What is Mission Assurance and what is its purpose?

What is Mission Assurance? Answering this question is both essential for the reader to benefit from the information in this blog and related book, and difficult to accomplish without the reader already having read and understood all the information in the rest of the book. One of many dualities that mark the rewards and challenges of working in the field of Mission Assurance.

The term Mission Assurance can be interpreted in many ways and its purpose is commonly misunderstood even at the highest levels of executive management, within the program management organization, and on down to the actual factory floor where technicians and manufacturing engineers assemble and test a space system. There are many different “official” definitions of mission assurance. For example, from the Aerospace Corporation Technical Operating Report (TOR) TOR-2007(8546)-6018 Mission Assurance Guide:

“The disciplined application of general systems engineering, quality, and management principles towards the goal of achieving mission success, and toward this goal, provides confidence in its achievement.”

Aerospace Corporation Technical Operating Report (TOR) TOR-2007(8546)-6018 Mission Assurance Guide

I certainly appreciate the value of a brief explanation for a complex subject, but this definition doesn’t really say what Mission Assurance is, what it’s fully comprised of, or a full description of its purpose. “Achieving mission success” certainly is the end goal of mission assurance, but what is “Mission Success” and what does it mean? Paraphrased from the same document:

“Mission success is the achievement by a system or system of systems to singularly or in combination meet not only performance requirements but also the expectations of the users and operators. The safety of a system, its operability, suitability, and supportability are evaluated after operational turnover and according to specified delivery timelines and performance criteria.”

Aerospace Corporation Technical Operating Report (TOR) TOR-2007(8546)-6018 Mission Assurance Guide

A much more descriptive definition than that of mission assurance, and yet there is still some ambiguity. A system design must meet its intended performance goals and the “expectations”, perhaps unwritten, or even undefinable, of the end user? And mission success or failure isn’t decided until after a system is turned over, not just to the customer, but the end user? Seems awfully late in the game to make this determination, and in the case of a space system, certainly too late to make many changes. And is there an outcome between success and failure that might be acceptable to all parties? How Mission Success is characterized and under what criteria it is evaluated seem just as important as the design and performance of the delivered system.

Mission Assurance is such a complex field and Mission Success is such a nebulous goal, that I find it better to explain what they are, versus supplying straight definitions. It is critical to explain both Mission Assurance and Mission Success together because, as shall be seen, the interrelation of these two subjects is almost as if they are the same thing.  When I first started in the field of Mission Assurance Management, I spent a lot of time studying NASA documents, Aerospace TORs, Military documents, and my own company’s handbook attempting to come up to speed quickly with what Mission Assurance was and how to execute it on a program. Unfortunately, it is not that simple, and it may take a long time working in the field and supporting space missions before one comes to an understanding of what the practice of Mission Assurance is and its purpose. I encourage all Mission Assurance Mangers to come up with their own definition for Mission Assurance, that encompasses what it means to them individually, and captures the essence of what it is they do, to ensure Misson Success. Here is what I have come up with for myself.

“Mission Assurance is a full lifecycle engineering process to identify and manage all threats to mission success, proportional in scope to the goals and importance of a mission. “

The Tao of Mission Assurance: Managing for Mission Success

Straightforward, right? But these words only provide a complete explanation after we break them down, as we do with all complex subjects, into manageable pieces.

Deconstructing the definition of Mission Assurance

“Full life cycle” means from the beginning to the end of a space system development effort. Colloquially this is referred to as “cradle to grave”. That is, the entirety of an engineering project from back-of-the-envelope concept design to mission disposal and permanent retention of data, mission assurance plays a role. Further discussion of projects, programs, missions, and their life cycles will be covered later in Chapter 12.

“Engineering process” indicates that mission assurance activities and analyses influence and sometimes drive the physical design of a system and are implemented in a methodical and recurring manner. The nature of these activities and the purposes of these analyses can be varied and wide-ranging and are covered in greater detail later, but at their core are intended to provide a level of confidence that a design’s intended purpose will be fulfilled. Mission Assurance is not just a monitoring function, independent assessment, or quality check; it contributes to both the design and management of a program.

“Identify and manage all threats”. A threat is a risk, predicted or realized, that may inhibit a design from fulfilling its purpose. The word, “Identify”, points to the act of investigating and understanding these threats and Manage points to the action of documenting, monitoring, mitigating, or avoiding these threats over the life of the mission. It is important to note the use of the word, “All”. This infers that Mission Assurance is concerned with all threats to mission success, not just technical, not only internal. All threats that have been determined to have a reasonable chance of occurring.

“Mission success”. This one is a biggie. What mission success is and is not is highly dependent on the point of view of the person asking the question. The customer wants their system delivered on time, on budget, and meeting the agreed performance parameters. The end user wants a system that addresses the originally targeted problem in the manner and to the extent that they envisioned. The contractor wants all the above too but also wants to make a reasonable profit and do so in such a way that positions them for future business. One can see why a single definition of mission success is so hard to nail down. But to explain what mission assurance is, mission success is the achievement of all agreed-upon metrics in a manner satisfactory to all stakeholders.

“Proportional in scope” means that the extent and rigor of mission assurance activities should match that of the mission. It is impossible to eliminate all risks from a project. On the other hand, not managing any of a project’s risks is a fast track to failure. A sizable portion of the very act of mission assurance is to ensure that the right amount of threat-resolving activities are carried out at the right time and the right level of rigor to maximize the opportunity for mission success. The act of Mission Assurance Management involves balancing technical performance, system reliability, project cost, and delivery schedule in such a way that all stakeholders obtain the agreed level of confidence that mission success will be achieved. More on the management of mission assurance, and how to do it is the purpose of Section II, and to a large degree, the purpose of this book.

“Goals and importance”. The word Goal is intended to encompass the performance metrics, cost, schedule, and end-user objectives of the mission. While individual groups or people may be primarily interested in meeting the aims of just one of these subject areas, it is the achievement of the combination of these subjects that is the point of the mission. The mission assurance effort should be planned and scaled in such a way that balances the fulfillment of all these goals equally. Importance implies that not all missions are equal and should not be treated as so. The customer supplies resources in the form of time and capital toward the realization of the end user’s objectives. How much time and how much capital are invested is driven by how important the desired capability is to the end user and defines the overall risk posture for the mission. It is important to recognize that no customer is “ok” with a failed mission. However, not all customers will have the wherewithal or time to reach the elevated level of confidence in the achievement of mission success that a full-scope mission assurance program can provide. This does not mean that lower-cost, shorter-duration missions do not need mission assurance. In fact, the smaller in scale, more risk-tolerant missions benefit the most from a competent and measured mission assurance effort. More on mission risk posture and its impacts on a mission assurance program in Chapter 11.

And finally, “Mission”. In future Blog posts we will review a fuller explanation of what a Mission is and what makes it different from other engineering endeavors. But in the meantime, the word “Mission” implies that Mission Assurance is most applicable to ensuring the success of large, complicated, multi-segment engineering designs and sustained operations. A Mission is the fulfilment of an idea intended to meet the needs of an end user.

The managed application of many engineering disciplines, including quality, security, reliability, and radiation effects

Now that we are working on a solid definition of what Mission Assurance is and its purpose, let’s discuss what engineering disciplines are typically bundled into mission assurance and how it is implemented in a space system development program. The exercise of mission assurance begins in the earliest phases of a mission and is carried out via the instantiation and execution of a mission assurance program. More than an integrated product team, a mission assurance program is a stand-alone organization with a separately controlled budget comprised of the Mission Assurance Manager (MAM) and Subject Matter Experts (SME) from disciplines that ensure space system hardware and software meet their design and performance requirements and accomplish the goals of the mission throughout the mission lifecycle. The mission assurance program is implemented to directly support the overall program. Still, it is independent of the Program Management Office (PMO) so that members are never in the position of just having to do what they are told rather than what they think is right for the mission. In reality, this independence is slightly more nuanced because, as we shall see, the MAM is very much a part of the PMO, and the PMO supplies the funding for the execution of the mission assurance program. The key point to grasp is that as the leader of the mission assurance program, the MAM and therefore all supporting personnel have an independent reporting path outside the program itself and up to the senior executive of the Mission Assurance organization, which is itself independent from the engineering design and program management organizations responsible for profitably executing the program.

The Mission Assurance Manager

The Mission Assurance Manager (MAM) is a member of the Mission Assurance functional organization that is assigned to the program and is responsible for the development and implementation of the mission assurance program. Within this program, the MAM has oversight responsibility for the activities, analyses, and deliverables for each of the disciplines assigned to the mission assurance program (and sometimes more!). Furthermore, the program MAM provides an independent assessment of how the system is designed to meet mission performance requirements and managed to meet mission goals. The program MAM is the primary point of contact for the Mission Assurance organization and mission success-related concerns both for the entity executing the space system development program and the customer entity procuring the system. From the fifty-thousand-foot level, the MAM has the responsibility of enhancing the opportunity for mission success by effectively managing program risk through the assignment of activities and analyses conducted by applicable discipline subject matter experts, and proven risk-mitigating processes within the program. Going back to the definition of Mission Assurance, the Mission Assurance program can be rightly described as “Engineering Risk Management” program, and the MAM a “Risk Manager” (note: this is not the same thing as the risk owner, that is always the program manager). Further discussion on the program MAM and how the MAM performs this job will constitute much of this Blog.

The primary instrument used by the MAM to execute the mission assurance program is the Mission Assurance Plan (MAP). The MAP defines the planned activities and analyses to be performed by the assigned discipline Subject Matter Experts, and the MAM themselves, intended to identify and manage risks. This plan is generated through the engagement of the PMO, SMEs from the mission assurance disciplines, and representatives from the customer organization and forms a contractual document that captures the quantity and rigor or threat managing activities throughout the life cycle of the mission, from proposal through the disposal of a space system. Together with the program’s Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP, which includes the program’s risk management approach, and the Program Management Plan (PMP, which includes metrics for managing program cost and schedule), the Mission Assurance Plan completes a “Golden Triangle” or “Three-Legged Stool” of documents and program organizations that will oversee program execution and manage the program toward mission success. This is getting extremely exciting; I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself! This will all be discussed further in the coming chapters.

Risk Mitigation Disciplines

The core disciplines and entities that functionally exist within a mission assurance organization are those with the intended purpose of assuring the design of a systems meets the intended purpose and performance of the mission. In other words, these disciplines are risk mitigating activities that influence the robustness and reliability of a design, or otherwise safeguard the system against outside / unknown risks. An aerospace Mission Assurance program will typically include:

• Reliability engineering
• Electronic parts engineering
• Part and System level Radiation Effects engineering
• System safety engineering
• Hardware quality engineering
• Software quality assurance
• Supply chain quality assurance
• Environmental health and safety
• Quality business systems
• Office of Continuous Improvement
• Mission success

I will usually refer to these as the “traditional” or “core” Mission Assurance disciplines.

There are also within the aerospace community a number of new or evolving mission assurance disciplines that are beginning to show up in the Mission Assurance organization now or are likely to be in the near future. These include:

• Fault protection engineering
• Materials and process engineering
• Contamination control engineering
• Environmental assurance
• Configuration management
• Tool and system Metrology

I will usually refer to these as the “new” or “evolving” disciplines within Mission Assurance.

These functional areas, their impacts on Mission Success, and how and why they are included in a Mission Assurance program will be covered in due time, in this Blog and related book.

Mission Assurance is Risk Management

In summary, mission assurance is fundamentally risk management. The goal of mission assurance is to ensure the safe, efficient and resilient development and implementation of a space system capability that addresses an end user’s critical need. The practice of risk management is a fundamental aspect of Mission Assurance. Risk management is a continuous process that identifies, prioritizes, and analyzes risks and their impacts on the program and Mission Success, develops and implements risk mitigation or risk acceptance strategies, tracks risk and risk mitigation strategies and implementation plans, ensures risk information is communicated to all disciplines and at all program levels. There will be additional discussion of risk management and the role of the mission assurance manager in the program’s risk management strategy over the course of this Blog.