Data Management T/CAMs: FY16 Budgets/Staffing Jeffrey Kantor Data Management Project Manager

FY16 Budget Targets FY15 is not quite full year (through S15 cycle) FY16 is with part of underspend from FY14/FY15 included to permit faster ramp up/recovery 2 (SQuaRE $346k)

Travel Original FY15 – FY18 budgets covered DM Team, DM Leadership Team, DM All Hands, Project All Hands meetings only ($152.5k in FY15, +$20k/yr through FY18) This was more than covered in FY15 but we had significant other travel: – Conferences, seminars, workshops, training $60k – PST and Science Collaborations $11.5k – Interfaces and networks meetings$41.5k This will occur every year, so plan to implement: – Move PST and SC travel off DM budget to PMO – Establish individual annual allowance for conferences Higher if justified by project needs – Request additional $100k/yr through FY18 3

T/CAM Time Time analysis shows roughly 120 hrs/month in “ordinary months”, plus “Special” weeks twice a year for cycle and long-range planning, and annual budgeting Assumed monthly activities are modulated by special weeks, not additive This is ~70% of available time for an FTE Leaves minimal time for technical work, no time if someone has Science Time 4

T/CAMs in FY16 and beyond Expect some improvements in T/CAM activity efficiency (e.g. shorter DMLT meetings) Base budget should now plan for a full FTE for only T/CAM work (allowing for sick, vacation, science time, etc. on top) How each institution satisfies this is up to the institution to define (single or multiple people) Work this into FY16 budgets Request Project Controls Specialist dedicated to DM 5

LSST Earned Value Section 4 of July monthly Report (1-30 June 2015)

DM EV from July Report

EV Variance Narratives Detailed suitable for monthly reports Need to summarize for AMCL, etc. Project Manager will annotate T/CAM input

EV Data Flow Institution Invoice and WBS/Account Breakout

EV Schedule Variances Schedule Variance = Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS, i.e. planned cost) – (Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP, i.e. the planned value) – Negative is bad (behind schedule) – Positive is good (ahead of schedule) – BCWS is based on JIRA Epic SP Estimates with “standard” velocity and on LOE resource assignments from sheet – BCWP is based on JIRA Story SP “weights” and Completed Stories/Steps calculated by P6 as % Complete * BWCS – LOE activities also accrue cost and EV as time passes, but in general should not contribute to SV 10

SV Sources The variance has been due to work not performed on schedule due to: – Understaffing (nobody to do the work) – Deferred procurements (procurements contracts not in place on time) – Planned Epics taking longer than expected (not possible to completely eliminate, but should balance out) 11

SV Recovery Use underspend on additional staff starting in FY16 Replan work to recover in FY16 – FY18 FDR-era plan based on having to be ready for Commissioning Camera in S18 Commissioning Camera observing now starts in October, 2019 and thus we have until S19 to be ready We should try to hold as much as possible to S18 ready date in DLP/LDM-240, using W19, S19 as schedule contingency MJ and KTL to (re-)negotiate with SE what “ready for commissioning camera” means in terms of DM software capabilities and hardware capacity Move procurements to end of FY, can always do early Put any “uncertain” Epics in next cycle, can always do early 12

EV Cost Variances Cost Variance = Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP, i.e. the planned value) – Actual Cost of Work Performed(ACWP, i.e. the actual cost) – Negative is bad (spent more than planned for that work) – Positive is good (spent less than planned for that work) – velocity and on LOE resource assignments – BCWP is based on JIRA Story SP “weights” and Completed Stories/Steps calculated by P6 as % Complete * BWCS – ACWP is based on invoiced amounts/breakouts (unless still using estimated actuals) – On LOE activities we are reporting all costs, but we appear not to be recording all value 13

CV Sources If we charge a $1, we need to make sure we earn value for it, or it is negative CV We have had slightly positive CV due to actual salaries being less than budgeted salaries in some cases We have had negative CV due to: – Under-reporting of value on LOE activities – 02C.01 or 02 work applied to other accounts in error – Deferred procurements having “standing army effect” – Missing SP credit when one T/CAM asks for other T/CAM resources – Planned Epics actually taking more effort than expected 14

CV Recovery Add LOE assignments for % of staff indicated by T/CAMs – Record value as time elapses (duration-based EV) – No need for T/CAMs to put in % complete When doing work that is “triggered” by other WBS, still need to account for it in local WBS – Example – new documentation standard developed by SQuaRE requires changes to all code, work to change code is not SQuaRE, it is in the WBS containing the code Move DM-level work to 02C.01 and 02 – Example – Robert Lupton work with PST 15

EV Process Improvement Current rules/practices to retain for W16 – We use a standard velocity factor for all teams (1.4 SP/day) – We plan all non-LOE Epics (and some LOE that are development “buckets” for bugs or improvements that emerge during cycle) NCSA will also include LOE epics in JIRA for system administration, etc. – We can add, delete, move individual stories without negative SV consequences, as long as the rest of the Epic is completed on time or nearly so, and we do not exceed Epic SP estimate by > 10% – We can change an Epic that was already scheduled to start, with a change request, only at mid-cycle or end-of-cycle. This cannot be done on too many Epics or it raises big red flags with EV New rules/practices to implement in W16 – We can change an Epic with a Change Request, as long as we are not yet in the month the Epic was scheduled to start 16