1. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC1 PHG for DCB to EC – 5jan06 with notes from meeting added 10jan06 DCB plans and activities –proposed plans sent to DCB –conversing by e-mail, tough over Holidays! –setting up telephone conference, some problems Project Management Tool U.S. Industrial Studies– –jump starting, expectations

2. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC2 What are most immediate DCB tasks? Dec 21 Get organized – open lines of communications Determine scope, depth, level of detail for RDR –Text and costs –WBS: Global Systems and CF&S elements not yet distributed –WBS dictionary and basis of estimate –Institutional labor needs by type and by year –Prior examples: TESLA, GLC, NLS, USLTOS, EUROTeV, TRC –Suggestions from Tor and Tom Himel (NLC) Requirements from Area System Groups –Draft of 1/1/06 – not distributed to DCB yet (see details below) –Intend to distribute to AS before and discuss at KEK Jan 19-20

3. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC3 What are most immediate DCB tasks? (2) Set up series of reviews for each Area System –Accelerator Physics – does it work? end-to-end? –Engineering Design –Cost Estimating –Text/Editorial review –Include global and interfacing for all of the above –More detailed questions available –Break up into smaller review teams, still need help! Develop realistic schedule for producing RDR –Only strawman schedule presented at Frascati –Complete first pass with time for re-evaluation and correction

4. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC4 NOTES: What are most immediate DCB tasks? (2) Accelerator Physics Group (Tor, Nick, Kaoru) will perform AP reviews (per Barry) Tor: the level of detail needed to be discussed at KEK depends on the criticality of the system, where we need a decision to make further progress, such as for Main Linac and CF&S and Damping Rings. Other systems can come along later. Positron source is a long way from design but we should be able to estimate within a factor of 2 Tor: phone later that day: Regional Coordinators are responsible for getting manpower, need preliminary info on specs, component #’s, and descriptions for KEK Info must be available by early Feb for TS to begin design and estimating. Tor has sent a second pass of the RDR schedule to Barry and EC.

5. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC5 Draft Requirements from Area Systems Jan 1 Not yet reviewed by DCB – so still draft Area System Groups have responsibility for bringing all needed Technical System Groups to bear on producing their section of RDR Document and Cost Estimate. Briefly summarizing required items: –MAD file – layout sketches – finished drawings –Component lists: description, #’s, performance requirements, requirements of CF&S (tunnel sizes), power, water, installation Outline of proposed chapter – the usual plus –Risks and their mitigation or minimization –Effects and remediation of operational problems (availability) –Alternate Configurations – what we can expect to gain, when? –What’s keeping us from implementing right now, besides funding?

6. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC6 Notes: Draft Requirements from Area Systems Jan 1 Draft Requirements (Jan 1) were sent to Tor and incorporated in is RDR charge sent to Barry and EC. Need to add section on reviews (did Tor include this?) Need outline of entire document ahead of KEK meeting Size of RDR document should not be too unwieldy Maybe extended summary with references to web chapters

7. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC7 Draft Requirements from Area Systems (2) Skeleton WBS will provided by DCB –Area System Groups amplify with specifics, distribute CF&S? –Need WBS dictionary – what’s in/out, boundaries, interfaces Cost estimates (expect to evolve with time) –Include basis of estimate (how cost is estimated) item-by-item –Estimate of uncertainty (I’m not sure how we present this) –Description of quantity savings (learning curves) –What reliability/availability specifications were assumed? How would cost change if MTBF & MTTR differed by factor of 2? Institutional manpower estimates & time profiles Schedule – final design through commissioning(?) –Where are the hold-ups, bottlenecks, interferences? –What infrastructure and facilities will be needed when? Include Global Systems and Detectors

8. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC8

9. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC9 Notes: ilc_stick_outline.xls Tor wants accelerator parameters spelled out at boundaries and interfaces Do these change between parameter sets? Barry: emittance growth along the entire linac (end-to-end) was shown at Snowmass, look it up when presentations again become available.

10. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC10 Need Cost & Production Model How long for construction? TESLA planned 8 years. Funding profile? Flat? Schedule: technically or funding limited? Procurement model for single item(s): single region, lowest cost estimate? divide some items 1/3 – 1/3 – 1/3 ? how many vendors in given region? influences learning curve & cost Need to understand how we actually use multiple cost estimates.

11. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC11 Project Management Tool Seems like Primavera has widest use: –All US HEP Laboratories except Fermilab (Open Plan) –No such tool used at DESY or KEK (will need one soon) –CERN uses home-brewed EVM Bill Willis is investigating for use by R&D Board I will be at CERN next week, with Bill, to check this out Multiple levels: –Low-end tool: ($ 500) desktop versions, individual users Primavera Contractor & Sure Track Project Manager claims compatibility with high-end Primavera, MS Project, ORACLE, etc. with single centralized data base capability for multiple users we need to understand…

12. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC12 Project Management Tool (2) –High-end tool: Primavera Project Planner – P3 web-based, 25 simultaneous users, interfaced to everything => P3E/C – used by SLAC and ANL Costs for High-end tool: mostly manpower –~ $ 40 K buy-in, yearly maintenance fees = $ 0 K ! I don’t believe, got to check this out! –Both SLAC & ANL have computer professionals maintaining Primavera system and training users – learning curve for us –3 FTE’s each: 2 Ph.D. + 1 computer scientist at ANL 3 consultants at SLAC, ~ $ 400-500 K/year Fermilab would like to host Primavera –investigating support staff options

13. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC13 Project Management Tool (3) When is it needed? Now! Have many recommendations for Discipline & Completeness during project definition phase, but others warn about jumping in too deeply, too early…. At what level? Maybe start with light version Contractor or Sure Track Project Manager When and Can we seamlessly change or grow into the full blown, web-based Primavera? Bill Borowski of Fermilab did this migration from Sure Track to Primavera for Pierre Auger Project, only problem when trying to maintain 2 systems simultaneously Gotta ask Primavera how this can be done. Ewan says his SLAC consultants say, “no problem” (only time & money)

14. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC14 Notes: Project Management Tool (3) Someone, Brian F. or Nick W. said choice is obvious, go with the light version ASAP and migrate to the full blown web version after RDR. 10jan06 – Bill Willis and PHG were presented the CERN EVM = PPT and APT systems, very impressive, very friendly to non-expert users Bill would like to use to manage ILC R&D, that way we might be able to try-out Primavera Sure Track Project Manager and EVM-PPT-APT simultaneously. Labor and costs are both just resources treated in parallel by both Primavera and EVM-PPT-APT

15. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC15 U.S. Industrial Studies (IS) Due to time limits and regional interest, this was not discussed with EC. This was based on notes and prior conversation with Gerry Dugan. This was discussed on Friday, 6jan06 with Bob Kephart and Shekhar Mishra before the meeting with LCFoA the following week.

16. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC16 U.S. Industrial Studies (IS) Gotta jump-start U.S. industries, to catch-up Which high-tech components to study? GFD: –Conventional Construction – definitely! – for US site –SC Cavities – so far, only few built –Cryomodule Assembly – similar to cryo-magnets –RF Systems – klystrons, modulators, couplers – yes... CPI has familiarity with XFEL klystron & coupler IS estimates can be extended to ILC quantities US needs experience & specific info to start on IS for cavities and Cryomodule Assembly –LCFoA says it has enuf info for cavity production IS ! AES has contract to build four 9-cell cavities for Fermilab –Investigate TTC/XFEL call for tender for CM Assembly

17. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC17 U.S. Industrial Studies (IS) (2) Use TTC/XFEL documents as templates for US IS –Usefulness of output of IS depends on the quality of information given to companies to perform study –The call for tender package for CM Assembly Industrial study and Rolf Lange’s assembly video would be a very useful start –TTC/XFEL is concerned with protection of intellectual property rights, even at call for tender level. –Need to assure that companies cannot use information in these documents against TTC/XFEL, such as patenting and licensing the process back to TTC/XFEL –Bernd Petersen has been sending information on CM Assembly IS, and PHG is speaking to Fermilab Legal Dept. on how to protect intellectual property rights

18. Thurs., January 5, 2006PHG for DCB to EC18 U.S. Industrial Studies (IS) (3) Is it possible for US to contribute to IS? –Yes, for some items like Conventional Facilities & RF systems What can we expect on a timescale of the RDR for SC cavities and cryomodules ? –Understanding whether US industries will eventually be capable –Begin to develop these capabilities in US industries –Provide a Sanity Check whether TESLA and XFEL costs estimates are reasonable and complete Where is Asia in their studies? Barry suggests external, independent review of cost estimates (by industrial consultants)