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

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

Hi Gustaaf,

	You mention "NSF guidance for MREFCs is that TPC should be between the 
70% and 90% CL".  Does the same guidance apply to completion date?  In 
any case, do we have from the MC completion dates for less than 90% CL; 
it might be a natural question to ask what CL we are consistent with at 
the moment.

	I would not say the supply chain risks for LAr are "wrong".  For the 
recent NSF risk review, we decided (as I believe did other subsystems) 
to keep unchanged the supply chain risks for items that are not yet 
completed; ie. we did not revisit the "standard" impacts assumed 
previously for the various types of things, such as PCB fab, PCB assy, 
ASICs, ...  The same was true for the DOE side, where we did not see a 
float problem coming from this on the MC for CD/2-3.  So I was not 
expecting such a stark problem to appear on the NSF side.

	As I mentioned previously, we can (very) soon retire some of these 
supply chain risks, at which point there is no need to tweak their 
potential impacts.  For some others, it might be time to revisit the 
"standard" impact assumptions,

	I think I will have to add a slide to my L2 talk that proactively 
addresses these issues.  It will likely not deflect the questions that 
this is going to cause, but at least we will be seen to be tackling them 
head on.

                John

On 2/25/23 12:13 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> >         We are using all the "standard" impacts proposed across the project for Supply Chain, eg. 
> > up to 4 months delay for PCB fab.  The LAr issue being revealed here, with the implication we could need an 
> > extra ~9 months more than we have before the needed-at-CERN dates, is maybe a reflection of the fact these 
> > are (by now) too conservative?  Do we really want to show this at DR??  It seems to me it could become the 
> > "dominant issue" of the entire review?  And how do we reply when asked "what happens if the 
> > MC is right and you deliver LAr boards 9 months too late"??
>
> Do you think the supply chain risk registers for LAr are wrong?  We recently 
> had an NSF risk workshop… Anyway, we don’t really have a choice I think in 
> terms of what we show at the DR.  It’s too late to change our approach.
>
>   I put some text in my slides along the lines of “we might need extra funds 
> to accelerate production,” I’m happy to hear more creative suggestions.  Of 
> course it’s not a secret for anybody that pixels and strips for both ATLAS 
> and CMS are in much worse shape.
>
>
> >         Given we have not seen this problem before yesterday, we don't currently have 
> > anything prepared to address it.  (as requested, I do not even have the MC results in 
> > my L2 talk)  By April, I can see quite a few improvements, since the ADC preprod will 
> > be done and the lpGBT production should be done.  Also, we should have received the 
> > preprod. PA/S (from DOE scope) by then.   So we could "retire" those.  All 
> > that would help, but who knows whether it would be enough to get us to 90%CL float.  We 
> > could consider changing some of the assumptions.  For example, based on recent 
> > experience, I don't think a potential 4-month delay for PCB fab is a serious 
> > possibility anymore.  I would be comfortable reducing it to 2 months max.
>
> That’s up to you.  I think PCB fab is probably less of an issue now that 
> China has ended zero-covid.  Parts remain an issue, but maybe for FEB2 there 
> are few things that can go wrong there.
>
> >         So, bottom line, here are some questions:
> >
> > - for next week, you are going to show these float results in your plenary talk?  And if so, what 
> > are we going to say?  Just say this is a current snapshot, discuss the points above, and argue it 
> > will be "better" by April?  That still leaves open for discussion whether it will be 
> > "good enough", and the answer is that today we don't know.  This seems problematic to 
> > me.
>
> I don’t think we have a choice.  Please take a look at my slides.  I’m happy 
> to adjust the text.
>
>
> > - Or, given that all these changes will happen by April, do we choose to NOT 
> > show the MC schedule result next week?  Once the DR is over, we could work 
> > with Chris to see where we expect things to stand at the time of the 
> > rebaseline review?
>
> We have to show MC results.  Since this is the DR, I don’t think it’s a huge 
> deal.  We just need to think what the recommendation is we’re fishing for.  
> Is it “revise the LAr risks” or is it “prepare a plan to accelerate 
> production should this be needed”?
>
> Best,
>
> Gustaaf
>
>
> >                 John
> >         
> > On 2/24/23 5:34 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > > Hi John,
> > > Yes, but it turns out this is all due to supply chain.  In the working 
> > > summary sheet you’ll see I made some small annotations.  Without supply chain 
> > > the 438/461 becomes 251/288, so ~90% CL.  We didn’t have supply chain risks 
> > > at FDR, or at the summer 2021 annula review.
> > > Best,
> > > Gustaaf
> > > > On Feb 24, 2023, at 4:48 PM, John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Gustaaf,
> > > >
> > > >         I am surprised that @ 90%CL LAr seems to need about 200 "extra" days (almost a 
> > > > year) beyond the float we have.  What is driving that?  We have certainly made a lot of progress 
> > > > since FDR, and were not in such bad shape back then.  We also have more base float now than we 
> > > > did at FDR, and yet we are "under water"?
> > > >
> > > >                 John
> > > >
> > > > On 2/24/23 4:39 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > We think we’ve worked the kinks out of all the numbers.  In the attached you 
> > > > > will find a for presentation tab, as well as a working tab with a bit more 
> > > > > info on floats, and all the detailed info.  Let us know if you see something 
> > > > > weird.  The for presentation tab calculates % contingency on the cost-to-go, 
> > > > > which gives a better idea of where we are.
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Chris and 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
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > 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.com/v3/__http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/*parsons/__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!ASFZCTHF4B-rJmzzmdz24abBZCEAcU7ANW9qIaUxLlsutCSslqRbFXA9-iexwU7hzvkfViSarv-jlKVlGugtXJp1xaXXDM0qYLmQ11cfQ3v6OmmJAMXWdg$
> > > >       
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > --
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > 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.com/v3/__http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/*parsons/__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!ASFZCTHF4B-rJmzzmdz24abBZCEAcU7ANW9qIaUxLlsutCSslqRbFXA9-iexwU7hzvkfViSarv-jlKVlGugtXJp1xaXXDM0qYLmQ11cfQ3v6OmmJAMXWdg$
> >       
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________

--
______________________________________________________________________

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.com/v3/__http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/*parsons/__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!ASFZCTHF4B-rJmzzmdz24abBZCEAcU7ANW9qIaUxLlsutCSslqRbFXA9-iexwU7hzvkfViSarv-jlKVlGugtXJp1xaXXDM0qYLmQ11cfQ3v6OmmJAMXWdg$
      

______________________________________________________________________