[Pansophy] QMS Required documents for Project EIC197 - completed and signed? OR not?

[Naeem Huque]

Hi Valerie,

Welcome back! Please see my comments below:

Thanks,
Naeem

________________________________
From: Valerie Bookwalter <bookwalt at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 1:04 PM
To: John Buttles <buttles at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
Cc: Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>; Philip Denny <denny at jlab.org>; Ashley Mitchell <ashleya at jlab.org>
Subject: QMS Required documents for Project EIC197 - completed and signed? OR not

Hello John/Naeem,

I am back to work part-time and trying to catch up on things.

I was asked to do some coding for a traveler for the EIC197 project today and I have some questions.

The only approved documents that I currently see are the EIC197-RG-003-R1 WCD, which was approved back in August; and the EIC 197 MHz Design Verification Component Cavity Project Execution Plan, approved 7/18/24.
The document register and the records register are also in the project folder, but they don't get sent out for approvals. These are the four required project documents as per the project execution procedure. I'm not sure if others have been added to this list.

The reason I am concerned is that we are being asked to do A LOT of specialized coding for the fabrication of parts.
Many new parts are expected, but having to do specialized code for each is not.
Could you please be more specific about what requires the additional coding. The people writing these travelers (apart from Matt M) are doing so for the first time, and they went through several training sessions with the Pansophy and Inventory groups. Since then, they have been working closely with those groups to structure travelers and, as far as I know, they have been compliant with any requested changes. Of the five TRs we started with for this project, one left the lab and another was reassigned, so additional training may be required for the replacements.

An issue here is that we have mature traveler systems for cavity processing and cryomodule assembly, but nothing similar for FAB travelers. If there is specialized coding required, can it be done once and used as a structure for future FAB travelers? As far as I know, my projects are the only ones writing FAB travelers; this does not mean FAB work does not go on, it is just not recorded in travelers.

Additionally, I am not prepared to allow authors to make up their acronyms for parts to be fabricated.
I asked the authors to develop acronyms for their parts as I had done in the past for fabrication work. I was not aware that this requirement changed. This may have been mentioned in the training sessions that they went through, but I wasn't part of them. There were a lot of cases where they were asked to change acronyms, and they did so. What will not work is using the set list of acronyms that are specified for cryomodule assembly projects. We are building a complex cavity which has parts that cannot be covered by standard acronyms from even elliptical cavities. I am fine with the Pansophy/Inventory groups assigning acronyms, but you are not familiar with the components in question, which will require more back-and-forth. I think getting a list from the authors and making changes where necessary worked well, but we can go the other route if needed.

EIC197-FAB-ENDG2-ASSY  is the traveler that I am being asked to code. ENDG1 was released (during my absence).
There are many new acronyms (same as  ENDG1). However, this is not being coordinated with the inventory/serialization people  nor the software group so that the database can be updated for the NEW ACRONYMS and serialization discussed.
If this discussion did take place, then were can I find the notes of decision?
We may have a disconnect here. Parts are being checked into inventory using the regular serialization process, but they are not always being assigned acronyms in both PRIMeS and Pansophy (or either). My correspondence with Phil about this has been on a higher level, but there has been more contact between the authors and Pansophy/Inventory regarding these topics. Regardless, we need to make sure that the acronyms are consistent between PRIMeS and pansopy, and we will get it fixed.


I probably missed a bunch of meetings, but I would have expected some of these things to have made it into the QMS documents so that I could find the decisions made. Or at the minimum, find the notes from the meeting in the DocuShare Project area, which is required by the Document Process Procedure.
I'm a bit unclear about what exact information you are requesting. The required PEP forms are in the project folders, but I can add to them or change them if required.

Please help me to understand how this Project Execution, Inventory/Serialization, Document/Records, etc Processes are working for this project. And, I hope, I can get caught up with what is expected. I am very confused, sorry.
I'm away at BNL this week but we can set up a time next week to talk about it if you are available.

Thanks for you help and insight.




Valerie Bookwalter

Jefferson Lab, Accelerator Dept. SRFOPS

Software Systems Group

bookwalt at jlab.org<mailto:bookwalt at jlab.org>

757-269-5802


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20250109/fa20fb12/attachment.html>