Status of the BCD

1
Status of the BCD

• GDE Area System Leaders Meeting (Jan.19-20, 2006)
• Nobu Toge (KEK)

2
Content Updates since Frascati

• European Sample Site section was updated on
  Dec.22, 2006.
• No other content revisions have been submitted.
• The same file repository is being used at
  http//www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?idbcd
  bcd_home
• Conversion into MSWord files is on its way (FNAL
  efforts).

3
Comments Gathered on Dec.2005 version of BCD

• Requests for comments was circulated on Dec.19,
  2005.
• Compiled set of comments are archived at
  http//www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?idbcd
  postfrascaticomments (see hand-out).
• Consolidated Change Requests is NOT done
  (difficulty with doing this without concrete
  guidelines).

4
Change Control Procedure

• Draft v.0.3 was circulated within GDE on Jan.7,
  2006.
• Three classes, 0, 1 and 2.
• Class 0 Minor updates
• Class 1 Significant replacement but with cost
  impacts below 100M
• Class 2 Major replacement / addition with cost
  impacts exceeding 100M
• Exponential escalation of seriousness of the
  review processes for Class 0 ? 1 ? 2
• 
  (continued)

5
Issues with Change Control

• Many colleagues suggested that Class 0 procedure
  should be eased up so it takes lt 1 week (with 1
  reviewer etc. See more on this later). ? I
  concur.
• Some changes with not-so-big (or not-accurately
  known) cost impacts may need to be considered as
  Class-2.
• Class 1, 2 changes will have a turn-around time
  of approx 1 month. With this in mind,
• Some pre-scheduling may be worth considering. ?
  Have to check the overall schedule.
• Perhaps only the EC/AG/GG/ST leaders should be
  authorized to submit Change Requests? (Other
  inputs to be treated as comments or
  suggestions)

6
Issues with BCD (1/2)

• What exactly is BCD supposed to contain?
  http//www.linearcollider.org/cms/?pid1000104.
  told us to include the following
• Overview - single, short summary, including
• Description of boundary conditions
• Options under consideration
• Summary justification of BC
• Baseline
• Description
• Lattice Files
• Parameter Tables
• Supporting Documentation
• Cost Estimation
• Alternatives

7
Issues with BCD (2/2)

• Not all sections actually have their contents
  organized in the way EC told us to do.
• The three bullet organization for BCD from EC
  might not be the optimum, after all.
• What we ought to have in BCD might be
• Overview - single, short summary, including
• Subsystem functional descriptions
• Subsystem specifications (or their parametric
  ranges) and interfacing boundary conditions
• Options under consideration
• Summary justification of BC
• Baseline
• Description including unit schematic diagrams
• Lattice Files
• Parameter Tables (with ranges, if necessary)
• Critical RD milestones to clear
• Brief component-level specifications (with
  ranges)
• Component count
• Supporting Documentation
• Cost Estimation
• Alternatives

8
Observations

• Not all contents for BCD will be readily
  available before starting RDR, particularly if
  its contents-organization is augmented as in the
  previous slide (p.7).
• Obviously we need to work interactively between
  BCD and RDR
• Some work results go to BCD
• Some other work results go to RDR
• To make it function, we have to
• Be very good at traffic-controlling,
• Be very clear about task sharing and task
  division,
• Retain low impedance in the Change Procedure,
  particularly for Class 0 items.

9
Toges Assessment

• While a large number of design-choice issues have
  been resolved since Snowmass, we had better take
  one more serious look at the basic contents
  organization for BCD.
• Whichever path we take (revise the contents
  organization all the way, partially, or none), we
  have to develop a clear agreement among ourselves
  on the contents, task sharing and task division,
• To which we firmly commit ourselves.