Digitalisation at ESA > Digital Spacecraft > Challenges & Risks
- Digitalisation of disciplines
- Ontology
- Deployment of standards on tools, maturity of tools
- Lack of skills (training, change process)
- Security
- Support at space project team level
- Duplicated effort, when there is a mixture of paper and digital development and operational environments. The business culture and practice is document-oriented.
- Industry relies on ESA to request and fund the change of paradigm
- General revision of all ECSS standards
- General revision of review processes
Key challenges
The identified key challenges are:
Other challenges are:
Risks
The main risks associated with the Digital Spacecraft have also been identified by the Think Tank, and categorised as follows:
| No. | Potential Risk | Severity of consequences | Likelihood of occurrence | Mitigation Approach | Possible Consequences |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lack of support at top executive level (Agency & Industry) | high | medium | Clear project plan and technical documentation.Alignment with digital strategies of (industry) stakeholders | Project stop |
| 2 | No clear benefit in the short-term (learning curve) | medium | medium | Involve end-users already in the definition phase and focus on the short terms needs linked with target architecture definition | Buy-in loss / delaying project |
| 3 | Lack of skillset in workforce (and in SME, suppliers) / Highly experienced workforce not welcoming digitalisation | high | medium | Start training the identified workforce and hire new workforce for the missing competencies already before/during early project phases | Project delays / Quality deficiency / Project stop |
| 4 | Losing jobs / not-finding new competences to implement the digitalisation | medium | low | Diversify competences and compensate with strategic mobility | Working environment degradation / inadequate workforce |
| 5 | Virtual world is not the real world | low | low | Use demonstrators to convince buy-in users about the acceptable accounted approximations | Buy-in loss / project credibility |
| 6 | Data: “Garbage IN - Garbage OUT” | high | medium | Define precise requirements and data governance to regulate feed to the DT | Unreliable results / failing in delivering added value / project stop |
| 7 | Models are always based on assumptions/simplifications | medium | medium | Use demonstrators to convince buy-in users about the acceptable accounted approximations | Unreliable results / project credibility |
| 8 | Cyber-attack: Leaking of the information/data | high | medium | Establish a robust security system (e.g. data hubs and cloud-based collaboration and exchange platform) | Loss of sensitive data / contracts breaches / loss of money / project stop |
| 9 | Maturity and integration of IT tools / impossibility to exchange data | high | medium | Commence upgrade of all key systems and tools already during the early phases of the project and perform a maturity review of the IT tools at the end of Phase B1, before funding approval. | Non-acceptable and insufficient support to delivery results |
| 10 | Compatibility with different approaches | medium | medium | Coordinate stakeholders and involve them already before/during the early phases of the project | Work redundancy / project delays / unsatisfactory deliveries |
| 11 | Large scale investment affordability by the whole supply chain | medium | medium | Show the results yielded by the early demonstrators leveraging on benefits to introduce change and facilities management | Buy-in loss |
| 12 | IP on product and on data (e.g. image, TM) including export control | high | medium | Ensure protection of IP and data through timely patents filing and robust security system development, through data governance/management including common definition of data sensitivity and data assessment | Loss of sensitive data / contracts breaches / loss of money / project stop |