1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CHALLENGE 2008
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS:
TEAM BUILDING AS
CRUCIAL ELEMENT
John Emond
Innovative Partnerships Program
NASA Headquarters

2. Food for Thought
“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much”
– Helen Keller
“Strength lies in differences, not in similarities”
– Steven Covey
“Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They
are where they should be. Now put the foundations under
them”
– Henry David Thoreau
“Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction”
“Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you
just sit there”
– Will Rogers
2

3. • TEAMWORK IS ESSENTIAL FOR
SUCCESS, WHETHER FOR GOODS
AND SERVICES PROCURED UNDER
CONTRACT OR ACHIEVED THROUGH
PARTNERSHIPS AND AGREEMENTS.
• EMPHASIS ON THIS PRESENTATION IS
TEAMWORK IN TECHNOLOGY
PARTNERSHIPS
3

4. ELEMENTS OF TEAMWORK
AND SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS
• COMMITMENT BASED ON:
– MUTUAL NEEDS/REQUIREMENTS
– RESOURCES TO COMMIT/INVEST
• FINANCIAL/IN KIND, “SKIN IN THE GAME”
• MUTUAL RESPECT
• UNDERSTANDING PARTNER ENVIRONMENT & CULTURE
• CLEAR COMMUNICATION
• BELIEF IN MUTUAL BENEFIT THROUGH COLLABORATION
• TWO EXAMPLES FROM NORTHERN IRELAND
– “PLAY SCHEME” DESIGN, DERRY, NORTHERN IRELAND
– REFLECTION FROM YOUTH WORKER
4

5. WHY PARTNERSHIPS?
• NASA POLICY
– NASA STRATEGIC GOAL #5
• ENCOURAGE PURSUIT OF APPROPRIATE PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE EMERGING COMMERCIAL SPACE
SECTOR
– OUTCOME /IPP#1, INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
PROGRAM
• PROMOTE AND DEVELOP INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
PARTNERSHIPS AMONG NASA, U.S. INDUSTRY AND OTHER
SECTORS FOR BENEFIT OF AGENCY PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS
– IPP MANDATE AS:
• FACILITATOR TO BRING PARTIES TOGETHER INSIDE AND
OUTSIDE THE AGENCY, BRIDGE COMMUNICATION GAPS
• CATALYST AS PATHFINDER AND CHANGE AGENT, CREATING
NEW PARTNERSHIPS AND DEMONSTRATING EFFECTIVENESS
OF NEW APPROACHES AND METHODS. 5

6. WHY PARTNERSHIPS?
• LEGISLATION
– TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED BY NASA FOR COMMERCIAL
APPLICATION AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE NATION (15 USC SEC.
3710, UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY
– STEVENSON WYDLER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT, PL 96-480, 1980
• ESTABLISHED OFFICES OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATIONS/TECH TRANSFER OFFICES
– ASSISTANCE TO FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS IN TECH TRANSFER
– PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
DESIGNED TO FACILITATE TECH TRANSFER
– FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT 1986 MANDATES
TECH TRANSFER AS FEDERAL RESEARCHER RESPONSIBILITY
– AMERICA COMPETES ACT, PL 110-69, 2007
• DIRECTS NASA TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR BASIC RESEARCH
AND FULLY PARTICIPATE IN INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES TO 6
FOSTER COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION.

7. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
OF PARTNERSHIPS
• CHALLENGES
– NO UNILATERAL CONTROL. INVOLVEMENT ATTAINED, SUSTAINED
THROUGH MUTUAL INVESTMENT AND REALIZED BENEFITS
– PARTNERSHIPS ARE FLUID, DYNAMIC, SUBJECT TO CHANGING
MISSIONS, LEADERSHIP, CIRCUMSTANCES
• OPPORTUNITIES
– RESOURCES ARE OPTIMIZED BY SHARED EFFORTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
– INNOVATION FOSTERED BY FREE-RANGING INTERPLAY OF IDEAS
– MUTUAL OBJECTIVES NOT LIMITED TO FIXED DELIVERABLES,
THOUGH THE GOALS THEMSELVES MAY BE WELL DEFINED
– RELATIONSHIPS ARE ADAPTIVE, EVOLVING, FLEXIBLE
7

8. PARTNERSHIP MODEL
8

9. Partnership Model – Value Proposition
[perceived benefit to cost of partnership]
High
[Ben/Cost>>1]
Innovative partnerships
Moderate
[Ben/Cost>1]
Value to NASA
Standard partnership mechanism
Low No partnership potential
[Ben/Cost<1]
Low Moderate High
[Ben/Cost<1] [Ben/Cost>1] [Ben/Cost>>1]
Value to Partner
[perceived benefit to cost of partnership]
* IPP objective should be to maximize partnership value for both
NASA and partner.
* Refer back to the partnership model for value and ask:
What impact will this aspect of the partnership have on value? 9
What are other opportunities to increase value?

10. IPP PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITY
FY 2007 REPORT TO OMB
• 306 NEW SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS
• 598 SOFTWARE USAGE AGREEMENTS
• 1883 ACTIVE LICENSES IN FY 2007
10

11. Summary of Partnering Tools
Cooperative Agreement Space Act Enhanced Use
Contract Grant Agreement Patent License Lease CRADA
Purpose Used by NASA to Used by NASA to sponsor activities Used by NASA for Used by NASA to Used by Ames Rarely used by
acquire goods, that relate to a public purpose collaborations, excess transfer specific rights Research Center NASA for
services, or both. (generally R&D). capacity, leases, property associated with a (ARC) and Kennedy cooperative
loans, or any combination. NASA-owned Space Center (KSC) to research and
invention. lease under-utilized development.
real property assets.
Competition Required? Generally, Yes No No No No No
Notable -Goods or Services -Public Purpose -No Formal -Intellectual Property -Real Property -Federal Lab
Requirement(s) -Mission Need -NASA Substantial Involvement (for “Requirements” -Royalty-Based -R&D
Cooperative Agreement) -NASA does have Commercialization
“Guidelines”
NASA Cash to the Non- Yes Yes Yes, but it’s very rare. No No No
NASA Party
Process Owner Office of Office of Procurement Technology Transfer Office of General ARC and KSC Undefined at this
Procurement Office Counsel* time.
Notable Advantage $$$ $ Flexibility Possible Exclusive In-Kind Consideration Advanced Licensing
Rights to an Invention for Real Property of Inventions Not Yet
that may be Invented
Patentable
Notable Disadvantage Standard Standard Regulations and Provisions Historically, SAAs are Royalty Payments as Limited to Two NASA No Cash
Regulations and (but not nearly as large as the FAR) contain less rigor vs. a Consideration Centers Contribution Allowed
Provisions procurement contract. From NASA
Authority Space Act; 31 USC Space Act; 31 USC 6304; 31 USC Space Act 35 USC 207 Space Act; 42 USC 15 USC 3710a
6303; 10 USC 2302 6305 2459j
Regulation Federal Acquisition Grant and Cooperative Agreement No Formal Regulation; 37 CFR Part 404, also No Formal Regulation No Formal Reg.
Regulations Handbook (14 CFR Part 1260) NASA has “Guidelines” referred to as the
documented in an SAA “Licensing
Guide Regulations”
11

12. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVE
ORGANIZATION TEAMWORK/PARTNERSHIPS
• NASA PARTNERSHIPS
• INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
– INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP TECH TRANSFER
• FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM (FLC)
MID-ATLANTIC REGION COLLABORATION
– FLC/WASHINGTON METRO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
– FLC/EASTERN SHORE MD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
– FLC/VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
– FLC/EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 12

13. NASA RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
HIGHLIGHTS BY CENTER
AMES RESEARCH CENTER
Information Technologies, Aerospace Systems, Autonomous Systems for Space Flight,
Nanotechnology, Space Life Science/Biotech, Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aviation
Operations
DRYDEN FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTER
Aerodynamics, Aeronautics Flight Testing, Flight Systems, Revolutionary Flight Concepts,
Thermal Testing, and Integrated Systems Test and Validation
GLENN RESEARCH CENTER
Aeropropulsion and Power, Communications, Information Technology, High-Temperature
Materials Research, Microgravity Science and Technology, including Bioengineering, and
Instrumentation and Control Systems
GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
Earth and Planetary Science Missions, LIDAR, Cryogenic Systems, Tracking, Telemetry,
Command, Optics and Sensors/Detectors
JET PROPULSION LAB
Deep and Near Space Mission Engineering and Operations, Microspacecraft, Space
Communications, Remote and In-Situ Sensing, Microdevices, Robotics and Autonomous
Systems
JOHNSON SPACE CENTER
Life Sciences/Biomedical, Medical

14. NASA RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
HIGHLIGHTS BY CENTER
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER
Fluid Systems, Spaceport Structures & Materials, Process & Human
Factors Engineering, Command, Control & Monitoring Technologies,
Range Technologies, Biological Sciences
LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
Aerodynamics, Flight Systems, Materials, Structures, Sensors,
Measurements and Information Sciences
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
Materials, Manufacturing, Non-Destructive Evaluation, Biotechnology,
Space Propulsion, Controls and Dynamics, Structures and
Microgravity Processing
STENNIS SPACE CENTER
Propulsion Systems, Test/Monitoring, Remote Sensing and Non-
Intrusive Instrumentation

15. EXAMPLES OF RECENT NASA AGREEMENTS
AGREEMENT AGREEMENT PARTNERS
Non-Disclosure and Software Usage Agreement for NASA Ames Research Center,
Data Parallel Line Relaxation Code NASA Jet Propulsion Lab
Software Usage Agreement for an Interagency NASA Ames Research Center, Air
Release of the Chimera Grid Tools software package Force Research Lab, Air Vehicles
Directorate
U.S. Geological Survey NASA, U.S.G.S.
Major Storm Evacuation System Development Mississippi Enterprise for
Project-Central Gulf of Mexico Region Technology
Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles NASA, Children’s Hospital, Los
Angeles
Aircraft Crash Disaster Drill NASA, City of Cleveland
Interagency Agreement for Establishing a NASA Ames Research Center
Collaborative R&D Relationship for the Human Astrobionics Program, U.S. Army
Operator in Extreme Mission Conditions and Joint Soldier and Biological, Chemical
Partnership with Industry and Academia Command
15

16. NASA PARTNERSHIPS
SPACECRAFT/COMMERCIAL SPACE
• NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER
– COLLABORATION WITH AIRLAUNCH LLC TO PROMOTE ROBUST COMMERCIAL SPACE INDUSTRY ON WEST
COAST
• NASA EXPLORATION SYSTEMS MISSION DIRECTORATE TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE CONFERENCE
– NOVEMBER, 2007 WITH SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FROM NASA JSC IN CONFERENCE PLANNING
• NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER
– DEC. 2007 JSC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH AD ASTRA ROCKET COMPANY
– COLLABORATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF PLASMA TECHNOLOGY FOR SPACE PROPULSION
• FOLLOW-ON AGREEMENT TO INITIAL AGREEMENT SIGNED JUNE 2005
• NASA KENNEDY SPACE CENTER
– KSC AND SPACE FLORIDA COLLABORATION WITH COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPANIES. INCLUDES “FAST”
INITIATIVE TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL SPACE VENDORS AND FOSTER MICRO-G RESEARCH
• NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
– AUGUST, 2007 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
• NASA WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
– COLLABORATION WITH VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND ON COMMERCIAL SPACEPORT INITIATIVE BASED IN
WALLOPS--MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL SPACEPORT/MARS
OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE NASA HAS SIGNIFICANT PARTNERSHIP ROLES:
TELEMEDICINE, MEDICAL IMAGING, AGRICULTURE, ADVANCED MATERIALS,
SENSORS, ROBOTICS, ETC.
16

17. INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
• WASHINGTON D.C. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON TECH
TRANSFER MEETS MONTHLY TO DISCUSS ISSUES, EXCHANGE
IDEAS, NETWORK
• REPRESENTATIVES:
• DOC
• DOD
• EPA
• NASA
• NIH
• NIST
• USDA
• WITH PHASING OUT OF D.O.C. TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION AND
LEADERSHIP ROLE OF WORKING GROUP, MEMBERS DEVELOPED A
CONTINUITY PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE NETWORK 17

18. FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM
• NATIONAL ORGANIZATION CHARTERED BY CONGRESS (FEDERAL
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT) TO FOSTER TECH TRANSFER FROM
FEDERAL LABS TO PRIVATE SECTOR, OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES,
ACADEMIA, STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
– FLC MEMBERS PRIMARILY FEDERAL R&D TECH TRANSFER PROFESSIONALS
PARTICIPATING AS VOLUNTEERS
• ORGANIZED NATIONALLY INTO SIX REGIONS. FLC MID-ATLANTIC REGION:
– DELAWARE
– PENNSYLVANIA
– MARYLAND
– WASHINGTON D.C.
– VIRGINIA
– WEST VIRGINIA
• PLANNING TEAM TO FOSTER TECH TRANSFER IN MID-ATLANTIC REGION
– DOD/NAVY—Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania
– DOE—West Virginia
– NASA—Washington D.C.
– NIH--Maryland
– NIST-Maryland
18
– USDA-Maryland

19. WASHINGTON METRO SEMINAR
FLC AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JANUARY 24, 2007, GW UNIVERSITY
19

20. WASHINGTON METRO PLANNING TEAM
• Center for Innovative Technology (C.I.T.)
• Fairfax VA Department of Economic Development
• Maryland Technology Development Corporation
(TEDCO)
• Montgomery County Economic Development (MONTCO)
• Rockville Economic Development Inc. (REDI)
• University of Maryland
• NASA
• NIH
20

21. EASTERN SHORE MARYLAND
PLANNING TEAM
• State of MD Department of Economic Development
• Maryland Technology Development Corp.
• Talbot County Economic Development
• Caroline County Technology Park
• Dorchester County Economic Development
• Worcester County Economic Development
• NASA
• NIH
• USDA
21

22. VIRGINIA SEMINAR
FLC AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
APRIL 25, COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG
22

23. VIRGINIA PLANNING TEAM
• Virginia Economic Development Partnership
• Technology and Business Center, Department of Economic
Development, College of William and Mary
• Luna Innovation, Hampton, Virginia
• Technology Commercialization Center, Inc., Hampton, Virginia
• NASA
• NAVY
• (Other names/organizations in discussion)
23

24. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
PLANNING TEAM
• Wilkes University
• Ben Franklin Technology Partners
• Northeast Pennsylvania Alliance
• Great Valley Alliance
• NASA
• DOD/NAVY
• NIH
24

25. SPECIFIC REGION NETWORK
INITIATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
• Web-Based Information Exchanges
• “Transaction” Based Networking
– Forum linking specific, available technology presentations with networking
• Technology Briefings to Stakeholders:
– Corporate leaders
– State/Local Government
– University Management
• Business/Lab Open House
– Targeted technology forum, facility tour
• Young/New Career Professionals Forum
• Focus Groups
25
– Ongoing role to provide sounding board to initiatives/issues

26. WHAT BRINGS THESE
PARTNERS/TEAMS TOGETHER?
26

27. NASA CENTERS AND PARTNERS
NASA Economic
Agency Mission Development
Other Agency Mission Jobs, Growth,
Quality of Life
Private Sector
University R&D Goals;
Sale of Goods,
Commercialize
Services
Technology
27

28. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP
Agency Mission
Agency Mission Agency Mission
Agency Mission Agency Mission
28

29. FLC/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/ACADEMIA
FEDERAL LABS ADDRESSING
TECH TRANSFER OBJECTIVES
AND AGENCY MISSION(S)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS
PRIVATE SECTOR
REGION GROWTH,
SALE OF GOODS,
QUALITY OF LIFE, JOBS,
SERVICES
HOUSING,
ETC.
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH GOALS;
COMMERCIALIZING
UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY
29

30. CONCLUSION
• TEAMWORK IS INTEGRAL TO PARTNERSHIP FORMATION & DEVELOPMENT
• TEAMWORK
–BUILT ON A FOUNDATION OF MUTUAL NEEDS, RESOURCES TO INVEST, SHARED
VISION, RESPECT, AND COMMITMENT
–STRENGTHENED BY DIVERSITY OF PARTNER BACKGROUNDS
• PARTNERSHIPS ARE DYNAMIC, NOT STATIC
–SUSTAINED BY COMMITMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE TEAM AND TO THE CONTINUED
NEED FOR THE PARTNERSHIP
• PARTNERSHIPS FORGED IN TEAMWORK CAN BE STRONG, CREATIVE
RESOURCES FOR LEVERAGED EFFORTS TOWARDS MUTUAL GOALS
• TEAMWORK AND PARTNERSHIPS EXIST AND FLOURISH
–WITHIN NASA
–BETWEEN NASA AND OTHER AGENCIES
–BETWEEN NASA AND OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, STATE/LOCAL
–BETWEEN NASA AND ACADEMIA
–BETWEEN NASA AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR
–AMONG ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE FLC AND GOVERNMENT, ACADEMIA, AND
PRIVATE SECTORS

31. “Example is not the main thing
in influencing others, it is the only thing”
- Albert Schweitzer