ISO 21349:2023

Space systems - Project reviews

This document specifies process requirements for project reviews as a set of required functions. It establishes requirements and recommendations on the function inputs, outputs, mechanisms and controlling conditions. This document specifies the responsibilities of a review board and gives guidance concerning review board composition. This document also provides descriptions of the kinds of reviews that are commonly useful in assuring the success of a space project. This document is applicable to status reviews for a project at any level within a larger project, as well as for major milestone reviews at the top level of a major project. It is intended to be used either by an independent developer as a basis for enterprise processes, or as a basis for an agreement between a supplier and a customer. It is intended for use in implementing the review requirements of ISO 14300-1, and ISO 14300-2, ISO 15865 and such other space systems and operations standards that require formal reviews.

Systèmes spatiaux — Revue des projets

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 20-Apr-2023
• ICS: 49.140 - Space systems and operations
• Technical Committee: ISO/TC 20/SC 14 - Space systems and operations
• Drafting Committee: ISO/TC 20/SC 14 - Space systems and operations
• Current Stage: 6060 - International Standard published
• Start Date: 21-Apr-2023
• Due Date: 25-Feb-2024
• Completion Date: 21-Apr-2023

Relations

• Revises: ISO 21349:2007 - Space systems - Project reviews
• Effective Date: 06-Jun-2022

Overview - ISO 21349:2023 (Space systems - Project reviews)

ISO 21349:2023 defines process requirements for project reviews in space systems. The standard specifies a set of required functions, their inputs, outputs, mechanisms and controlling conditions, and clarifies the responsibilities of a review board and guidance on review board composition. ISO 21349:2023 applies to status reviews at any project level and to major milestone reviews at top-level projects. It is intended for use by independent developers, as the basis of enterprise processes, or as part of supplier–customer agreements to implement formal review requirements in space programmes.

Key topics and technical requirements

• Structured review process: A process model and function hierarchy are provided; the standard requires implementation of twelve third‑level review functions (see Clause 5) to ensure consistent review conduct.
• Inputs and outputs: Requirements and recommendations for evidence, project data files, milestone criteria and expected outputs of reviews.
• Roles and responsibilities: Defines roles such as review board, review board chairperson, review board members, project review team, project expert, independent expert, and project decision authority.
• Preconditions and controls: General and specific preconditions for initiating a review, plus mechanisms to coordinate concurrent functions and control interruptions or resource conflicts.
• Review lifecycle activities: Initiate review, prepare and publish evidence, assess project status (evaluate evidence quality and achievements), conclude review (recommendations, action plans, decisions, closure).
• Guidance on review types: Descriptions of common review kinds useful for assuring success across project phases and transitions.

Practical applications and who uses ISO 21349

• Space programme and project managers use ISO 21349 to standardize milestone reviews and acceptance criteria across project phases.
• Systems engineers and configuration managers leverage the standard to prepare and evaluate project data files and evidence.
• Quality assurance, risk managers, and review board chairs use it to structure independent, objective evaluations and to assign action plans and decisions.
• Contractors and customers use ISO 21349 as a contractual baseline for formal reviews, improving communication, reducing planning costs, and managing phase‑transition risks in complex space projects.

Benefits

• Ensures consistent, transparent review practices across organizations
• Clarifies responsibilities for objective evaluation and decision-making
• Supports risk-informed transitions between project phases and milestones
• Facilitates supplier–customer alignment on review expectations

Related standards

• ISO 14300-1 and ISO 14300-2 (project lifecycle milestones and review requirements)
• ISO 15865 (for related space system requirements)
• ISO 17666 (risk management) and ISO 10795 (vocabulary) - normative references in ISO 21349

ISO 21349:2023 (second edition) updates terminology and normative references from the 2007 edition and is intended to be used alongside other space systems and operations standards that require formal reviews.

Standards Content (Sample)

INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 21349
Second edition
2023-04
Space systems — Project reviews
Systèmes spatiaux — Revue des projets
Reference number
© ISO 2023
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii
Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 General . 3
4.1 Purpose of a review . . 3
4.2 Process model. 3
4.2.1 Function hierarchy . 3
4.2.2 Co-ordination of functions . 4
4.3 Review context . 4
4.4 Preconditions for a review . . 5
4.4.1 General preconditions . 5
4.4.2 Specific preconditions . 6
5 Review process . 6
5.1 Overview of required review functions . 6
5.2 Initiate review process . 7
5.2.1 Overview . 7
5.2.2 Select review board chairperson . 8
5.2.3 Select review board members . 8
5.2.4 Select project review team . 8
5.2.5 Establish review plan . 8
5.3 Prepare and publish evidence . 9
5.3.1 Overview . 9
5.3.2 Publish initial review material . 10
5.3.3 Answer questions . 10
5.4 Assess project status . 10
5.4.1 Overview . 10
5.4.2 Evaluate quality of evidence . 11
5.4.3 Evaluate achievements . 11
5.5 Conclude review .12
5.5.1 Overview . 12
5.5.2 Establish recommendations .12
5.5.3 Prepare action plan . 13
5.5.4 Evaluate and decide .13
5.5.5 Close review . 13
6 Reviews designated in ISO 14300-1 .13
Annex A (informative) Main elements of the process diagrams .15
Annex B (informative) Other reviews .17
Bibliography .19
iii
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO document should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
ISO draws attention to the possibility that the implementation of this document may involve the use
of (a) patent(s). ISO takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of any claimed
patent rights in respect thereof. As of the date of publication of this document, ISO had not received
notice of (a) patent(s) which may be required to implement this document. However, implementers are
cautioned that this may not represent the latest information, which may be obtained from the patent
database available at  www.iso.org/patents. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all
such patent rights.
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to
the World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see
www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 20, Aircraft and space vehicles,
Subcommittee SC 14, Space systems and operations.
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO 21349:2007), which has been technically
revised.
The main changes are as follows:
— updated normative references in Clause 2;
— updated terms and definition in Clause 3;
— deleted numerical syntax of the IDEF0 standard in Clauses 4 and 5;
— deleted information about IEEE Std. 1320.1-1998 in 4.2.1;
— minor changes in 4.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.3, 5.5.1, 5.5.3 and in Annex A;
— added ISO/TS 18667 and ISO 18676 in the Bibliography.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www.iso.org/members.html.
iv
Introduction
Space systems are very complex, incorporating many different technologies. Space programmes can
last for many years, progressing through several different stages from conception to disposal or other
disposition. When a space programme advances from one stage to another, substantial changes in the
type and amount of resources required can occur. In addition, there can be attendant risks to either the
success of the project or to the well-being of project equipment or to personnel. Well-regulated project
reviews can be an important factor in ensuring that all factors are ready for these changes, and that
the risks are well understood and accepted. This document is intended to be used as a basis for the
activities comprising a review, their necessary resources, controls, inputs and results to enhance the
communication between different organizations that participate in a review process and to reduce the
costs of planning and performing reviews.
v
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 21349:2023(E)
Space systems — Project reviews
1 Scope
This document specifies process requirements for project reviews as a set of required functions.
It establishes requirements and recommendations on the function inputs, outputs, mechanisms and
controlling conditions.
This document specifies the responsibilities of a review board and gives guidance concerning review
board composition.
This document also provides descriptions of the kinds of reviews that are commonly useful in assuring
the success of a space project.
This document is applicable to status reviews for a project at any level within a larger project, as well
as for major milestone reviews at the top level of a major project. It is intended to be used either by an
independent developer as a basis for enterprise processes, or as a basis for an agreement between a
supplier and a customer. It is intended for use in implementing the review requirements of ISO 14300-1,
and ISO 14300-2, ISO 15865 and such other space systems and operations standards that require formal
reviews.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO 10795, Space systems — Programme management and quality — Vocabulary
ISO 17666, Space systems — Risk management
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO 10795 and the following apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminology databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https:// www .iso .org/ obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at https:// www .electropedia .org/ .
3.1
independent expert
person highly qualified in some aspect of the technical content of the project review (3.7) who does not
have a personal conflict of interest concerning the outcome of the review
3.2
milestone
designated project status that indicates the amount of progress made toward project completion, or
that should be achieved before the project proceeds to a new phase
3.3
milestone criteria
observable facts that indicate a milestone (3.2) has been reached
3.4
project data files
collection of requirements, specifications, plans, technical result documentation and all other project
data that serves to represent the project status
3.5
project decision authority
entity with authority to certify that the preconditions for a review are met, to initiate the review
process, to reach decisions on the review board (3.9) recommendations and to cause the agreed project
actions to be carried out
3.6
project expert
person well acquainted with the project status and documentation and highly qualified in some area of
the technical content of the project review (3.7)
3.7
project review
formal collection and evaluation of evidence of project status, along with identifying issues and
necessary corrective actions, to determine that the objectives and success criteria of a review milestone
(3.2) have been met
3.8
project review team
body consisting of project experts (3.6), charged with preparing all evidence for the review and
formulating responses to action items
Note 1 to entry: The best practice for conducting a review involves two separate teams of experts: the project
review team and the review board (3.9). The project review team is composed of persons well acquainted with
the project and is responsible for assembling information concerning the actual status of the project.
3.9
review board
body, organized into sub-entities, as necessary, consisting of a review board chairperson (3.10) or
delegated person and review board members (3.11), charged with evaluating the evidence of project
status, along with identifying issues and necessary corrective actions, to determine that the objectives
and success criteria of a review milestone (3.2) have been met
Note 1 to entry: The purpose of the review board is to prepare an objective evaluation of the project status.
Achievement of an objective evaluation is aided by use of independent experts (3.1) who have no prior association
with the project and no personal conflict of interest with respect to the outcome of the review.
3.10
review board chairperson
leader of the review board (3.9), who approves the review policy (3.12), objectives, success criteria,
organization of the review board and nomination of review board members (3.11)
3.11
review board member
independent expert (3.1), sometimes termed a subject matter expert, who is a participant in the review
board (3.9)
3.12
review policy
policy that provides either requirements or guidance (or both) for the overall conduct of the review
4 General
4.1 Purpose of a review
The purpose of a project review is to establish whether the project has reached a defined project
milestone and to identify specific actions necessary for the project to proceed to the next phase.
NOTE The flow of activities to achieve this purpose is one of identifying the participants and the plan,
preparing the evidence of the project status, evaluating the evidence relative to milestone criteria, followed by
a preparation of specific recommendations based on the evaluation and performing actions identified by the
review.
Typical milestones and their relation to space project phases are defined in ISO 14300-1, ISO 14300-2
and in Clause 6.
4.2 Process model
4.2.1 Function hierarchy
For reference, the essential features of the review process modelling syntax and semantics used in this
document are summarized in Annex A.
For clarity in communicating the relationships between the review functions, the model is construed
as a three-level hierarchy of functions, as shown in Figure 1. This hierarchy can be used for guidance in
planning reviews; but for a conforming application of this document, use of this hierarchy to represent
the process is not required.
In a conforming application, the twelve functions at the third level of the hierarchy of Figure 1 shall be
implemented. Detailed requirements and guidance for these functions are given in Clause 5.
Figure 1 — Function hierarchy
4.2.2 Co-ordination of functions
A function may be performed concurrently with any other function and in any order that is appropriate,
so long as the necessary inputs, controls and mechanisms are in place for the performance of the
function. The performance of a function may be interrupted if this is appropriate, for example, because
of resource conflicts.
In many cases the inputs, outputs and controls can consist of many increments of data or other material
that are available at distributed times. Similarly, not all personnel participating in implementing a
function are needed for the production of some specific increment of output. In these cases, outputs
may be produced incrementally, rather than held until the total output has been completed.
4.3 Review context
The review context, corresponding to level 0 of Figure 1, is shown in Figure 2. The central box represents
the function performed by the complete review process. The function of the review process, as stated
in 4.1, is to evaluate project status relative to a specified project milestone. For the purposes of the
diagram, this is abbreviated to “Evaluate project status”. The incoming arrows at the top and bottom,
and on the left of the function box represent necessary preconditions for the review to be performed.
Specifically:
a) the review process is controlled by the project review policy and the milestone criteria;
b) the input to the review process is the total set of project data files;
c) the mechanism for performing the review process includes
1) available independent experts,
2) available project experts, and
3) the project decision authority.
Requirements for these preconditions are given in 4.4.
The concrete result of the review is an agreed report of conclusions, recommendations and action items,
and an approved plan for resolving any remaining problems. These outputs are shown on the right of
the function box in Figure 2. Requirements for these outputs are given in 5.5.
Models in general include factors that are important from a certain viewpoint. The review process
model used in this document uses the viewpoint of project management.
Figure 2 — Context diagram for the top-level function “Evaluate project status”
4.4 Preconditions for a review
4.4.1 General preconditions
4.4.1.1 Project review policy
The project shall have a review policy. Factors that should be considered for inclusion in the review
policy include the following:
a) selection of review board chairperson and review board members;
b) qualifications of review board members;
c) number of review board members and distribution of technical exp
...