Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l - Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Evans, Harold G." <hgevans AT indiana.edu>
  • To: "usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu" <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting
  • Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:42:54 +0000

Hi Gustaaf,

I think that one of the main difficulties here comes from those cases where we know that variances are due solely to COVID. (The L2s should speak up if there are other issues). In these cases, it's very rare that the estimated COVID impact from the numbers entered in Amy's accruals spreadsheet match up with the actual variance. Differences of 10s of k$ are easily possible, which could lead reviewers to believe that there are non-COVID effects when these don't exist.

We need to come up with a coherent way to explain these differences. Perhaps this is as simple as stating that the accuracy of our estimation method is only ~x% of the actual variance (where x = 10-20%?). But if you or others can think of a better explanation, that would be great.

In any case, doing the exercise of understanding quantitatively what the differences actually are, e.g. by using your spreadsheet, is a valuable piece of information, which we'll need to have for the EVMS review.

Cheers  -  Hal

On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 09:08 +0200, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
-------

Hi,


1. Presenting BCP and Actuals tables in the L2 talks
A very interesting cross-check on our BCP strategy is to compare costs 
for BCP-1033 (excluding escalation) with the COVID-actuals we observed 
in the period 01-Nov-20 - 30-Apr-21. If our BCPs are accurate, these two 
numbers should agree reasonably well. I have compiled these comparisons 
at L2 in the attached table. As you can see, the NSF totals agree within 
6%. However, individual L2 systems have much larger deviations.
It might be useful for Gustaaf to show the rolled-up comparison in his 
talk. However, given the spread in L2 results, I'd suggest that we *do 
not* show the actuals tables in the L2 talks, but rather show only 
BCP-1033 and BCP-1038 diff's for Direct, Fringe, Overhead, Escalation.
Let me know what the rest of you think.

Thanks for this.



2. Harmonizing statements in variance reports with numbers in covid 
BCPs/Actuals
We discussed at length the recent example of inconsistencies between 
reported covid actuals and statements in variance reports. The 
conclusion that we reached is that these inconsistencies are inevitable 
because of the way we report covid-related actuals. The problem is that 
the COVID-related fraction for each month is entered in the accrual 
sheet before the actual cost variance (CV = ACWP-BCWP) is known. Since 
the COVID fraction is a rough estimate of the fraction of that month's 
ACWP that is caused by COVID, it is very unlikely that it will turn out 
to be exactly equal to the CV that's actually calculated once the 
statusing is finished. Thus the numbers that we have will almost never 
agree with our explanations in the variance reports.
This problem could be fixed if instead of reporting the COVID fraction 
as a fraction of the ACWP for that month, the anticipated fraction of 
the eventual CV were reported instead. Thus we would enter, for example, 
that 100% of the actual CV (whatever it turns out to be numerically) is 
due to COVID. Then it would be easier for the variance report 
explanations to reflect the actual variances. However, this method also 
has flaws in that it's entirely top-down.
In any case, we should bring up these two options to the NSF and ask 
which they prefer. Neither is perfect but both have some attractive 
features.

Yowza!  Please do not ever mention this idea any further!  Basically 
this says "we'll look at the numbers and then we'll write a story that 
fits."

For my example from LAr, the explanation is presumably that something 
else cost less.  There is for example the missing engineer at UT Austin, 
a change in personnel at Columbia.  The point is that the story has to 
be complete.  Not to invent one!

Best,

Gustaaf

_______________________________________________
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


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Hal Evans                        hgevans AT indiana.edu
           http://hgevans.pages.iu.edu/
 Tel: (812)856-3828                    Fax: (812)855-5533
 253 Swain Hall West               Indiana University
 727 E. Third St.                Bloomington, IN 47405
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page