t

Readiness Communicated

Congress: must fly IR

camera!

Concepts (OSAT, ~200M)

(1999-2001)Office of

Aerospace T h l (2004+)

DDF MPTODDF MPTO3

QWIPs detector arrays

Scientist recruited

20052000199519901985

(1996 1998)

Technology (OAT)

~$40M NRA$100M

(2004+)Exploration Technology

Developmentpeci

fic

Office of Commercialization

ESTOOffice of Commercialization

ESTO4 LegendNew capability

Slid 1 Slid 2 Slid 3(1996-1998)

Office of Space Science ( 100M)

~$100M cross-cutting

Development program

~75% cut in 2005oj

ect-s

p

Sh l d

p yEventActionChanceC ll b tiSlide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3(~100M) 2005

Pro Shelved

capabilitiesShelved

capabilitiesShelved concepts

5 DecisionContract

Chance encounter2Collaboration

policySlide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3Definition: An Innovation Pathway describes the set of events, decisions and actions that mature a new technology or concept from initial conception to implementation on a flight project

R h Q tiResearch Questions:1 Wh i h f NASA’ i i ?1. What is the structure of NASA’s innovation system?2 H d biliti t th i ti t th2. How do new capabilities traverse the innovation system as they are

t d d i f d i t fli ht j t ?– Epochs and shocks common across pathways, orders of progression not.

matured, and infused into flight projects?3 Are there patterns of innovation mechanisms important across multiple

• 4 distinct and identifiable epochs between path initiation and termination3. Are there patterns of innovation mechanisms, important across multiple

innovation pathways? • 3 classes of shocks (problems, solutions, context changes)innovation pathways? p g

3

Descriptive Process Model Where does this get us? Future DirectionsDescriptive Process Model Where does this get us? Future DirectionsGestation: Pre-path initiation; sets initial conditions for path (incl. relationships, technical & application knowledge, access to

resources). Typically, Multiple disjointed small groups are separately engaged in other, tangentially related projects Solve relative resource allocation problem; Recognize implication of different epochs; harnessEpoch Description People Technology FundingTech Simultaneous pursuit of multiple Small core team of Proliferation of ideas Slack resources at branch

Solve relative resource allocation problem; improved gate criteria

Recognize implication of different epochs; harness directional shocks

Tech Exploration

Simultaneous pursuit of multiple new technological approaches.Goal: fund the effort long enough

Small core team of internal experts, augmented by ad hoc

Proliferation of ideas, parallel experimentation,

Slack resources at branch-level; different institutional sources applied for

p gCurrently have:to find some strategy that works

and proves the conceptexternal collaborations.

inexpensive mock-ups indiscriminately, without differentiating among target maturity levels

Context

Currently have:1. Detailed innovation pathways FY2010maturity levels

Arch Exploration

Focused form of exploration,guided by articulated

Similar to Tech Ex, with addition of end-

Reconfiguration of existing components to

Similar strategy as Tech Ex, with higher funding burden Funding/Con

OpEx

eta ed o at o pat ays2. Descriptive, empirically grounded

FY2010g yperformance-oriented goal.Goal: demonstrating flight feasibility (breadboarding/ detailed

user (i.e., scientists)g

solve a new problemg g

(i.e., more NRA vs. IRAD)

ding

DevOp

ConceptsEarly-stage Applied Project Flight VS vO

pEx

p p y gprocess model

feasibility (breadboarding/ detailed simulations)

Exploitation Structured actions taken to mature Major expansion of Focus on testing and Typically project-specific or Treadin

Wate

r

Early stage Contracts

Applied Development

Project Tech. Dev.

Flight VS.

readin

g ter

DevO

Future Work:pthe selected systems architecture towards flight readiness.

j pteam size; bring on engineers and PMs (internal additions)

gimplementation issues.

yp y p j plarge NRA (cost of activities is proportionally much higher than other epochs)

WFundi Shelved Sh l d Shelved

TreWate

Fund

utu e o3. Prescriptive framework linking FY2011(internal additions). than other epochs)

Treading Water &

This is survival mode: keep key team members funded so they

Reduction to original core; external

Proliferation of applications

Drought. Applying to every possible source and creating

ing/Con

Shelved concepts

Shelved capabilities

Shelved capabilities

nding/Cont

p gtracks and routines to model.

FY2011

Slid 6Water & Branchingout

team members funded, so they won’t be permanently reassigned to other unrelated projects .

core; external collaborations motivated by branching out

applications, leveraging same core innovation

possible source and creating new ones.

ntext

text 4. Observed systems principles

Slid 4 Slid 5 Slide 6branching out

Termination 1: innovation infused into approved flight project (phase B).Termination 2: Drought persists to point where key team members are forced to join other funded projects While constituent ideasSlide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6Termination 2: Drought persists to point where key team members are forced to join other funded projects. While constituent ideas

may resurface in later projects, this will only occur based on significant efforts from an individual champion.

Shock Description Direction of Impact Assumptions of stage‐gate view Observations captured in process modelSlide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6Shock Description Direction of ImpactSolutions A. Tech A: Laboratory demonstration that a new concept

i ld th d i d ff t ( ft ithA. Can open up new search space; shift in current

t j t R i l l l f l tiSnapshots from Cases

Assumptions of stage gate view1. New technologies mature from left to right

Observations captured in process model1. New technologies embody multiple levels of Slide 4 Slide 5can yield the desired effect (often with poorer

performance than incumbent). B. Tech B: Demonstration of practical utility.

trajectory. Raises or lowers level of exploration (from tech to arch or visa versa)

B. Weaker than Tech A (legitimate rather than

pmaturity simultaneously, challenging the concept of  monotonically increasing “maturity ” Tr

eadin

g Wate

rMap linkages between observed behaviors Timing: unpredictable/unpredictable

initiate). Necessary precursor to exploitation, but rarely forces transition.

P bl C D O Fl R l i f d i i C T i ll i i i hi l l i 2 Process is controllable through funding allocation

monotonically increasing  maturity.2. Experts apply to multiple levels of funding

Treadin

g W

ater

Treadin

g Wate

r

W

p gand the routines & individual incentives that 

t thProblems C. DevOpFlag: Revolutionary, focused aspirations prompts search for radically new approach in target areas.

D. DevOpEx: Explicitly non-specific, relatively small

C. Typically initiates architectural exploration (explicitly corresponds to resource availability)

D. Enables transition from exploration to exploitation

readin

g ate

r

readin

g

ater

2. Process is controllable through funding allocation and gate decisions 

2. Experts apply to multiple levels of funding indiscriminately, confounding basic and applied 

d l h f D i ti 500

600

700

generate them.p p y p , y

opportunity. Still serve as important focus.E. DevOpNeed: Identification of key technical roadblock in

the context of existing architectural concept

p p(assuming recent Tech B).

E. Can initiate new innovation pathway (per Tech A) or lower the level of exploration from arch to

TreWate Tre

Wate resources, and limiting that avenue for management control. Descriptive

300

400

500

600

700

0

100

200

300

400

500

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

the context of existing architectural concept.

Timing: cyclical/semi-cyclical/unpredictable

or lower the level of exploration from arch to tech.

3. Adding more stages will ease transition (mitigate 

control.3. The valley of death is more than just a funding gap; 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

100

200

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Identify key management levers and propose Context F. Drought: Sudden and/or sustained inability to secure

resources (including yearly center- and directorate-level). F. Initiates transition to treading water & branching

out epoch, regardless of current epoch.

g g ( gvalley of death) there are explorers and exploiters, but few 

individuals who excel at both modes of R&D Treadin

g Wate

r

Treading

Water

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

center "level 2" Study Project related projectstrategies for interventions.( g y y )

Often related to change in administration.G. Context: captures key events and activities exogenous to

innovation pathway not covered by other label (e g

g

G. Impact is highly dependent on nature of context change (e g in Astro case it precipitatedTr 4 Rejection at a decision point leads to a shelved

individuals who excel at both modes of R&D.4. “Shelf life” is as much a matter of keeping the team 

TreWat

Prescriptiveinnovation pathway, not covered by other label (e.g., failures of Astro E/EII change risk assessment on H).

Timing semi c clical/ npredictable

change (e.g., in Astro case, it precipitated DevOpEx).

Treadin

g W

ater

Treading

Water

4. Rejection at a decision point leads to a shelved capability that can be re‐infused as long as it’s not 

4. Shelf life is as much a matter of keeping the teamintact as a question of obsolescence. 

pTiming: semi-cyclical/unpredictable

Collabora-tion

H. Join: In the context of a small team, each member brings unique and important skills/equipment that often shaped

H. Join (+), particularly when the addition was external precipitated several Tech As and Bs

obsolete. 

4

tion unique and important skills/equipment, that often shaped the pathway.

Ti i i li l ( t l)

external, precipitated several Tech As and Bs, but didn’t tend to induce transitions. Internal additions tended to correspond to/follow

th i i d d t itiTiming: semi-cyclical (external) otherwise induced transitions.

For more information please visit: http://seari mit edu© 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology For more information, please visit: http://seari.mit.edu© 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology