GLAST Proposal Review

1
GLAST Large Area Telescope Baseline Review
Preparations Tanya Boysen Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center LAT Project Controls
Manager tkb_at_slac.stanford.edu
2
Baseline Review Preparations

• Outline
• Baseline Preparations
• Technical (Scope)
• Schedule
• Cost
• Recommendations from February Review
• Plan for Completion

3
Baseline Preparations

• Technical (Scope)
• WBS complete for 12 subsystems 1 still to be
  confirmed.
• Subsystem managers responsible for technical
  baseline documents. All subsystem L2 and L3
  requirements written and reviewed.
• Schedule
• All inputs have been received from subsystem
  managers.
• Half are completed, half are being actively
  iterated with PMCS team.
• Cost
• All cost estimates received from subsystem
  managers.
• 4 complete the rest are being actively iterated
  (most of these iterations concern some final
  detail).

4
February Review Recommendations

• Management Recommendation 4
• Develop an integrated, resource loaded schedule
  and cost estimate.
• Current statistics
• 6080 Schedule Activities
• 6300 Schedule Relationships
• 200 Work Packages

5
Status of PMCS Inputs
6
Status of PMCS Inputs (contd)
7
Monthly Status Cycle

• Have established and communicated a plan for the
  monthly cost/schedule status cycle.
• Have been collecting actual cost information
  since March.
• First complete cycle conducted (data for June).
• Educated the participants on the process and the
  reports.
• Examined variances to plan.
• Status as of August 30 will support the baseline
  review.

8
June, 2001 Status
9
June, 2001 Status
10
February Review Recommendations

• Schedule Funding Recommendation 1
• Continue to formalize and complete the
  integrated schedule, focusing on establishing the
  critical paths for each subsystem.
• Currently in the last stages of schedule
  development
• Identifying key milestones/levels
• Creating linkages between subsystems
• Checking schedule logic
• Critical path analysis has begun, and will be
  fully realized by mid-September

11
February Review Recommendations

• Schedule Funding Recommendation 2
• Include all activities in the integrated
  schedule, including non-costed and foreign
  activities.
• Entire project scope in the schedule.
• Schedule Funding Recommendation 3
• Ensure that sufficient slack exists for the
  individual subsystem schedules.
• Six-month launch delay
• LAT integration delayed by three months

12
February Review Recommendations

• Schedule Funding Recommendation 4
• Introduce a milestone hierarchy into the Project
  Management Control System.
• L1, L2, L3 milestones identified and agreed upon
  by Althouse, Lambros, Valle.
• L4 milestones identified by subsystem managers,
  being reviewed by the IPO.

13
Milestones to Level 3
14
Milestones to Level 3, contd
15
February Review Recommendations

• Cost Estimate Recommendation 1
• Core members of PMCS team in place as quickly as
  possible to allow adequate time to transfer
  technology and information from the consultants
  to the permanent team, and to provide a smooth
  transition into the implementation phase of the
  project.
• Will develop a blended team of AIM consultants
  and regular SLAC employees, to optimize issues of
  continuity, expertise, and cost.
• Currently recruiting for two Project Controls
  Analyst positions at SLAC.
• AIM presence will not decrease until transition
  to a blended team is achieved.

16
GLAST/LAT PMCS Organization
Tanya Boysen SLAC Project Controls Manager
Jeff Chan AIM
17
February Review Recommendations

• Cost Estimate Recommendation 2
• Complete a bottoms-up resource loaded cost and
  schedule estimate for the GLAST project to
  support the baseline review. Estimate
  qualifications should be provided describing the
  estimate, such as quotes or engineering estimates
  for MS costs, or fully loaded institutional
  labor rates for manpower costs.
• Labor rates confirmed with all institutions.
• Basis of estimate complete for 4 subsystems.

18
February Review Recommendations

• Cost Estimate Recommendation 3
• Perform a bottoms-up contingency analysis based
  upon the appropriate parameters at the lowest WBS
  for the LAT project to support the baseline
  review. Resulting contingencies should be
  explicitly identified and easily viewed.
• 6 subsystems have completed contingency analyses.
• Using same contingency method as BABAR, weighting
  technical, design, cost, and schedule risks.

19
February Review Recommendations

• Cost Estimate Recommendation 4
• Manpower should be tracked explicitly as FTEs
  in the Project Management Control System.
• Developing plans for manpower via the
  resource-loaded schedule development, for both
  funded and contributed manpower.
• 3 of the subsystems have completed manpower
  plans, the remainder are iterating or on one
  last little detail.
• Working with participating institutions to enable
  monthly reporting of actual manpower levels. 3
  are successfully reporting manpower.

20
Plan for Completion

• LAT budget meeting August 15
• Cost schedule inputs received and incorporated
  into PMCS by August 31
• Work package planning
• Schedule integration
• Critical path analysis mid-September
• Receive August actual cost information -
  September 17
• Identify and review variances
• Set Performance Measurement Baseline first week
  of October.
• Schedule Performance Actuals (for historical
  data)
• Submit baseline material October 15.

21
Looking Forward

• Documentation and instruction (October).
• Work authorization agreements to communicate and
  formalize annual expectations from the top down
  (October).
• LAT Project Controls web page (November).