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

[Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT sas.upenn.edu>]

That worked. I've submitted it. I didn't know that was there. I guess I never needed it.

Elliot

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 3:25 PM Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:

Indeed.  What do you see if you go to “variance status list” under “project details”?  There you should be able to click on 6.8.4 then update.

On Sep 21, 2024, at 14:49, Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT sas.upenn.edu> wrote:

Hmm. Here is what I see:

<image.png>

I normally click on the "Variance analysis report" button, but there isn't one for August. I did get a automated email saying I was over the threshold.

I could mail you the report, but I think I know from past emails that you can't put it in for me.

Elliot

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 2:24 PM Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:

I don’t have the same view you do but I doubt it - John Parsons just did his.  

On Sep 21, 2024, at 13:58, Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT sas.upenn.edu> wrote:

Hi Gustaaf, 

I just looked at this and saw that there is no button any more. Is that because the deadline passed?

Elliot

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 11:06 AM Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:

Hello all,

Today’s update:

-6.4 needs some change: a) please quantify the source of schedule variance in the explanation (see my email from ~1 week ago), and b) in the corrective action you say "These changes led to the SV beginning to recover in the past several months, and the slow recovery should continue over the coming months” but this month the SV went up by a whopping $430k, so this statement is hard to reconcile with the numbers… => I’ve unlocked

-6.4.2 I’ve approved.  In the future be a bit careful: cost variance was not required and yet you mention it.  I’ve approved because it’s harmless here.

-6.5.4 is very hard to understand.  (Keep in mind the reader does not know the details of what you are doing.)  As far as I understand the text, it would indicate a positive SV (“early purchase”) but the SV is negative.  (The meaning of second sentence I don’t understand at all.)  Also the CV explanation I don’t understand.  So there was a mistake in accruals, but it sounds like the mistake was a month ago and it was corrected this month so should be ok now?  Also, we do accruals, so invoices being out of sync should be irrelevant. => I’ve unlocked.

-6.6.3: thanks for the quick turnaround, I’ve approved.

-6.8 and 6.8.4 are now late.  Please put a monthly reminder in your calendars to do this around the 15th of the month.

Best,

Gustaaf

> On Sep 20, 2024, at 15:33, Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thanks to those who have completed their VRs; others please do so asap.  Below are my comments so far.
>
> Best,
>
> Gustaaf
>
> -6.4 and 6.4.2 are missing
> -6.4.1 I have approved (although limited impact != no impact….)
> -6.4.3 I have approved
>
> -6.5.4 is missing
>
> -6.6: I have approved, assuming more details on the CSM will be in the CSM VR (see below)
> -6.6.3 has a typo: “results in an overestimate” => "results from an overestimate”  I have unlocked because it drastically changes the meaning, so needs to be fixed.
> -6.6.4: in an email a week or so ago I asked to be more precise: by how much has it slipped?  When will it be cleared up?  How much float is left?  I have unlocked so you can add that information
> -6.6.5 I have approved
>
> -6.8 and 6.8.4 are missing

--

Elliot Lipeles

Professor

Physics and Astronomy

--

Elliot Lipeles

Professor

Physics and Astronomy

--

Elliot Lipeles

Professor

Physics and Astronomy