<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><tt xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ttaf1" xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ttaf1#styling"
xml:lang="en"><style id="defaultSpeaker" tts:fontSize="12px" tts:fontFamily="SansSerif"
tts:fontWeight="normal" tts:fontStyle="normal" tts:textDecoration="none" tts:color="white"
tts:backgroundColor="black" tts:textAlign="left" /><style id="defaultCaption" tts:fontSize="12px"
tts:fontFamily="SansSerif" tts:fontWeight="normal" tts:fontStyle="normal" tts:textDecoration="none"
tts:color="white" tts:backgroundColor="black" tts:textAlign="left" /><body
id="thebody" style="defaultCaption">Bruce
Askins: Ares I-X used Windchill as our primary data sourcefor
storing data as well as working throughour
boards and reviews.
At the beginning of the projectit was extremely clunky
and slow, mainly becauseone, we were using it in
a way thatit hadn't been chosen- hadn't been designed to.<p
begin="00:00:22.800" end="00:00:25.700">We actually overfilled the Windchill environment.<p
begin="00:00:25.766" end="00:00:27.566">Which even made the problem worse<p begin="00:00:27.900"
end="00:00:31.600">because it slowed down, people got time-out errors<p begin="00:00:31.533"
end="00:00:34.600">and they had trouble even accessing documents at various times.<p
begin="00:00:35.000" end="00:00:37.300">We did learn, over the course of the project
thougha few real key valuable tools.
And Windchill is functioningfor us now, in our data
area, where one,we've got segmented projects
where we don't have themoverloaded any more.
We also have the number of usersand the access limited
to those that need itinstead of having everybody
access to everything.Because that also puts
a lot of overhead on itwhere we were filling the
buffers.
We also used it for our review process
of our drawings.It was very successful
in using in that limited area,capturing the reviews,
and then putting outthe integrated drawings
with the- including those inputsfor the review.
So all that works very well.
Sowe're using the tool now in a more efficient manner<p
begin="00:01:26.000" end="00:01:27.833">that would have helped us at the beginning<p
begin="00:01:28.266" end="00:01:30.700">had we had some good training and understanding
of the tool.
But we started out using the toolbecause- as a directive.
So we had no trainingor anything up front.
One lesson that we really ran into at the end is
we allowed a lotof our IPTs, which are-
was our individual- ourour product teams to develop
some of theirtools and store them outside of the Windchill environment,<p
begin="00:01:57.533" end="00:02:00.400">which was the final tool that we needed everything
in.So at the end, there was a lot of clean-up activity<p
begin="00:02:04.866" end="00:02:07.066">that we're still running through, to get it all<p
begin="00:02:07.033" end="00:02:08.966">back into the authoritative tool.<p begin="00:02:09.866"
end="00:02:12.333">It would have been a lot better for the program<p begin="00:02:12.600"
end="00:02:14.566">and easier access all the way alonghad
we all been working in one tool.And the one tool we happened
to use at the endand we'd been required
to, was the Windchill environment.The Windchill environment
works well in oneand we learned on that
is instead of having one major project, it's better
if you have a lot of little projects and link
them together.Because we actually were
the first to actuallyhit the threshold for the
Windchill environmentwhere it started slowing
us down.And that's mainly because we were way ahead<p
begin="00:02:45.366" end="00:02:47.266">of the mainline program.
We were doing drawings.We were developing hardware.
So our data-we were developing a lot more data a lot faster.<p
begin="00:02:54.366" end="00:02:57.033">So we sort of overfilled all the buffers, so<p
begin="00:02:57.200" end="00:02:59.800">that was something we learned.
That breaking it apartand the mainline has done
that.
But up front,you know, everybody was trying to keep it in<p
begin="00:03:04.900" end="00:03:08.366">one project.
We found the limits of that.
So.Those are two key things, is not having everything<p
begin="00:03:12.533" end="00:03:15.266">in one Windchill environment.
Having it in andsegregated.
But then linking them to the main.And then the other was
one- keeping all the IPTsin one particular tool
from the start of the programso that way you don't have
a lot of close-outactivities.
Our CM process we did manually in Windchill.So
we really- huge amount of effort was put.Man
hours, time, and everything.
I really thinkthere should be a tool
that makes that more automated.Because one, we were very
much one-deepon our team.
And two, it was so manual.
There's got to be a way to do<p begin="00:03:59.133"
end="00:04:00.733">there's got to be programs and all.We
just didn't have time to go look for them.So
that CM function needs to be a automated processversus
a manual process.Jeff Campbell: You know,
another lesson that I thinkwas key was in 1-X, we
were asked by Constellationto go ahead and try to
come up witha method to do paperless processing of the hardware.<p
begin="00:04:26.166" end="00:04:29.033">That means not just "I typed it in on a computer,"<p
begin="00:04:29.033" end="00:04:30.500">"I printed it out, and handed it to someone else."<p
begin="00:04:30.366" end="00:04:32.100">"And he went and hard-stamped it." That means<p
begin="00:04:32.500" end="00:04:34.100">"I never used a piece of paper <p begin="00:04:34.133"
end="00:04:35.000">for the entire flow.""It
was all electronic." Now, in Shuttlewe
used some paperless processing on the ground side.We
have a product called Maximo.
You know,that's for all of our facility-maintenance type items.<p
begin="00:04:46.766" end="00:04:49.966">And so, those folks have been using paperless
environmentsfor eight to ten years.
In Shuttle, we had never done that<p begin="00:04:53.533"
end="00:04:56.066">on the flight side, so this was all new.<p begin="00:04:56.000"
end="00:04:56.933">And it was a big challenge.
So we had to go through<p begin="00:04:58.566"
end="00:05:00.666">and make sure all of our business processes<p begin="00:05:01.466"
end="00:05:05.000">could accommodate this new tool.
We said going inwe're going to use commercial
off the shelf product.We're not going to modify
it.
Because any timeyou modify a commercial
off the shelf productyou can do it, but there's
going to be a cost.
So we saidwe're not going to change that at all.<p begin="00:05:16.166"
end="00:05:18.066">We're going to change our business processes.<p begin="00:05:18.066"
end="00:05:21.766">So we modeled our business processes to meet the tool.<p begin="00:05:22.366"
end="00:05:25.766">And we ended up launching the vehicle successfully<p begin="00:05:25.733"
end="00:05:28.366">at the end of October.
And we never usedone piece of paper to do
any work constructionson the floor at KSC.
At the other sites,you know, they had whatever
their Heritage systems usedin order to assemble the
various piecesbefore it got to KSC.
But once it got hereall of our processing was
done electronically.The engineers authored
the work instructions.They sent them out for
approvals.The technicians, quality personnel executed those
work instructionsand bought off all the
buys electronically.There was not one physical
piece of paperwe used for 1-X.
And to me, I mean,that was a huge success
story.
And the lesson isthat, you know, you can
do thiseven with a complex system.<p begin="00:06:08.033"
end="00:06:10.000">It's not like Shuttle, but you know,in
terms of business processes, it was no simpler reallythan
Shuttle.
We still had to have USA, NASAand the contractors review
the paperwork.And we did that.
We did that successfully.
So.And in my mind, when we got down to really<p
begin="00:06:25.433" end="00:06:28.100">that last day, when we had a lightning strike.<p
begin="00:06:29.933" end="00:06:31.366">You know, it was the night before launch.<p
begin="00:06:32.200" end="00:06:33.800">We came in, and we had to go through<p begin="00:06:34.066"
end="00:06:35.700">and we had to basically do a littlea
lot of retest in order to get flight rationale.We
were able to do that, reallyBecause of [INAUDIBLE].
Because we were ableable to make real-time
changes to the procedure.Everybody could see what
was worked.What the values were input, and so we could<p
begin="00:06:48.466" end="00:06:50.566">really realize we've done all the testing<p begin="00:06:50.466"
end="00:06:52.833">we needed to do.
We satisfied all the requirementsthat we needed to meet
in order to get flight rationaleto the launch [INAUDIBLE]
team that day.So the lesson to me is
that you can usepaperless processing to
process flight hardware.And you can do it successfully.<p
begin="00:07:05.800" end="00:07:08.300">And the benefit- an overall benefit<p begin="00:07:08.800"
end="00:07:13.500">is that it's quicker to do changes to procedure.<p begin="00:07:13.766"
end="00:07:15.900">It's quicker to close out those procedures.<p begin="00:07:16.266"
end="00:07:18.533">And process control of the procedure you're working<p begin="00:07:18.366"
end="00:07:22.266">is actually better, because the tools that are out there,<p begin="00:07:22.133"
end="00:07:24.666">various tools, allow you to basically put in limits<p begin="00:07:24.600"
end="00:07:27.766">that nobody can go beyond.
So if you are processinga piece of hardware, and
you violate a requirementit will not physically
let you move outof that procedure.<p
begin="00:07:33.700" end="00:07:36.100">Mike Stelzer: We tried to leverage Heritage tools
justas much as we can, and two of the ones that we<p
begin="00:07:37.966" end="00:07:41.000">borrowed from Shuttle was our change management express
toolour action management express tool.
And these worked outvery well, especially in
the later months of the missionwhen we had a lot of changes,
a lot of actionscoming through.
And what these management tools allowed usto
do is leverage the email system as a change came in<p
begin="00:07:56.966" end="00:07:59.066">or action came in, to get that distributed out<p
begin="00:07:58.866" end="00:08:00.466">to the folks who needed to review it.<p begin="00:08:00.666"
end="00:08:04.200">Get their comments in, get those comments addressed and incorporated.<p
begin="00:08:04.333" end="00:08:06.800">And be ready for the board, where we needed to<p
begin="00:08:06.533" end="00:08:09.666">go implement those changes.
So those worked out very wellleveraging those Heritage
systems.
So we've passed that onto ourlong-term to look for those
type of systems.Make sure they're available
for the long-term program.One of the areas that we
also leveraged was inone of our financial management
tools.
And this toolis based out of our contractor, and was really
builtfor a quarterly reporting period.
With Ares 1-Xthings were happening fast and furious<p begin="00:08:39.700"
end="00:08:41.400">and we really needed something that reported out<p begin="00:08:41.100"
end="00:08:43.100">at the monthly, or even the weekly, level.<p begin="00:08:44.566"
end="00:08:46.900">One thing we didn't realize in leveraging that, though<p begin="00:08:46.866"
end="00:08:53.900">is using a reporting tool that's based on a quarterly,<p begin="00:08:54.500"
end="00:08:56.900">we were trying to cut that a little closer.<p begin="00:08:56.900"
end="00:08:59.200">We could make some decisions in between the quarters<p begin="00:08:59.633"
end="00:09:02.833">and we realized that it really wasn't built for that.<p begin="00:09:03.000"
end="00:09:06.333">That some of the estimates that were coming in before<p begin="00:09:06.533"
end="00:09:09.066">were either low or high.
So our recommendation,our lessons learned to
long-term, if you're usinga tool like that, and you're
using it differentlythan how it was applied,
in this case quarterlyversus monthly or weekly,
you have to look very closeto make sure you're not
making erroneous assumptionsin there on the data in
between the reporting periods.