1. MICE Collaboration Meeting Frascati 26 – 29 June 2005 Work Group report On Design & Safety Review

2. The task We have agreed a working method at the Berkeley meeting in February. This was endorsed both by the Wok group and the Collaboration Board; In Phase 1 we have a total of 16 components that require such reviews….. Progress to date: Well….slow….could have done better So far we have 5 Design Audits collected, two of which may require substantial re-work to bring it inline with the rest We have also received 3 Safety audit returns and there are not much in them. Most boxes are filled with a “to be carried out later” message

3. Beamline & Targets; Fibre Tracker; Tracker solenoid; Magnetic Shield; Cherenkov 1; Cherenkov 2; TOF 1 & 2; EMCalorimeter; Diffuser; 4 groups of Infrastructure items, one of which is the Hydrogen system; Hydrogen system R&D; Absorber R&D RF R&D

4. The audit sheets that have been returned to me

5. …but it makes no reference to the Target … This needs to be modified when the design is completed.

6. Some minor details are still being worked on. References to the MICE Technical Notes will be moved to the TRD for consistency reason

7. Depending on whether we adopt a one piece solid sheet, or a 3-piece sheeting arrangement for the shield, it may need revising. In any case the support design has all changed since. It will require a fair amount of revising

10. So how does the scheme work?

21. The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.It forces people to re-format their write-up in line with the format set out in the TRD document – this takes longer time to do compared with writing up a short note adequate for a design justification; The existing format is the best way to ensure consistency and quality control. The alternative would create paperwork that is difficult to manage and almost impossible to assemble

22. The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.It forces people to re-format their write-up in line with the format set out in the TRD document – this takes longer time to do compared with writing up a short note adequate for a design justification; 2.It requires constant update of the TRD section(s) to reflect any modification or additions made subsequently; This requires a lot of Paul Drumm’s time. Unless we can come up with a better way of handling this, we may have to live with this for the time being

23. The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.It forces people to re-format their write-up in line with the format set out in the TRD document – this takes longer time to do compared with writing up a short note adequate for a design justification; 2.It requires constant update of the TRD section(s) to reflect any modification or additions made subsequently; 3.It requires book marking the TRD section and hyperlinking the reference marks to locate the right section; Hopefully the majority of this is a one-off event. We are getting better, and quicker, in doing this. However we would be happy to receive suggestion / advice on how to improve this.

24. The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.It forces people to re-format their write-up in line with the format set out in the TRD document – this takes longer time to do compared with writing up a short note adequate for a design justification; 2.It requires constant update of the TRD section(s) to reflect any modification or additions made subsequently; 3.It requires book marking the TRD section and hyperlinking the reference marks to locate the right section; 4.Because the hyperlinks refer to only one section at a time, it doesn’t provide a full view of the complete write-up and therefore makes the review somewhat difficult and clumsy. We acknowledge this drawback and would advice that a hard copy of the TRD document be used during the review.

25. Where do we go from here? Phase 1 delivery is due at the beginning of April 2007 – some 20 months away I am concerned that we have not done as much as we would have liked I blame this on the following: 20 months seem a long time to go and this may give people the impression that this is not a priority item;

27. Where do we go from here? Phase 1 delivery is due at the beginning of April 2007 – some 20 months away I am concerned that we have not done as much as we would have liked I blame this on the following: 20 months seem a long time to go and this may give people the impression that this is not a priority item; The approach is somewhat new and needs time to get used to; Lack of enthusiasm from our component group leaders who, including myself, have the habit of leaving the design write up to the end. For this reason, we must: Work out a realistic schedule with milestone dates that meets MICE delivery requirement To have closer contact (face to face) with the component group leaders and lead them through the mechanics of doing the audit If that fails…..Scream – use the whip, if it needs to!

28. That is not what I meant by WHIPPING!

30. Outline Schedule WP1 Initial design: May – August 05 with Review in September 05 WP2 Detailed design and procurement: Aug 05 – Feb 06 WP3 Installation and commissioning: Jan – April 06 WP4 Test Programme: June – Oct 06 Hydrogen system R&D – Schedule

31. Support structure – Layout and sequences Add spacer

32. Outline Schedule WP1 Initial design: May – August 05 with Review in September 05 WP2 Detailed design and procurement: Aug 05 – Feb 06 WP3 Installation and commissioning: Jan – April 06 WP4 Test Programme: June – Oct 06 Hydrogen system R&D – Schedule