GLAST Large Area Telescope: Baseline Review Preparations Tanya Boysen

GLAST LAT Project DOE/NASA Review of the GLAST/LAT Project, Aug. 14, 2001

GLAST Large Area Telescope:GLAST Large Area Telescope:

Baseline Review Preparations

Tanya BoysenStanford Linear Accelerator CenterLAT Project Controls Manager

[email protected]

Gamma-ray Large Gamma-ray Large Area Space Area Space TelescopeTelescope


T. Boysen 2

Baseline Review Preparations

Outline

Baseline Preparations

Technical (Scope)

Schedule

Cost

Recommendations from February Review

Plan for Completion


T. Boysen 3

Baseline Preparations

• Technical (Scope)

• WBS complete for 12 subsystems; 1 still to be confirmed.

• Subsystem managers responsible for technical baseline documents. All subsystem L2 and L3 requirements written and reviewed.

• Schedule

• All inputs have been received from subsystem managers.

• Half are completed, half are being actively iterated with PMCS team.

• Cost

• All cost estimates received from subsystem managers.

• 4 complete; the rest are being actively iterated (most of these iterations concern some final detail).


T. Boysen 4

February Review Recommendations

Management Recommendation #4

• “Develop an integrated, resource loaded schedule and cost estimate.”

• Current statistics:

• 6080 Schedule Activities

• 6300 Schedule Relationships

• 200 Work Packages


T. Boysen 5

Status of PMCS InputsStatus of PMCS Inputs

Subsystem WBSWBS

Dictionary

WBS Responsi-

bilitiesCost

EstimateManpower Planning Schedule

Work Pkg.

Planning

4.1.1 Management C C C I I C C

4.1.2 Sys. Eng. C C C I I I C

4.1.4 Tracker C C C C I C C

4.1.5 Calorimeter C C C R I

4.1.6 ACD I I I I I I

4.1.7 Electronics C C C I C C C

4.1.8 Mech. Sys. C C C I I I C

4.1.9 I&T C C C C C C C

4.1.A Perf & Safety C C C I I I C

4.1.B IOC C C I I I

4.1.C E/PO C C C C C C C

4.1.D Science Anal. SW C C C I I I

4.1.E. Balloon Flight C C C C N/A C N/A

R = Received Complete InputsI = Iterating/In Progress (w/ Subsystem Manager)C = Confirmed/Completed (w/ Subsystem Manager)


T. Boysen 6

Status of PMCS Inputs (cont’d)Status of PMCS Inputs (cont’d)

Institution Labor RatesActuals Import

SLAC C C

HEPL C I

GSFC C I

NRL C I

Sonoma State C C

UCSC C I

I = Iterating/In-progressC = Confirmed/Completed


T. Boysen 7

Monthly Status CycleMonthly Status Cycle

• Have established and communicated a plan for the monthly cost/schedule status cycle.

• Have been collecting actual cost information since March.

• First complete cycle conducted (data for June).

• Educated the participants on the process and the reports.

• Examined variances to plan.

• Status as of August 30 will support the baseline review.


T. Boysen 8

June, 2001 StatusJune, 2001 Status

JAN01 FEB01 MAR01 APR01 MAY01 JUN01 JUL01 AUG01 SEP01 OCT01 NOV01 DEC01BCWS 5,375 6,084 6,905 7,817 9,070 10,495 11,951 13,373 15,027 16,855 18,273 19,305BCWP 0 0 1,077 5,435 5,846 7,148ACWP 0 0 7,223 7,742 8,768 9,589


T. Boysen 9

June, 2001 StatusJune, 2001 StatusCost Performance Report - Work Breakdown Structure

Contractor: Contract Type/No: Project Name/No: Report Period:Location: GLAST LAT June Month End5/31/01 6/30/01

Quantity Negotiated Cost Est. Cost Authorized Tgt. Profit/ Tgt. Est Share Contract Estimated ContractUnpriced Work Fee % Price Price Ratio Ceiling Ceiling

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CAPW[3] Current Period Cumulative to Date At CompletionCPN[1] Actual Actual

Budgeted Cost Cost Variance Budgeted Cost Cost Variance LatestWork Work Work Work Work Work Revised

Item Scheduled Performed Performed Schedule Cost Scheduled Performed Performed Schedule Cost Budgeted Estimate Variance(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

4.1.1 INSTRUMENT MANAGEMENT 183 242 286 59 -44 1,783 1,783 2,348 0 -564 12,038 12,038 0

4.1.2 SYSTEM ENGINEERING 135 336 14 201 322 618 618 293 0 325 5,759 5,759 0

4.1.4 TRACKER 314 174 42 -140 132 2,574 1,930 1,938 -644 -8 10,665 10,665 0

4.1.5 CALORIMETER 206 0 248 -206 -248 1,846 0 2,009 -1,846 -2,009 13,701 13,701 0

4.1.6 ANTICOINCIDENCE DETECTOR 170 0 0 -170 0 349 0 862 -349 -862 9,814 9,814 0

4.1.7 ELECTRONICS 36 297 103 261 194 1,144 1,136 935 -8 201 16,486 16,486 0

4.1.8 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 256 28 50 -228 -22 782 340 298 -442 42 9,313 9,313 0

4.1.9 INSTRUMENT INTEGRATION AND TESTING4 1 0 -3 1 14 8 0 -6 8 7,597 7,597 0

4.1.A PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY ASSURANCE17 17 12 0 5 206 206 185 0 21 2,059 2,059 0

4.1.B LAT INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS CENTER 13 5 8 -8 -2 99 83 57 -16 26 4,232 4,232 0

4.1.C EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 18 27 11 9 16 185 185 134 0 50 2,908 2,908 0

4.1.D SCIENCE ANALYSIS SOFTWARE 9 0 9 -9 -9 19 0 213 -19 -213 614 614 0

4.1.E SUBORBITAL FLIGHT TEST 61 175 38 114 137 877 860 317 -17 543 1,104 1,104 0

Gen. and Admin. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Undist. Budget 0 0 0Sub Total 1,424 1,302 820 -122 482 10,495 7,148 9,589 -3,346 -2,441 96,291 96,291 0Management Resrv. 0 0 0Total 1,424 1,302 820 -122 482 10,495 7,148 9,589 -3,346 -2,441 96,291 96,291 0


T. Boysen 10


Schedule & Funding Recommendation #1

• “Continue to formalize and complete the integrated schedule, focusing on establishing the critical paths for each subsystem.”

• Currently in the last stages of schedule development:

• Identifying key milestones/levels

• Creating linkages between subsystems

• Checking schedule logic

• Critical path analysis has begun, and will be fully realized by mid-September


T. Boysen 11



• “Include all activities in the integrated schedule, including non-costed and foreign activities.”

• Entire project scope in the schedule.


• “Ensure that sufficient slack exists for the individual subsystem schedules.”

• Six-month launch delay

• LAT integration delayed by three months


T. Boysen 12



• “Introduce a milestone hierarchy into the Project Management Control System.”

• L1, L2, L3 milestones identified and agreed upon by Althouse, Lambros, Valle.

• L4 milestones identified by subsystem managers, being reviewed by the IPO.


T. Boysen 13

Milestones to Level 3Activity

IDMLEV Activity

DescriptionEarly

Finish

Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope

Total 03/01/06

4.1.1 INSTRUMENT MANAGEMENT

Subtotal 03/01/06

Office Of DOE/NASA Research

1M1000150 1 Launch Instrument 03/01/06*Local DOE/NASA

1M1BF00000 2 Launch Balloon Flight 08/01/01*

1M1000100 2 I-PDR 10/29/01*

1M1000110 2 I - CDR 08/05/02*

1M1000730 2 1st Two Towers Ready for Calibration 08/15/03*

1M1000740 2 Start LAT Integration 01/02/04*

1M1000700 2 Pre "Environmental Testing" Review 07/09/04*

1M1000120 2 I - PSR ( Pre-Ship Review ) 01/07/05*

1M1000140 2 LAT Ready for Integration ( RFI ) to Spacecraft 03/22/05*IPO

1M1000210 3 Calorimeter Modules A & B RFI ( for Calibration) 08/15/03*

1M1000200 3 Tracker Modules A & B RFI ( for Calibration) 08/15/03*

1M1000230 3 Calorimeter Modules 1 & 2 RFI (for Calibration) 11/03/03*

1M1000220 3 Tracker Modules 1 & 2 RFI ( for Calibration) 11/03/03*

1M1000400 3 Flight Calorimeter Tower 3, 4 RFI 01/02/04*

1M1000240 3 Flight Grid RFI 01/02/04*

1M1000250 3 Flight Tracker Tower 3, 4 RFI 01/02/04*













1M1000410 3 Flight ACD RFI 04/26/04*



1M1000130 3 LAT Ready to Ship 03/01/05*

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

© Primavera Systems, Inc.

Run Date 08/13/01 13:48

*** DRAFT ***Sheet 1


T. Boysen 14

Milestones to Level 3, cont’dActivity

ID

MLEV Activity

Description

Early

Finish

4.1.2 SYSTEM ENGINEERING

Subtotal 3 08/21/03

IPO

2S201031 3 ACD Subsystem Requirements Review 03/20/01A

2S201011 3 Tracker Subsystem Requirements Review 03/22/01A

2S201021 3 Calorimeter Subsystem Requirements Review 03/28/01A

2S201081 3 Science Analysis Software Requirements Review 04/20/01A

2S201041 3 Electronics & DAQ Subsystem Requirements Review 04/25/01A

2S201061 3 Mechanical Subsystem Requirements Review 05/02/01A

2S201071 3 IOC Requirements Review 05/03/01A

2S201091 3 Tracker PDR 06/19/01A

2S201051 3 Flight Software Requirements Review 05/30/01*

2S201111 3 Anticoincidence Detector PDR 07/25/01*

2S201101 3 Calorimeter PDR 07/27/01*

2S201121 3 Electronics & DAQ PDR 08/07/01*

2S201131 3 Flight Software PDR 08/07/01*

2S201141 3 Mechanical Systems PDR 08/08/01*

2S201161 3 Science Analysis Software PDR 08/08/01*

2S201151 3 IOC PDR 08/21/01*

2S201070 3 Tracker CDR 05/29/02*

2S201090 3 Calorimeter CDR 06/05/02*

2S201120 3 Flight Software CDR 06/12/02*

2S201110 3 Electronics & DAQ CDR 06/20/02*

2S201100 3 Anticoincidence Detector CDR 06/26/02*

2S201150 3 Science Analysis Software CDR 09/04/02*

2S201130 3 Mechanical Systems CDR 06/17/03*

2S201140 3 IOC CDR 08/21/03*

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

© Primavera Systems, Inc.

Run Date 08/13/01 13:48

*** DRAFT ***Sheet 2


T. Boysen 15


Cost Estimate Recommendation #1

• “Core members of PMCS team in place as quickly as possible to allow adequate time to transfer technology and information from the consultants to the permanent team, and to provide a smooth transition into the implementation phase of the project.”

• Will develop a blended team of AIM consultants and regular SLAC employees, to optimize issues of continuity, expertise, and cost.

• Currently recruiting for two Project Controls Analyst positions at SLAC.

• AIM presence will not decrease until transition to a blended team is achieved.


T. Boysen 16

GLAST/LAT PMCS OrganizationGLAST/LAT PMCS Organization

Tanya BoysenSLAC

Project Controls Manager

Clark RhoadsAIM

Margaret SmithAIM

Diane TrappAIM

George CooperAIM

Jeff ChanAIM


T. Boysen 17



• “Complete a bottoms-up resource loaded cost and schedule estimate for the GLAST project to support the baseline review. Estimate qualifications should be provided describing the estimate, such as quotes or engineering estimates for M&S costs, or fully loaded institutional labor rates for manpower costs.”

• Labor rates confirmed with all institutions.

• Basis of estimate complete for 4 subsystems.


T. Boysen 18



• “Perform a bottoms-up contingency analysis based upon the appropriate parameters at the lowest WBS for the LAT project to support the baseline review. Resulting contingencies should be explicitly identified and easily viewed.”

• 6 subsystems have completed contingency analyses.

• Using same contingency method as BABAR, weighting technical, design, cost, and schedule risks.


T. Boysen 19



• “Manpower should be tracked explicitly as FTE’s in the Project Management Control System.”

• Developing plans for manpower via the resource-loaded schedule development, for both funded and contributed manpower.

• 3 of the subsystems have completed manpower plans, the remainder are iterating or on “one last little detail.”

• Working with participating institutions to enable monthly reporting of actual manpower levels. 3 are successfully reporting manpower.


T. Boysen 20

Plan for Completion

• LAT budget meeting August 15

• Cost & schedule inputs received and incorporated into PMCS by August 31

• Work package planning

• Schedule integration

• Critical path analysis – mid-September

• Receive August actual cost information - September 17

• Identify and review variances

• Set Performance Measurement Baseline – first week of October.

• Schedule = Performance = Actuals (for historical data)

• Submit baseline material – October 15.


T. Boysen 21

Looking Forward

• Documentation and instruction (October).

• Work authorization agreements to communicate and formalize annual expectations from the top down (October).

• LAT Project Controls web page (November).

Date post:	03-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	abbot-sanders
View:	51 times
Download:	8 times

GLAST Large Area Telescope: Baseline Review Preparations Tanya Boysen

Documents