The TRIUMF Gate Review Process Project Governance TSOP-15 Byron Jennings | TRIUMF

Gate Review Process Motivation To help TRIUMF operate more safely and efficiently Improved resource allocation and planning Commitment list and the time sheets Understand resource usage and requirements Cross-site coordination and priority setting Transparency and fairness in resource allocation Encourage the best possible proposals Importance of outside users (customers) Risk Reduction Risk to the laboratory Risk to individual projects (e.g. institutional memory) Hazard mitigation Increase the quality and quantity of TRIUMF’s science output

What is a project? A temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or results. (PMBOK) A unique set of process consisting of coordinated and controlled activities with start and end dates performed to achieve project objectives. (ISO 21500) TRIUMF (additional criteria) > $100K and > 6FTEs (person months) Systematic Approach to Shutdown (SAS) Project with its own control processes. Duplication between SAS reviews and Project Management should be avoided. November 14, 2018 Presentation Title

Approach Follow consensus standards and international best practices: No need to reinvent the wheel but adapt to TRIUMF’s needs DOE Project management Critical decision points (CD0, ---) Canadian developing standard SNOLAB, TRIUMF, --- CSA N286-12, N299 ISO Management Standards 21500, 9000, 9001, 9004, 14000, 31000, 45001 ANSI 99-001-2013 (PMBOK Guide) Z1.13-1999

Context ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on project management TSOP-15 Science Case Context ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on project management November 14, 2018 Presentation Title

Management Processes ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on project management Presentation Title November 14, 2018

Documentation Good documentation Better use of Docushare Helps the project run smoothly All decisions should be documented See ARIEL II for example of good documentation Make the Gate Reviews easier Documentation required for the Gate Reviews are required by good project management anyway Better use of Docushare Follow Document Type Index and Document Manual On the Docushare home page Put commitment number in keywords For example: P0234 (old style P0234.0) Easily bring up all documents related to a given project

Documentation Good documentation Better use of Docushare Helps the project run smoothly All decisions should be documented See ARIEL II for example of good documentation Make the Gate Reviews easier Documentation required for the Gate Reviews are required by good project management anyway Better use of Docushare Follow Document Type Index and Document Manual On the Docushare home page Put commitment number in keywords For example: P0234 (old style P0234.0) Easily bring up all documents related to a given project

Project Life Cycle (Governance) Mission Initial Design and Project Plan Conceptual Design, Detailed Project Plan Final Design Commis-sioning Plan Operation Plan and Lessons Learned Initiation Definition Planning Final Design Construction Commissioning Post Project (operations) Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4A Gate 4B CD0 CD1 CD2 CD3 CD4 DOE Approve Mission Need Performance Baseline Readiness Review Approve Requirements & Alternative Selection and Cost Range Approve Start of Construction/ Authorization To Complete Implementation Approve Start of Operation or Project/ Transition Completion

Project Phases and Gate Reviews Initiation 1B Definition 2A Planning 2B Final design 2C Construction 2D Commissioning 3A Operations 3B Decommissioning Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2 Application for External Funding Gate 3 Gate 4A Gate 4B Project Closed November 14, 2018 Presentation Title

The Big Questions Is it worth doing? Is it well defined? 1A Initiation 1B Definition 2A Planning 2B Final design 2C Construction 2D Commissioning 3A Operations 3B Decommissioning Is it worth doing? Gate 0 Gate 1 Is it well defined? Gate 2 Is the cost well defined? Gate 3 Is it ready for construction? Gate 4A Is it ready for commissioning? Gate 4B Is it ready for operations? What has been learned? November 14, 2018 Presentation Title

Review Committees Gate 0 Gates 1 - 4 Set up by the PMOG (see next slide) Review Response reviewed by the relevant ALDs and approved by the Director. Change from current process. Gates 1 - 4 Setup by the ALD for division the project is in. Standing committee for all the reviews Review report should include all submitted documents that are not archived elsewhere. Presentation Title November 14, 2018

Gate 0 Review PMOG’s responsibility to set up the Gate 0 Reviews Review committee options PPAC Major part of the TRIUMF program (e.g. five year plan) Part of a set reviewed together (e.g. CFI proposals) EEC Judge science case for new experimental facilities AD HOC COMMITTEE Setup for one project PMOG Infrastructure projects (e.g. accelerator improvements) Well defined part of a Leadership Team approved program In all cases there is review report and a response approved by the Director

Review Process The Review (2) makes recom- mendations. Is the responsibility of the review chair. The Review Response (3) by the Director sets TRIUMF policy and gives the importance rating.

Graded Approach (N286) The Review Chair is responsible for organizing the Reviews and the Review Reports Has considerable discretion (when in doubt consult the chair of PMOG) Level of effort in a review should be commensurate with the risk Risk depends on size and complexity of the project Effort Detail of documentation Oral presentations or not Combining two reviews into one, mostly just 1,2

Review Mandates Is it worth doing? Is it well defined? Initiation 1B Definition 2A Planning 2B Final design 2C Construction 2D Commissioning 3A Operations 3B Decommissioning Is it worth doing? Gate 0 Gate 1 Is it well defined? Gate 2 Is the cost well defined? Gate 3 Is it ready for construction? Gate 4A Is it ready for commissioning? Gate 4B Is it ready for operations? What has been learned? November 14, 2018 Presentation Title

Review 0 Project Request Proponent The Project Initiation Sheet is prepared by the proponent and forwarded to the Project Management Office. At the time the Project Initiation Sheet is submitted the project should be ready for Review 0. Control Point: Project Initiation Sheet Project Management Oversight Group (PMOG) Assessment Chair, PMOG The PMOG assesses the request. If accepted for further review then it is added to the commitment list, assigned a Project Category, assigned to a Division, and proceeds to the Initiation and Planning Process. As part of the PMOG assessment, the Director may reject a project that is not consistent with TRIUMF’s current plans. Control Point: Commitments List (record of assessment) Review 0 DIRECTOR The purpose of this Review is to see if the project is sufficiently well motivated and is consistent with TRIUMF’s mission and vision statements and the current five-year plan. Review 0 may be carried out by a standing committee such as the Experiment Evaluation Committee or the Policy and Planning Advisory Committee (PPAC). Control Point: Review Response

Review 1 Project Definition Proponents Phase 1B. Major design decisions are made. Initial design, cost estimates and schedule are competed and a level 1 WBS is prepared. See Table 5.2-2 for the required documents. Review 1 Associate Laboratory Director The purpose of this Review is to do an initial resource usage Review and permit the more detail design and planning required for Review 2. At the discretion of the PMOG, Reviews 1 and 2 may be combined. Control Point: Review Response Project Definition Project Charter Sheet, Conceptual Design, Initial Hazard analysis, Risk Registry, Level 1 WBS, Initial Budget and Resource Estimates

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) WBS is a hierarchical and incremental decomposition of the project into phases, deliverables and work packages. It is a tree structure, which shows a subdivision of effort required to achieve an objective; for example a program, project, and contract.

Review 2 Project Planning Proponents Phase 2A. The initial technical design, a resource loaded schedule and a budget suitable for funding requests are completed. See Table 5.2-2 for the required documents. Review 2 Associate Laboratory Director (ALD) The purpose of this Review is to allow the project to proceed to the execution phase. Technical reviews would normally be performed before the Review 2. With Review 2 approval TRIUMF accepts the risks associated with this project. A project must successfully pass this review before applying for construction funding. Control Point: Review Response Project Planning Project Plan and Design Notes covering the Initial Technical Design, Updated Hazard Analysis, WBS, Resource Loaded Schedule, Detailed Budget, Draft Commissioning Plan, and Initial Decommissioning Plan.

Review 3 Project Construction Funded Proponent Construction of project is funded. This can be either external funds or budgetary approval from TRIUMF. Control Point: Funding Decision Final Design Phase 2b. The final design and project plan are prepared according to TSOP-06, process 4.2. See Table 5.3-2 for required documents. Review 3 Associate Laboratory Director (ALD) The purpose of this Review is to check the final design and project plan. Different parts of the project may be reviewed separately. For partial or delayed funding the continued viability of the project should be reassessed. Control Point: Review Response Final Design Design Documents, Updated Risk Registry, Updated Hazard Analysis, Decommissioning Plan.

Review 4A Construction Proponent Phase 2C. The project is executed using the plan from Action 2. See table 5.3-2 for required documents. TSOP-05 and TSOP-06 describe the activities in this process. Review 4A Associate Laboratory Director (ALD) This Review checks that the device\facility is ready for commissioning. This requires detailed commissioning and training plans. Control Point: Review Response Construction As Built Drawings, Updated Risk Registry, Commissioning Plan, Training Plan, Updated Hazard Analysis

Review 4B Commissioning and Project Closing Proponents Phase 2D. The facility is commissioned using the plan approved in Review 4A and following TSOP- 13. See table 5.3-2 for required documents. To close the project all documents must be released. Associate Laboratory Director (ALD) This Review checks that the facility has been commissioned according to the commissioning plan and meets the requirements given the planning records. Control Point: Review Response Review 4B Commissioning Updated Risk Registry, Commissioning Report Review 4B Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned Model/Theory Publication Predictions Observations