U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

[Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

L2s,

Please do send me the variance reports you have written so I give them some info.

Thx

Gustaaf 

(Uses phone-influenced spelling)

On Jul 29, 2019, at 19:31, Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:

Hello all,

I’ll take care of 1, 3, 4 and 5.  (We will not share variance reports that we didn’t vet and are first exercices anyway.)

Best,

Gustaaf 

On Jul 29, 2019, at 19:05, Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net> wrote:

Hi All,

 

Please pass along to the L3’s and anyone that you think should see them

We are told this is part A of the questions. There will be more later tonight (Dan is sending after dinner). We are told there may be more tomorrow for wed.

 

PO

 

From: Daniel R. Marlow <marlow AT Princeton.EDU>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 6:31 PM
To: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
Cc: Denisov, Dmitri <denisovd AT bnl.gov>; Coles, Mark W. (mcoles AT nsf.gov) <mcoles AT nsf.gov>
Subject: Questions "Part A"

 

Hi Mike,

 

  Here is a partial list of questions.   We are still working on more, which I will forward later this evening, as I discussed.     There may be some overlap etc., so feel free to say things like “see answer to Q4.”

 

Cheers,

Dan

 

Part A

 

1) It is understood that the variance analysis is not yet being posted to IPD.   It would,

   however, be useful to see what you have collected thus far (in any convenient format).

  

2) The June monthly report says that the EV report has bugs.   Please explain the origin of the

   problem.   Is it e.g., related to the tool being used or the data.

  

3) The EAC reported in the June report is not same as the BAC. What is the primary reason

   for this?

 

4) In the subsystem presentations two contingency  numbers were usually given, for 70% CL

   and for 90% CL. When adding up the contingency for the total project which of these CL's were used?

 

5) A possible one year slippage of the overall ATLAS upgrade schedule was mentioned as a possibility.

   This might cause a standing army cost increase. Even though the US responsibility is defined as

   delivery of subsystems, and thus insensitive to standing army costs, a delayed overall schedule

   might delay the completion of US deliverables due to delays of prerequisite parts from overseas

  collaborators. How has this possibility taken into account in the contingency estimation?

 

6) The HTT project builds on FTK is key ways.   Please reflect on the aspects of FTK that were

   successful and aspects that were less than successful.   Which lessons are appropriate to HTT?

   How will these lessons help you manage risk to cost and schedule in HTT?

 

7) The key to the proposed change management plan is the CCB.  Please explain how this committee

   functions, e.g., by consensus, majority vote, unanimity?  How are conflicts of interest among

   its members managed/mitigated?

 

8) The core management team has used the US-ATLAS Phase-1 upgrade project cost and scheduling

   data to inform your expectations for the MREFC HL-LHC project.   Could you make available to

   us any documentation you have on “lessons learned in Phase 1”?

 

_______________________________________________
Usatlas-hllhc-management-l mailing list
Usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-management-l

_______________________________________________
Usatlas-hllhc-management-l mailing list
Usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-management-l