Management

Approach

Schedule

Costs

Concerns

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Project Approach

• Small “systems” design team– Small core with all disciplines represented– Review procurement options

• How much vendor involvement early?

• How to ‘break down’ job into sensible packages

• Involve industry for early design and cost input

• Restrict new or advanced technology to critical areas• Major trades early

– Look for upgrade paths for future improvements options

From: ATST Design Workshop, November 2002

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Design Phase Cost Drivers

• How to break down system design• Think of construction phase to optimize• Search for fit for capability at reasonable system level

– Trade minimal level of subsystem breakdown with maintaining a competitive process

• What can we copy from other projects?• Minimize risk and development effort

• Modular approaches to allow upgrades where possible• Unique for this telescope:

• Optics Manufacturing• Scattered light control• Heat stop• Thermal control• Desired wide level of flexibility

Technology assumptions, science requirements drive design costsFrom: ATST Design Workshop, November 2002

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Contingency PlanningA Key to Risk mitigation

• Hold budget for contingency• Prioritize science requirements/goals

– Design with mind toward achieving goals– Modular upgrades in case money is limited

• No time to re-do major designs at end of design phase• Exception are items easily cut or defined as future additions

• Establish Time contingency in project schedule– Allowing time and money for recovery from problems– Establish key dates for decisions, early

Stick to them

Most projects need financial and functional contingencyOptions for future upgrades if financial limits are exceeded

From: ATST Design Workshop, November 2002

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Management & Systems

• Requirements– Define system performance requirements

• SRD (based upon draft & discussions)

– Flow down requirements• Use Cases, error budgets, etc.• DRD

• Define major subsystems– Ensure flexibility– Keep construction in mind

• Industry capabilities• I,T&C

– Frequently update construction cost estimatesFrom: ATST Design Workshop, November 2002

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Management & Systems

• Define interfaces– N^2 chart – ICDs

• Develop WBS– Based upon subsystem definition and interfaces– Accounts mirror WBS

• Schedule– Define major milestones– Top-level schedule through construction and commissioning– Identify critical and near-critical paths– Long-lead items (e.g. M1, enclosure)

• IterateFrom: ATST Design Workshop, November 2002

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Planning & Tracking Common Basis

• Work breakdown structure (WBS)– Matches systems breakdown & interface organization– Construction phase kept in mind– Accounting tied to WBS

• Three levels in D&D phase

• Some miscellaneous items in management account

• Schedule organization tied WBS• Construction cost estimates based upon WBS / Schedule

– Timing and inflation based upon schedule– Setting up for Earned Value, Critical Path analysis

• For construction phase

• Tracking near critical items too….

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

WBS Follows Sub-systems

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Accounting tracks source of funds

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

D&D expenses on plan

Additional NSO contribution: $1.25M to date- Site Survey $887K

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Recent Schedule

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

• Systems support of above areas– Error budgets– Analysis– Stray Light– Documentation

Recent Schedule

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Near Term Schedule

• Construction proposal by end of year– Required for 2006 funding– Industry involvement in details

• June RFP for preliminary multiple design activities – Telescope ‘Mount’ systems– Optical systems– Enclosure systems

• Kick off industrial contracts at CoDR

– Choose enclosure type early June• Feedback over next couple of weeks from:

– CoPI’s– SWG– Engineering Review Committee

From: Boulder Workshop on Enclosure Trades, May 2003

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Design Evaluation Contracts

• Optical Assemblies – EOS Technologies*– Goodrich Corporation *– SAGEM / Reosc *

Brashear LP will give informal feedback at no cost

• Mount -– EOS Technologies *– Telescope Technologies Limited *– Vertex RSI *

MAN Technologies may offer feedback and participate later

• Enclosure -– M3 Engineering and Technology Corp *– Vertex RSI *

AMEC providing evaluation at no cost *

* Attending CoDR

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

D&D Milestones

• Final designs of many systems to be completed during construction – Limited by D&D funding provided

• Vendor final design & fabrication drawings• Non – critical path items

From: ATST Design Workshop, November 2002

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Critical Path and Long Lead EffectFrom: ATST Design Workshop, November 2002

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Long Lead PlanCritical Path

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Long Lead PlanSite Selection Near Critical Path

August 25-28, 2003 ATST Conceptual Design Review

Current Schedule

• Provided in hard copy and presented at meeting