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
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting
- 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 talksA very interesting cross-check on our BCP strategy is to compare costsfor BCP-1033 (excluding escalation) with the COVID-actuals we observedin the period 01-Nov-20 - 30-Apr-21. If our BCPs are accurate, these twonumbers should agree reasonably well. I have compiled these comparisonsat L2 in the attached table. As you can see, the NSF totals agree within6%. However, individual L2 systems have much larger deviations.It might be useful for Gustaaf to show the rolled-up comparison in histalk. However, given the spread in L2 results, I'd suggest that we *donot* show the actuals tables in the L2 talks, but rather show onlyBCP-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 covidBCPs/ActualsWe discussed at length the recent example of inconsistencies betweenreported covid actuals and statements in variance reports. Theconclusion that we reached is that these inconsistencies are inevitablebecause of the way we report covid-related actuals. The problem is thatthe COVID-related fraction for each month is entered in the accrualsheet before the actual cost variance (CV = ACWP-BCWP) is known. Sincethe COVID fraction is a rough estimate of the fraction of that month'sACWP that is caused by COVID, it is very unlikely that it will turn outto be exactly equal to the CV that's actually calculated once thestatusing is finished. Thus the numbers that we have will almost neveragree with our explanations in the variance reports.This problem could be fixed if instead of reporting the COVID fractionas a fraction of the ACWP for that month, the anticipated fraction ofthe eventual CV were reported instead. Thus we would enter, for example,that 100% of the actual CV (whatever it turns out to be numerically) isdue to COVID. Then it would be easier for the variance reportexplanations to reflect the actual variances. However, this method alsohas flaws in that it's entirely top-down.In any case, we should bring up these two options to the NSF and askwhich they prefer. Neither is perfect but both have some attractivefeatures.Yowza! Please do not ever mention this idea any further! Basicallythis says "we'll look at the numbers and then we'll write a story thatfits."For my example from LAr, the explanation is presumably that somethingelse 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 tobe complete. Not to invent one!Best,Gustaaf_______________________________________________Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing listUsatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.govhttps://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hal Evans hgevans AT indiana.edu
Tel: (812)856-3828 Fax: (812)855-5533
253 Swain Hall West Indiana University
727 E. Third St. Bloomington, IN 47405
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Evans, Harold G., 06/10/2021
-
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Evans, Harold G., 06/10/2021
- Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Points from today's NSF L2 meeting, Gustaaf Brooijmans, 06/11/2021
-
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Gustaaf Brooijmans, 06/11/2021
-
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Evans, Harold G., 06/11/2021
-
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Gustaaf Brooijmans, 06/11/2021
- Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting, Evans, Harold G., 06/11/2021
-
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Gustaaf Brooijmans, 06/11/2021
-
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Re: Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Evans, Harold G., 06/11/2021
-
Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [External] Points from today's NSF L2 meeting,
Evans, Harold G., 06/10/2021
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.