Hi John,
You have retired the risk for ASIC pre-production packaging. Will that be challenged, since we just submitted them for packaging and still a couple of months away from getting them back?
Best,
Hong.
From:
John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 at 10:01 PM
To: Xu, Hao <haoxu AT bnl.gov>
Cc: Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov>, usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] FW: supply chain risks?
Ok thx.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 8:18 PM, Xu, Hao <haoxu AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Thanks John. It looks good to 6.4.4.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hao
>
> ________________________________
> From: Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 6:44 PM
> To: Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov>
> Cc: usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] FW: supply chain risks?
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Any more feedback on the modified RRs? I need to get them to Chris
> asap. I made proposed mods to all L3s, so I need everyone to check
> (both NSF and DOE).
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>> On 3/11/23 6:57 PM, John Parsons wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hong,
>>
>> Good point! I will change that one back to the original 3-6 months.
>> BTW, during the steering mtg last week I asked Nicolas about the
>> progress on the French robotic test system (since they did not make any
>> presentation during LAr week). His reply was basically "progress is
>> being made, but unfortunately not at the rate we hoped". He said they
>> would hopefully be ready to start some initial testing with the system
>> in "about 2 months". It sounded more like a hope than a plan. When I
>> asked whether the plan is to then to build a second system to send to
>> BNL, or just tell BNL the "recipe" for building their own, he said this
>> had not been discussed yet. I came away even more pessimistic than
>> before, and with the feeling that it will be months (probably at least
>> 4, more likely more) before you could be operating such a system at BNL.
>> I did not get a chance to talk with Gustaaf after the meeting, but I
>> would expect he was also less than convinced. If you get a chance to
>> raise the issue with the PO this week, hopefully they would be ready to
>> move ahead with the feasibility study.
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
>>> On 3/11/23 2:52 PM, Ma, Hong wrote:
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> The changes are all very reasonable except we may want to hold off the
>>> change for PA/Shaper’s external dependency as we are still proposing
>>> to PO that we need to reduce that risk by looking for alternative
>>> robotic test.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Hong.
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 1:54 PM
>>> To: Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov>
>>> Cc: usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>> <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] FW: supply chain risks?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Just got back to NYC from a productive LAr week!
>>> As Hong explained, we need to finalize SOON the two RRs (ie. the
>>> "regular" one and the "supply chain" one), so that the MC can be run in
>>> advance of freezing everything for the NSF rebaseline review.
>>> I went over both RRs on the flight, and make some (significant)
>>> proposed changes. I attach the new version, where changes are shaded in
>>> yellow. Please take a look at your parts of both asap and let me know
>>> any comments. This was, of course, largely motivated by the recent
>>> realization that the very conservative values we put in the Supply Chain
>>> RR back when it was created are causing a float problem for the NSF
>>> scope. While those very conservative assumptions were sensible back
>>> then, when almost nothing in industry was working well and it was very
>>> hard to make any sensible predictions, clearly things have improved a
>>> lot by now. For example, we have seen no custom ASIC delays, and in
>>> fact received the PA/S and ADC preprod wafers earlier than scheduled.
>>> We are finding no significant delays in PCB fab either. There are still
>>> some delays for COTS components, but we can mitigate those by submitting
>>> the production orders early, using the "priming" scheme put in place by
>>> ATLAS. Given all these very encouraging signs, I propose significant
>>> changes to the Supply Chain RR. In addition, I propose also some
>>> adjustments to the main RR.
>>>
>>> Let me know asap if you propose any changes to what I have
>>> put in the
>>> attached versions. We need to get these to Chris by early next week at
>>> the latest, so prompt attention would be greatly appreciated!
>>>
>>> While writing, let me also say that next week is Spring Break at
>>> Columbia and I will be away on vacation Sunday-Friday. So unfortunately
>>> we will not be able to meet next Friday at our usual time. However, I
>>> will keep an eye on my email, so let me know of any things to discuss.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>>
>>> On 3/10/23 11:51 AM, John Parsons wrote:
>>>> Just landed at Newark. I spent time on the flight working on the RR and
>>>> will send new version for checking later this afternoon
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 2023, at 10:36 AM, Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As John is traveling back, we are not meeting today.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a urgent request by PO to update the supply
>>>>> chain risks, which was discussed when we were preparing for the DR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris wants to run the MC next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look at the latest risk registry,
>>>>>
>>>>>
https://atlas-hllhc.docdb.bnl.gov/cgi-bin/public/ShowDocument?docid=196 <https://atlas-hllhc.docdb.bnl.gov/cgi-bin/public/ShowDocument?docid=196>
>>>>>
>>>>> and propose changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The simplest is probably to drop the probability from
>>>>> 63% to a much lower level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please also note Gustaaf’s suggestion to increase the FW complexity
>>>>> risk cost. I am not sure if I understand the logic, that adding
>>>>> resources will increase the cost when there is actually no new scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hong.
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
>>>>> *Date: *Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:32 AM
>>>>> *To: *Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov>
>>>>> *Cc: *Parsons, John <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>, Meyer, Chris
>>>>> <cjmey AT iu.edu>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: supply chain risks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Hong,
>>>>>
>>>>> Those recommendation were made in summer 2021 because we had no good
>>>>> basis at that time for individual estimates. As you point out, we do
>>>>> now, so you should feel free to update the numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, looking at BCP 1058, the FW complexity risk maxed out at $150k,
>>>>> and we will now have added ~$1M in FW effort. I would suggest to
>>>>> revise the upper value on that upward, as I think we are likely to
>>>>> have to add even more FW effort if we can find it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gustaaf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 2023, at 3:03 PM, Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov
>>>>> <mailto:hma AT bnl.gov>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gustaaf,
>>>>>
>>>>> I had an exchange with John after yesterday’s 2pm
>>>>> meeting. John is traveling today back to the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will not be able to provide the updated risks
>>>>> by Monday noon, as Chris requested at the meeting, but we will try
>>>>> to get it sometime next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will remove some of the risks (PA/Shaper
>>>>> preproduction fabrication, for example), but there are still many
>>>>> left with very high probabilities (63%), based on the
>>>>> recommendation we had when the risks were first entered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a new recommendation, or should we just
>>>>> use our own judgement to update it? The recent experience with
>>>>> the vendors is not too bad, so some adjustment is warranted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hong.
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:*Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu
>>>>> <mailto:gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>>
>>>>> *Date:*Friday, March 10, 2023 at 7:25 AM
>>>>> *To:*Parsons, John <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
>>>>> <mailto:parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>>, Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov
>>>>> <mailto:hma AT bnl.gov>>
>>>>> *Cc:*Meyer, Chris <cjmey AT iu.edu <mailto:cjmey AT iu.edu>>
>>>>> *Subject:*supply chain risks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi John, Hong,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we’ll need your revised supply chain risks sometime next
>>>>> week. Is this possible?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thx
>>>>>
>>>>> Gustaaf
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l mailing list
>>>>> Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-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!B3TfNP6jTbYtvLDnsxsP559An5DDZw-RpPJyrkmPfbpprG8azL05DKYQGWM12xrh__-wh-2v2KgtciM_vVx0Ew$
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> 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!GmUuAuFR5J2BYK0YCO0YAkjP9yr2w9g_ac7MbqSNAbIy6MLB-ZCKsg2oq6a3V1reaY-Vi7i9cu074n85v5PInFJatFxIhzl75M4rJRADxuzqqg$
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l mailing list
> Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l
>
|
