Baselining MECO

1
Baselining MECO

• Michael Hebert
• UC Irvine
• Feb 6, 2005
• MECO Collaboration Meeting

2
The Bottom Line Up Front

• We have eight weeks to develop our understanding
  of the project to a point where we are likely to
  pass a baseline review. We need
• A complete Work Breakdown Structure with its
  associated Dictionary in sufficient detail to
  make an accurate accounting of the cost and
  schedule of events. Typically this is down to
  level 7 or more to set the scale
• A complete set of Cost Books to accompany the
  cost estimate a collection of all of the input
  data and calculations used to come up with the
  cost numbers. Ideally vendor quotes based upon
  detailed drawings from engineering designs. If
  this is a strict baseline review, we will need
  one or more piece of supporting info for every
  cost number at the lowest level, i.e. these
  things are tomes
• A complete Resource Loaded Schedule (RLS) the
  Project file containing all of the schedule links
  within each subsystem, between subsystems and
  between MECO and AGS pieces. This should have
  labor leveled to the extent possible and,
  combined with the costs, should match the funding
  profile we expect
• A completely updated Technical Design Report
• A revised Project Management Plan

3
Current MECO Project Organization
JOINT OVERSIGHT GROUP NSF DOE NP
DOE HEP NSERC
RSVP PROJECT DIRECTOR and DEPUTY W. Willis, J.
Kotcher
KOPIO PM WBS 1.2 M. Marx
BNL PM WBS 1.4 P. Pile
MECO PM WBS 1.3 M. Hebert
1.3.11 MECO Project Office
1.3.5 Tracker E. Hungerford
1.3.1 Extinction W. Molzon (acting)
Chief Mechanical Engineer
1.3.9 Integ. Install. MECO CME
1.3.2 Target Shield M. Hebert (acting)
1.3.6 Calorimeter P. Nemethy
1.3.10 Simulations Y. Kolomensky
Chief Electrical Engineer
1.3.3 Solenoids B. Smith
1.3.7 C R Shield J. Kane
Cost Schedule Manager
1.3.8 Trigger DAQ K. Kumar
1.3.4 Muon Beamline W. Morse
4
Status of Baseline Info WBS

• For most systems the Work Breakdown Structure is
  in reasonable shape in that is appears deep
  enough to provide the needed details. There are
  exceptions, however
• 1.3.2 Heat Shield for lack of someone to take
  on this task I have been handling this and have
  not dedicated enough time to evolve this to my
  satisfaction
• 1.3.9 Simulations This would benefit from
  another pass and some detailed input from each of
  the detector systems on what they need when as
  design decisions are made
• 1.3.10 Installation and Integration we need to
  either migrate installation tasks from each of
  the subdetectors to this area, or abandon the
  idea for the time being. The original notion was
  to unify this effort under the control of the
  MECO Chief Mechanical Engineer, a position we
  have not yet filled.
• One consistent problem is that the WBS Dictionary
  is still very sparse below level 3 and in many
  cases there appears to be confusion between
  definition of the task/object and detailing the
  cost calculations. The latter are part of the
  Cost Book.

5
Status of Baseline Info Costs Cost Books

• We have gone through one, relatively cursory,
  round of cost reviewing for the experiment
  including the magnets. The results of that
  review suggest that the committees did not find
  major problems, but they did not have time to
  drill deeply into the underlying assumptions and
  details.
• One point the LOG review made was that we appear
  to be very light on Technician labor, at least in
  relation to Scientists. Although part of this is
  due to AGS work being in a separate WBS, it is
  worth a second look
• In general all costs need more scrubbing. We
  need to get more people looking at each of these
  costs (up to now it has been Bill and I and the
  subsystem manager). I am looking for volunteers.
• Cost Books My preferred approach is to do this
  electronically, although AGS and KOPIO will
  likely just go with binders. In detail
• The basic cost info is dumped to a PDF file from
  the Access database (loaded shortly before the
  review by RSVP PO)
• Additional info (quotes, sketches, calculations
  on napkins) get scanned into PDF files and
  appended to each subsection

6
Status of Baseline Info RLS

• I was asked to come up with a labor profile over
  the five year construction project in the LOG
  Review. I was pleasantly surprised to find that
  there is a substantial amount of schedule
  information already in the Project file.
• That said, the current file does not have the
  latest Magnet schedule info in it, nor has it
  undergone any sort of internal vetting.
• Last week I learned that RSVP is going to request
  a first look at how well our cost profile matches
  the expected funding profile, preferably next
  week. I have rearranged the baselining schedule
  to make an attempt at that.
• In particular I would like to get a list of major
  milestone dates in each subsystem in the next two
  weeks. Details in the baseline plan to follow.

7
Status of Baseline Info TDR

• This document has not been updated since
  immediately prior to the June 2001 NSF Program
  review.
• I believe the cost and schedule efforts will
  benefit from updating this sooner rather than
  later as it will force a rethink of everything in
  the system and provide background to anyone
  helping in the scrubbing process.
• The first step in the process of updating this
  information is to produce or revise the Reference
  Design Documents for each major piece of MECO, as
  these amount to version-controlled parameter
  lists and can be plugged directly into the Cost
  Book to provide the drawings and channel counts
  needed.
• Pulling the TDR together is another place where I
  could use one or more volunteer editors

8
Status of Baseline Info Man. Plan

• This document has remained largely unchanged
  since 2003, meaning it does not reflect the
  current management structure.
• There are numerous aspects of this that remain
  unclear as I outlined in the previous talk.
• The primary need for the baselining effort is an
  RSVP Management Plan and Project Execution Plan
  the MECO, KOPIO, and AGS plans are likely to be
  appendices.
• In short, I am holding off on revising this given
  my perception of its relatively low priority.

9
A Revised Schedule of Events

• Pre-baseline Review in early April
• Baseline Review in late April

• First look at cost profile in two weeks