| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite a rich legacy of impressive technological accomplishments, the government acquisition of advanced space systems is increasingly synonymous with schedule slips and cost overruns. Program reviews have suggested that investing more in centralized and strategic research and development outside particular programs will reduce technical uncertainties and improve cost and schedule outcomes. This paper suggests roles for a centralized technology office by examining the methods available in the literature for managing portfolios of research projects.
In particular, the paper answers three questions. Firstly, it examines the key features that characterize the space agencies' innovation context compared to the private sector where most of the portfolio literature is founded. Secondly, it summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the models in the literature. Finally, the paper addresses how innovation decision making should be structured within agencies in order to achieve the best results. The paper concludes that an executive level technology office is best placed to act as an enabler, rather than an absolute decision maker. Such an office would not replace decision making at the technical manager level, but would provide overall strategic direction and guidance within which technical managers can make decisions about project innovation.
|