1. ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report
Tom Markiewicz
SLAC
11 March 2006
Bangalore GDE Meeting

2. Committee Members
John Ferguson – CERN
Lars Hagge - DESY
Tom Markiewicz - SLAC (Chair)
Richard Stanek - FNAL
Nobu Toge - KEK
Harry Weerts - Argonne

3. Charge to the Committee
The committee should recommend a specific web based software solution, which may mean an integrated collection of distinct software packages that will allow ILC collaborators worldwide to store, search for and retrieve various kinds of documents.
At least three basic kinds of documents must be handled:
meeting/conference/seminar related files
publications/white papers/notes and
engineering documents:
CAD drawings, cost estimates, vendor quotes, and QC documents.

4. Timeline (from Charge)
A progress report to the GDE should be made at the December 2005 meeting. It is hoped that a decision can be made early enough in 2006 that implementation, testing and backfilling of the archive can occur before the fourth meeting of the GDE in March 2006, with release to the general ILC community targeted to April 1, 2006.

5. A decision has been made to recommend a product suite composed of
Status
A decision has been made to recommend a product suite composed of
InDiCo – meeting management
CERN Document Server – general documentation
UGS TeamCenter – CAD and ILC “Lifecycle Management”
ILC Specific servers have been commissioned
InDiCo:
CDS:
Negotiations for ILC-devoted technical support of these products with CERN DG and DESY Research Director have begun

6. Why This Talk Today?
In an ideal world (think restaurant, commercial software) some group would package all the tools, load them with content, debug the system and have a trained support staff ready before “product launch”
You never have a second chance to make a first impression
We want to take opportunity of this meeting to discuss the best way to proceed with the “GDE” before “going public” to the wider ILC community

7. Treading the Slippery Slope Between Recommendation, Implementation, Configuration & Support
The EDMS Selection Committee is not qualified and has not agreed to do anything other than to recommend and justify its recommendation
There are many other stakeholders who need to be consulted regarding configuration
Embedding these tools in an appropriate environment along with other tools required for effective international communication ( -listservers, discussion boards, wiki-pages, vid-con, tel-con,..), secure yet convenient user authentication, project management tools (cost breakdown and work breakdown tools) and creating a support team will be essential if ILC wants a unfragmented knowledgebase
We strongly recommend that Exec Comm takes action here

8. Access to Tools Through EDMS Web Page: Possible Solutions
ilc_dms_selection_home

9. Access to Tools Through EDMS Web Page: Possible Solutions

10. Eventual Top Level Architecture
Unified Search & Store Interface
Agenda Management
Document Management
ILC “Lifecycle” Management
Before it declares success and retires, EDMS committee will work with current technical experts to
implement a basic version of this architecture
devise an interim support model, upgrade path & schedule

11. Monolithic vs. Separate Products
Considering the phase transitions the EDMS is meant to span
gaseous to frozen
scientific to engineering
light to heavy
free submission to controlled submission
many untrained users to relatively few highly trained users
all roughly correlated to period when variants in design & configuration is done by physicists and is to be encouraged and facilitated vs. period when strict engineering change control by project managers, engineers, designers and purchase agents is desired, we did not think a monolithic solution would be viable.

12. Justification of Choice in a Nutshell
Once the model became one where “best of breed” was allowed:
INDICO was chosen for its “value added” meeting & conference management features, CDS Agenda heritage, strong support team with active plans for product improvement & willingness to host ILC
Deciding whether or not to merge document management, which has a component of “change control” or “management authorization” with the EDMS products that have good but “heavy” “work flow” engines was difficult. Need, especially at this point in ILC lifecycle to encourage communication led to decision to use separate product. CDSware was chosen as it will eventually be integrated with InDiCo, has flexible work flow configuration, strong support team & willingness to host.
We do feel a beta test is required before this decision is cast in stone.
Decision between Axalant (CERN/LHC) and Teamcenter (DESY/XFEL) products for hard-core EDMS came to conscious choice of a “tightly” coupled 3D CAD-EDMS Teamcenter designed to support collaborative engineering over the battle tested older product used to build the LHC that uses an “integration team” to ensure part compatibility. Intrinsic to this decision was the admission by all parties that:
TeamCenter had all the basic hooks required to develop its “work flow” and needed time & experience
CERN would help in this effort
Tight-coupling between “privileged” CAD systems did not exclude ANY CAD system used in the manner employed at CERN
More on this topic later.
An ILC specific instance and beta testing recommended here as well.

13. ILC InDiCo Server
Basic category “tree” discussed with ExecComm & implemented
“Managers” appointed for each category
Beta-testers recruited: ~50 meetings in system
TWM fields questions & punts to CERN when required
Start of a “Wish list,” “Bug List” & “Q&A” on EDMS wiki

14. InDiCo Search
Implemented on CERN server, soon to added to ILC Server

15. ILC Document Server
Site created so that ILC can understand how to best set “collection” types, “category” types and work flow (approval chain)
CCB (N.Toge) asked to be first beta tester for multi-part BCD document
NO ILC customization or testing done yet.

16. Relation between EDMS & CAD
DESY operates a Web-based EDMS with Multi-CAD connectors
design engineer
CAD- System-1
ILC labs without own CAD data management can directly connect to the DESY-EDMS via Internet
EDMS-CAD-1- Connector
design engineer
CAD- System-2
CAD- System-x
design engineer
DESY-EDMS
EDMS-CAD-2- Connector
EDMS-CAD-x- Connector
user
Web- Browser
Currently DESY EDMS CAD configured for IDES
Extension to SolidEdge underway Extension to CATIA planned
“Drawings” (as opposed to integrated 3-D assemblies) from ANY CAD product can be stored
3D-Viewer

17. EDMS-CAD-x- Connector
At least three options exist for connecting ILC labs which are operating their own local data managers to the DESY-EDMS, depending on the nature of their CAD systems and data managers:
DESY-EDMS
EDMS-CAD-1- Connector
CAD- System-1
Local Data Manager
Im-/Export
EDMS-CAD-x- Connector
CAD- System-x
CAD- System-x
CAD- System-y
CAD- System-y
CAD- System-x
CAD- System-x
seat # i
seat # n
seat # i
seat # n
seat # i
seat # n
Local Data Manager
Local Data Manager
Option 1 Engineers save to either the local data manager or to the DESY-EDMS
Option 2 Engineers export from locally connected CAD-y seat and import into DESY-connected CAD-1 seat (and vice versa)
Option 3 Engineers exchange data between their local data manager and the DESY-EDMS (direct connect, transfer file …)

18. Real Time EDMS Examples
Example 1: US Industrial Cost Study for RDR
Would like a complete package of drawings for vendors to study in order to estimate US cost of Type III+ cryomodule
3D solid model has just been created using combination of DESY and INFN drawings and parts (inside DESY EDMS)
BOM includes a list of all the parts but many parts do not yet have associated drawings. Drawings may exist but are not yet related to the parts.
Question: Do I have the latest drawing and is it consistent with the 3D model and what is actually being built?
Answer: Would be YES if everyone was properly using the same data files in a shared EDMS
Eventually there will be slight regional variations of the drawings (language, standards, common sizes) but still want to keep as much of the design consistent as possible.

19. Real Time EDMS Examples (cont’d)
Example 2: Tunnel Layout
There may be as many as three different tunnel layouts being worked on right now
Question: Is everyone using consistent dimensions for components (cryomodule, klystrons, waveguides, etc.) and do these components reflect the latest information from the Technical and Area Groups?
Answer: Would be YES if everyone was properly using the same data files in a shared EDMS. Could even assure that proposed changes in the tunnel layout could get “approved” by technical experts before they are accepted. Sharing 3D model files would save time, assure consistency and help eliminate errors.

20. Conclusion
The EDMS committee recommends the approach outlined in this talk
A complete light-weight instance should be configured and implemented by an expanded team of interested parties and the result tested enough to approve/reject before 100% project approval
Action by director, executive committee, rdr matrix leaders and users required if this is to go smoothly.
Good will and patience during learning period would be beneficial as well, even if “it wasn’t invented here”

21. CERN EDMS Project LifeCycle Management Manufacturing Management
Design
Configuration
Documents (CAD, text) with versioning and access control
Documentation organized and linked in various structures. (PBS, WBS, ABS, etc.)
Approval process (Work Flow)
Manufacturing Management
Manufacturing
Installation
Operation
Maintenance
Other Data
Parameters
Test Data

22. Product Lifecycle Mgmt 3D Interactive Visualization for Non-CAD-Users
Team Center EDMS
Product Lifecycle Mgmt
3D Interactive Visualization for Non-CAD-Users
EDMS
core system lifecycles database srvr
native user i/f
admin i/f …
web interface
3D CAD interface
web interface with reduced functionality
web services
reviewer
author
reader
CAD-1 (I-DEAS)
CAD-2 (SolidEdge, others)
engineer
my web
webmaster
Different EDMS clients for different target groups:eg. xfel.desy.de

23. Pros & Cons of Choices
InDiCo is industry standard for managing “talks”
May need some flexibility for tailoring output based on different ”keys”
If adopted, “Talks” would be in a separate DB than other files
CERN EDMS is a tried & true system useful for document control and engineering applications. 630k documents, much experience, $nB-decade long project with many of the “bugs” inherent in any out-of-the-box system found & fixed by support team
What, if anything, would need to be changed for ILC?
Mostly developed after the design phase of LHC
Is the connection to 3D CAD tools adequate?
UGS TeamCenter EDMS adopted by DESY for ILC-sister XFEL project after much thought. 200k documents and many CAD files already in system. Industry powerhouse (GM, Nissan) with strong collaborative design web-based CAD tools and flexible DB driven structure for organizing content.
Currently being customized and extended to post-design phases of XFEL
Could be an advantage for ILC as it decides how it wants to organize

24. Cost Information DESY TeamCenter CERN EDMS CERN Indico
Licenses to the ILC community from its current stock without charge iff
Server is located at DESY
DESY is the contact for the vendor hotline
ILC support handled by present team with 2 additional support persons for ILC
plus trained regional pool of regional experts
Hardware configuration not discussed, presumed in the noise
CERN EDMS
ZERO marginal cost to add ILC as a standard EDMS project hosted and supported at CERN
ILC support handled by the present support team with one system administrator specifically for ILC.
Assuming good mapping of ILC needs onto existing system features
Subject to database size, might require some investment in hardware
CERN Indico
No licensing costs
Installation and technical support from current team, with eventually, one ILC system administrator.
Duplicate existing CERN hardware of 6 ~$3000 each

25. Committee’s Current Consensus (NB: Not yet a recommendation)
Use InDiCo for Meeting Management
Back fill CERN or TC EDMS with InDiCo pointers & files
Begin an ILC specific instance of InDiCo
Decide among TeamCenter, CDS & CERN EDMS
for document & engineering control by applying Benchmark Functionality Tests that are being written into the Requirements Document
Certain committee members already have an opinion
Ideally we would construct a “light” ILC implementation of each product as part of selection process, but ….
Requires more time and resources than committee has
“Light” exercise unlikely to have adequate breadth & depth to discriminate

26. Resources Required From NOW to “Decision Time”
Begin InDiCo implementation
Develop enough hands-on experience with other systems to judge their relative merits
NB: while lab support might be offered for a “chosen” system, this kind of effort may not be
In Q1 of 2006 will need expert support to
Begin to implement the chosen solution
Back fill it with enough data/content/usefulness that users adopt it
Test & administer

27. Community Feedback
A danger to this endeavor is adopting a system that the targeted users do not like & refuse to use
Best inoculation against this is user input and beta testing
However, EDMS will always feel much more clumsy than ‘Google’ and EDMS value not appreciated until system is loaded with content
Asking for user opinions may open a can of worms unless scope of user suggestions is limited
Recommendation in any event will rest in hands of committee
We are interested in GDE’s opinions on desirability and mechanisms for user input
It is clear that analysis oriented individuals are in the community who can better implement and more fully test system than can this committee. Should a volunteer support staff be recruited?

28. Immediate Plans & Timeline Update
Feb.15, 2006
Finish specifying “Requirements” and “Functionality Tests”
Develop as robust version of InDiCo as possible
Develop “light” ILC implementation of CDS, CERN EDMS & TeamCenter for comparison
March 1, 2006
Down Select for tools to handle documents and engineering data
April 1, 2006
Begin to train pool of regional experts in the chosen system
Release to larger group (all ILC?) an InDiCo system backfilled with as much relevant data as possible
Snowmass, Frascati, Bangalore
SLAC BDS meetings
Release a Document management System that can handle the BCD and RDR

29. Anti-Charge to the Committee
The recommendation of other related virtual communication tools may be made if they enhance the functioning of the basic document management system. Such tools may include calendars, agendas, ing lists, notification, discussion forums, user-modifiable ("wiki") web pages for interactive working group documentation, etc. The recommendation or incorporation of these tools should be considered secondary to the selection of system that supports the core functions of storage, search and retrieval.
Project management tools (WBS, scheduling, resource planning) are outside the scope of current charge.