Lugo's Big Mistake: Changes Ahead at GRC Halted
– Larger GRC Org Chart image
Keith’s update: This recent Glenn Research Center reorganization attempt by Ray Lugo was in direct defiance of orders given out by Charlie Bolden to all NASA center directors to not shake things up prior to the election. You see, Ohio is a crucial state in terms of this election – and Lugo’s actions have caused a bit of a stir. As a result Ray Lugo’s days as GRC Center Director are numbered as far as Bolden is concerned. Bolden has shut this re-org down. Of course, there will be official denials – but that’s what is going on behind the scenes. Meanwhile, Bolden has already been admonished by the White House not to shake things up either after his attempt to replace a bunch of center directors. Stay tuned.
Reader comment: “when Mr. Lugo presented the chart to the employees of Glenn Research Center he predicted that some employee would release this to NASA Watch, even though it was made clear that the chart is “pre-decisional”, where is the integrity in that.”
Keith’s update: It still amazes me that a decade into the 21st century that some parts of NASA are stuck in the 19th century.
Bolden Seeks To Replace Multiple Center Directors, earlier post
NASA chart removes Stringer as Plum Brook chief, Sandusky Register
‘There’s a proposed seismic shakeup to NASA’s hierarchy and a revamped organizational chart cuts out Plum Brook Station director Gen. David Stringer completely. Stringer has spearheaded station promotions, including providing dozens of tours for hundreds of community members and elected officials, during his five-year tenure as director. The exposure helped NASA executives approve some of the roughly $567 million invested in the station during the past decade. But his goodwill could abruptly end. The Register obtained the chart through an independent source and later verified the document with NASA spokeswoman Katherine Martin.”
– Friends of NASA Plum Brook Station
– Friends of NASA Plum Brook Ohio (Facebook)
How would this type of reorganization would make this station more productive or efficient? Plum Brook Station is a vital national test facility and they don’t even show it reporting to the center director? Why?
Since this reorg seems to be about making research (code R) subservient to the goal of transforming Glenn into a spaceflight center, the exclusion of Plum Brook may have been a not very meaniingful oversight.
But all of Plum Brook’s test facilities (world’s largest thermal vacuum chamber, thermal vac rocket test chamber, et. al) all used for testing spaceflight hardware. Not really a research facility; it’s for full scale testing.
So while some of the “spaceflight” centers are trying to bolster their technical portfolios and become more “research” oriented; we have one of the original core “research” centers trying to fully embrace the “spaceflight” genre… seems someone has a phase margin less than 40 degrees with a gain greater than unity somewhere in the system.
Curious is the fact that GRC is one of the 10 field centers that is a research center, yet Lugo has abolished the entire Research and Technology (R&T) Directorate. This travesty, combined with the changes that he has made to the Facilities and Test Directorate, the Center Operations Directorate, and Plum Brook Station can be interpreted as comprising a direct attack on the four Senior Executives who lead those organizations rather than being based on any logical or mission-based rationale. It appears that this reorganization is more about going for the jugular of those individuals that Lugo dislikes (or resents for being more qualified, challenging his inappropriate antics, etc.) rather than going after new business or scientific and technical excellence. Further, this reorganization is likely built to reward those who have enabled his mayhem. Individuals such as the Human Resources and Aeronautics Directors probably have been promised new SES slots as a result of these changes. The basic underlying question, though, becomes how can Charlie Bolden approve such a dramatic reorganization of a field center this close to an election, when a change in Presidential mandate could render it all a moot point? This magnitude of undertaking would usually (if done responsibly and strategically) involve the NASA Advisory Council, a decadal study, or some counsel of equivalent caliber and accountability. Moving a Procurement Office into the Chief Financial Officer’s purview, as another example of the proposed changes outlined on this org chart, flies in the face of legality and most likely would beg audit and investigation. While Lugo unfortunately is accustomed to both of these activities, his brazen antics are reckless, vindictive, and personally-motivated. The fact that the Administrator has allowed Lugo’s behavior to continue without reprimand thus far is a blatant lack of leadership; to approve GRC’s proposed reorganization under these circumstances and within this timeframe is ludicrous, especially when Bolden himself was recently halted from moving any Senior Executives within the Agency. Lugo, Free, and the new Associate Director Watson should be halted and reprimanded.
Reprimanded? Hell, I think they should be canned, no compensation, immediately. When NASA is fighting for its very survival, despite what the politicians would have you believe, then this sort of BS should be met with the most harsh punishment available. There is no place in NASA for idiots playing feudal lord games.
Steve
It is a sad testament to the state of NASA that an individual like Ray Lugo could rise to the position of Center Director. Unfortunately, the number of idiots (which Ray is not, he’s just a jerk) in high positions in NASA is crippling the Agency.
… he’s just a jerk …
Its a common misconception of “power” or “leadership”.
The proposed reorganization does not “abolish” anything. It combines the main two technical organizations at GRC (i.e., Research Directorate and Engineering Directorate) and forms the following five directorate-level organizations:
– Propulsion- Power- Communications- Materials and Structures- Integrated Systems and EngineeringThe first three conduct research, technology development and flight system development in three areas important to NASA and the country. The fourth highlights GRC’s unique expertise in materials and structures technology for extreme environments, which it works in concert with other NASA centers. The fifth area represents the skills needed for any center that supports larger programs and flight demonstrations.
The proposed reorganization does not abolish research at all. What it does is establish an organizational construct that can better facilitate the transition of low-TRL technology products to flight.
I can’t speak to all of Lugo’s motivations to reorg GRC, but one of them that I agree with very strongly is reorganizing to refocus our research. I began my career in communications research and have watched us do “good” research from the point of view of the research community, but have pathetically little return to show for the investment, particularly having our the fruits of our research labors actually used by NASA missions. That said, it really doesn’t take a reorg to accomplish it. Regardless, this is one of the reasons Lugo gave for wanting to reorg, and I support that.
Unfortunately, due to political (and not technical) reasons, GRC has, for virtually as long as I’ve been there (about 30 years), not had the same caliber of senior managers that our sister Centers has. With few exceptions, the same is true currently.
GRC definitely needs a major culture shift to bring it back in alignment with the rest of the Agency, particularly taking full advantage of Plum Brook Station. A real tragedy is how little GRC management cares for PBS. It’s not just Lugo, this attitude existed long before he came along. I’ve been around long enough to see this resource continually be pressed to go out of existence. But for the grit of the folks at PBS, it would’ve. This attitude against PBS only reinforces GRC being a poster-child for the motto, “We cut our nose off to spite our face”.
So we spend a lot of time discussing Lugo antics, what about the antics of his predecessor, a man that spent over $2M on “event planning”, that spent most of his tenure as Center Director on TDY, all over the world including China and who continues to travel the world as the Mission Support Director. So Lugo’s antics are cleaning up a mess? If there is some misfeasance here, then let the IG start with the man who created the mess, let the IG investigate the people who are being punished, the unnamed Director of Center Operations, Robyn Gordon, the Director of Facilities and Test, Dr. Rickey Shyne, and the Director of Research and Technology, Dr. Jih_Fen Lei, exactly how are they being punished, Ms. Gordon gets a larger organization with much more responsibility, Dr. Shyne gets an organization of similar size but with better focus, without names on the chart its hard to determine where Dr. Lei ends up.
Seems like there is alot of statements made without substantiation. One last point, when Mr. Lugo presented the chart to the employees of Glenn Research Center he predicted that some employee would release this to NASA Watch, even though it was made clear that the chart is “pre-decisional”, where is the integrity in that.
So Oxbridge, you are an Oxford or Cambridge graduate? Hmmm? So you are so outraged by Lugo’s antics yet no mention of his predecessor, a man who spent enough on event planning during his tenure to make the GSA situation look like little league. How can anyone, including the NASA IG ignore the expenditure of more than $2M on event planning not draw the same level of outrage as the “antics” of Mr. Lugo. You are careful not to mention the names of Robyn Gordon, Rickey Shyne and Jih-Fen Lei, the people that owe their collective SES positions to Dr. Whitlow, so I would contend that if Mr. Lugo should be investigated, then what about Dr. Whitlow, how many times has he traveled back to his home in Cleveland to speak at a small business workshop, showing up for a 1 hour talk, or to talk to Center Operations Directors from across the Agency or what ever speaking engagement that his minions can gin up to justify his travel home, seems odd that you can just ignore this. Finally, how much international travel is required to international conferences to do his duties as Mission Support Director, if some one should be investigated, it ought to be Dr Whitlow, Mr. Lugo’s antics, cleaning up a mess, removing cronyism, being available and transparent? You are right, Lugo needs to be removed, but maybe the IG needs to focus a little attention on the tenure of Dr. Whitlow, a man that spent $1M on a bus and left it to Lugo to explain. If we are slinging mud, then lets sling it. I guess its the Hispanic’s turn in the barrel, if an African American were treated like this, we would be talking about racism and discrimination. So Oxbridge, when did you work at GRC since you seem to know so much…
The comments here show a shocking lack of understanding of what the proposed GRC reorganization is all about. It has nothing to do about making GRC into a spaceflight center at the expense of research. The purpose is to consolidate and focus GRC’s technical expertise along the “competencies” that are clearly GRC strengths, namely power, propulsion and communications. This includes not only fundamental research, but also development of flight systems in these areas.
The truth is that GRC and all the other NASA centers do not have the resources to sustain the broad portfolios in multiple disciplines and technical areas that they had in the past. Even the large spaceflight centers, such as JSC and MSFC, are feeling the crunch these days. Thus, there is a strong impetus to streamline activities at all the centers and to have them concentrate on what they do best.Ray Lugo is trying to do the right thing. He continually engages the workforce to explain the tough issues that the center faces. Contrary to the less than positive comments posted here, many people at GRC support Mr. Lugo’s leadership and the direction he is taking GRC.
Mr. Lugo ignored direction from his boss to do this.
If you don’t think this reorg diminshes the emphasis of research (by eliminating the R&T directorate as an independent entity when the directorate head was conveniently on a detail at MSFC!), I have a bridge over a burning river I’d like to sell you. Just a guess, GRC management?
Personal attacks deleted, warning sent.
I’ve been through several reorgs. I think they are basically moving deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s a lot more important to have management that understands the value of R&D, picks projects with practical value, and wins them continuing support and lets the scientists, engineers and techs get the work done instead of drowning them in administrivia. There are a few facilities that may be too expensive to duplicate within NASA, but for most work the infrastucture is cheaper than the salaries and different centers should collaborate, not fight over turf. Would we say that Harvard can teach only English and Yale only math? We’ve been collaborating with a researcher from Glenn for a couple of years and it has been very productive – except it’s incredibly hard to get research funding in the first place.
Why does it matter when changes are done? If there is a fire, you don’t wait for a firetruck to be built to fight said fire…
Patrick,
In a situation like this, power politics rules, unfortunately. And power politics has little to do with common sense. A small portion of what the politicians do, day in and day out, has to do with running the country. The lion’s share of their time is spent on maintaining and trying to increase their personal power and wealth. This close to the election, the candidates don’t want any unknowns or new surprises catching them off guard. The last couple of months before an election are usually pretty static in terms of important work and issues. Rome continues to burn while the Senate sits in session discussing it. File under sad but true.
Steve
Thanks for the eye opener… I just wonder how much duplication happens at all of these field centers… probably a lot! I agree with the Rome burning comment! lol!…I think it’s sad but true. I think we need to have a simpler NASA so that they can actually take care of aeronautics and space…instead of having so many people on the govt dole just pushing paper…
I believe there are also blackouts (~ +/- 90 days) around Inaguration day in which SES employees can’t be moved. I think this is to prevent political appointees from “burrowing” (getting civil service positions)
It sooooo easy to get into name calling – indeed it is a little “sad and weasely” – when you don’t have to use your real name, eh “GRC_Employee” ?
A “pre-decisional” (if that is even a real word) org chart? So it’s an organization that may or may not happen?
That is one of the most bizarre things I’ve heard of management doing.
This is almost humorous. Can’t they get the children to listen? What a joke. Your tax dollars hard at work. And people wonder why the gov has no credibility. It’s the Peter Principle realized. And they say I’m not paying my fair share of taxes. Maybe Ray should stick to granite floors and $20k conference room tables – nobody seems to have a problem with that. Is anyone out there in the great US gov doing cost benefit analysis on places like GRC? My advice is the same – shut it down and apply the $700 million this abomination of a supposed center of scientific excellence wastes every year to orgs like SpaceX.
What specifically makes GRC an “abomination? Is it the Plumbrook facility? Is it the five wind tunnels? Is it the two underground drop test facilities for microgravity experiments? Is it there work on energy generation and storage in space? Those are just a few of GRC core competencies.
In my experience, what seems to cast a negative view on GRC is not that we don’t have great people and don’t deliver great products (when we get the opportunity), it’s that we do not hold customer-focus as one of our primary values. We’ve done some great research, but we rarely take it to the point where a real, NASA customer can use it. It’s like taking a bushel basket of parts (that could make a car) to someone who needs a car to travel somewhere, dropping it at their feet and say to them, “Well, there you go, we solved your car problem. Now go take your trip.” There must be a continual flow of research from low to high TRL that is continually being guided by what the final user actually needs. When most projects look at GRC, they see our researchers as folks just playing in the sandbox, but not developing anything really relevant or actually useful.
PBS on the other hand is the brightest spot we have. However, because it’s 50 miles away from Lewis Field, many of our researchers and/or project folks believe it’s just too far away. That’s just a really bad excuse. Additionally, the feeling in senior management appears to be that any dollars that go to PBS aren’t going to Lewis Field. So much for one, big, happy family.