1. Quality Management at CERN Pierre Bonnal Engineering Department

2. Quality at CERN Freedom of deficiencies Stakeholder satisfaction Effectiveness But, preservation of creativity

3. Quality at CERN Quality Planning Quality Assurance Quality Control Quality Management

4. Roles to assign Tools to use (IT tools, templates, forms…) Processes to follow Quality Planning Standards to apply

5. CERN’s Tools to Enhance Quality

6. V & V (verification & validation) Quality Control Traceability of performed tasks and deliverables Change requests, decisions and implementation Non conforming products and deliverables

7. Quality at CERN a Body QAC Needs Strategy Steering Validation Trends a Section EN-MEF- QOP Implementation Support Dissemination Verification

8. 3. Towards a Lean PM/SE Approach to Quality in Projects

9. Creativity vs. Rigour Collaboration Delegation

10. Which PM/SE Approach to Adopt? new product training / HR events PROJECTS computing construction industrial plant organizational new service

11. Which PM/SE Approach to Adopt? The research leading to this framework has received funding from the European Commission under the FP7 ITN project PURESAFE, grant agreement no. 264336.

12. = a lifecycle + key deliverables

13. = a booklet + a few guidelines

14. Enhancing the Document Handling Authoring Templates Generic documents Circulating Verification = check Validation = approval Identifying Coding/numbering + Versioning Archiving + Retrieving M = major m = minor b = built

15. Doct. ID  Should not be problem Legal peopleOne-digit/letter approach:approach: First release: DRAFT 1234 – A DRAFT DRAFT n 1234 – B DRAFT 12341234 – C First revision: 1234 /DRAFT 1234 – D DRAFT 1234 /DRAFT 2 1234 – E DRAFT 1234 /DRAFT n 1234 – F DRAFT 1234 /Rev. 1234 – G Next revisions: 1234 /Rev./DRAFT 1234 – H DRAFT 1234 /Rev./DRAFT 2 1234 – J DRAFT 1234 /Rev./DRAFT n 1234 – K DRAFT 1234 /Rev.2 ··· n 1234 – L ··· Z, AA CM M.mCM M.m.b approach:approach: 1234 v. 0.1 DRAFT 1234 v. 0.0.1 DRAFT 1234 v. 0.2 DRAFT 1234 v. 0.0.2 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.0 RELEASED 1234 v. 0.1 DRAFT 1234 v. 0.2 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.0 RELEASED 1234 v. 1.1 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.2 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.0.1 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.3 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.0.2 DRAFT 1234 v. 2.0 RELEASED 1234 v. 1.1 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.2 DRAFT 1234 v. 1.3 DRAFT 1234 v. 2.1 DRAFT 1234 v. 2.0 RELEASED 1234 v. 2.2 DRAFT 1234 v. 2.3 DRAFT 1234 v. 3.0 RELEASED Identification & Versioning

16. Enhancing the Document Handling

17. The “5 Roles” Author auteur Proofreader correcteur Editor resp. de collection Publisher éditeur Librarian bibliothécaire Authors “Prepared by” Checkers “Checked by” (~ “Verified by”) Approvers “Approved by” (~ “Validated by”) Releaser “Released by” (the Appro Leader) e-Librarian / Cataloguist “Cataloged by”

18. Verification vs. Validation from Barry W. Boehm (1981) Verification : Are we building the product right? Validation : Are we building the right product?

19. 4. Towards an Enhanced Approach to Procurement

20. Enhancing the Procurement Process A few years agoNow: e-TenderingTomorrow: Requirements Engineering ReqIFSTEP

21. Enhancing the Procurement Process High/good quality products/services Low/affordable cost products/services Competitive advantage They can choose their customers Well organized They prefer well organized customers Have adopted or adopting requirements engineering tools

22. 5. Towards an Enhanced Approach to Safety Documentation

23. Montesquieu The spirit of the laws Study Team then Project Team then Operations Team then Dismantling Team Safety Inspectors or Licensing Authority Safety Regulations & Prescription Safety Regulations & Prescription 18 th century

24. Two Perspectives The facility shall not injure worker/people nor release effluents in the environment and to do so: it shall operate reliably Facility integrity, Nuclear safety, Sûreté Workers shall not be injured by the facility Occupational / health safety, Radiation protection, Sécurité

25. Facility Lifecycle Demonstration that: 1) the facility can be constructed safely 2) the facility can be operated safety 3) the facility can be dismantled safely 4) one knows what to do of waste Preliminary Safety Report Provisional Safety Report Safety Report

26. Three Families of Documents Safety-focused documents (Preliminary/Provisional) Safety Report Safety-related documents Engineering documents featuring safety provisions Procedures and reports addressing safety provisions Other documents

27. 6. Some Concluding Remarks

28. But before… Enhancing the management of operations Enhancing the management of maintenance Enhancing the management of the configuration (incl. items, assets, ECRs, non conforming products…) Enhancing scientific publication processes Enhancing risk-based decision processes Enhancing the use of ERP-PLM tools …

29. Some Concluding Remarks (1/3) High-end research results Research results at affordable costs Research Funding Agencies Satisfaction = ——— Value Price Lean Quality Management Framework

30. Some Concluding Remarks (2/3) Quality Management refers to many processes Implementing constraining quality processes shall not impair creativity A few addressed in a lean perspective (e.g. Lean Project Management, Lean Systems Engineering) Other not yet proposed in a lean perspective Challenge: creating these lean processes! (e.g. Lean Process Diagramming, Lean Requirements Engineering)

31. Some Concluding Remarks (3/3) Quality Management implies the use of many IT tools They shall grow coherently and be correctly interfaced The “plaster strategy” be avoided Regular reengineering of the processes

32. Thank you for your attention