1. CERN Draft 0.2 July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal

2. Tentative definition of roles  From the coordination side  Top role:  the one who define the strategy (Technical coordinator = LMC for LHC machine)  this person won’t do any thing within the tool, but will give a green light for a request for which the person just bellow has a doubt (ex: S. Myers for the machine, M. Nessi for ATLAS, A. Ball for CMS)  Operational coordinator  The one who implement the strategy = define the tactic (orchestration)  This person decides whether a request can be approved, in case of doubt refers to top role.  The one who says yes or no within the technical approval process in the tool  Schedulers :  The one who implements tactic  The one who defines dates, checks co-activities  Operators:  the ones who gives access, helps  They can enter new names in a request, or gives access for urgent interventions  From the equipment group/ user  User:  Anyone making a request and having a CERN account  System coordinator  The none who check the consistency of the request of his system. Beware it can be that some groups do not need this role July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal

3. General workflow July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal Equipment group Pre-scheduling Coordination team Pre-scheduling Request Technical Approval Follow-up Closure Safety Risk analysis – UNDER DISCUSSION - this will allow us to include the operational mode, procedures, PPSP.… Anyone shall be able to attach a document at any stage Risk analysisScheduling

4. A R Request for an Activity (A R ) July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal Login A R Fill new A R A R Choose A R from catalog A R Cancel A R  A R Clone A R A R Find an existing A R A R Complete/modify A R  A R Save A R A R Submit A R A R Insert A R in catalog A R Cancel A R  A R Approve A R  A R Assign A R to the adequate coordination team  A R Submit A R to System coordinator Approved by System coordinator  Notes  Document the reason of the rejecting ? & inform requester  Checks, mandatory fields : waiting data model  Depending on groups (a matrix shall be written)  Based on location and time period (LHC machine)  Mail send to coordination teams. This depends on areas & time period General - TIOC: check boxes can be tagged/untagged by creator or coordination or TIOC Phase II

5. Technical Approval July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal A R Assign A R to the adequate coordination team 1 st Check of proposed dates/duration w.r.t schedule TIOC check needed TR TR approval needed ? OC OC checks the consistency of information TR Decision of TR ? A R Cancel A R  OC OC Documents decision  R Cancel R  A R Approve A R A R Cancel A R  A R Approve A R Scheduling Approved by TIOC ? A R Cancel A R  Fields modified ?  Risk analysis OC OC : Operational Coordinator TR TR : Top Role Notes  Document the reason of the rejecting ? & inform requester  If certain fields are modified then go back to System coordinator (loop like in EDH ?)  EDMS number, or meeting reference or doc. attached Phase II

6. Risk analysis & Scheduling July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal A R Approve A R Check proposed dates/duration with current coordination schedule  Insert scheduled – baseline – access dates Risk analysis to be developped: If not done before: System Coordinator shall include if needed PPSPS, operationnal mode, procedure… Operional Coordinator can include additionnal doc. (i.e. additionnal remarks go through control room / operationnal dosimeter are needed.. Notes  Possibility to accept a batch of activity Phase II Safety

7. Safety approval July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal Automatic generation of safety form(s)  Send safety form(s) to requester for check Modification of safety form(s) ?  Send back information to coordination team Coordination team OK ?  Safety form(s) approval circuit Safety form(s) rejected Scheduling Follow up Inform requester  Risks declared ? Notes  Urgent means start date < current date – x days  For each kind of documents  Define which fields shall be rechecked  Mail ?  Mail with dates Could a Super User in matter of Safety deblocked a form ? Not Urgent ?  Safety form(s) sent for information

8. Follow-up July 26th, 2011IMWG - Workflow sub working group - draft 0.2 - Proposal Lock-out RP module (material & transport) Schedule Filters (transport, list of activities /location /day..) Propose new dates Safety form(s) approved Phase II Either coord. Team / requester Approval of new dates Do we have to launch again safety form(s) ? Insert scheduled – baseline – access dates Inform requester by mail (with dates?) Safety approval In parallel VIC (froma phone call of safety coordination – Activity can be paused) Possibility to enter comments on progress (from anyone) Beware of linked activity in the future. If any change how do we announce the changes on following activity To be discussed