1. PIP-II Resource Loaded Schedule (RLS) ---- Step 0 ---- Luisella Lari 13 May, 2016

2. Outline CD-1 goals: a reminder –CD-2 goals: a reminder Major Constraints to develop a Deliverable Oriented RLS Inputs needed Key words: 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari2

3. Goals CD-1: a reminder 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari3 Courtesy of M. Kaducak Main RLS concern for CD-1 Develop a stable WBS in P6 for all the duration of the project i.e. from 2016 until 2025. Main RLS concern for CD-1 Develop a stable WBS in P6 for all the duration of the project i.e. from 2016 until 2025.

4. Goals CD-2: a reminder 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari4 Courtesy of M. Kaducak Main RLS concern for CD-2 Each activities duration in P6 has to be 1 or 2 months, and with a clear deliverable /goal.

5. Major Constraints to develop a Deliverable Oriented RLS (1/3) 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari5 Courtesy of S. Holmes PIP-II High Level Schedule at the time of CD-0 Some R&D works foreseen after CD-2 Overlapping in time between R&D and Construction PIP-II High Level Schedule at the time of CD-0 Some R&D works foreseen after CD-2 Overlapping in time between R&D and Construction

6. Major Constraints to develop a Deliverable Oriented RLS (2/3) 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari6 PIP-II Budget Profile at the time of DOE review (June 2015) Some developments foreseen after CD-2 Overlapping in costs between R&D and Construction with In-kind works/budget PIP-II Budget Profile at the time of DOE review (June 2015) Some developments foreseen after CD-2 Overlapping in costs between R&D and Construction with In-kind works/budget Courtesy of P. Derwent Millions

7. Major Constraints to develop a Deliverable Oriented RLS (3/3) 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari7 Courtesy of C. Jacobsen PIP-II Financial Structure defined for R&D and at a certain level for Construction Minimize changes for Chargeable Task Code PIP-II Financial Structure defined for R&D and at a certain level for Construction Minimize changes for Chargeable Task Code

8. Proposed WBS in P6 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari8 WBS in P6  Level 2 Milestones driving the project i.e. CD, CF Access, Major Technical Achievements

9. Proposed WBS in P6 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari9 WBS in P6  Level 3

10. Proposed WBS in P6 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari10 WBS in P6  Level 4 Phase Level WBS in P6  Level 4 Phase Level What about an additional Installation and/or Commissioning phases? End of Level 3 ? What about an additional Installation and/or Commissioning phases? End of Level 3 ?

11. Proposed WBS in P6 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari11 WBS in P6  Level 5 Works Level WBS in P6  Level 5 Works Level Lower WBS Levels than Level 5 are possible to better define the scope of the works

12. Proposed WBS in P6 (Example 1) 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari12 WBS in P6  below Level 5 Works Level WBS in P6  below Level 5 Works Level Same for R&D Phase Same for R&D Phase

13. Proposed WBS in P6 (Example 2) 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari13 WBS in P6  below Level 5 Works Level WBS in P6  below Level 5 Works Level Same for R&D Phase Same for R&D Phase

14. Proposed WBS in P6 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari14 WBS in P6  Level 5 Works Level WBS in P6  Level 5 Works Level It is better to have a sequence in cascade of activities and/or MS for each Level 5 (or lower) WU

15. The main advantages to use this WBS It is aligned with the Manager Levels. Easy WBS description as required for CD-1. It is easy to assign the right Chargeable Task Code or In-Kind costs and a CAM responsible. Each Lever 3 WU is organized with the same WBS structure  easy to find the info needed when the plan will become complex. Easy to manage when changes happens  generally the changes are related to FTE, procurement strategy, In-kind planning until agreements signed  well identified 1 WU for each major potential changes. Easy to identify the major deliverables  MS WUs. Easy to go into details when available i.e. for CD-2. 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari15

16. The main disadvantage of using this WBS This WBS allows to clear identify the installation technical sequence but it is not able to identify coordination constraints  this asks for a WBS per tunnel/gallery areas. This WBS takes memory of all the R&D works from 2016 when CD-2 will be approved (i.e. 2019). 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari16 Neutral effect of using this WBS

17. ….it is not so far away for what used for PXIE until Level 3 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari17

18. Inputs needed 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari18 Step 0: Please send me the schedules already produced in pdf (preferred), Excel, Microsoft Project (2010), Open Project … Step 1: I will translate the schedules already produced into the new structure, including the resources well identified for 2016/2017 (R&D Phase). Step 2: Checking (iterative process). Step 3: Complete the plan until Beam Commissioning of PIP-II.

19. Inputs needed: easy? 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari19

20. Inputs needed: easy? 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari20

21. Summary 13 th May 2016Luisella Lari21 Moving through a mature Deliverable Oriented RLS is an iterative process between technical & project managers. Identify a common way of planning from the beginning is helpful for identifying problems later when the schedule will be complex and in particular when Schedule Variance (SV) and Cost Variance (CV) have to be justified. The WBs structure proposed is in line with the Fermilab & DOE rules/recommendations.