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

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

My point is we should interpret "the top 5 risks"
as those that have highest rank, not via some
subjective judgement.  After all, that is the point
of assigning a rank in the RR.

On 9/11/19 8:28 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > (and if we interpret it that each L2 should choose which
> > 5 "bother them most", we just open ourselves to the
> > question of what the risk rank in the RR actually means)
>
> Bother you most is about  *one* item pre-MREFC.
>
> > On 9/11/19 7:55 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Just to be clear, the questions with input needed from the L2s/system 
> > > teams are:
> > >
> > > 1. if you haven't done so yet, please provide an earliest/latest 
> > > decision point to Hal to update our table
> > >
> > > 3. Please provide an ordered table to me
> > >
> > > 4. Each L2, please send me and Hal the item you're most worried 
> > > about, and we'll downselect
> > >
> > > 7. LAr to provide 1-2 slides
> > >
> > > 8.  LAr and muon to provide a few sentences each
> > >
> > > 9.  Mike, please provide a phrasing that's not too contradicting
> > >
> > > 10. Each L2 provide 2 slides: one with top 5 items, one with DD for 
> > > one of them
> > >
> > > 11.  Mark K: please provide a slide
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Gustaaf
> > >
> > > On 9/11/19 5:36 PM, Michael Tuts wrote:
> > > > Probably homework assignments are obvious…enjoy
> > > >
> > > > *From:* Tony Beasley <tbeasley AT nrao.edu>
> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:26 PM
> > > > *To:* Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>; Mark Coles (mcoles AT nsf.gov) 
> > > > <mcoles AT nsf.gov>
> > > > *Subject:* Homework - Day 1
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mike,
> > > >
> > > > Please find some questions from the Panel to be addressed at 8:30am 
> > > > tomorrow. Expect a short paragraph, verbal description or diagram in 
> > > > most cases.
> > > >
> > > > thanks… Tony
> > > >
> > > >  1. Descope/upscope items - please provide both preferred/scheduled and
> > > >     need-by dates...
> > > >  2. Please provide a schedule of expiration of descope options
> > > >     throughout project. please focus on dates...
> > > >  3. Provide top 5 risks in rank order (worst->least) for each major
> > > >     subsystem. The risk register is dense .. would like to see the 
> > > > major
> > > >     concerns.
> > > >  4. Hank Evans: please provide a rank-ordered list of remaining work
> > > >     packages (in the pre-MREFC project) - what are you most concerned
> > > >     about? Please mention your “plan B's”.
> > > >  5. Please provide the total project BOE distribution - pie chart 
> > > > format.
> > > >  6. Columbia mgt decision to implement 30 subawards generates a cost
> > > >     impact ~$186k ...   was this to support EV reporting?   What did 
> > > > the
> > > >     project gain from this change?
> > > >
> > > >  7. What risks are being carried forward by the project by the
> > > >     (aggressive?) scheduled downselect of the ADC in December? e.g.
> > > >     radiation tolerance of the ADC ASIC version 3? Please clarify
> > > >     statement on radiation tolerance of commercial ADC option.
> > > >  8. What is the schedule risk of the late delivery of the production
> > > >     version of lpGBT?
> > > >
> > > >  9. Please restate/clarify Scientific travel – where is it covered in
> > > >     the MREFC award?  Suggest: please produce List of significant 
> > > > things
> > > >     not in there yet.... don't let us find them.
> > > >
> > > > 10. For each subsystem - what are the (5) major technical requirements,
> > > >     and what is your assessment of your ability to meet them (and what
> > > >     is the basis of that assessment?). Please trace one major
> > > >     science/technical specification from the international ATLAS
> > > >     specification, through your US ATLAS specification set, indicate
> > > >     where addressed in design, and demonstrate how you intend to assess
> > > >     compliance.
> > > > 11. Please describe the connections between the EPO manager, the L2
> > > >     managers, and the EPO proponents at the partner universities. 
> > > > How is
> > > >     communication/coordination occuring between these groups? How
> > > >     specifically will the project take advantage of community
> > > >     initiatives like QUARKNET? Give examples of joint activities being
> > > >     considered.
> > > > 12. How exposed is the US project to CERN Project Management
> > > >     uncertainties in schedule? If CERN schedule drifts across many
> > > >     subsystems, could the US project be negatively impacted beyond
> > > >     current expectations?
> > > > ///
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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=5cV-k4DRk_uN8ek3EY0vEsfjUKSKrg19ixNVwws7PPU&s=A5seCxvu1OX8sMJ_sFMLSwRYhG4O6UQz6qJ5hcSX3XA&e=
    

______________________________________________________________________