1 MICE Project Board Schedule and risk discussion Introduction Project Management comment Schedule considerations Adapting the schedule/reacting to circumstances The difficult bit Project risks Managing the Risk/Schedule aspects Andy Nichols, STFC, 23 rd September, 2010

Introduction Some difficult slides to make – far easier to do a ‘show and tell’ Do not intend to show highly detailed.mpp files or Excel tables But more to describe how we do things, some of which have been proven by existing project experience The top-level MICE schedule is dominated by only two or three dates for major subsystems Understanding and managing these dates is our (my) job Once we have done that, the rest of the schedule can hang around them. 2

Project Management comment With relevance to schedule and risk: –MICE Project management is a UK deliverable –Emphasis at first on: Construction schedule Technical integration/interfaces Documentation Quality Assurance Safety management & responsibility –PM reports to/interacts with EB, Spokespeople and Collaboration Board in all matters, especially planning and scheduling MICE WBS and scheduling detail (for UK project) can be found at: (Too much detail to show here, and not quite up to date This is the main topic that needs to be transferred to MICE) 3

Project Management Comment Significant additional manpower is required to integrate the whole MICE project into a unified schedule A schedule framework exists Much detail and largely up to date for UK project Team has recently been reinforced: Chris Bulloch – Temporary project planning Roy Preece – will take over from Chris full time Jason Tarrant – Project integration But much still to do 4

Schedule considerations The MICE Project is configured in six discrete R&D phases, Steps I to VI The completion of MICE, i.e. demonstration of cooling, is driven by the international physics timetable The individual steps have value in their own right, but some may be skipped (Step II for example) Historically, the top-level schedule is defined by single-page graphical description – see over – easily readable by all collaborators Milestones are reviewed each Technical Board meeting monthly, and the whole schedule at each Collaboration meeting (3/year) We are presently working to that which was agreed in March 2010, but with a very important qualification, see later 5

6 Present top-level MICE schedule Agreed by MICE – reviewed at Collaboration Meetings This version – March, 2010 See notes next slide For comment re Steps III & IV

Schedule considerations The post MICE Step I schedule is now largely driven by the spectrometer solenoid delivery – see magnet talk The problems with solenoids are being understood: A repair plan is being worked on It will be reviewed and hopefully agreed October 2010 Points to review: thermal model, safety margin, quality control, manpower and scheduling, engineering implementation AT THAT POINT, detailed MICE project schedules and milestones will be re-baselined December 2010 should be taken as the likely date for complete acceptance of the recovery plan We will keep the MPB informed of the developments. It’s conceivable that MICE Steps II&III can be skipped to go directly to Step IV in Q and save time, but physics and AFC practicalities then also comes into the argument – see later. Physics and practical constraints for this will be explored in CM28 (October 2010) 7

Adapting the schedule 8 This is where we have to get to: MICE Step VI (  2013)

Adapting the schedule 9 Step IV Liquid Hydrogen delivery system Given the uncertainty of the spectrometer solenoid, UK is concentrating on Liquid hydrogen and RF this FY We are investigating the possibility to perform magnetic survey at vendor instead of Fermilab, thus saving time (2-3months) and risks Added bonus: same team/device could be measuring AFC and Coupling coils (so far unsolved issue)......But to stand the best chance of making it, we probably have to change the plan

Going straight to Step IV Some points to consider: –FC magnet delivery is early 2011 –UK is endeavouring to get hydrogen delivery system done in FY 10/11 –Does going straight to Step IV preclude scientific work unique to Step III? –What are the run plans for steps III & IV – they compete directly with ‘building’ time and have to be balanced –Time taken with dismantling the intermediate configurations –And the risk of damaging delicate equipment needlessly 10

Adapting the schedule The reasoning goes something like this: –The delivery dates to RAL of both spectrometer solenoids is uncertain, but first one is unlikely before mid-2011 –There is a several month integration period to build and commission and equip each solenoid – this cannot be avoided, but could be mitigated by more people –We need to include/optimize magnetic survey steps –The UK has rearranged itself to build a complete LH2 delivery system in FY10/11 –And we need some project ‘float’ – vital, as we have not done this before –Step III & III.1 vs directly step IV -- will be reviewed at CM28 –A significant input to this is the time taken to dismantle and re- assemble the step III configuration, or to mount and dismount the AFC module (weeks rather than days?). detailed plan will be presented at above discussion. 11

Task DescriptionDate Complete EM, thermal and mechanical analysesmid-Sept. Complete the design modification planearly-Oct. Presentation to review committee(s)end-Oct. The nominal reassembly time for the magnets is expected to be approximately four months Important note: this cannot be decided until the plan, including its detailed schedule is reviewed Actual assembly time will depend on the degree of modification required The second magnet will follow the first by 2 to 3 months This date also cannot be predicted in detail right now Very provisional Spectrometer solenoid plan – courtesy Steve Virostek

The main jobs we have to do on the first spectrometer solenoid when it arrives: customs etc unwrapping installation in place mounting and connections install controls cool down power up test installation of diffuser installation of shielding plate quench tests measurements in situ of magnetic field (subject to discussion) disconnections displacement in park position for tracker assembly installation of tracker connections of tracker etc etc… re-installation of diffuser and of plate move to beam position, geometry again install TOF1 and TOF1 cage This is presently ‘under construction’ as the final details are unknown and some points still being discussed UK integration schedule is only for FY 10/11 at present but this represents around four months’ work schedule is provisional only, based on Jan 2010 knowledge Some of the integration steps

The difficult bit Most of MICE’s activities are (many) relatively straightforward mechanical and electrical tasks – why so difficult? They can be lined up and expressed as Gannt charts easily enough, but: The schedule to be realistic must include explicitly defined and understood ‘float’ to make allowances for risky/unforeseen tasks that might take more time Resource loading (of competent and available manpower) should also be called out properly and given suitable headroom – this is becoming one of our major worries resulting delays w.r.t. expectations are damaging for MICE collaborators as well as to our credibility to the outside. 14

Project Risks Tend to separate into three types: –Technical RF, liquid hydrogen, mechanical, electrical Probably the easiest to manage, as MICE is in control to large extent –Financial Funding difficulties Stretching the schedule –Personnel Skills balance Finding the right staff Also connected with finance Project flexibility – reacting to change quickly Both the above difficult to manage, as usually significant outside influence, ie competition with other projects, recruitment bans, etc 15

Managing the schedule/risk aspects Quite understandably from 2007 we first focused on the UK project The UK project undertook a number of cost and schedule reviews This established a framework Now have weekly progress meetings that monitor: Earned value Review the risk register(s) Review the project schedule Spend against allocation UK project is broken into work packages Each WP manager has delegated budgetary, schedule and risk ownership responsibilities Good participation, this now works very well 16 The next step is to carry this methodology over to the international project, involving much more travel and communication – full-time job....

Summary UK activity installation is now in a largely stable state and ready for Steps II onwards Schedule planning methodology has been developed by UK project Now ready to read it across to international project Appointment of right person is making progress Top level schedule is under review to recover time Major subsystems dominate the above, but are being understood now lack of available suitable manpower and skills balance is a rapidly evolving major project risk 17