Toyota and NASA, very different goal setting methods

In contrast to Toyotas and their often vague, but challenging goals NASA uses a very different requirement process.

They break the goal setting into four distinct actions before authorizing a project.

Need – every requirement for a program or project should be fully understood and how this requirement is needed to fulfil he project goal. The idea is clearly to stop unnecessary items (or work statement padding) before it starts. NASA feels each initial requirement should be examined as closely as any change coming through a robust change management process.

Attainable – If the project goal is unattainable with the assigned project resources then the project is a waste of time and effort. There may a need for feasibility studies, technology demonstrators to prove concepts or firm up what started as an educated guess. These risk reduction activities need to be part of the project plan and the results of which may drive gate decisions.

Verifiable – Each requirement needs to be examined closely and clear criteria included in how it will be verified. There should be clear pass/no pass criteria that are not subjective and therefore unverifiable.

Accountability – This is seen as important for each individual requirement and ownership of each requirement should appear on the charter or requirements document. NASA feels the owner should be a person with a stake in, be knowledgeable about, and understand how success will be measured for each requirement. The owner needs to be involved in all change managmenent activity that affect their requirements.

NASA, like the rest of aerospace, works extensively with specifications as a risk reduction strategy. A specification control document identifies the final functionality, environmental quality, foot print, interface and so on of the final product. Be it a complete launch vehicle or a small component of that launch vehicle.

The accuracy of a specification is every bit as import as any other requirement document.

This contrasts with Toyotas approach where goals are purposely left rather vague to encourage organizations to explore options and encourage groups to collaborate with others (both internally and externally) to find the best solution.

In a far more risk adverse industry the goals are very clearly stated and the way in which they will be met is left open a little more.

It’s an interesting contrast in style.