ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report

1
ILCEDMS Selection CommitteeProgress Report

• Tom Markiewicz
• SLAC
• 7 December 2005
• Frascati GDE Meeting

2
Committee Members

• John Ferguson CERN
• Lars Hagge - DESY
• Tom Markiewicz - SLAC (Chair)
• Richard Stanek - FNAL
• Nobu Toge - KEK
• Harry Weerts - Argonne

3
Charge to the Committee

• The committee should recommend a specific web
  based software solution, which may mean an
  integrated collection of distinct software
  packages that will allow ILC collaborators
  worldwide to store, search for and retrieve
  various kinds of documents.
• At least three basic kinds of documents must be
  handled
• meeting/conference/seminar related files
• publications/white papers/notes and
• engineering documents
• CAD drawings, cost estimates, vendor quotes, and
  QC documents.

4
Anti-Charge to the Committee

• The recommendation of other related virtual
  communication tools may be made if they enhance
  the functioning of the basic document management
  system. Such tools may include calendars,
  agendas, emailing lists, email notification,
  discussion forums, user-modifiable ("wiki") web
  pages for interactive working group
  documentation, etc. The recommendation or
  incorporation of these tools should be considered
  secondary to the selection of system that
  supports the core functions of storage, search
  and retrieval.
• Project management tools (WBS, scheduling,
  resource planning) are outside the scope of
  current charge.

5
Timeline (from Charge)

• One of the first deliverables of the group should
  be a written set of requirements for the software
  tools.
• The recommended solution must reflect the
  international, multi-institution nature of the
  ILC and should try to unify the work occurring in
  the different regions on the many disparate
  aspects of the ILC.
• A progress report to the GDE should be made at
  the December 2005 meeting. It is hoped that a
  decision can be made early enough in 2006 that
  implementation, testing and backfilling of the
  archive can occur before the fourth meeting of
  the GDE in March 2006, with release to the
  general ILC community targeted to April 1, 2006.

6
Web Page
http//www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?idilc
_dms_selectionilc_dms_selection_home
7
Committee Meetings

• 2005-09-19
• Initial contact as group
• 2005-10-07
• Abstract discussion of requirements
• Live Demo of Fermilab Installation of Team Center
  Engineering EDMS product to 3/6 committee members
• 2005-10-24
• Discussion of 1st draft (Hagge) of requirements
  document
• 2005-11-08
• Video Demo of CERN InDiCo (Meeting Manager) and
  CERN EDMS
• 2005-11-11
• Video Demo of DESY installation of UGS TeamCenter
  Enterprise EDMS
• 2005-11-29
• Discussion of progress report, requirements
  document, cost estimates, beta testing strategies
  prior to selection, post selection implementation
  strategies

8
Requirements Document

• For the purposes of this status report the key
  phrase in the requirements document is
• Given the time constraints, only systems which
  are in use at an HEP laboratory and which are
  provided by teams with experience in
  implementing, running and supporting an EDMS will
  be considered.
• We also assume that a now necessarily vague, but
  later formal, offer to host will be generated
  by the lab(s) supporting the selected system(s)
• There are hundreds of open source and commercial
  products available. These requirements happily
  severely limit the search.

9
Products Considered

• CERN Suite
• InDiCo (MeetingsConferences-CERN written)
• CDS-CERN Document Server (CERN written)
• Not yet reviewed
• CERN EDMS, as used for LHC (Commercial)
• Axalant
• Datastream7i
• User Databases
• DESY/FNAL UGS Team Center EDMS (Commercial)
• UGS Team Center Enterprise (DESY)
• UGS Team Center Engineering (FNAL)
• Hybrids of these elements (for example)
• InDiCo CDS CERN EDMS
• InDiCo CDS TeamCenter
• InDiCo TeamCenter
• Each lab has invested many man years in
  customizing the underlying databases and
  tailoring the web user interface

10
Description of Products Being Considered

• See web site for ppt talks with screen captures
  loads more information than can fit in this talk
• In next 4 slides I will introduce these products
  as some of the audience may be unfamiliar with
  them, but do not ask detailed questions at this
  time.

11
InDiCo

• Outgrowth of CDS Agenda server with improvements
  directed towards conferences workshops with
  continued support for meeting series lectures
• Active development by-and-for physicists with
  integration with other meeting services (VRVS,
  video nets, etc.) planned
• Tree-style organization with search engine to cut
  through tree
• Need to understand role of keywords which could
  help ILC organize along lines such as WG, GG,
  institution, region, ILC-subarea, technical
  system, etc.

12
CERN Document Server (CDSware)
http//cdsware.cern.ch

• Outgrowth of CERN Preprint Library Server
• To run your own document repository on the web
• Used by many institutes world wide (GNU
  distribution), e.g.
• MeIND - HBZ NRW, Cologne, DE
• EPFL Infoscience - EPFL, CH
• CAB UNIME Uni.of Messina, IT
• Aristotle Uni of Thessaloniki, GR
• UCL Document Server Uni catholique de Louvain,
  BE
• At CERN, more than 500 collections
• Open Access protocol compliancy
• All types of documents
• Public or private collections
• 200,000 queries/month 1M records
• Future search engine for Indico

13
CERN EDMS

• Project LifeCycle Management
• Design
• Configuration
• Documents (CAD, text) with versioning and access
  control
• Documentation organized and linked in various
  structures. (PBS, WBS, ABS, etc.)
• Approval process (Work Flow)
• Manufacturing Management
• Manufacturing
• Installation
• Operation
• Maintenance
• Other Data
• Parameters
• Test Data

14
Team Center EDMS
Product Lifecycle Mgmt
3D Interactive Visualizationfor Non-CAD-Users
Different EDMS clients for different target
groupseg. xfel.desy.de
15
Pros Cons of Choices

• InDiCo is industry standard for managing talks
• May need some flexibility for tailoring output
  based on different keys
• If adopted, Talks would be in a separate DB
  than other files
• CERN EDMS is a tried true system useful for
  document control and engineering applications.
  630k documents, much experience, nB-decade long
  project with many of the bugs inherent in any
  out-of-the-box system found fixed by support
  team
• What, if anything, would need to be changed for
  ILC?
• Mostly developed after the design phase of LHC
• Is the connection to 3D CAD tools adequate?
• UGS TeamCenter EDMS adopted by DESY for
  ILC-sister XFEL project after much thought. 200k
  documents and many CAD files already in system.
  Industry powerhouse (GM, Nissan) with strong
  collaborative design web-based CAD tools and
  flexible DB driven structure for organizing
  content.
• Currently being customized and extended to
  post-design phases of XFEL
• Could be an advantage for ILC as it decides how
  it wants to organize

16
Cost Information

• DESY TeamCenter
• Licenses to the ILC community from its current
  stock without charge iff
• Server is located at DESY
• DESY is the contact for the vendor hotline
• ILC support handled by present team with 2
  additional support persons for ILC
• plus trained regional pool of regional experts
• Hardware configuration not discussed, presumed in
  the noise
• CERN EDMS
• ZERO marginal cost to add ILC as a standard EDMS
  project hosted and supported at CERN
• ILC support handled by the present support team
  with one system administrator specifically for
  ILC.
• Assuming good mapping of ILC needs onto existing
  system features
• Subject to database size, might require some
  investment in hardware
• CERN Indico
• No licensing costs
• Installation and technical support from current
  team, with eventually, one ILC system
  administrator.
• Duplicate existing CERN hardware of 6 servers _at_
  3000 each

17
Committees Current Consensus(NB Not yet a
recommendation)

• Use InDiCo for Meeting Management
• Back fill CERN or TC EDMS with InDiCo pointers
  files
• Begin an ILC specific instance of InDiCo
• Decide among TeamCenter, CDS CERN EDMS
• for document engineering control by applying
  Benchmark Functionality Tests that are being
  written into the Requirements Document
• Certain committee members already have an opinion
• Ideally we would construct a light ILC
  implementation of each product as part of
  selection process, but .
• Requires more time and resources than committee
  has
• Light exercise unlikely to have adequate
  breadth depth to discriminate

18
Resources Required

• From NOW to Decision Time
• Begin InDiCo implementation
• Develop enough hands-on experience with other
  systems to judge their relative merits
• NB while lab support might be offered for a
  chosen system, this kind of effort may not be
• In Q1 of 2006 will need expert support to
• Begin to implement the chosen solution
• Back fill it with enough data/content/usefulness
  that users adopt it
• Test administer

19
Community Feedback

• A danger to this endeavor is adopting a system
  that the targeted users do not like refuse to
  use
• Best inoculation against this is user input and
  beta testing
• However, EDMS will always feel much more clumsy
  than Google and EDMS value not appreciated
  until system is loaded with content
• Asking for user opinions may open a can of worms
  unless scope of user suggestions is limited
• Recommendation in any event will rest in hands of
  committee
• We are interested in GDEs opinions on
  desirability and mechanisms for user input
• It is clear that analysis oriented individuals
  are in the community who can better implement and
  more fully test system than can this committee.
  Should a volunteer support staff be recruited?

20
Immediate Plans Timeline Update

• Feb.15, 2006
• Finish specifying Requirements and
  Functionality Tests
• Develop as robust version of InDiCo as possible
• Develop light ILC implementation of CDS, CERN
  EDMS TeamCenter for comparison
• March 1, 2006
• Down Select for tools to handle documents and
  engineering data
• April 1, 2006
• Begin to train pool of regional experts in the
  chosen system
• Release to larger group (all ILC?) an InDiCo
  system backfilled with as much relevant data as
  possible
• Snowmass, Frascati, Bangalore
• SLAC BDS meetings
• Release a Document management System that can
  handle the BCD and RDR

21
Conclusion

• If GDE accepts limited scope of search, we are
  close to a decision
• A good product roll out will require a lot more
  effort than six non-experts can give it in the
  100 days before April 1
• Advice from GDE exec on user input and
  implementation strategy requested