ACCSYS Design Reviews J. G. Weisend II Deputy Head of Accelerator Projects.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The key steps in an annual cycle Produce the annual work programme Create an annual Internal Audit plan for approval by the Audit Committee, typically.
Advertisements

Requirements Structure and Status for NCFE
Paul drumm; 1 st December 2004; PM&TB Report 1 Project Management & Technical Board Reports.
Proposal for a Constitution for MICE A Plan for Discussion P Dornan G Gregoire Y Nagashima A Sessler.
3 Dec 2003Market Operations Standing Committee1 Market Rule and Change Management Consultation Process John MacKenzie / Darren Finkbeiner / Ella Kokotsis,
Lali Tchelidze Safety work package leader
Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) Collaborative Partner Forum Awareness Session June 2015.
In-Kind Contribution Management Update Allen Weeks March 20, Lund.
Managing Accelerator Quality Matthew Conlon 13 April 2015.
J. G. Weisend II Deputy Head of Accelerator Projects April 2, 2014 Actions at ACCSYS Resulting from the Recommendations of the Annual Review.
Information for External Examiners involved in Academic Collaborative Provision - 12 Nov 2014.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Outline LEARNING OBJECTIVES REVIEW TEAM AND COUNTERPARTS Team Composition Qualification PREPARATORY PHASE.
S 1 Annual Meeting 2013 Management and reporting (WP6) Chiara Bearzotti NACLIM project manager.
Critical Design Review (CDR)
Configuration Management Romuald Duperrier Head of Systems Engineering Division April 22, 2015.
Solar Probe Plus A NASA Mission to Touch the Sun March 2015 Instrument Suite Name Presenter's Name.
Project Organization Chart Roles & Responsibilities Matrix Add Project Name.
Neutron Chopper Technologies Work Package
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Outline LEARNING OBJECTIVES REVIEW TEAM AMD COUNTERPARTS Team Composition Qualification PREPARATORY PHASE.
ACCSYS Risk Management J. G. Weisend II Deputy Head of Accelerator Projects January 14, 2016.
Project Planning Update 13th Technical Board Meeting Luisella Lari Head planner for Accelerator & Senior Scientist May.
I. Preliminary Design Review 1. Product specification 2. Project scope 3. Technical approach/solution to the Design Problem 4. Working Schedule (Gantt.
Collaborating for Quality Quality Assurance (QA) & Quality Control (QC) in the Accelerator Project (ACCSYS) Matthew Conlon ACCSYS QA/QC
CDR for the ESS Linac Magnets for LWUs (pulsed quadrupoles and DC correctors) Closeout May 4, 2016 J.G. Weisend II, Chairman CDR.
In-Kind Strategy Integrated Control Systems Garry Trahern Head of ICS Division TAC 9, 3 rd April, 2014, ESS, Lund.
ESS Accelerator| Construction Phase| | MC | 1 ESS Accelerator management & governance for Product Integration - Construction phase 25 January 2013.
Communication WG Summary Purpose To achieve Increased collaboration and cooperation between AD Groups/WPs/IK partners A common understanding and commitment.
WP3: Excellent researchers for the community Institutional framework for development of the third mission of universities in Serbia (IF4TM) Coordination.
Collaborating for Quality through the Project Quality Plan Matthew Conlon ESS ACCSYS QA/QC Quality Learning & Planning.
Director’s Progress Review Closeout Meeting
Medium Beta Elliptical Cryomodule CDR Closeout
Change Management V.N.Bhaskar Rao Engineering & Construction Director Amec Foster Wheeler India Operations.
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
Spoke CDS PDR Closeout J. G. Weisend II June 10, 2016.
Hyper-V Cloud Proof of Concept Kickoff Meeting <Customer Name>
Acc. Collaboration board
LCLS Linac Technical Design Review Charge
Project Roles and Responsibilities
Standards and Certification Training
2017 On the Ball Initiative On the Ball is a collaborative HSE initiative designed to refresh and re-energise HSE , with the ultimate goal of achieving.
End of Year Performance Review Meetings and objective setting for 2018/19 This briefing pack is designed to be used by line managers to brief their teams.
Director’s Progress Review Closeout Meeting
Coventry, Jun, 2016 – Coordination of activities related to WP3 –
Lockheed Martin Canada’s SMB Mentoring Program
External Examiner Induction
Conventional & Experimental Facilities Dept.
ESS Project Status Roland Garoby – Technical Director August 2018.
ESS Installation Binders Readiness Reviews Work Orders Mikael Jakobsson ESS Installation Manager Sep , 2018.
RF systems introduction
Operations/Control room organization during commissioning
Workshop commissioning Installation Coordination at ESS
Bunker Internal Review Welcome & Charge
Testing Coordination at ESS
PSS verification and validation
Review of TDR Chapter 9 “Transition to Operations”
ESS approach and support for Declaration of Conformity (CE-marking) Fredrik Håkansson ESS Accelerator Collaboration Board Meeting Trieste
DOE Review of the LCLS Project October 2006
High Level Readiness Reviews
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
Lessons from the 1st Safety Readiness Review
Accelerator NCFE Liaison Officer
CDS-EL IRR Closeout 28 March 2019 J.G. Weisend II, Chairman.
Project Kick-off <Customer Name> <Project Name>
Bunker Critical Design Review Welcome & Charge
ESHAC #8 Safety Readiness Review Thomas Hansson, ESH
SAR MEBT Bilbao March Mats Lindroos
REPC Advisory Subcommittees
Overview of the TARGET Monolith Rough Vacuum
General Overview of WP 12 ESS Vacuum System
Project Support Meeting January 9, 2019
Presentation transcript:

ACCSYS Design Reviews J. G. Weisend II Deputy Head of Accelerator Projects

Introduction Design reviews are meant to add value in a collaborative nature – they are NOT meant to be fault finding exercises 2016 represents the peak in design reviews for ACCSYS Currently 54 are planned of which 7 have been held to date By the end of the year, almost almost all major equipment will under procurement and manufacture ACCSYS design reviews follow our Governance Document (ESS ) and are consistent with ESS System Engineering Each review has a charge, a committee and results in a final report Charges vary by component (one size doesn’t fit all) but the overall question in all reviews remains the same “Will the design as presented meet the agreed upon and understood requirements” April 2016J.G. Weisend II2

Introduction The committee consists of a Chair, External Technical Experts (if required), Internal Technical Experts, a Safety Representative and a Quality Representative. Depending on the component, ICS may have a member on the committee – The committee is solely responsible for the final report In addition, at each review there are “reviewers” which include the WP Leader, subject matter experts in applicable fields ( i.e. vacuum or cooling) and integration staff. The reviewers attend, ask questions and raise issues but do not have to stand by the report. The outcome of the review is advisory to the ACCSYS and ESS management and In Kind Partners. April 2016J.G. Weisend II3

Organization All reviews are listed on a Wikipage ics.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/editpage.action?pageId= Reviews dates are updated in P6 Wikipage provides links to charge, presentations and final report (CHESS document) Review recommendations are collected on a JIRA board and assigned for follow up (under construction) April 2016J.G. Weisend II4

View of Review Page April 2016J.G. Weisend II5

Additional Reviews In addition to PDRs and CDRs, We expect to also hold: 1.Test Readiness Reviews (TRRs) – when appropriate, mainly for large systems 2.System Acceptances Reviews (SARs) – Generally held after Site Acceptance Tests; confirms results of the tests and ensures all required documentation and deliverables are present. This review in many case will mark the formal handover of the equipment to ESS. The SARs should be a very short process. April 2016J.G. Weisend II6

Where are we now in terms of Design Maturity? April 2016J.G. Weisend II7

Where do we expect to be in December 2016? April 2016J.G. Weisend II8

Summary Design reviews are an important aspect of a successful project At ESS, the design reviews are used in a collaborative spirit to add value and ensure success. They are not meant to be “fault finding” A well defined process has been developed for planning, holding and documenting design reviews One size does not fit all and review goals and plans are adjusted to maximize the value added and minimize the schedule impact 2016 will be the peak year for design reviews at ACCSYS Many large systems (ISRC, RFQ, DTL, ACCP) are already in final procurement & production The majority of ACCSYS systems will be in final production by the end of 2016 April 2016J.G. Weisend II9