1. The TRIUMF Gate Review Process
Project Governance
TSOP-15
Byron Jennings | TRIUMF

2. Gate Review Process Motivation
To help TRIUMF operate more safely and efficiently
Improved resource allocation and planning
Commitment list and the time sheets
Understand resource usage and requirements
Cross-site coordination and priority setting
Transparency and fairness in resource allocation
Encourage the best possible proposals
Importance of outside users (customers)
Risk Reduction
Risk to the laboratory
Risk to individual projects (e.g. institutional memory)
Hazard mitigation
Increase the quality and quantity of TRIUMF’s science output

3. What is a project?
A temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or results. (PMBOK)
A unique set of process consisting of coordinated and controlled activities with start and end dates performed to achieve project objectives. (ISO 21500)
TRIUMF (additional criteria)
> $100K and > 6FTEs (person months)
Systematic Approach to Shutdown (SAS)
Project with its own control processes.
Duplication between SAS reviews and Project Management should be avoided.
November 14, 2018
Presentation Title

4. Approach Follow consensus standards and international best practices:
No need to reinvent the wheel but adapt to TRIUMF’s needs
DOE Project management
Critical decision points (CD0, ---)
Canadian developing standard
SNOLAB, TRIUMF, ---
CSA
N286-12, N299
ISO Management Standards
21500, 9000, 9001, 9004, 14000, 31000, 45001
ANSI
(PMBOK Guide) Z

5. Context ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on project management TSOP-15
Science Case
Context
ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on project management
November 14, 2018
Presentation Title

6. Management Processes ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on project management
Presentation Title
November 14, 2018

7. Documentation Good documentation Better use of Docushare
Helps the project run smoothly
All decisions should be documented
See ARIEL II for example of good documentation
Make the Gate Reviews easier
Documentation required for the Gate Reviews are required by good project management anyway
Better use of Docushare
Follow Document Type Index and Document Manual
On the Docushare home page
Put commitment number in keywords
For example: P0234 (old style P0234.0)
Easily bring up all documents related to a given project

8. Documentation Good documentation Better use of Docushare
Helps the project run smoothly
All decisions should be documented
See ARIEL II for example of good documentation
Make the Gate Reviews easier
Documentation required for the Gate Reviews are required by good project management anyway
Better use of Docushare
Follow Document Type Index and Document Manual
On the Docushare home page
Put commitment number in keywords
For example: P0234 (old style P0234.0)
Easily bring up all documents related to a given project

9. Project Life Cycle (Governance)
Mission
Initial Design and Project Plan
Conceptual
Design,
Detailed Project
Plan
Final Design
Commis-sioning
Plan
Operation Plan and Lessons Learned
Initiation
Definition
Planning
Final Design
Construction
Commissioning
Post Project (operations)
Gate 0
Gate 1
Gate 2
Gate 3
Gate 4A
Gate 4B
CD0
CD1
CD2
CD3
CD4
DOE
Approve Mission
Need
Performance
Baseline
Readiness
Review
Approve
Requirements &
Alternative
Selection and
Cost Range
Approve Start of
Construction/ Authorization
To Complete Implementation
Approve Start of Operation or Project/ Transition Completion

10. Project Phases and Gate Reviews
Initiation 1B
Definition 2A
Planning 2B
Final design 2C
Construction 2D
Commissioning 3A
Operations 3B
Decommissioning
Gate 0
Gate 1
Gate 2
Application for External Funding
Gate 3
Gate 4A
Gate 4B
Project Closed
November 14, 2018
Presentation Title

11. The Big Questions Is it worth doing? Is it well defined?1A
Initiation 1B
Definition 2A
Planning 2B
Final design 2C
Construction 2D
Commissioning 3A
Operations 3B
Decommissioning
Is it worth doing?
Gate 0
Gate 1
Is it well defined?
Gate 2
Is the cost well defined?
Gate 3
Is it ready for construction?
Gate 4A
Is it ready for commissioning?
Gate 4B
Is it ready for operations?
What has been learned?
November 14, 2018
Presentation Title

12. Review Committees Gate 0 Gates 1 - 4
Set up by the PMOG (see next slide)
Review Response reviewed by the relevant ALDs and approved by the Director.
Change from current process.
Gates 1 - 4
Setup by the ALD for division the project is in.
Standing committee for all the reviews
Review report should include all submitted documents that are not archived elsewhere.
Presentation Title
November 14, 2018

13. Gate 0 Review PMOG’s responsibility to set up the Gate 0 Reviews
Review committee options
PPAC
Major part of the TRIUMF program (e.g. five year plan)
Part of a set reviewed together (e.g. CFI proposals)
EEC
Judge science case for new experimental facilities
AD HOC COMMITTEE
Setup for one project
PMOG
Infrastructure projects (e.g. accelerator improvements)
Well defined part of a Leadership Team approved program
In all cases there is review report and a response approved by the Director

14. Review Process
The Review (2) makes recom-
mendations. Is the responsibility of the review chair.
The Review Response (3) by the Director sets TRIUMF policy and gives the importance rating.

15. Graded Approach (N286)
The Review Chair is responsible for organizing the Reviews and the Review Reports
Has considerable discretion (when in doubt consult the chair of PMOG)
Level of effort in a review should be commensurate with the risk
Risk depends on size and complexity of the project
Effort
Detail of documentation
Oral presentations or not
Combining two reviews into one, mostly just 1,2

16. Review Mandates Is it worth doing? Is it well defined?
Initiation 1B
Definition 2A
Planning 2B
Final design 2C
Construction 2D
Commissioning 3A
Operations 3B
Decommissioning
Is it worth doing?
Gate 0
Gate 1
Is it well defined?
Gate 2
Is the cost well defined?
Gate 3
Is it ready for construction?
Gate 4A
Is it ready for commissioning?
Gate 4B
Is it ready for operations?
What has been learned?
November 14, 2018
Presentation Title

17. Review 0 Project Request Proponent
The Project Initiation Sheet is prepared by the proponent and forwarded to the Project Management Office. At the time the Project Initiation Sheet is submitted the project should be ready for Review 0.
Control Point: Project Initiation Sheet
Project Management Oversight Group (PMOG) Assessment
Chair, PMOG
The PMOG assesses the request. If accepted for further review then it is added to the commitment list, assigned a Project Category, assigned to a Division, and proceeds to the Initiation and Planning Process. As part of the PMOG assessment, the Director may reject a project that is not consistent with TRIUMF’s current plans.
Control Point: Commitments List (record of assessment)
Review 0
DIRECTOR
The purpose of this Review is to see if the project is sufficiently well motivated and is consistent with TRIUMF’s mission and vision statements and the current five-year plan. Review 0 may be carried out by a standing committee such as the Experiment Evaluation Committee or the Policy and Planning Advisory Committee (PPAC).
Control Point: Review Response

18. Review 1 Project Definition
Proponents
Phase 1B. Major design decisions are made. Initial design, cost estimates and schedule are competed and a level 1 WBS is prepared. See Table for the required documents.
Review 1
Associate Laboratory Director
The purpose of this Review is to do an initial resource usage Review and permit the more detail design and planning required for Review 2. At the discretion of the PMOG, Reviews 1 and 2 may be combined.
Control Point: Review Response
Project Definition
Project Charter Sheet, Conceptual Design, Initial Hazard analysis, Risk Registry, Level 1 WBS, Initial Budget and Resource Estimates

19. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
WBS is a hierarchical and incremental decomposition of the project into phases, deliverables and work packages. It is a tree structure, which shows a subdivision of effort required to achieve an objective; for example a program, project, and contract.

20. Review 2 Project Planning Proponents
Phase 2A. The initial technical design, a resource loaded schedule and a budget suitable for funding requests are completed. See Table for the required documents.
Review 2
Associate Laboratory Director (ALD)
The purpose of this Review is to allow the project to proceed to the execution phase. Technical reviews would normally be performed before the Review 2. With Review 2 approval TRIUMF accepts the risks associated with this project.
A project must successfully pass this review before applying for construction funding.
Control Point: Review Response
Project Planning
Project Plan and Design Notes covering the Initial Technical Design, Updated Hazard Analysis, WBS, Resource Loaded Schedule, Detailed Budget, Draft Commissioning Plan, and Initial Decommissioning Plan.

21. Review 3 Project Construction Funded Proponent
Construction of project is funded. This can be either external funds or budgetary approval from TRIUMF.
Control Point: Funding Decision
Final Design
Phase 2b. The final design and project plan are prepared according to TSOP-06, process 4.2. See Table for required documents.
Review 3
Associate Laboratory Director (ALD)
The purpose of this Review is to check the final design and project plan. Different parts of the project may be reviewed separately. For partial or delayed funding the continued viability of the project should be reassessed.
Control Point: Review Response
Final Design
Design Documents, Updated Risk Registry, Updated Hazard Analysis, Decommissioning Plan.

22. Review 4A Construction Proponent
Phase 2C. The project is executed using the plan from Action 2. See table for required documents. TSOP-05 and TSOP-06 describe the activities in this process.
Review 4A
Associate Laboratory Director (ALD)
This Review checks that the device\facility is ready for commissioning. This requires detailed commissioning and training plans.
Control Point: Review Response
Construction
As Built Drawings, Updated Risk Registry, Commissioning Plan, Training Plan, Updated Hazard Analysis

23. Review 4B Commissioning and Project Closing Proponents
Phase 2D. The facility is commissioned using the plan approved in Review 4A and following TSOP See table for required documents.
To close the project all documents must be released.
Associate Laboratory Director (ALD)
This Review checks that the facility has been commissioned according to the commissioning plan and meets the requirements given the planning records.
Control Point: Review Response
Review 4B
Commissioning
Updated Risk Registry, Commissioning Report
Review 4B
Lessons Learned

24. Lessons Learned
Model/Theory
Publication
Predictions
Observations