Rebaseline tweaking needed

A message from Eugene on  June 14, 2013

> Hi,
>
> We need to revisit some rebaseline items:
>
> a) Provide steps wherever needed

How do we know if steps are needed? At what level are steps appropriate?

For now, ignore this directive, go on to the next one.

>
> b) Treat the “red flags” in the progress schedule, which indicate
>    that an activity is late and pushing something else beyond
> milestones.
>    The cause might be a wrong predecessor-successor logic, unclaimed
>    progress or a real problem.

Red flags are defined below. In what sense are they to be treated?
Looked at the red flags. Assume that these are the literally red items marked “critical remaining work”. None for TOF, start counter, or target.

>
> c) Initiate the FY13 procurements

One interpretation: identify procurements that have not been initiated
in FY13, but should have been, and start buying stuff. Is that
correct?

>
> I copied various new files to
>
> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-D/halld_secure/rebaseline/
>

What follows is a list of files to be found there.

> 12_GeV_Hall_D_May_Rebaseline_Progress_3_June_13_PMK.pdf
>
> a progress schedule file from Phil, which shows the “red flags”

See above.

> 12_GEV_UPGRD_REBASELINE_Post_May_2013_Progress_Chudakov_modif.xls
>
> the May post-progress file, which contains both the progress % and the
> dates. It is the place to change the actual dates if needed.

What does post-progress mean? Which dates? Sounds as if we are to
review each of them to determine if they need changing.

Since there are no red flags for areas of responsibility, perhaps
nothing needs to be done here.

> stat_rebaseline_spend_2_2013_May.xlsx
>
> A table of the activities with the % done and a summary info on the
> associated procurements

>
> stat_rebaseline_spend_8_2013_May.txt
>
> A table of the activities with a detailed history of the associate
> procurements

Is there an action item associated with this file?

>
> rebaseline_4_progr.xlsx
>
> Updated rebaseline file. This is the place to add steps (find some
> examples in the file) and to tweak the predecessor-successor
> logic. The file contains the latest progress numbers.
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene

Advertisements

Notes on Change Request for TOF

Post contract changes, some notes. Planner file is Documents/work/Contract_TOF/tof.planner .

  • assume procurement starts Oct 1
  • contract over on 10-Nov-13
  • 92 modules
  • total project length is 405 days
  • assembly starts 1-Oct-12 + 0.25*405d = 10-Jan-13
  • procurement continues for 3/4 of the time = 0.75*405 = 304 days = 217 working days
  • shipping happens in the last week
  • modules per week = ((10-Nov-13 – 10-Jan-13)/92 = 304 days/92 = 3.30 days per module = 2.36 working days per module
  • 10 modules take 23.6 working days

EVMS for TOF Construction

Spoke with Phil Kessler on 9/12/2012

  • usually reports are done monthly
  • needs to be done by September: cost incurred in the past cannot be moved and some are ending in September
  • just percentages no good for reporting progress
  • progress can be claimed for items scheduled for future months

Questions:

  • Does this consitute a change request?
  • What costs have already been booked?
  • What costs have been claimed?

Software Review Planning Meeting, January 27, 2012

Responses to Manpower estimate request:

Curtis: PaulM WillL CurtisM
Franz: Franz
Richard: prof, staff scientist, grad studentX5 (3 on analysis)
Volker: Volker, Nathan, possible new student

online vs offline in review: Curtis noticed this in Sandy’s slides check into this

Possible sources of manpower
ryan: framework for dst analysis
regina: now that construction is over

software development, not analysis in manpower estimate

put next meeting on the calendar