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

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

Hi John,

A few commenst on this slide:

-there are no “standard estimates of probability” anymore.  We never discuss 
these anywhere.  I would suggest you just remove that sub-bullet.

-these risks don’t quite dominate, but represent a very large need for extra 
float

The rest looks fine.

Best,

Gustaaf


> On Feb 26, 2023, at 1:59 PM, John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is a screenshot of the slide I added to my L2 talk.  Comments welcome.
> 
>               John
> 
> On 2/25/23 1:22 PM, John Parsons wrote:
>> 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!ATTa3UccW5aMhNWSz563so0JzvykUJ9g-gcy_ENT7YU-65fN4bgzc-xWXhaRqBV3_Svat5S2RPG9pRBhIaLAMNoVTRQ0r9ewgePJKW8NmaezycKZf-n95A$
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> 
>>>> 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!ATTa3UccW5aMhNWSz563so0JzvykUJ9g-gcy_ENT7YU-65fN4bgzc-xWXhaRqBV3_Svat5S2RPG9pRBhIaLAMNoVTRQ0r9ewgePJKW8NmaezycKZf-n95A$
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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!ATTa3UccW5aMhNWSz563so0JzvykUJ9g-gcy_ENT7YU-65fN4bgzc-xWXhaRqBV3_Svat5S2RPG9pRBhIaLAMNoVTRQ0r9ewgePJKW8NmaezycKZf-n95A$
>       
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________<Screen
>  Shot 2023-02-26 at 1.57.28 PM.png>