Agenda

1

• Agenda
• Run IIb D-Zero PMG
• January 28, 2003
• Overview, issues (Kotcher)
• Project status (ODell)
• Trigger technical status (Wood)
• AOB
• Jon Kotcher
• DZero Run IIb PMG
• January 28, 2003

2
Run IIb Project Organization
D0 Run IIb ProjectJ. Kotcher, Project ManagerR.
Partridge, Deputy V. ODell, Associate W.
Freeman, Assistant M. Johnson, Technical
Coordinator C. Yoshikawa, Budget Officer T.
Erickson, Administration
WBS 1.1SiliconM. DemarteauTBD
WBS 1.2Trigger H. Evans D. Wood
WBS 1.3DAQ/OnlineS. FuessP. Slattery
WBS 1.5 InstallationR. Smith
WBS 1.4Project Administration
1.1.1 Sensors R. Demina, F. Lehner
1.2.1 L1 Cal UpgradeM. Abolins, (H. Evans),P.
LeDu
1.5.1 Silicon InstallationMechanicalH.
LubattiElectronics L. Bagby, R. Sidwell
1.3.1 Level 3 SystemsD. Chapin, G. Watts
1.1.2 Readout SystemA. Nomerotski, E. von
Toerne
1.3.2 Network Host Systems J. Fitzmaurice,
S. Krzywdzinski
1.2.2 L1 Cal/Track MatchK. Johns
1.1.3, 1.1.5 Mechanics AssemblyW. Cooper, K.
Krempetz
1.5.2 Trigger InstallationD. Edmunds
1.2.3 L1 Track TriggerM. Narain
1.3.3 Control SystemsF. Bartlett, G. Savage,V.
Sirotenko
1.1.4 ProductionJ. Fast, TBD
1.2.4 L2b UpgradeR. Hirosky
1.1.4 QA, Testing, Burn-inC. Gerber, TBD
1.3.4 DAQ/Online Management(P. Slattery)
1.2.5 Silicon Track Trigger U. Heintz
1.1.6 MonitoringM. Corcoran, S. de Jong
1.2.6 SimulationM. Hildreth, E. Perez
Red Todays speakersBlue New silicon
co-leader will be in place Mar 1Agreement with
Alice Bean was one year, ended Aug 02Two
silicon Level 3 subsystems need co-leaders
1.1.7 Software Simulation F. Rizatdinova, L
Shabalina
1.2.7 Administration(D. Wood)
1.1.8 Administration(M. Demarteau)
3
Overview of Status

• Schedule statussed for Dec 1-31 time period
  (talk by ODell)
• Second full shot since Nov 4-8 EIR
• Monthly effort reports being handled in
  straightforward manner
• Work package assignments to individuals effort
  made by WBS Level 3 personnel in hour or two
• Returned to Project Office, double-checked before
  sending to PPD
• Lunar report cycle
• Wk 1 Effort reports finalized
• Wk 1-2 Status schedule, collect monthly report
  information
• Wk 3 Integrate information, edit reports,
  identify change control, discuss with
  project
• Wk 4 Report Laboratory, hand in to DOE
• First monthly report drafted (bootstrapped from
  NuMI report)
• Overview of project status
• Milestone status summary (includes Gantt)
• Narrative highlights to WBS Level 3
• Variance analysis
• Cost reports
• Tables to WBS Level 3, plots to WBS Level 2
• Pending final approval, only BCWS available

4
Overview of Status

• Have suggested COBRA/reporting meeting with all
  principals
• Want to have final machinery in place in
  anticipation of FY03 spending approval many
  details to consider, commonality
• Inclusion (or not) of RD
• Handling of pass-through
• COBRA report output
• Change control/variance thresholds
• Timing of consultant visit
• Finalize form of monthly reports
• Tracking university costs
• Integration of actuals
• OPMO on board, setting it up
• Office of Project Management Oversight
• First Production Readiness Review will take place
  Jan 30
• Purple Card for silicon readout during testing,
  production
• Does not go in final detector, used for
  stand-alone testing at SiDet
• Was useful test bed for PRR process, worked quite
  smoothly

5
Purple Card PRR

• Review Committee
• C. Gerber (UIC)
• J. Green (Fermilab)
• K. Hanagaki (Fermilab)
• S. Lager (Stockholm)
• R. Lipton (Fermilab, Chair)
• R. Sidwell (KSU)

6
Some Near-Term Silicon Milestones
Not a DOE L2/Directors Milestone
Forecasts remain well ahead of baseline dates
7
Some Near-Term Level 1 Trigger Milestones
Forecasts remain well ahead of baseline dates
Level 2 trigger, online begin later
8
Run IIb Labor

• Request for full-time electronics technician for
  silicon made at last PMG (Dec 10)
• Commissioning and maintenance of existing
  testing, burn-in stands
• Cecil Needles joining us, first introductory tour
  scheduled for this week
• Other technical needs covered at the moment
• Project Office continually asking project to
  anticipate their manpower requirements
• Collaboration help as well as FNAL technical
  staff
• Lead times can be unwieldy

9
Labor Cost Extracted from Schedule vs. Actuals
(RD)
Updated for Dec/Jan as soon as information from
PPD is available
Actuals in FY02 k
Scheduled labor in FY02 k
Actuals Oct 168.5k, Nov 132.8k (FY03
k)No contingency or GA in schedule
predictionAgreement quite good, but earned value
is real measure (actuals, COBRA)
10
Comments

• Significant Lab-wide parallel efforts (shutdown)
  never come for free, but impact on Run IIb not as
  serious as initially thought
• Loss of IIb SiDet personnel to Beams Division
  ameliorated by extra effort from other project
  principals
• Experts within DZero redirected to Collision Hall
  work, but for reasonably short amount of time
• Inter-cryostat gaps photographed, mapped out
  required for further Run IIb design work
• We have no argument whatsoever with the
  priorities!!!
• I am going to begin assuming that accelerator
  will run only at 396 nsec
• Studies document outlining utility of SIFT
  upgrade for physics at 396 nsec being completed
  (Bross, Hildreth, et al.)
• In event SIFT is deemed to be unnecessary,
  personnel on SIFT project should be redirected
  within DZero
• Have particular interest in integrating P.
  Rubinov into group of Run II(b) electronics
  experts sore and obvious need
• Formal statement on 132 from Lab would be useful
• Will discuss privately with Mont, et al.

11
Comments

• Jan 18-23 trip to France to discuss terms of
  Saclay involvement in Level 1 Calorimeter Trigger
  very productive
• Responsible for front-end (ADF) trigger boards
  ADC/Digital Filtering
• LHC commitments might compete with proper Run IIb
  completion
• Saclay has agreed to seek extension of their
  involvement beyond initially proposed 2005 time
  scale
• Things like
• Delays in obtaining FY03 spending approval
• Further bottoms-up evaluations of Run IIb project
• send very powerful message. Make it
  increasingly difficult to maintain committed core
  of upgrade groups and personnel.

12
Conclusions

• Project making steady, solid technical progress
• No change control thresholds yet encountered, but
  SVX4 is on (schedule) cusp
• Project tracking machinery being continually
  developed shaken out
• COBRA and its implementation an important
  ingredient to nail down now
• Lead time associated with labor requests might
  grow into a concern as project heats up
• Will try on our end to make our requests as early
  on, and as well-defined, as possible
• Cultural stasis exhibited by all entities poses a
  continuous difficulty schedule drives these
  projects!