[Halld-pid-upgrade] TDR

Justin Stevens jrsteven at jlab.org
Mon Aug 17 09:26:49 EDT 2015 

Just a note that from the last time I talked to Rolf about this the funding profile was planned to extend over 3 years.  So when the dust settles after we've defined the schedule from our perspective as Matt described we should be sure we're on the same page with management before the review, so there aren't surprises.
-Justin  

On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Shepherd, Matthew wrote:

> 
> While it is important to keep a target date in mind, emphasis at this stage should likely be on defining the amount of labor (in terms of man hours) and the material cost for individual tasks.  Next step is then understanding dependencies and what the critical path items are.  For example, some things can be sped up by hiring twice as many people, others can’t.  Final step will be to match this to some yet-to-be-definied run schedule and funding profile.
> 
> Matt
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matthew Shepherd, Associate Professor
> Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265
> 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405
> 
> Office Phone:  +1 812 856 5808
> 
>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Curtis A. Meyer <cmeyer at cmu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I don’t have an exact run schedule yet, but I think that it is safe to assume that we 
>> run in the spring and late fall of every year. That probably leaves a window of June to
>> October 2017 during which we could install the DIRC. I don’t think that would be a
>> bad time to shoot for unless we think we could be ready late 2016 to early 2017?
>> 
>> When we did the first CLAS Review, there indeed was not much of a schedule. However,
>> they were also on a much longer time scale.They are likely going to install about the 
>> same time as us. Thus, we should have something for this review. I would agree with
>> Matt that we put in the most aggressive schedule that we can to start. That is also
>> not crazy to present at the review because then it puts the ball in lab management 
>> to provide the funding profile.
>> 
>> Curtis
>> ---------
>> Curtis A. Meyer			MCS Associate Dean for Faculty and Graduate Affairs
>> Wean:    (412) 268-2745	Professor of Physics
>> Doherty: (412) 268-3090	Carnegie Mellon University
>> Fax:         (412) 681-0648	Pittsburgh, PA 15213
>> curtis.meyer at cmu.edu	http://www.curtismeyer.com/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:39 AM, Michael Williams <mwill at mit.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The CLAS RICH project management is quite detailed, much more than in a typical TDR, so I'm fine with not putting that much detail in … but we should have the "who's responsible" for each thing in the TDR, and an approximate timeline and budget.   We can hammer out the final details after the review, which makes sense as some issues may need to be addressed. 
>>> 
>>> BTW, Curtis and Matt, when do we *want* the focusing box done?  The Bates engineers are busy on several projects, and so I need to push to get things done on a schedule, so I need to know what schedule we're shooting for.   I think the things that set this time scale are:  When do we expect to have purchased all the PMTs?  When do we expect to be running in 2017?  
>>> 
>>> Let me know your thoughts and if I've missed any other important constraints.   Once we choose a target, I'll try and sort out a credible schedule.  
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Justin Stevens <jrsteven at jlab.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm fine with Mike's suggested edits to clean out the unnecessary parts for the TDR.
>>>> 
>>>> For the "Project Management" piece I talked with Patrizia some about this on Friday afternoon and added some notes in last week's meeting minutes https://halldweb1.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/August_14,_2015_PID_Upgrade#Minutes.  I posted the CLAS12 RICH "Program Management" document on the wiki https://halldweb1.jlab.org/wiki/images/d/d8/RICH_PMP_2014March21.pdf, so if we follow this example this document is separate from the TDR and contains all the information about schedule, budget, etc.  Note: this management document wasn't required as "pre-brief" material for the RICH review, but instead described in a talk during the review and the document finalized with JLab management and DOE ~6 months later.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm willing to take the lead on a gantt chart for the schedule, but agree with Mike that it would be very useful to have some preliminary estimates from each of the subcomponents of the project on costs and manpower.  
>>>> 
>>>> -Justin    
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 16, 2015, at 10:03 PM, Michael Williams wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’m editing the sections you reference and hope to have revisions in the dropbox acct. early tomorrow.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> One thing that definitely needs work is a resource loaded schedule.  We need a good estimate of what we think we can accomplish on a given time scale given a certain amount of manpower.  Someone should take the lead on trying to put together a gant chart with appropriate times and dependencies along with estimated material and labor costs as best we can at this stage.  It requires some serious work, but is a worthwhile exercise. Ultimately it must match to what the lab has planned as expenditures per fiscal year, but for starters, pick a t0 and plan to do things as fast as possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think first we need each "subproject" to try and provide an estimate, then we can put the pieces together.  I've asked the Bates engineers to think about this a while ago and said "end of summer" I'd want to seriously discuss a schedule.  So, I'll email them tomorrow and try and get that really moving.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On our end, we basically have the box and the mirrors as step 1, then a water circulation system and something for mirror alignment and calibration of the focusing system for later.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should know before the review whether both our mirror options work.  We can then give ourselves, e.g., until the end of 2015 to try some custom coatings, etc, to improve, but then we should fix the design and make the mirrors.  That should be quick with these designs.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've had a hard time getting anything resembling a schedule on the box.  I think we need to decide first whether there's any use in building a 1/2-scale prototype or not.  It may be that we just build the full thing.   Either way, I think we need to press the engineers to provide a schedule that they can meet that gets it done by summer 2016.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> We can plan on getting the water circulation system and calibration stuff going once the mirrors and box are well underway and I'm sure still get them done in time … or perhaps the Hall-D engineer (or whoever) wants to deal with the circulation system?  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list
>>>>> Halld-pid-upgrade at jlab.org
>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-pid-upgrade
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list
>>> Halld-pid-upgrade at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-pid-upgrade
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list
>> Halld-pid-upgrade at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-pid-upgrade
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list
> Halld-pid-upgrade at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-pid-upgrade

More information about the Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list