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

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

Hi John,

> 
>       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.

Yes, they’re in the sheet.  You’re looking for the LAr maturity+risk tab.

> 
>       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.

The simulation for the DOE review said 400 days, so this is not so far from 
what we expected, no?

> 
>       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.

Yes, I agree.  But I think we do want to decide what we would like the 
recommendation to say as that will change how we address this.

Best,

Gustaaf


> 
>               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!HBgbH9-tAB8XvzcQbxzWrhxnc1bZWKHl2E1TcTMED93qGUw6TyH54ShoWcgtknTf5tECy9ZeP3uWl9zU4hfEoQq6UzwYr5YO0EZrhjxZHhqj-MFSvQHhXg$
>>>>>       
>>>>> 
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 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!HBgbH9-tAB8XvzcQbxzWrhxnc1bZWKHl2E1TcTMED93qGUw6TyH54ShoWcgtknTf5tECy9ZeP3uWl9zU4hfEoQq6UzwYr5YO0EZrhjxZHhqj-MFSvQHhXg$
>>>       
>>> 
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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!HBgbH9-tAB8XvzcQbxzWrhxnc1bZWKHl2E1TcTMED93qGUw6TyH54ShoWcgtknTf5tECy9ZeP3uWl9zU4hfEoQq6UzwYr5YO0EZrhjxZHhqj-MFSvQHhXg$
>       
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>