V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep-2003 1 Run 2b Layer 0 Workshop u Layer 0 proposal from project Management perspective s History/News s Schedule.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Follow-Up Review of the APUL Project November 2-3, 2009 Dean A. Hoffer.
Advertisements

US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, US CMS Cost & Schedule Mark Reichanadter US CMS Project Engineer DOE/NSF Review 8 May 2001.
DOE/NSF U.S. CMS Operations Program Review Closeout Report Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory March 10, 2015 Anadi Canepa, TRIUMF Anna Goussiou, University.
Cost, Schedule & Funding Closeout Jan Joint DOE/NSF CD2/3a Review 1 DOE/NSF Review of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Project SC 6/7 Cost, Schedule.
Frank L. H. WolfsDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester SLC Meeting July 16, 2003 Issues to be discussed: Time table for catalyst.
FRA’s Earned Value Management System Overview for Self Assessment Surveillance March 07-09, 2011 Dean Hoffer Head, Office of Project Management Oversight.
The R&M Task Group mandate is to: Develop specific recommendations on how social housing project reporting and monitoring could be improved and made more.
WBS 1.7: AFE II Project Cost and Schedule Alan Bross DZero Run IIb AFE II Director’s Review April 13, 2005.
Challenges Faced in Developing Audit Plans and Programs 21 st March, 2013.
Fermilab Implementation of DOE Critical Decision Process FRA Project Management System Presentation by L Edward Temple Jr Head, Office of Project Management.
NCSX Management Overview Hutch Neilson, NCSX Project Manager NCSX Conceptual Design Review Princeton, NJ May 23, 2002.
1. Proposal deadline 2. Timeline  A grant opportunity announcement will include a sponsor deadline for receipt of the proposal.  The instructions will.
AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 27 Jan 2005 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting 27 Jan 2005 Useful Links: RSVP Project : C-AD.
HFT project Overview and Status October 14, 2010 F.Videbaek BNL.
BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES National Synchrotron Light Source II Project Management Jim Yeck NLSL II Deputy Director (Project Management)
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1 3. Cost Estimate Gines, Fisher 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary.
7/26/2006 Wyatt Merritt 1 DECam Preparations for Critical Decision 2/3a Preparations for CD2 Preparations for CD3a DECam MOUs.
Executive Session Director’s CD-3b Review of the MicroBooNE Project January 18, 2012 Dean Hoffer.
IEEE /r3 Submission September 2008 John Notor, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.Slide 1 IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process Date:
January LEReC Review 12 – 13 January 2015 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Kerry Mirabella Cost, Schedule, Personnel.
John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson1 DES Management  Survey Organization  Survey Deliverables  Proposed funding.
Mu2e WGM R. Ray Mu2e Project Manager Sept. 14, 2012.
LBNE Working Group Meeting December 20, :00– 5:00 PM Snake Pit.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Sims, Edwards 1.Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications.
Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Review of the LBNE Project September 25, 2012 Jim Yeck.
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OVERVIEW, WORKPLAN & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR ALACHUA COUNTY Energy Conservation Strategies Commission February 18,
W.J. Foyt LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 1 Project Management W. J. Foyt Project Scope Timeline Cost Estimate.
CLIC Implementation Studies Ph. Lebrun & J. Osborne CERN CLIC Collaboration Meeting addressing the Work Packages CERN, 3-4 November 2011.
Doc.: IEEE /0024r0 Submission February 2010 Päivi Ruuska, NokiaSlide 1 Process Considerations Notice: This document has been prepared to assist.
7/26/2006 Wyatt Merritt 1 DECam CD1 Documentation DOE Critical Decision Process Documentation Requirements.
Quality Accounts Dr Cheryl Crocker Director Quality and Patient Safety/Executive Nurse.
January LEReC Review 12 – 13 January 2015 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Kerry Mirabella Cost, Schedule, Personnel.
Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision Transmission Workstream meeting, 3 rd December 2009.
AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 2 December 2004 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting 2 Dec 2004 Useful Links: RSVP Project : C-AD AGS Project: Office.
DoE Review June 6, 2000 Cost Estimate  New Cost Estimate u Manpower Costs (Op. SWF) u Equipment Costs (Eq. M&S) u Contingency  Conclusions Mike Tuts.
DZero Run IIb Rev Nov 05 ‘03 1 Kotcher Agenda (from Rebaselining Review)  Introduction (Kotcher – 10’)  Trigger & DAQ/Online (Wood – 30’) u AFE II/TriP.
AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 6 Jan 2005 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting 6 Jan 2005 Useful Links: RSVP Project : C-AD.
Project Life Presented by Chuck Ray, PMP ITS Project Manager.
Office of Baseline Change Proposal (BCP) Approval or Brief Presented by: Draft version Jun 16, 2015.
CFS / Global – 09 June, 2010 PM Report: SB2009: –4 two-day workshops form the core of ‘TOP LEVEL CHANGE CONTROL’ –  as advised by AAP, PAC and etc –Written.
IEEE /r5 Submission November 2008 John Notor, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.Slide 1 IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process Date:
Cost and Schedule Breakout Session Paul Weinman Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
K. Long, 25 June, 2016 IDR: structure and overall timeline: Slides are to introduce discussion of how we prepare IDR. Propose to revise slides as we discuss.
Rob Connatser NSS Instrument Work Packages and XLPM.
Required Documentation: Determination and Overview (EPTM Chapter 3)
OFFICE OF SCIENCE DOE/SC CD-3c Review of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e) Project Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory June 14-16, 2016.
FAQ Webinar Call for Proposals Call toll-free: (local: ) Participant code: # Webinar Dates: August 11 – August.
CMS HL-LHC Detector Upgrades Project Planning Workshop, 26th – 30th Sept 2016, Fermilab Lucas Taylor Associate PM (for Cost, Schedule, Risk) Overview and.
“GOLDEN RULES” FOR WRITING BUSINESS LETTERS
Head, Office of Project Management Oversight (OPMO)
【New Draft】 France -Japan International Co-funding Joint call Schedule (revised version) APR. 11, 2017 Bpifrance / NEDO final meeting (week of 18/9) Announcement.
A Look at the Pre-Award & Contract Services Office
Project Management W. J. Foyt
Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service
Francesco Forti University and INFN, Pisa
Preparations for a Lehman Review
Revised engagement approach for draft GTAC
Submission Title: ULP TG Closing Report Nanjing China
Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision
DSC ChMC CSS update 6th July 2018
PROJECT PROPOSAL TEMPLATE
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
<month year> doc.: IEEE ptc November 2012
CEOS Virtual Constellations Process Paper
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
Comments on IMT-Advanced Review Process
Setting up a project file
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
Water Directors’ Meeting Working Group D (Reporting) activities
Presentation transcript:

V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep Run 2b Layer 0 Workshop u Layer 0 proposal from project Management perspective s History/News s Schedule

V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep History/Status of L0 proposal u Approached directorate about possibility of L0 shortly after silicon project cancellation was announced s encouraged to submit a proposal u Submitted initial proposal to director on Sept 10 s Director responded in a letter on September 18 s Says in part: –“We understand that running throughout Run II with no upgrade to the current silicon detector presents potential vulnerabilities…If some of this risk can be mitigated by a creative initiative of the scale outlined in your document, that would be a very positive development for D0 and therefor for Fermilab.” s Directorate requests that Layer 0 proposal be part of the BCP (baseline change proposal)

V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep Schedule u Baseline Change Proposal (BCP) schedule s Oct 14 Director’s minireview (or glance really) of the BCP proposal (what’s in/what’s out, etc.) –duration approximately 1 hour –covers silicon/trigger projects but will have a strong focus on L0 s Oct 15 Projects deliver proposed items (what's in/out) to be the basis for BCP to OHEP –This is really more or less a paragraph or so –What is missing from the L0 proposal that we must have is: fully loaded cost to DOE (labor, G&A, M&S, etc.) rough schedule and milestones funding profile –We can choose not to put installation in the BCP (e.g. not part of the project)

V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep Rebaselining Schedule  Continued s Oct 31 Deliver draft rebaseline proposal to OHEP –includes drafts of Changes in scope (what, why, and associated costs) Revised high level schedule and reportable milestones Funding & obligation profile table Contingency/risk analysis s Nov 10ish Director’s review of the BCP –This is to review all the final documentation that will be submitted to OHEP Nov –draft proposal for this review has ~ 2.5 hours of presentation from D0 includes full BCP - all changes to baseline ~1 day affair with outside reviewers (Alexander/Pilcher?/Temple/Hoffer)

V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep Rebaselining Schedule u Nov 10 Project Director & Program Manager deliver the final rebaseline proposal package, a draft of BCP and a draft of CD-3b approval request to OHEP. Package must contain: s Changes in scope (what, why, and associated costs) s Revised high level schedule and reportable milestones s Funding & obligation profile table s Contingency analysis s Risk analysis

V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep Rebaselining Schedule u Nov 19 Final submission of everything s Final rebaseline proposal package (listed above) s ESAAB presentation * s Baseline Change Proposal * s Request for CD-3b approval ** s Amendment to or revision of PEP * s Copies of relevant Change Requests by the projects for BCP s Amendment to or revision of PMP –prepared by project office (us) –* prepared by the DOE Project Director (Philp) –** prepared by the DOE Program Manager (Procario) u Nov 24 ESAAB

V. O’Dell, L0 Workshop 25-Sep Conclusions/Observations  This is a very tight schedule u I believe the quicker we do it, the less scrutiny we will get u final project will fall under the $$ amount that requires reporting earned value s no SPI/CPI etc. s This project will get much less scrutiny than before –(pros/cons)  Ultimately any upgrade (silicon or trigger) is up to the collaboration s requires commitment from our collaborators s Spokes will be canvassing the collaboration during the upcoming collaboration meeting to assess commitment