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

[John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Hi Gustaaf,

        I am forwarding what I have received so far,
namely Tim's draft variance report for 6.4.1 and
some inputs from John H. and Kj on 6.4.3 (no report
is needed for 6.4.2).
        I have not had time to put these together in a
more formalized way, but am sending them to you as you
requested to give some info of where we currently
stand on this first round of variance reporting.
        Regards,
                John


From John H.
-------------
For WBS 6.4.3.1, the main cause of the low SPI is delayed hiring of a 
(planned) second engineer in our Electronics Shop. To mitigate this, in 
addition to using the existing shop engineer, we have been using equally 
skilled off-project personnel to move the project forward as much as 
possible. However, the off-project person has other commitments, and we 
have not gotten as much time as we would have from dedicated personnel.

This problem will be alleviated going forward because the second 
engineer has been hired and begins on Aug. 19. We will try to recover 
the full schedule variance by the November baseline date, and at a 
minimum we expect to make significant gains. We may use some of the six 
months float between the November baseline completion date of the 
current tasks, and the start of the MREFC.

Note that the delayed hire and use of off project personnel also 
explains the large CPI; uncosted labor has been used to cover more of 
the work than planned. To recover the SPI, we will need to use extra on 
project personnel for a few months, so the CPI will also trend back 
toward one.

From Kj
--------
For WBS 6.4.3.2, there are two main causes of the low SPI.  One was the 
delay in reaching agreement with the LASP firmware project leader on 
institutional responsibilities.  Hopefully this is now resolved and we 
have a clearer picture of the functional blocks UA will develop.  The 
second cause is that the specifications are taking longer to develop 
than scheduled.  While this has caused some schedule delay, it is 
worthwhile in the longer term as it means there will be less questions 
concerning input/output/functionality of each block and hence the 
firmware can be developed somewhat more efficiently.  In terms of 
corrective action, we have slightly increased uncosted personnel on this 
project.

On 7/29/19 8:04 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 
> > <mailto: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 
> > > <mailto:marlow AT Princeton.EDU>>
> > > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2019 6:31 PM
> > > *To:* Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net <mailto:tuts AT pmtuts.net>>
> > > *Cc:* Denisov, Dmitri <denisovd AT bnl.gov <mailto:denisovd AT bnl.gov>>; 
> > > Coles, Mark W. (mcoles AT nsf.gov <mailto:mcoles AT nsf.gov>) 
> > > <mcoles AT nsf.gov <mailto: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 
> > > <mailto: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 
> > <mailto:Usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-management-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l

--
______________________________________________________________________

John Parsons
Nevis Labs,             Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
 Columbia University    Phone: (914) 591-2820
P.O. Box 137            Fax: (914) 591-8120
Irvington, NY 10533     WWW: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nevis.columbia.edu_-7Eparsons_&d=DwIDaQ&c=aTOVZmpUfPKZuaG9NO7J7Mh6imZbfhL47t9CpZ-pCOw&r=Z0wuTxQYnTTMlYma4lGZlO3skeCGVBrGGurYkWbhJsJuG5HaY82rmCNSdFOV7C4Z&m=RGSMMzK4fACQY7laABFjsoZhADA3eDp1sIsMw3_WUig&s=d64_PuRIkDj9tBPb54CjpM1x_ndQqy3ZKgFDIV1uiYM&e=
    

______________________________________________________________________

Attachment: VR_641_201906.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document