Presentation on theme: "US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20011 US CMS Cost & Schedule Mark Reichanadter US CMS Project Engineer DOE/NSF Review 8 May 2001."— Presentation transcript:
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20011 US CMS Cost & Schedule Mark Reichanadter US CMS Project Engineer DOE/NSF Review 8 May 2001
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20012 OutlineOutline Overview Status and Performance US CMS Cost Performance Report Work Scheduled, Work Performed, Obligations, Actuals Cost and Schedule Variances and Indices Cost Experience L2 CPR’s, M&S and Labor Performance Schedule Performance L2 Schedule Variances L1, L2, L3 Milestone Performance Schedules and Critical Paths (CMS, EMU, HCAL, ECAL) Contingency Assessment Base vs Scope Issues & Summary
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20013 US CMS C&S (Philosophy) The US CMS Project is organized into 9 separate L2 subsystem files (MS Project) where cost and schedule estimates and progress are maintained and reported against. The L2 MS Project files are used as the sole source of cost and schedule information, and changes are approved through change control. In an effort to actively manage each L2 subsystem and maintain the most accurate planning model, changing the project file to better reflect current knowledge is encouraged. Provides the earliest possible warning of weak spots A stale plan is a less useful management tool “Plan the Work - Work the Plan” Each month, 9 updated L2 files are submitted to the PO, with % complete progress and possible ~45-50 changes to the US CMS ‘approved’ plan.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20014 US CMS C&S (Philosophy) US CMS believes that revising the plan when the previous model is no longer relevant is essential to US CMS communication and coordination, and also promotes active management. Tracking and reporting are more challenging. Assessing performance is more difficult since traditional reference points are often reset. US CMS has a fixed TPC = $167.25M, a defined set of deliverables, and is matched to the global CMS schedule. Because US CMS is now in the later phases of the project (54% complete), more emphasis is placed on performance and less on cost estimates. US CMS uses an ‘Earned Value’ system to report and assess our cost and schedule performance. BCWS (Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled-What did you plan to do?) BCWP (Budgeted Cost of Work Performed-What did you do?) ACWP (Actual Cost of Work Performed.-What did it cost?)
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20015 US CMS Performance Mar01 (AY$) Ignoring CP & PO, BCWP/BCWS still about 88%.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20016 BCWS, BCWP, Obl. & Actuals Work scheduled attempts to saturate BA. Some early problems with accounting of Est. Actuals. 34 months of reporting. Trends are fairly linear. US CMS is technically limited.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20017 Cost and Schedule Variance Cost Variance (P-A) Can be misleading when rolled up to a high level. A cost overrun (-) can be cancelled out by invoice lag (+). Schedule Variance (P-S) Fairly constant in recent months.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20018 Cost and Schedule Performance Indicators SPI (BCWP/BCWS) fairly consistent at ~85-88%. Ignoring CP & PO, BCWP/BCWS ~88%. Trends indicate slightly behind on planned work, and under- running cost (invoice lags and large multi-year contracts).
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 20019 US CMS L2 Cost Performance Reports Tracks actual costs vs budgets (in AY$) at lowest WBS for each L2 system. New cost tool for US CMS.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200110 Cost Experience - M&S Current cum BCWP is ~74 AYM$. 22 M&S contracts account for ~36 AYM$ or 49% of our BCWP.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200111 Cost Experience – Labor HCAL Optics Production-(FNAL L5, L8) Total labor for this task ~ 1.8 M$
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200112 Cost Experience – Labor EMU CSC Production-(FNAL L8, MP9) Total labor for this task ~ 3.5 M$
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200113 Major Schedule Variances We actively monitor and discuss US CMS subsystem schedule variances during L1/L2 monthly meetings.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200114 CMS Schedule CMS Schedule CMS is currently following the V31 planning schedule Includes a ‘working detector’ w/colliding beam “pilot run” in April 2006. Shutdown from May 2006 to July 2006 (pixels, EE-, IT) Ready for full year of LHC operation in July 2006. US CMS has adopted the V31 model and has aligned its I&C effort (FY04-FY05) to be in phase with CMS. Draft L1, L2, and L3 milestones consistent with V31 are in development and will be processed through change control when approved by the LHCC and CMS (estimate rebaseline in July 2001). Mostly affects FY04-FY05. LHCC, CMS, and US CMS presently report on milestone progress wrt Aug 99 LHCC baseline (v27).
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200115 US CMS Schedule US CMS Schedule Currently, the majority of the US CMS effort is in the production of deliverables here in the US. US CMS has assumed responsibilities for major deliverables and its subparts (vertical integration) allowing some autonomy in managing the factories in the US. US CMS takes the approach to go as fast as possible when technically ready. This allows an increase in overall schedule slack and reduced risk wrt V31.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200116 CMS SX5 V31 Schedule CMS SX5 V31 Schedule
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200117 CMS UX5 V31 Schedule CMS UX5 V31 Schedule
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200118 US CMS L1 & L2 Milestone Performance (V27) Define at EDR Fall 01?
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200119 US CMS L1 & L2 Milestone Performance (V27) No approved Silicon Tracker milestones Redesign Mechanics + crystal boule Near CP
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200120 EMU Critical Path (v6)
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200121 HCAL Critical Path-r11
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200122 ECAL Critical Path (v6)
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200123 US CMS Project Contingency Allocation (AY$)
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200124 US CMS Contingency Allocation Scope increases are modest. Most contingency applied to base to maintain schedule
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200125 Lehman Review – Oct00 On schedule and on budget Areas in need of improvement Milestone coordination (CMS, US CMS, Agencies, L2 Groups, L3 groups, non-US groups, etc.) Mostly done, continue to work with CMS. Continue effort WBS Tracking System in PO to accurately measure budget/actuals at lower levels. L2 CPR’s, continue to refine/improve EMU (continue to work on coordination) I&C plan is improved HCAL (need a few wins, RBX, HPD, HF) Some solutions are near. ECAL (continue to refine schedule) US has a CP analysis. ECAL is on CMS CP. Installation and commissioning I&C and M&O plans are converging. Cost and Schedule Issues Last Review
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200126 Cost Performance Summary – May01 How much have you spent? Are you under, over, or on-budget? Total US CMS Cost = $64,554K (Mar01). We are On Cost Historically large M&S purchases and labor experience at two major factories indicate US CMS ~on cost. At a low WBS level, L2 CPR’s shows no significant cost overruns. Actuals lag behind BCWP by ~13%. Lag adds uncertainty but tracks ~linearly with BCWP.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200127 Schedule Performance Summary – May01 Are you on schedule? If not, where are you slipping? What are the implications? What are you doing about it? We are On Schedule (matched to V31). US CMS Schedule tools are consistent BCWP/BCWS analysis from % complete. Milestone tracking, Schedule Variance. Critical Path analysis for US CMS tasks, and SX-5/UX5 I&C. L1/L2 monthly meetings (work-arounds).
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, 200128 Cost & Schedule Issues May01 Areas to work on in next 6 months; Rebaseline milestones consistent with V31 Change control improvements within CMS being developed Continue to improve L2 CPR’s. Cost performance is key in later stages of project. Implement ‘rolling close out’ of completed WBS#’s. EMU Overall Performance, parts flow, handoff to CERN, I&C HCAL RBX production, HPD production, HF (fiber, PMT’s) SiTrkr Parts flow, coordinate production start. Continue to improve I&C and M&O planning