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

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

Yes, and good.  Apologies, forgot to change.  So we're down to 6.4.1, 
6.4.3 and 6.6.

On 11/29/21 1:43 PM, John Parsons wrote:
> Actually, as I sent you over the weekend, 6.4.2 is done.
>
> On 11/29/21 12:53 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Here's today's follow-up, please keep in mind the recommendation from 
> > the EVMS review:
> >
> > "In VARs with multiple drivers, quantify the cost and schedule impacts 
> > with each identified driver, especially for VARs with both COVID and 
> > non-COVID related variances.* (Guideline 23)"
> >
> > -6.4.1: [hasn't been updated]  it's acceptable, but I have a hard time 
> > believing the board delay is $135k.  That's many months of full-time 
> > work, incompatible with being back on track "next month:"
> > -6.4.2 is still missing
> > -6.4.3: [hasn't been updated] see above: how much is due to the french 
> > delay vs lack of parts?
> >
> > -6.5: Good, thanks.
> > -6.5.1: Good, thanks.
> >
> > -6.6: "the material costs were below budgeted cost" => this cannot 
> > contribute to a schedule variance, only a cost variance (but the tech 
> > part is fixed).
> > -6.6.1 is good, thanks
> > -6.6.3 is good, thanks
> > -6.6.4 is good, thanks
> > -6.6.5 is good, thanks
> >
> > -6.8.2 is interesting, and ok in my view, but let's see what NSF says.
> > -6.8.3 is good
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Gustaaf
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/24/21 12:44 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Please remember that the monthly report needs to go to NSF early next 
> > > week.
> > >
> > > BTW, it's easy to quantify where the schedule variance is - that info 
> > > can be read off the CPR easily when unrolling down to task level.
> > >
> > > A quick follow-up:
> > >
> > > -6.4.1: it's acceptable, but I have a hard time believing the board 
> > > delay is $135k.  That's many months of full-time work, incompatible 
> > > with being back on track "next month:"
> > > -6.4.2 is still missing
> > > -6.4.3: [hasn't been updated] see above: how much is due to the 
> > > french delay vs lack of parts?
> > >
> > > -6.5: Good, thanks.
> > > -6.5.1: Good, thanks.
> > >
> > > -6.6: [hasn't been updated] "the material costs were below budgeted 
> > > cost" => this cannot contribute to a schedule variance, only a cost 
> > > variance; "The sMDT also has had a technician temporarily leave, so 
> > > labor costs are reduced. " => idem
> > > -6.6.1: [hasn't been updated] see above: please quantify the 
> > > respective contributions of the two sources
> > > -6.6.3: [hasn't been updated]so when will the pre-production 
> > > submission happen?   "Not just yet" is now 3 months...
> > > -6.6.4: [hasn't been updated] even after taking into account 
> > > preproduction there is still a $140k schedule variance, so this needs 
> > > a bit more explanation...
> > > -6.6.5: [hasn't been updated] see above: please quantify the 
> > > respective contributions of the two sources; will the BCP have any 
> > > impact on the schedule variance?
> > >
> > > -6.8.2 is interesting, and ok in my view, but let's see what NSF says.
> > > -6.8.3 is good
> > >
> > > Enjoy the holidays!
> > >
> > > Gustaaf
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/22/21 1:50 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > > > Hello L2 managers,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for filling many of the variance reports already.  Please 
> > > > keep in mind the recommendation from the EVMS review:
> > > >
> > > > "In VARs with multiple drivers, quantify the cost and schedule 
> > > > impacts with each identified driver, especially for VARs with both 
> > > > COVID and non-COVID related variances.* (Guideline 23)"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A few comments to send to the CAMs:
> > > >
> > > > -6.4.1: how much of the $200k is in the board delays?  Presumably 
> > > > not all, since it's a one month delay...
> > > > -6.4.2 is missing
> > > > -6.4.3: see above: how much is due to the french delay vs lack of 
> > > > parts?
> > > >
> > > > -6.5: Why is shipping preproduction boards a corrective action?
> > > > -6.5.1: typo: was well as
> > > >
> > > > -6.6: "the material costs were below budgeted cost" => this cannot 
> > > > contribute to a schedule variance, only a cost variance; "The sMDT 
> > > > also has had a technician temporarily leave, so labor costs are 
> > > > reduced. " => idem
> > > > -6.6.1: see above: please quantify the respective contributions of 
> > > > the two sources
> > > > -6.6.3: so when will the pre-production submission happen?   "Not 
> > > > just yet" is now 3 months...
> > > > -6.6.4: so even after taking into account preproduction there is 
> > > > still a $140k schedule variance, so this needs a bit more 
> > > > explanation...
> > > > -6.6.5: see above: please quantify the respective contributions of 
> > > > the two sources; will the BCP have any impact on the schedule variance?
> > > >
> > > > -6.8.2 is a copy paste from the previous month, but what is asked 
> > > > now is a report on the *positive cost variance*!  This needs to be 
> > > > rewritten from scratch...
> > > > -6.8.3 is good
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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