ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report Tom Markiewicz SLAC 29 November 2005

Tom Markiewicz 2 / 17 Committee Members John Ferguson - CERN - John.Ferguson(at)cern.ch Lars Hagge - DESY - lars.hagge(at)desy.de Tom Markiewicz - SLAC - twmark(at)slac.stanford.edu (Chair) Nobu Toge - KEK - Nobu.Toge(at)kek.jp Richard Stanek - FNAL - rstanek(at)fnal.gov Harry Weerts - Argonne - weerts(at)pa.msu.edu

Tom Markiewicz 3 / 17 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: 1) meeting/conference/seminar related files, 2) publications/white papers/notes and 3) engineering documents: CAD drawings, cost estimates, vendor quotes, and QC documents.

Tom Markiewicz 4 / 17 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, ing lists, 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.

Tom Markiewicz 5 / 17 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.

Tom Markiewicz 6 / 17 Web Page ilc_dms_selection_home

Tom Markiewicz 7 / 17 Committee Meetings –Initial contact as group –Abstract discussion of requirements –Live Demo of Fermilab Installation of Team Center Engineering EDMS product to 3/6 committee members –Discussion of 1 st draft (Hagge) of requirements document –Video Demo of CERN InDiCo (Meeting Manager) and CERN EDMS (Axalant & Datastream7i, two commercial products) –Video Demo of DESY installation of UGS TeamCenter EDMS –Discussion of progress reports, requirements, costs, beta testing strategies prior to selection, post selection implementation strategies

Tom Markiewicz 8 / 17 Requirements Document For the purposes of this status report the key phrase in the requirements document is: Assumptions and Dependencies 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.

Tom Markiewicz 9 / 17 Products Considered CERN Suite –InDiCo –CDS (Cern Document Server) Not yet reviewed –CERN EDMS Axalant Datastream7i User Databases UGS Team Center Product –UGS Team Center (DESY) –UGS Team Center Engineering (FNAL) Hybrids of these elements

Tom Markiewicz 10 / 17 Description of Products Being Considered See web site for ppt talks with screen captures & loads more text than can fit in this talk

Tom Markiewicz 11 / 17 In Tom’s Opinion at this point there are two logical choices Team Center for Meetings, Documents & Engineering Applications InDiCo for Meeting Management –HEP “Industry Standard” Team Center for Documents & Engineering –Back fill Team Center with InDiCo pointers & files No concrete reason not to choose CERN EDMS –This is where comparison with requirements document would come in

Tom Markiewicz 12 / 17 Dilemma How to choose a system without at least trying to implement an ILC specific instance?

Tom Markiewicz 13 / 17 Support In Q1 of 2006 will need expert support to –implement the chosen solution –back fill it with enough data/content/usefulness that users adopt it –Test & administer

Tom Markiewicz 14 / 17 Conclusion If GDE accepts limited scope of search, we are close to a decision