1. LS1 – View from Applications BE-CO LS1 review – 1 December 2015 Greg Kruk on behalf of the Applications section

2. What is different during LS? This is our opportunity to implement non-backward compatible or risky changes LS1: first time after 10 years of development Less support during the Long Shutdown, but much more towards the end, during dry runs and commissioning (~100%) 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 2

3. Main focus during LS1 Migrations/adaptations Adapt LSA/InCA to RDA3, FESA3 Follow class migrations: GM, FESA2  FESA3 CESAR refactoring LSA/InCA Refactoring of APIs Change Working Set / Knobs configuration Refactoring of InCA Acquisition server, client API and Working Sets / Knobs Refactoring of Function Editor (with OP) FGCs @ SPS AD integration 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 3

4. How did we prepare? Identified the work to be done during LS1 before the start Presented the work internally during WP planning meetings and externally during a dedicated CO workshop Deadlines were set based on accelerator schedule, imposed by external collaborators or chosen “ad-hoc” (in the case of long external deadlines) Used JIRA for planning, which is adequate for our needs 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 4

5. What was the impact? External developers had to adapt to new APIs Supported by team and documentation on Wiki Final validation in vertical tests, mainly during CO dry runs but also during individual dedicated class tests OP + EQP specialists Some integration problems became apparent FESA developers had to adapt APIs or configuration For other things InCA side was adapted Users had to learn new configuration tools 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 5

6. What worked well in LS1? Less day-to-day pressure, more time for knowledge sharing, design discussions, etc. Good collaboration with external developers – no major issues adapting applications Good collaboration with CO, OP and EQP group specialists during dry-runs and commissioning The most important items were done, even though a very tight schedule towards the end 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 6

7. What didn’t work that well? Underestimated effort necessary to cleanup the data and implement GUIs Few unplanned items that appeared during LS1 Few items came quite late (RDA3, FESA3) Few items we had to drop (too optimistic planning) Difficult integration with some FESA classes, mainly due to insufficient communication Not sufficient time for internal testing before dry-runs Too tight dry-runs schedule CO experts pool for dry runs – benefits not very clear 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 7

8. Were the problems specific to LS1? Some of them YES Data cleanup  Working Sets / Knobs configuration High concentration of support during dry-runs and commissioning Most of them NOT: Too optimistic planning Integration issues Insufficient understanding of impact of changes done by one team on other teams Insufficient communication 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 8

9. What can we do better for future LSs? Plan more pessimistically Start sooner (before LS) With big impact changes be ready well before the end of LS Reserve enough time for thorough internal testing More time in-between dry runs and more flexible for exact dates We would like an overall planning meeting for LS2 to learn about the plans of others + regular check-points LS review few months rather than 1.5 year after the LS 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 9

10. Coordination & Communication (not only for LSs) Better coordination and communication between CO teams, OP and equipment groups Documentation and FESA-InCA compatibility checks are important but not sufficient Lightweight review of new FESA classes and major changes in existing ones FESA class developer, CO expert(s), OP representative We believe that vast part of problems, surprises and integration issues could be avoided having that in place Initiative presented by Rende during CO3 Looking forward to see it established and followed by all EQP groups 01/12/15 LS1 Review CO-APs 10