加拿大航天设备开发公司MD Robotics通过关注于软技能提高了他们的项目管理水平。在这个过程中，他们找到了市场定位并使其产品变得多样化。

在MD Robotics, 创新意味着巨大的商机。1997年，加拿大太空总署（CSA）委托这家位于安大略省宾顿市的公司交付一项价值1.6亿美元的具有特殊效用的灵巧操作器（SPDM），这是国际空间站计划的重要组件，也是美国宇航局（NASA）领导实施的第三个机器人系统。

SPDM在国际空间站会执行精准的维护和服务工作，如安装拆卸电池、操作特殊的扳手和套筒扳手、提供载荷的能源和数据连接，这些工作以往都是由一名宇航员通过进行危险的太空行走来完成。此外，最新的科技还可以使机器人“触摸”和“感知”运动。

CSA要求在规定预算和进度下完成产品的技术规范，同时，在最小程度上影响和改变国际空间站的结构和控制软件。对于MD Robotics来说，这项挑战有更多积极意义。MD Robotics的副总裁和总经理梅格·伊斯坎达说：“加拿大在诸如太空机器人技术等需要较少预算和精确应用特殊高新技术的市场上一直是非常成功的。对于未来，我们需要寻找新市场并且追求卓越。”

MD Robotics以前曾生产出装置在美国的航天飞机的Canadarm机器人和在2001年4月装备在国际空间站的第二代Canadarm机器人，SPDM从根本上是一次全新的设计。管理层认定MD Robotics将通过此次独特的经历创造出项目管理和工程开发的新方法。最佳实践会使公司自信地竞争全新的“更快、更好、更便宜”的固定总价项目，这是任何公司开发“前所未有”的技术的开端。

MD Robotics项目总监艾德里安·阿布拉维奇解释称：“我们打算彻底改造我们的公司，我们通过此项目在公司内实施变更管理，并改进以往处理流程和工具的方法。”

执行策略

在正式开展工作之前，MD Robotics与CSA谈判小组进行了重要的范围定义与规划。成本帐目协议包括工作说明、完成工作所需的预算、必要的输入（内部或客户提供的设备）和输出（交付物）。所有的描述都要符合合同工作说明书，并达到除去管理储备和风险准备金之外的预算要求。

除了SPDM本身，MD Robotics还必须提供额外的硬件、全面技术支持、操作和轨道运行维护计划以及飞行支持设备。这些工作在运作中的合同之外，但在战略上是非常重要的。

MD Robotics政府项目的副总裁克里斯·伍德兰认为：“在我们看来，运作项目的唯一手段时采用项目管理流程。从战略角度看来，信誉非常重要。为了维护自己的信誉，我们必须交付产品。项目管理是我们实现承诺的核心。”

MD Robotics已经拥有一套高度项目化的组织，他们已有的项目管理控制体系涵盖了必需的项目管理“硬技能”。

阿布拉莫维奇说：“我们已经开展了挣值管理，项目管理办公室成为一项必要组织，它已经深入到项目中。我们必须做出改变的事情大部分是软技能：团队建设、与供应商的交互与管理、对人员进行授权，还有确认信息使用的一致性。”

阿布拉莫维奇还认为，一旦团队意识到责任和义务，他们就会毋庸置疑地进行流程创新。

管理方式

为了鼓励自由沟通和促进问题解决，管理层采用了集中座位的方法：包括管理团队在内的所有项目团队搬到了MD Robotics大楼的同一层楼中。借助于开放、公开的环境，项目经理可以方便地与能够得到领导授权的工程师进行交流。

阿布拉莫维奇介绍说，由于团队每天的交流和大量的特别会议，每周的小团队会议和每月的大团队会议显得不那么必要。“作为替代，我们设立了‘没有意外’的方针，这意味着团队成员必须迅速地与包括管理层和其他受影响团队在内的相关各方沟通任何问题。”阿布拉莫维奇说。

在“没有意外”的方针下，团队被赋予了相当多的自主权。管理层会接到开发人员的通知，但并不用必须签署。数据库管理员、额外的文员和大量的实习生将工程师从繁琐的工作中解脱出来，使他们抽出更多的时间关注于他们主要的职责。

同级评审有助于解决问题。例如，系统工程技术评审（SETR）允许工程师们针对技术问题和方案进行争论。阿布拉莫维奇说：“SETR承担了早期评审平台的功能，它确保某位工程师不会花时间调查和开发那些绝对不会被着手进行设计的设想或者问题解决方案。”

SETR同时促进了管理层对于工程活动的快速接受。阿布拉莫维奇说，管理层代表会参加SETR，但不会朝着“合乎计划”方案的方向操纵决定，而且在大多数情况下，他们会当场对SETR的决定做出管理层的批准。他说：“在18个月内，没有任何一宗SETR的决定被管理层推翻。”

时间决定一切

NASA计划在2004年装置机器人，很明显，MD Robotics不能错过他们承诺的交付日期。在SPDM的工作说明书里，进度表详述了主要的里程碑和交付物。

MD Robotics基于过去的项目使用自下而上的方法估计出成本。两个外部的团队评审并验证了成本数字。考虑到项目风险，2360万美元被留作储备。

挣值里程碑有其自身的进度日期和相应的预算。随着项目进展，项目经理每月会评审里程碑，将其与计划日期比较，并得出完成它们的实际花费。

MD Robotics项目计划和控制经理道格·高安斯说：“如果你控制住进度，那你总是会控制住费用。非常关键的一个问题是：要有一份集成的进度表将包括交付物和里程碑在内的所有项目元素整合到一起。”

总体计划将从客户付款到里程碑的所有项目元素集成为一份固定总价合同。高安斯说：“我们没有选择，这是使客户确信‘只有付钱，才会有进展’的唯一方法。但你一定要选择那些可实现的进展。”

这种机制带来了管理上的挑战，特别是当积极地管理关键路径时更是如此。阿布拉莫维奇说：“一方面，付款里程碑较有优势，因为它们使我们持续地关注于交付物，并且使客户看到已有的进展，但是如果有太多的里程碑彼此靠得太近，灵活性就会大打折扣。由于里程碑被锁定于付款的前提下，所以你无法使用滚动计划法。”

在项目的生命周期内，通过集成客户强制的和批准的范围变更建议，他们会修正原始的费用和进度计划，同时修改相应的项目费用和接受评审日期。

进度报告

SPDM的产品设计工作与工程工作并行展开。工程团队与管理层详细审查了所有的客户变更请求，这样做是为了确保目前的设计会满足这些新需求并确认它们是否已经包括在最初的范围内。工程团队会迅速地与客户讨论范围外的变更，如果客户批准了变更的实施，工程团队就会分析这些变更对各方面的影响，如技术、成本、进度、人力、设备和风险等。

由于太空机器人必须在太空中停留至少10年，所以质量和安全上有强制的要求。作为最初项目计划中定义的一部分，MD Robotics团队建立了一套完整的产品保证计划，涵盖了诸多方面，如材料与流程选择、电气及机械零件选择、配置管理、安全性与可靠性保证，还有软件产品保证等。

产品保证人员把座位与项目团队安排在一起，并且变为设计、生产和测试团队的一个组成部分。阿布拉莫维奇说：“他们带来了许多太空相关的宝贵经验。

控制风险

MD Robotics同时着手于对风险管理进行特别地思考。通过持续地重复检查关键路径，项目团队想出了减轻成本和进度风险的创新方法。

阿布拉莫维奇说：“在这个项目里，我们的风险管理与关键路径是同步的。由于它会影响成本和进度，所以这样做很有必要。我们同时关注机会，这在从前从来没有被看作风险管理的一部分。通常，人们会清楚地理解其中的明显联系，但是大多数情况下，他们没有探讨这种可能性。现在，我们严格地遵循了这种做法。”

创新的机会大量存在。阿布拉莫维奇说：“NASA管理下的国际空间站计划经历了痛苦的变更过程，这是由于它内在地复杂性和重大的预算问题，这迫使几乎所有的后续设计进行变更和接口重新调整。这些变更影响了所有的事情，从SPDM接口到机器人在太空的运行方式。”

系统工程团队集中精力寻找一种方法将进化的SPDM与不断变化的国际空间站架构整合在一起，同时还要将对产品的影响降到最低。其结果不言而喻：极少的范围外变更出现在项目生命周期内。

高安斯说：“在项目开始时，需求被充分地深思熟虑过。由于不存在模糊的需求，这使得做出成本和进度上可行的计划变得容易。在固定成本的工作中，明确需求是关键所在。”

主要的风险起因于设计中引入了未经测试的新工具，带来了机械和电气封装的纯粹的几何复杂性。MD Robotics的设计工程师和质量保证人员在长期的关键时期一直待在现场。

项目分包

由于分包出去的部分占据合同总价的50％，所以为了达到共赢，供应商很早就与工程师合作并介入了设计过程。

早在SPDM建议阶段，预算就被分配到每份分包合同上。这些信息通过先前的项目经验、配额和采购历史记录被验证是行之有效的。阿布拉莫维奇说：“潜在供应商在此时被识别出来，来源单一的组件被标识为项目风险。”

MD Robotics尽可能与供应商签订固定总价合同协议。然而，为了使工作更有灵活性，SPDM工程师们建议MD Robotics在与一家供应商艰苦谈判的同时自行开发设计符合空间标准的照相机。MD Robotics同意了此建议并批准新项目上马。这种照相机后来变成他们自己一项成功的商业机遇，公司获得了超过1300万美元的合同。

为了保证在整个合同中的工程与质量高标准，每家供应商配备了一个专门的分包商管理团队。对于规模较小的供应商，一个团队会负责多个分包商。

收获成果

项目团队于2001年11月14日和15日完成了与CSA的接受评审，仅有像微小的软件修复这类少数的遗留任务需要完成。然而，机械臂接合部位深处的一块价值50美元的不合格塑料元件迫使MD Robotics在所有的21处接合部位更换了此元件并重做了部分测试。阿布拉莫维奇说：“所有项目经理都会遭遇‘墨菲定律’，我们也不例外。”

总的来说，MD Robotics达成了进度和成本计划，而且客户也比较满意。目前，正在进行机器人端到端测试也确保其软件接合并集成到国际空间站系统中。伍德兰说：“我认为此项目的交付使用赋予了我们一种竞争优势，我们现在可以以完全不同的方式竞标。把这个项目完成并做好很重要，它为我们积极竞争类似项目建立信心，并使我们知道我们能够完成自己的承诺。”

今天，公司继续从他们的自身认识中收获成果。阿布拉莫维奇说：“在公司大多数的新项目中，项目副经理已经被提升到总监职位。我们现在在领导实施新项目，并且使用我们的软技能和经验教训，这的确有很大帮助。我们开始接手小型的快速项目。我们的项目组合迅猛增长，这主要归功于我们充分展现了‘我们能够做到’。”（完）

附文：

小行动，大收获

●SPDM团队被组织成小型的子项目团队，这些小团队的座位被安排在一个没有隔断的开放办公环境里。团队成员间传达着这样的信息：各团队的地位平等；管理者平易近人；项目成功依赖于开放而迅速的沟通。储物柜被集中起来并盖上桌板以充当临时画图讨论区。会议室环绕办公区修建。

●员工参与到项目基线集思广益讨论、工程问题方案和变更管理的提出、评审核风险方案中。由于管理层避免“干扰”、猜测和自上而下的决定，团队相应地增强了所有权和责任感。

●项目和团队绩效评估还有奖金和加薪与项目总体目标和绩效相关。管理层通过以下方式表彰员工成就：奖励和认可、允许员工而不是经理领导客户演示、VIP人员访问和电视采访等。

领导艺术

一份固定总价合同团结了项目团队。以下的项目管理实践将团队合作变为现实：

项目计划与项目基线。在建立基线或项目中任何的自下而上估计时，独裁都不允许出现。变更只有在被咨询过提出者的意见之后才会被付诸实施。

项目管理控制系统。关键路径不仅在问题发生时才起作用。管理层使用“思考会”的形式来做假定情况分析。项目团队尝试新方法来验证它们如何影响成本和进度。

强调人员联系。包括经理、客户和员工在内的项目团队紧密接触。当公司里很多人墨守陈规时，团队聚集起来，集中意见，并一起证明其行之有效。

风险管理技术。项目团队对风险的持续关注促使成员在包括同步工程在内的各方面工作进行创新。设计团队邀请主要的供应商作为平等的伙伴参与到工作中。

原文：
Mission Control
By Ross Foti

By focusing on soft skills, this Canadian aerospace development firm improved its project management practices. In the process, the company refined its niche and diversified its portfolio.

At MD Robotics, innovation means big business. In 1997, the Brampton, Ontario, Canada-based firm was commissioned by Canadian Space Agency (CSA) to deliver a $160 million special-purpose dexterous manipulator (SPDM), a critical component of the International Space Station program and the third robotic system contributed to the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-led effort.

The SPDM performs delicate maintenance and servicing jobs on the International Spec Station, such as installing and removing batteries, operation specialized wrenches and socket extensions, and providing power and data connectivity to payloads – tasks that otherwise would require an astronaut to perform dangerous space walks. What’s more, the latest technology allows the robot to “touch” and “feel” movements.

CSA needed a product that met technical specifications, within budget and schedule, while minimizing the impact and changes to the International Space Station architecture or control software. But for MD Robotics, the challenge was more meaningful. “Canada has been very successful with a small budget, very smartly applied to specific high-tech niches like space robotics,” says Mag Iskander, vice president and general manager, MD Robotics. “As for our future, we need to look for new niches and excel in them.”

In past efforts, the aerospace company produced the Canadarm robot (on the U.S. Space Shuttle) and the Canadarm 2 (launched April 2001 on the International Space Station), but the SPDM is a radically new one-off design. Management decided the unique effort would allow MD Robotics to create a new approach to project management and engineering development. Best practices would enable the company to move with confidence into bidding new “faster, better, cheaper” projects with a firm, fixed price – a first for any company developing “never-before” technology.

“We attempted to reinvent ourselves as a company,” says Adrian Abramovici, director of programs, MD Robotics. “We used this project to implement change management in our organization – and improve the way we traditionally approached processes and tools.”

Executive Suite

Before “official” work even began, the MD Robotics and CSA negotiating teams performed a significant part of the scope definition and planning. Cost account agreements included work description, budget to accomplish the work, necessary inputs (internal- or customer-furnished equipment) and outputs (deliverables). All of the descriptions corresponded to the work effort defined in the contractual statement of work (SOW) and its budget, excluding the management reserve and risk allowance.

In addition to the SPDM itself, MD Robotics had to provide spare hardware, as well as overall engineering support work, operational and in-orbit maintenance planning, combined robotics operations and flight support equipment. Aside from the contract in hand, the effort was strategically important.

“In our view, the only way to run a project is to use project management processes,” says Chris Woodland, MD Robotics vice president, government projects. “From a strategic point of view, credibility is important. In order to be credible, you have to deliver. Project management is the heart of how we deliver on our commitments.”

MD Robotics already was a highly “projectized” organization – its established program management control system covered the required “hard” project management skills. “We already performed earned value management, and the project management office was a given – it was all already built in,” Abramovici says. “A lot of the things we had to change were related mostly to the soft skills: team building, interaction with suppliers and management, empowering our people and making sure the message is consistently applied.” Abramovici says one the team felt ownership and accountability, process innovation was sure to follow.

Full Responsibility

To encourage free communication and problem-solving, the executive team hit upon the idea of co-location”: All project staff, including management, were transferred to one floor of MD Robotics facility. Due to an open, communal setup, project managers were free to interact with engineers who could approach leaders for sign-off.

Due to the daily interaction and numerous ad-hoc meetings of the co-location tam, Abramovici says weekly subteam and monthly primary team meetings weren’t as necessary. “Instead, we instituted a policy of ‘no surprises,’ meaning that all team members immediately communicated any and all information to all parties interested, both in management and in the other potentially affected teams,” Abramovici says.

The teams were given considerable autonomy under the “no surprises” rule. Management was informed of developments, but sign-off was not require. Database technicians, additional secretaries and numerous engineering students relieved engineers of mundane tasks, allowing them more time to concentrate on their primary responsibilities.

Peer reviews helped resolve issues. For example, the systems engineering technical review (SETR) allowed engineers to debate technical problems and solutions. “By acting as an early review forum, the SETR helped ensure that individual engineers did not spend time investigating or developing ideas for changes or solutions to problems that ultimately would not make it into the design,” Abramovici says.

The SETR also facilitated quick management buy-in for engineering activities. Abramovici says management representatives attended the SETRs without attempting to steer decisions toward “programmatically palatable3” solutions, and in most cases granted management approval for the SETR decisions on the spot. “In 18 months, not a single SETR decision was reversed by the management team,” he says.

Timing is Everything

NASA planned to launch the robot in 2004, and it was clear MD Robotics could not miss its promised delivery. The schedule, defined in the SPDM SOW, detailed the major milestones and deliverables.

Based on past projects, MD Robotics used bottom-up estimates to arrive at costs. Two external groups reviewed and validated the numbers. Considering the risk associated with the project, $23.6 million was set aside.

Earned value milestones had scheduled dates and associated budgets. As the program progressed, project managers reviewed the milestones monthly, comparing them to their planned dates and the actual costs of achieving them.

“If you hold the schedule, you will invariably hold the cost,” says Doug Gowans, manager of program planning and control, MD Robotics. “Having an integrated schedule that pulls together all the elements of the program – deliverables and milestones – was absolutely key.”

The overall plan tied customer payment to milestones, as firm, fixed-price contracts require. “I don’t think we had a choice,” Gowans says. “That’s the only way the customer is assured that, when the dollars are paid, progress is made. But you must pick increments that are achievable.”

The setup provides management challenges, especially when managing the critical path proactively, Abramovici says. “On one hand, payment milestones are good because they allow a continuous focus on those deliverables and permit the customer to see progress being made,” Abramovici says. “But if there are too many milestones too closely spaced, it takes away flexibility as the program progresses. You can’t use a rolling-wave approach because the milestones are locked down based on payment.”

The original (baseline) cost and schedule was amended through the life of the project by incorporating customer-mandated and approved changes of scope proposals, which consequently modified the project cost and acceptance review date.

Progress Report

Engineering work paralleled the SPDM product design effort. The engineering team and management scrutinized any changes requested by the customer to ensure the existing design would meet the new demands and to define whether or not the new requirements were within the original scope. The team immediately discussed out-of-scope changes with the customer and, if the customer approved implementation, the team analyzed these requests to identify technical, cost, schedule, human resources, facilities and risk impacts.

Because space robotic systems must endure at least 10 years in space, quality, reliability and safety demands are imperative. As part of the initial project plan definition, the MD Robotics team established a complete product assurance plan that covered materials and processes selection (critical for space applications), configuration management, electrical and mechanical parts selection, safety and reliability, and software product assurance.

Product assurance personnel were co-located with the project team and became an integral part of the design, manufacturing and test teams. “They brought extensive space-related experience to the table,” Abramovici says.

The Glass is Half Full

The MD Robotics team also began thinking differently about risk management. By continuously re-examining the critical path, the project team brainstormed innovative ways to mitigate threats to cost and schedule.

“Our risk management on this project was synchronized with the critical path,” Abramovici says. “Because it affects your cost and schedule, this make sense. We also looked at opportunities, which no one ever looked at before as part of risk management. While people intellectually understand that there’s a positive connotation, in many cases, they don’t explore those possibilities. We followed this approach religiously.”

There were plenty of opportunities for innovation. “The International Space Station program, managed by NASA, was going through painful changes due to its inherent complexity as well as significant budget problems that forced almost continuous design changes and interface realignments,” Abramovici says. “The changes affected everything, from SPDM interfaces to the way to robot was to be used in space.”

The system engineering team focused on finding ways to integrate to evolving SPDM into the changing Internal Space Station architecture while minimizing the impact on the product. The results speak for themselves: Very few out-of-scope changes appeared through the life of the project.

“The requirements were extremely well thought out at the beginning,” Gowans says. “There were no soft requirements, and that made it easier to put a plan in place that was achievable both cost- and schedule-wise. Nailing down those requirements is key in a fixed-price job.”

Major internal risks arose from the introduction of new, untested technologies into the design, by the sheer geometrical complexity of the mechanical and electrical packaging. MD Robotics design engineers and quality-assurance personnel were onsite for extended critical time periods.

Add Subcontracts, Stir

Because subcontracted items accounted for 50 percent of the total contract value, suppliers were brought early into the design process and cooperated with engineers to mutual benefit, Abramovici says.

During the SPDM proposal stage, budgets were allocated to each subcontract. The information was validated through previous program experience, quotations and past procurement history. “At this time, potential vendors were identified, and sole-source components were flagged as program risks,” Abramovici says.

Whenever possible, MR Robotics entered into fixed-price agreements with suppliers. However, in one case of ingenuity at work, SPDM engineers suggested MR Robotics develop its own space-qualified camera design in parallel with a struggling supplier. MD Robotics management agreed, and a new project was launched. The cameras turned into a good business opportunity on their own, as the firm won major contracts for more than $13 million.

To ensure the highest engineering and quality standards were maintained throughout the contract, a dedicated subcontracts management team was assigned to each vendor. With smaller vendors, a team was responsible for more than one subcontract.

The Upshot

The project team completed its acceptance review with CSA on 14 and 15 November 2001, with only a minimal number of remaining actions to close, such as minor software fixes. However, a $ 50 plastic part deep in the arm joint failed, forcing MD Robotics to replace the part in all 21 joints and perform a partial re-test. “No project manager goes by without meeting ‘Mr. Murphy,’ and we did too,” Abramovici says.

All in all, MD Robotics met the schedule and budget, and the customer was satisfied. Currently, the robot is undergoing end-to-end testing to ensure that it will interface with software and integrate with International Space Station systems. “I think delivery of this project has given us an edge over other companies – we’re able to bid contracts in different light,” Woodland says. “It was very important to do this project and do it well. It had given us confidence in being able to bid on similar projects more aggressively and knowing that we can accomplish what we set out to do.”

Today, the firm continues to reap rewards from its introspection. “In most of our new projects, the associate program managers have been prompted to director positions with our company,” Abramovici says. “We’re now leading new programs, and we’re applying our soft skills lessons learned. It has made a big difference. We moved into small, fast and quick programs. Our portfolio has dramatically increased and, mostly, that’s because we’ve shown we can do it.”

Small Decisions, Big Rewards

Soft skills-driven management choices enabled the project to stay on track:

l The SPDM was grouped into smaller subproject teams, and these smaller teams were co-located in an open, wall-less office environment. Staff got the message that the team was equal, management was accessible and that project success relied on open and immediate communications. Storage cabinets grouped and capped with tabletop surfaces acted as impromptu drawing review areas. Meeting rooms were built surrounding the team area.

l Employees were involved from the project baseline brainstorming, engineering problem resolution and change management through initiation, review and risk resolution. Because management avoided “interfering,” second-guessing or top-down decisions, the team responded with increased owner ship and responsibility.

l Project and team performance appraisals – and the resulting bonuses and raises – were linked to the overall program goals as well as performance. Management promoted achievements through awards and recognition and by allowing employees, rather that managers, to lead customer presentations, VIP visits or television interviews.

The Art of Management

A firm, fixed-price budget focused the project team. The following project management practices made this teamwork possible:

Project Plan and Project Baseline. No arbitrary cuts were made in any of the bottom-up estimates during the establishment of the baseline or at any other time during the project. Modifications were made only after consulting with the originators.

Program Management Control System. The critical path was “worked” continuously, not just when problems emerged. The management team used “think” sessions to explore “what-if” scenarios. The group tried new approaches to see how they would affect cost and schedule.

Human relations Emphasis. The team, including managers, the customer and the project employees, was extremely cohesive. While many people in the organization were doing things “the old way,” the team felt it had something to prove, leading it to pull together and focus even more.

Risk management Techniques. The team’s continuing awareness of risk drove staff to innovate in all aspects of the work, including concurrent engineering. Major suppliers were brought into the design teams as equal partners.
[@more@]

来自 “ ITPUB博客 ” ，链接：http://blog.itpub.net/7839396/viewspace-961305/，如需转载，请注明出处，否则将追究法律责任。