Participatory Exploration Policy Recommendations for National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Participatory exploration was first introduced in 2007 at the NASA Participatory Exploration Summit at Ames Research Center and was prioritized into the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6063), highlighting its necessity to NASA’s continued public relevance in the 21st century. We have written a paper for NASA senior management that discusses the role of “participatory exploration” as a way of “aggregating and leveraging people’s contributions in ways that are useful to other people” which can be applied to NASA programs and projects to engage the American public in the exploration experience and to identify opportunities for the direct involvement of the public, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and international partners.  The paper includes specific recommendations which we have summarized below.  We’ve posted the paper on openNASA for your consideration and encourage you to share your thoughts on Participatory Exploration as well. Please share your thoughts via the comments below or on if you have specific ideas or recommendations, via the ideas forum.

Link to Executive Summary

Link to Full Paper

Eliminate the obstacles to working with the public

–      Encourage open-source adoption

–      Leverage the re-competition of NASA’s website

Many look to the new Obama-Biden administration as a sign of significant change.  Though it can be argued whether this change is projected to be good or bad, everyone seems to agree that there will be some change and many believe it will be drastic.  I’ve embarked on the question of what it means to be an “agent of change,” what qualifies one to be an “agent of change,” and how the world around us is affected by these “agents of change.”

I’ve focused on discussions with the educationally inclined that work within NASA as well as the everyday American citizen.  Now, as a disclaimer, Houston Texas and specifically Clear Lake Texas (where Johnson Space Center is located) is comprised of relatively intelligent and educationally inclined individuals who live and work as everyday American citizens not within NASA or the aerospace community so there may be little divergence between the two.  To simplify initiation of my discussions I’ve focused on the question of “What is a Catalyst?” Per the dictionary definitions, a catalyst is a person or thing that precipitates change, but what does the rest of society consider when they think of “a person or thing that precipitates change” and how is that applied to our society?

The answer that overwhelmingly came up within my conversations centered around the concept that certain individuals have experience and knowledge that provides them a better view of the current circumstances and allows them to make informed decisions on how to improve a given situation.  So I followed up with the questions of “What experience is necessary?”, “Knowledge in what subject is necessary?”, and does motivation or drive compensate for deficiencies within these two categories?

Throughout these follow on discussions, I’ve given examples of presidents, agency heads, center directors, and chief executive officers of innovative companies.  I’ve pointed out that many of these individuals did not personally possess the knowledge and experience required to make the important decisions they would be expected to make.  The key point is that they had the knowledge and understanding of their own limitations and therefore surrounded themselves with people who had the knowledge and experience to advise them in the areas they lacked. This discussion then led into the principles of drive and motivation.

It has come to light that many believe our society’s and mostly the world’s limitations lie within the personnel which comprise them.  It was identified in an overwhelming nature that many believe any president, agency head, or chief executive officer is as much, if not more, interested in their own success than they are of the societal advancement they promote.  It was on this principle that I revisited the definition of a “Catalyst” and came to the conclusion that perhaps “a person or thing that precipitates change without being changed by they consequences” is more appropriate to a true catalyst.

Why, we might ask.  Many people, of all walks of life, believe that although people who can initiate and successfully cause change are very successful, they are often derailed by the very nature of change itself.  They get stifled by success and it is noted that much of what is capable becomes consumed by those personal desires of each “catalyst.”  So the discussion develops a common denominator that it relies on a persons motivation and drive for change that allows the change to occur.  Very interestingly, many individuals I engaged in this discussion with provided examples of personnel they knew in their life who provided as a great “catalyst” to the world they know.  In almost all cases, it was identified that these individuals poured into their work all they could under the premise of enacting the very change they believed in and each individual identified that the “catalyst” often took no materialistic or characteristic reward for the accomplishment. Instead, these “catalysts” focused all their energy and might into ensuring the required improvement succeeded.

So the question still exists, does an individual or group have to be whole-heartedly interested in the success of the end result that they themselves are not changed by the incremental consequences (whether success or failure) in order to be a true “catalyst” or “agent of change”?  Through my personal experiences, I find that it is imperative to be flexible and make the necessary incremental modifications in my direction as appropriate with the changing of the environment in order to successfully achieve the desired change.  I believe this to be the case as we must consistently modify our desired change in order to be relevant to the future we possess.  Without these incremental changes, we will often achieve what is no longer relevant to where we currently are.  With that being said, however, I do believe and through the many discussions I’ve had to date, feel that we must be agents of change for the sake of the change and not for the sake of our own personal advancement. If “agents of change” are focused on their own personal achievement, they will often thrive on success and then plateau where they reach their own personal goals while they lose interest in times of struggle and tend to bounce from one bandwagon to the next.

Therefore, what do you believe our future holds?  In key positions of NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator all the way down to Center Directors of the 10 NASA Centers, who do you want at the helm?  I’m not looking for names; I’m looking for characteristics and principles.  I’m looking for personality traits and backgrounds that you’ve identified as likely to supply true catalysts for NASA’s future.  Does a certain level or area of knowledge indicate ability as a catalyst for NASA to be the cutting edge science and technology body you want? Does a certain level of experience indicate ability as a catalyst? Does being an astronaut, a flight director, or an engineer indicate one’s ability as a catalyst?  Lastly, do you think that a given individual who possesses the desire, drive, and motivation to move NASA into the next phase of it’s history also requires the cookie-cutter resume of past agency heads to lead this agency?

For those who were able to make it…Thanks for coming!  We really enjoyed sharing the Vision with you and hearing all of your thoughts, comments, feedback, and concerns.

If you’d like to follow up on any of the discussions that were started at the forum, here’s the place to do so!  We hit on several issues such as cooperation with International Partners, cooperation vs. competition, outreach to high schools, elementary schools and colleges, shadowing programs for interns/coops….  The list goes on, and the floor is open!

~Natalie (Natalie C. Dixon)

The JSC Vision Forum concluded with a debrief on the activities that had transpired that evening.  During that time, a young lady asked a very important question regarding dissenting opinions and how they tend not to travel as far as the popular opinion.  I answered her question in a quick and simple fashion but for the sake of time, I did not voice all facets of this topic.

As humans we have an innate desire to be accepted.  We are influenced by masses moving in a common direction and we tend to congregate with individuals who share similar opinions and feelings.  One of the greatest downfalls stemming from this phenomena is the  tendancy to exaggerate situations in which we agree and overlook situations in which we disagree.  Though personal relationships may not be as negatively influenced by this phenomena, as compromise is imperative to healthy relationships, the foundation in which a team is established is greatly hindered.

Teams, unlike personal relationships, are focused on a mission or task.  Typically, teams are commissioned because the task is greater or more complex than any one individual can accomplish.  An important aspect of teams is that they have one purpose and that purpose is to complete the task/mission in the best, most efficient, and most effective manner possible.  By utilizing the diverse experiences and backgrounds of team members, solutions or methods of accomplishing this task/mission are developed beyond the capacity of one individual’s background or knowledge. Ultimately providing the best possible solution to a given task or mission.

Unfortunately, if we approach a team with the mentality of personal relationships and we avoid controversy and diversity of thought because we want to be accepted, the team will underperform.  If we establish our team by selecting only those individuals whom we know we agree, we will tend to come up with the same solutions or methods of accomplishment as we’ve always done and alienate the rest of the world in the process.

The stark reality is that diversity, controversy, and dissenting opinions are imperative to innovation.  One very important point, however, is that we must maintain a purpose within the team.  Each individual member must be committed to the goal and mission at hand, engaged in the process of collaboration, and integrated into team discussions.  If team members take dissenting opinions as ammunition to seclude other members, the team will cease to be a team at all and will find that group-think will eventually set in once again.  If team members engage in tactics aimed at proving their superiority or demonstrating their importance, they will undermine the effectiveness of a team.  Fostering an environment where dissenting opinions are valued and necessary will catapult a team into success.  Doing anything less will result in mediocrity.

So as we engage in further discussions and embark on development and implementation of new methods for accomplishing our mission and objective, we must maintain focused on the task.  We must build our teams in a manner that gathers as much diversity as possible and we must foster an environment where dissenting opinions are valued and encouraged.  We must come together as a team and avoid building our own little caucus.  This is a very important topic that is greatly missed in much of what we do today, from top management to working groups in the trenches.

I have taken the liberty of posting to that group the fact that we, here at Open Nasa,  do truly believe in the importance of engagement.  The benefits associated with working across many generational, educational, and industrial lines are astounding and I hope that those who read through Project Virgle’s group discussion will visit this site and provide the feedback/opinions/dreams that we hope to integrate into NASA’s Mission.

During these various discussions it became apparent to me how inhibiting our technological tools can be. How limiting they can be and how they can clearly divide people from within. I wanted to take the opportunity to present my observations and open a discussion on this topic so that I may further understand how beneficial these tools are compared to the detriment they cause to a collaborative group.

At the Next Generation Exploration Conference (NGEC II) held at Ames Research Center, the participant led conference included the use of laptop computers, blackberries, second life, and various other technologies. During this time-frame and throughout my participation in this event I was reassured by how these tools enabled people from around the world to participate in a conference that they would otherwise not be able to contribute. By allowing a connection through second life, questions presented to the speakers were not only beneficial to those whom had asked but to the whole conference and truly demonstrated how beneficial technological tools can be.

On the other side of the coin, however, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a work-shop and many follow-on working sessions in which laptop computers, blackberries, and other technological tools were utilized. Initially I was not opposed to the use of these tools because I have seen how clearly beneficial they can be. Unfortunately, I was surprised and given a wake-up call regarding the detrimental affect they can have. During one particular session, it became apparent that upwards of three or four conversations were occurring at the same time. Something that would never happen without these collaborative technological tools. Some would argue that this is a good thing. They would aregue that this ability enables people to feel empowered and included in the discussion because they have an outlet for speaking their opinions. Many may argue that it is essential to collaboration and innovation.

I have a different observation. I saw people fragmenting into smaller groups. I saw people focusing on their own conversations and becoming distracted, pulled away from the main discussion that brought everyone together. I saw people who were clearly excluding the rest of the group and merely focusing on their own little club of people invited to participate in their discussion. What I saw was the ability to disrespect, disregard, and dismiss others in a passive way.

I find myself engaging in this same behavior. I often grab my blackberry during a meeting or group discussion because I have a comment or thought or response I have to make to another item that just popped up. When sparked with an idea or concept, I see how quickly I’m able to access the wealth of information, through the internet, to better make my decision. I would agree that these tools have enormous benefit to me and my ability to constantly remain in contact with many aspects of my life, all at the “touch of a button.” Although I see these technological advances and tools as extremely useful and beneficial to meeting the growing demands we place on ourselves, I also see how I affect a conversation. I recognize how I ignore others when I pick that new-fangled device up off the table. I see in their face how I affect their confidence and perception of self-worth when I dismiss them in an instant. I see how these technological advances and tools divide and separate me from those whom I wish to collaborate and engage.

So I pose a few questions…

Is the value of these tools and abilities worth the price we pay? Is there no value in a face to face conversation? Does our behavior (disconnecting in the here and now) speak louder than what we’re allowed to say via the particular technological tool we choose? What benefit do we get from the use of these tools? Does it allow us to vet our ideas in confidence so that we feel more confident before speaking it out loud? Does it allow us to feel like we’re apart of a group (exclusive group)?

Lastly, can we combine the two? Does allowing people to hold splinter conversations truly enhance the groups ability to focus and develop a collaborative idea?