[Technical Division High-field Magnet Program and Quality
Assurance]{.underline}

Purpose:

The purpose of this note is to frame our approach to assuring the
quality of the HFM program. We would like to assure ourselves, and our
sponsors, that we are doing sufficient due-diligence in our planning and
risk analysis of the project, and that we have adequate QA controls to
mitigate the risks.

Background:

Fermilab is currently implementing a lab-wide QA program. The core of
the program rests on the implementation of QA controls using a "graded
approach". This approach means that we implement controls which are
commensurate with the risks. In talking with Mike Lamm about applying
this process to the Magnet Systems Department, we talked about the
various "high risk" projects, one of them being the HFM program. As
such, we would like to go through the graded approach process with that
program. The outcome will be a plan on how we are assuring the quality
of the program.

Risk Analysis:

There is an overall risk that the project does not meet its schedule
commitments, or it goes well over its budget, or it results in the loss
of HEP/DOE/funding community confidence in the lab\'s ability to
successfully manage this work. The potential causes of these risks
should be thought through.

In an effort to frame our approach, I've tried to think about the risks
looking through the glasses of the 10 QA criteria. This approach,
however, is acknowledged to be limiting, and so our conversations about
risks should not be limited to trying to force them into the 10 "boxes"
listed below.

1: Program

-   What fraction of the HFM Program is working within the LARP
    framework? What is the LARP framework?

-   Schedule risk: managed by maintaining a project schedule (this is
    already happening - we should confirm it\'s adequate)

-   Budget risk: managed by keeping track of obligations and expected
    expenditures (this is already happening - we should confirm it\'s
    adequate)

 

2: Training & Qualification

-   Those making designs are degreed/credentialed engineers/scientists.

-   Those fabricating/testing magnets are experienced technicians. For
    new technicians we rely very heavily on on-the-job training done by
    the lead technicians. I am not aware of any OJT training plans, or
    of records, so this may pose some unmitigated risks.

 

3: Continuous Improvement

-   Magnet assembly will use Discrepancy Reports from XX date forward.
    These will allow for a systematic way of recording and tracking
    problems encountered during assembly, and they include actions which
    are supposed to prevent the problem from reoccurring.

-   We should consider asking T&I to also use DRs during magnet testing.
    Not using a system like this during testing poses risks.

-   Production Reports: are these being done for each magnet? They
    should include all lessons learned during assembly, as well as
    strand data.

-   Post-mortem analysis/reports: in order to learn from each magnet, we
    should consider performing post-mortems on the ones which do not
    perform as expected. This would help to understand possible assembly
    implications.

 

4: Documents & Records

-   Design documents (drawings) are under document control.

-   Travelers are under document control, and (will) provide the
    production record as well.

-   What records are generated as a result of assembling and testing
    each magnet?

 

5: Work Processes

-   Travelers will be used for all HFM magnet work. Travelers (will)
    provide the work process controls for magnet assembly, as well as
    part traceability.

-   Are there any specific maintenance requirements for the HFM tooling?

 

6: Design

-   Design reviews: how are these done? The input to the design review
    should be a detailed plan for the magnet; the plan should include
    the goals of the particular magnet, the design changes compared to
    the previous magnets, the motivations for each design change, the
    perceived risks for each design change. The design review would
    allow us a forum for probing at the plans/assumptions. The output
    would be either an endorsement of the plan as proposed or
    recommendations for change(s). All recommendations need to be
    adequately addressed prior to commencement of fabrication.

-   Readiness reviews: are these done before a magnet is approved to
    begin assembly?

 

7: Procurement

-   Procurement is controlled via the standard lab-wide systems.

 

8: Inspection & Testing

-   Incoming: parts go through the IB4 QC lab (this is true?)

-   In-process: inspections completed during assembly are
    defined/recorded in travelers.

-   Final: magnets are performance-testing in MTF. Test plans are
    documented (?) and results are published in reports (?).

-   All instruments used to judge quality have known calibrations.

 

9 & 10: Assessments

-   How is the HFM work assessed for adequacy?