Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Lessons Learned and Best Practices
Pages 32-40

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 32...
... These include, for example, an imposed merger of technical requirements for political reasons, external hopes for cost savings, the addition of unfunded mandates, or directed interagency collaboration for the sake of collaboration. Interagency cooperation on a particular space mission can be encouraged or even mandated to address budgetary, political, or industrial base objectives that are in tension with the ostensible technical objectives of the mission.
From page 33...
... External sources can include the different budget cycles for each agency, dif ferent authorization and appropriation subcommittees, budget instability, and changes in policy direction from the administration and Congress. These impediments manifest themselves as impacts to mission success and as changes in cost, schedule, performance, and associated risks.
From page 34...
... One of the collaborating agencies should be designated as the lead agency. Ultimate respon sibility and accountability for executing the mission -- within the agreed set of roles and responsibilities, command structure, and dispute resolution process defined by the MOU -- should rest with the lead agency.
From page 35...
... • re there independent cost estimates at each major milestone, and is there a process for reconciling dif A ferences between the project office's estimates and independent estimates? • Which agency's quality assurance process will be used?
From page 36...
... CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL INTERAGENCY COLLABORATIONS Despite the numerous impediments and potential pitfalls of interagency collaboration in Earth and space sci ence missions, it is nonetheless possible to have successful outcomes. As discussed in previous chapters, and as drawn from the committee's examination of case studies, agency briefings, existing reports, and members' own personal knowledge and direct experience, successful interagency collaborations share many common characteristics.5 Those characteristics are, in turn, the result of realistic assessments of agency self-interest and capabilities and a disciplined attention to systems engineering and management "best practices." The committee finds that successful interagency space mission collaborations are characterized by: • A small and achievable list of priorities.
From page 37...
... Agency and project leadership provides firm resistance to changes in scope. When possible, one of the collaborating agencies should be designated as the lead agency with ultimate responsibility and accountabil ity for executing the mission within the agreed set of roles and responsibilities, command structure, and dispute resolution process defined by the MOU.
From page 38...
... Differences of culture, language, and procedures are expected in international space cooperation but are often underestimated in interagency collaborations until problems become quite obvious. As part of having good documentation and open communication, a collaborative project should strenuously avoid having separate agency project plans covering the same work content.
From page 39...
... 7 The committee recommends that if OSTP, OMB, or the Congress wishes to encourage a particular interagency research collaboration, then specific incentives and support for the interagency project should be provided. Such incentives and support could include cross-cutting budget submissions; protection of funding for interagency projects; freedom to move needed funds across appropriation accounts after approval of a cross-cutting budget; multiyear authorizations; lump-sum appropriations for validated independent cost estimates; minimiza tion of external reviews that are not part of the project's approved implementation plans; and unified reporting to Congress and OMB, as opposed to separate agency submissions.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.