U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade LAr Level 2 and Level 3 Managers Mailing List

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

We are in the PO doghouse!  Andy, please file your variance report asap 
(ie. either this evening or tomorrow morning).  Tim, take a look at 
Gustaaf's comments.  After you two are done, I still need to write my L2 
variance report.

                John


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] Comments on April VRs
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 18:20:45 -0400
From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
To: usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov


Hello all,

The missing variance reports are now late.  This is due into NSF before 
the end of the week, and to avoid further friction with NSF we need to 
vet these.  Please get them in by *noon Wednesday*.  And in the future, 
please make sure these are completed by the 23rd of every month at the 
latest.

Updated comments below.

Best,

Gustaaf


> *6.4 is missing
> *6.4.1: the text is ok (look at 6.5.1 for one that is very good).   But 
> you will be carrying $300k in cost variance for the ADC until 
> pre-production...
> *6.4.3 is missing

No improvement in the situation.


> *6.5 is good, two small typos: have => has, and that => than
> *6.5.1 is very good
> *6.5.3 and .4 are missing
==> These are now fine.  (Hopefully next month the ELMB text will not be 
needed again!)



> *6.6, 6.6.1 and 6.6.4 are missing

6.6: see my comments below on the individual L3s
6.6.1 is still missing
6.6.3: there's no request for SV explanation, so the rule of thumb is 
not to go there...
6.6.4: you shouldn't be reporting on schedule variance since that's 
below threshold.  I'm not sure what "The CPI impact is really just that 
it doesn't properly represent that actually CPI" means.  I guess you can 
write "There is ~$100k in negative cost variance due to COVID-induced 
inefficiencies."  (And this cost is reported in the reports to Amy, 
right?)  For the CA: "For CPI, we could do a BCP to better represent the 
CPI. Last time I brought this up to the PO, it was advised as a 
potential future change."  Two comments: a corrective action is 
something you will do.  Since it's in the past, you can't do a BCP, and 
since this is covid you just report it as a covid cost.  Furthermore, 
it's bad form to beat up on the project in a report to the funding 
agency.  In this case, I think the best CA option is "No CA is needed: 
the incurred covid costs have been reported to the project office."

> *6.6.5: the impact statement is too long - look at 6.5 for an example. 
> Basically, we just want to know what the impact is, ie how much delay 
> this represents in delivery date.  The explanation text should go under 
> explanation, nit under impact.
==> no change made?


> *6.8, 6.8.2 and 6.8.3 are missing
6.8 and 6.8.2 are still missing
6.8.3 is pretty good.  I think "When engineering resources become 
available, they are put on project with an effort rate higher than 
originally planned, with the goal of making up in delays" under impact 
is really a corrective action.



_______________________________________________
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