NASA's value chain and outsourcing opportunities analysis

NASA Value Chain Analysis

NASA

Inbound

Space

Outbound

Public / Fundraising

Materials

Operations

Relations

NASA Infrastructure

Human Resources Management

R& D

NASA Operations Procurement

NASA From an Outsourcing Consultant's Perspective

From an outsourcing consultant's perspective, NASA is absolutely rife for opportunities that could both grow the off-site provider and increase NASA's core competencies and successes.

NASA's vision is "to improve life here, extend life to there, and to find life beyond." Its mission is "to understand and protect our home planet; to explore the Universe and search for life; and to inspire the next generation of explorers." (www.nasa.gov)

Some commentators and critics such as Mark Wade observe that NASA has really reeled from a 'stop-start' approach to its human spaceflight programs. For instance, the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn family of launch vehicles were dumped in 1970 after billions of dollars had been expended on their development. Then in 2004 the U.S. Government proposed eventually replacing the Shuttle with a Crew Exploration Vehicle that would permit NASA to again send astronauts to the Moon. Despite the reduction of its budget following project Apollo, NASA has maintained a top-heavy bureaucracy resulting in inflated costs and compromised hardware -- and as critics point out, no private industry players would survive without getting leaner or meaner.

Currently, the ISS (International Space Station) relies on the venerable Shuttle fleet for all major construction shipments. The Shuttle fleet has lost two spacecraft, and their infinitely more valuable crews, in 1986 and 2003. While the 1986 loss was made up with a Shuttle built from replacement parts, there seems to be neither intention nor ability to replace the second loss. (But see also CEV.) The ISS, which was designed to have a crew of seven as of 2005, now has a usual crew of two, meaning that none of the research projects it was intended to support are carried out. There are few arguments to satisfy the other nations that invested heavily in its construction that its fate will not soon match the fate of Skylab.

Naturally, outsources cannot take on NASA's core competencies. Oddly enough, this is a trend in many other manufacturing and production heavy industries -- DaimlerChrysler, for instance, outsources a large portion of its car design. So, it follows that NASA may outsource its space ship design and even -- shudder to think -- its space operations and act as a clearinghouse of sorts for space travel.

An interesting concept, one that has even been floated by a few brave critics of NASA, but not at all one that is likely to gain steam.

Much more likely is the fact that outsourcing firms may take over the underlying aspects of NASA's value chain -- most particularly, human resources management and procurement. As a stretch, NASA could outsource its fundraising and public relations as well.

First, the most likely aspect to be outsourced is human resources management. An increasing number of major businesses are outsourcing their human resource operations today. Some of the services on offer are Payroll operations, benefits administration, employee data records and management, and also asset management services.

The nation that receives the brunt of this HR outsourcing work is India. One of the reasons to outsource HR operations is to streamline processes and make them more transparent to employees. Technology is usually a key enabler in achieving this transparency. Technology also helps preserve the sanctity of information between employee and employer.

Indian Internet IT service companies (software and web developers) are considered a viable outsourcing option today. What they offer is a strategic initiative to cut costs and access to intellectual capital not available in-house -- and of course, the price differential stands as the leading reason to outsource HR and Finance functions to India.

The increasing emphasis on customer response activities in the West have made Indian outsourcing service providers reinvent themselves and extend their web development activities to ASP (Application Service Providing) and other high-end outsourcing solutions -- this is a perfect example of technology catching up to costing needs and practices.

The HR department traditionally has been a cost-consuming function, but is now slowly contributing significantly to a government department's bottom line. This has led to outsourcing tasks like payroll, benefits, education/training, recruiting, personnel administration, organizational development and workforce management -- NASA is geared at space operations, yes, but it is understanding that its human resources are its greatest asset, and outsourcing human resources functions lower costs and allows greater service to NASA employees.

The outsourcing market is beginning to see HR as a preferred choice. A Gartner Focus Report (Outsourcing: Time to Deliver Results) echoes that thought: "Only those companies ready to address the necessary transformation of their HR processes will find that outsourcing will bring access to world-class processes, competitive advantage, and increased shareholder value." (Gartner, 2005)

Technology compatibility, confidentiality and cost are other challenges that both sides -- a government organization like NASA and the outsourcing firm, perhaps in India -- must work on. Mutual trust is critical, as human resources outsourcing is a long haul commitment. It is absolutely essential that senior management are involved right from the beginning and also drive the initiative. Consequently, a clear understanding of requirements and expectations from both sides is an important platform in building the relationship. Compatibility in culture and values along with an open and flexible approach go a long way in ensuring that the outsourcing venture is a successful one -- and this is the hardest challenge for outsourcers to understand from NASA, a not-for-profit government organization. Outsourcers are mainly used to working with for-profit firms, so this will be an adjustment.

As mentioned above, NASA can also outsource procurement. An outsourcing firm could help NASA decide which materials to buy on the open market.

This could mean infrastructure materials -- computers, desks, water coolers, etc. -- and even extend to core competency materials -- space ship parts, landing gear, and complicated products such as those.

Of course, procurement of core competency materials may be the hardest process to complete properly, as there must be so many checks and balances in place in ensure that the highest quality space-sound materials are procured.

Finally, NASA may outsource its public relations work and fundraising. In the shuttle disaster of 2003, for instance, NASA could have outsourced its efforts to regain the public's trust for another space mission with humans.

And today, NASA may outsource its fundraising efforts, as many universities and colleges do. NASA can help design the fundraising campaigns and then outsource only the implementation, or it may actually outsource the planning of the campaigns themselves.

5 NASA Failures

One failure that stands out in the country's collective memory is the Challenger disaster. The space shuttle was conposed of a crew of seven. They were Ellisons Onizuka, Christa McAuliffe, Greg Jarvis, Judy Resnik, Mike Simth, Dick Scobee, and Ron McNair. This crew included the first civilian to join a NASA crew in space. She was a teacher, Christa McAuliffe.

The space shuttle Challenger explosion was caused by the leaking of the right solid rocket booster field joint. The flight lasted 76 seconds. There was nothing to indicate anything was amiss. The fire erupted and burned through the external tank. Then seconds after the tank ignited, the orbiter ripped apart and this was the cause of the disaster.

Later that day NASA divers located the torn crew compartment. Somehow the bodies of the astronauts were still strapped into their seats. Even though the orbiter ripped open, it was not enough to have killed the crew. Crash investigators discovered that three of the crew had used air during the two mintues and 45 seconds while the crew compartment fell toward the sea. The crew compartment hit the water with so much force that not one survived the impact. The crew of the space shuttle Challenger was flown back to Kennedy Space Center.

All 14 missions scheduled after Challenger's mission were cancelled, pending the investigation into the causes of the crash.

Another immense disaster was the huge cost and lack of value-added of the Hubble Telescope. Billed as the most important NASA project ever, it did not really produce the research and revelations that it was supposed to -- and this was framed for the most part as a management error as far as goals-setting goes.

The Columbia disaster was another that really stung NASA. After that failure, it was a huge challenge for NASA to send Discovery up and get her back down successfully -- and they accomplished this task.

A more amorphous failure was NASA's involvement in the Star Wars Missile Defense Program -- Reagan set this as one of his major goals, and although the prime responsibility for the mission lay with the Air Force, NASA contributed largely to the failure of the mission as well. Star Wars was never scientifically viable and does not today provide a practical shield to rogue states' missiles. Again, this failure was billed as one of improbably expectations.

Finally, NASA failed in ever duplicating the initial landing on the Moon. Speculation is rampant today that the entire mission was faked and staged to intimidate the Soviets. NASA of course argues that it has not duplicated the mission for independent reasons, but it stands as a failure that the public has not gotten what they would most want out of NASA today -- a successful second moonwalk.

One common thread in NASA's failures has been the failure to set goals properly, as is most evident in the Star Wars and Hubble disasters. Space shuttle crashes are bound to happen -- we are pushing science's envelope here. But, management failures on Hubble and Star Wars are inexcusable.