U.S. ATLAS C01-09

#### 

**U.S. ATLAS**

**Computing Project Management Plan**

November 21, 2001

**Submission and Approvals**

Submitted by: Approved by the DOE/NSF

Joint Oversight Group:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

John Huth John W. Lightbody

U.S. ATLAS Associate Project Manager Executive Officer, Physics Division

Harvard University National Science Foundation

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Thomas B.W. Kirk John R. O'Fallon

Associate Laboratory Director Director, Division of High Energy Physics

Brookhaven National Laboratory Department of Energy

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

James H. Yeck

U.S. LHC Project Manager

Department of Energy

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Marvin Goldberg

Associate U.S. LHC Program Manager

National Science Foundation

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

U.S. LHC Program Manager

Department of Energy

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

William Willis

U.S. ATLAS Project Manager

Columbia University

##### Table of Contents

**Submission and Approvals 2**

**List of Abbreviations 5**

[1. ATLAS Objectives 6](#__RefHeading___Toc530542441)

[1.1 Scientific Objectives 6](#scientific-objectives)

[1.2 Technical Objectives 6](#technical-objectives)

[1.3 Cost Objectives 6](#cost-objectives)

[1.4 Schedule Objectives 6](#schedule-objectives)

[2 ATLAS Organization 7](#__RefHeading___Toc530542446)

[2.1 Introduction 7](#introduction)

[2.2 International ATLAS and its Project Management
7](#international-atlas-and-its-project-management)

[2.3 ATLAS Physics and Computing Organization
8](#atlas-physics-and-computing-organization)

[2.4 Membership of the U.S.ATLAS Collaboration
8](#membership-of-the-u.s.atlas-collaboration)

[2.5 U.S. ATLAS Project Management Structure
11](#u.s.-atlas-project-management-structure)

[2.5.1 U.S. ATLAS Project Manager 11](#u.s.-atlas-project-manager)

[2.5.2 Institutional Board 12](#institutional-board)

[2.5.3 Executive Committee 13](#executive-committee)

[2.5.4 Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing
13](#associate-project-manager-for-physics-and-computing)

[2.5.5 Computing Subsystem Managers 13](#computing-subsystem-managers)

[2.5.6 Information Technology Development
15](#information-technology-development)

[2.5.7 Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and Columbia University
16](#brookhaven-national-laboratory-bnl-and-columbia-university)

[2.5.8 Project Advisory Panel 16](#project-advisory-panel)

[2.5.9 Physics and Computing Advisory Panel
17](#physics-and-computing-advisory-panel)

[2.6 Department of Energy (DOE) and National Science Foundation (NSF)
17](#department-of-energy-doe-and-national-science-foundation-nsf)

[2.6.1 U.S. LHC Program Office 18](#u.s.-lhc-program-office)

[2.6.2 U.S. LHC Project Office 18](#u.s.-lhc-project-office)

[3 Physics and Computing Project 18](#__RefHeading___Toc530542464)

[3.1 Physics and Computing Subproject Management
19](#physics-and-computing-subproject-management)

[3.1.1 Physics 19](#physics)

[3.1.2 Software 19](#software)

[3.1.3 Facilities Subproject 20](#facilities-subproject)

[3.2 Upper level project management: description of responsibilities
20](#upper-level-project-management-description-of-responsibilities)

[Associate Project Manager 20](#associate-project-manager)

[Level 2 Managers: Generic Responsibilities
21](#level-2-managers-generic-responsibilities)

[Physics Subproject Manager 22](#physics-subproject-manager)

[Software Subproject Manager 22](#software-subproject-manager)

[Facilities Subproject Manager 23](#facilities-subproject-manager)

[3.2.1 Computing Coordination Board 23](#computing-coordination-board)

[3.2.2 Institutional Responsibilities
23](#institutional-responsibilities)

[3.3 Software Agreements 23](#software-agreements)

[3.4 International Memoranda of Understanding
24](#international-memoranda-of-understanding)

[3.5 Computing and Physics Policies 24](#computing-and-physics-policies)

[3.5.1 Local Computing Hardware Support
24](#local-computing-hardware-support)

[3.5.2 Physicist Support 24](#physicist-support)

[3.5.3 Software Licensing 25](#software-licensing)

[3.5.4 QA/QC 25](#qaqc)

[3.5.5 Relation to the Construction Project
25](#relation-to-the-construction-project)

[3.5.6 Software Support 25](#software-support)

[3.6 Cost Estimates for Physics and Computing
25](#cost-estimates-for-physics-and-computing)

[3.6.1 Training, Collaboratory Tools, Software Support
25](#training-collaboratory-tools-software-support)

[3.6.2 Facilities 25](#facilities)

[4 Management and Control System 26](#__RefHeading___Toc530542489)

[4.1 Baseline Development 26](#baseline-development)

[4.2 Computing Project Performance 27](#computing-project-performance)

[4.3 Reporting 27](#reporting)

[4.3.1 Technical Progress 27](#technical-progress)

[4.4 Procurements 28](#procurements)

[4.5 Change Management 28](#change-management)

[4.6 Host Laboratory Oversight 29](#host-laboratory-oversight)

[4.7 Meetings with DOE and NSF 29](#meetings-with-doe-and-nsf)

[4.8 Reviews 29](#reviews)

[5. Review and Modification of this Project Management Plan
30](#__RefHeading___Toc530542499)

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: U.S. ATLAS Organization 30

Appendix 2: DOE-NSF-U.S. ATLAS Organization 31

Appendix 3: Management Structure of the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing
Project 32

Appendix 4: Organizational Structure of Computing and Physics

In the International ATLAS Collaboration 33

Appendix 5: Tier 2 Selection Process 34

Appendix 6: List of High Level Milestones 37

Appendix 7: Projected Budget and FTE Profile 39

Appendix 8: Letter to J. Marburger from J. O'Fallon and J. Lightbody 40

Appendix 9: WBS 42

Appendix 10: Institutional Responsibilities 45

List of Abbreviations

ACWP Actual Cost of Work Performed

ALD BNL Associate Laboratory Director

APM Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing

AY At Year (referring to a dollar value)

BCP Baseline Change Proposal

BCWP Budgeted Cost of Work Performed

BCWS Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled

BHG Brookhaven Group

BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory

CB ATLAS Collaboration Board

CCB Change Control Board

CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics

CH Chicago Operations Office

DHEP Division of High Energy Physics

DOE Department of Energy

EDIA Engineering Design, Inspection and Assembly

EDMS Engineering Data Management System

ES&H Environmental Safety and Health

HEP DOE Headquarters Office of High Energy Physics

IB Institutional Board

IMOU Interim Memorandum of Understanding

JOG Joint Oversight Group

LHC Large Hadron Collider

LHCC CERN LHC Committee

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MRE Major Research Equipment

NSF National Science Foundation

PAP Project Advisory Panel

PBS Product Breakdown Structure

PCAP Physics and Computing Advisory Panel

PCP Physics and Computing Project

PL ATLAS Project Leader

PM U.S. ATLAS Project Manager

PMCS Project Management Control System

PMP Project Management Plan

PO U.S. ATLAS Project Office

QAP Quality Assurance Plan

R&D Research and Development

RRB ATLAS Resource Review Board

SC DOE Office of Science

SM U.S. ATLAS Subsystem Manager

TDR Technical Design Report

TRT Transition Radiation Tracker

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

## 1.1 Scientific Objectives

The fundamental unanswered problem of elementary particle physics
relates to the understanding of the mechanism that generates the masses
of the W and Z gauge bosons and of quarks and leptons. To attack this
problem, one requires an experiment that can produce a large rate of
particle collisions of very high energy. The LHC will collide protons
against protons every 25 ns with a center-of-mass energy of 14 TeV and a
design luminosity of 10^34^ cm^-2^ s^-1^. It will probably require a few
years after turn-on to reach the full design luminosity.

The detector will have to be capable of reconstructing the interesting
final states. It must be designed to fully utilize the high luminosity
so that detailed studies of rare phenomena can be carried out. While the
primary goal of the experiment is to determine the mechanism of
electroweak symmetry breaking via the detection of Higgs bosons,
supersymmetric particles or structure in the WW scattering amplitude,
the new energy regime will also offer the opportunity to probe for quark
substructure or discover new exotic particles. The detector must be
sufficiently versatile to detect and identify the final state products
of these processes. In particular, it must be capable of reconstructing
the momenta and directions of quarks (hadronic jets, tagged by their
flavors where possible), electrons, muons, taus, and photons, and be
sensitive to energy carried off by weakly interacting particles such as
neutrinos that cannot be directly detected. The ATLAS detector is
designed to have all of these capabilities.

## 1.2 Technical Objectives

The ATLAS detector is designed to perform a comprehensive study of the
source of electroweak symmetry breaking. It is expected to operate for
twenty or more years at the CERN LHC, observing collisions of protons,
and recording, reconstructing and analyzing more than 10^7^ events per
year. The critical objectives to achieve these goals are:

Software and computational hardware capable of reconstructing events in
a timely fashion and providing them to the collaboration for physics
analysis.

Excellent photon and electron identification capability, as well as
energy and directional resolution.

Efficient charged particle track reconstruction and good momentum
resolution.

Excellent muon identification capability and momentum resolution.

Well-understood trigger system to go from 1 GHz raw interaction rate to
\~100 Hz readout rate without loss of interesting signals.

Hermetic calorimetry coverage to allow accurate measurement of direction
and magnitude of energy flow, and excellent reconstruction of missing
transverse momentum.

Efficient tagging of b-decays and b-jets.

## 1.3 Cost Objectives

A revised cost estimate consistent with the agency guidelines is in
preparation.

## Schedule Objectives

The major milestones are the May'00 milestone for the first round of
prototyping from the Architecture Team, Nov. '00 for a full Project
Plan, 2003 for Mock Data Challenges, and 2006 for the start of data
taking.

## 

## 

## 2.1 Introduction

The U.S. ATLAS Construction Project operates within the context of the
internationally funded ATLAS experiment located at CERN. The general
responsibilities of the U.S. participants are described in Article VI of
the Experiments Protocol signed between CERN, and DOE and NSF. The
responsibilities for the development and maintenance of software and
computing hardware is to be described first in a series of Software
Agreements, and later on described in a comprehensive MOU between CERN
and the relevant funding agencies. The responsibilities of the CERN
management are described in Article VIII of the same Protocol.

The U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project is managed by the U.S.
ATLAS Project Office, located at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL),
under the direction of the designated U.S. ATLAS Associate Project
Manager for Physics and Computing (hereafter referred to as the
Associate Project Manager or APM). The Associate Project Manager has the
principal authority for day-to-day management and administration of the
project aspects of physics and computing. The Director of BNL, or
his/her designee, is responsible for management oversight of the project
and DOE and NSF jointly provide requirements, objectives and funding.

## 2.2 International ATLAS and its Project Management

The large general-purpose LHC experiments rank among the most ambitious
and challenging technical undertakings ever proposed by the
international scientific community. The inter-regional collaborations
assembled to design, implement and execute these experiments face
unprecedented sociological challenges in marshaling efficiently their
enormous, yet highly decentralized, human and economic resources. The
overall ATLAS approach to this challenge is to base most of the ATLAS
governance on the collaborating institutions rather than on any national
blocks. Thus the principal organizational entity in ATLAS is the
Collaboration Board (CB), consisting of one voting representative from
each collaborating institution, regardless of size or national origin.

The CB is the entity within ATLAS that must ratify all policy and
technical decisions, and all appointments to official ATLAS positions.
It is chaired by an elected Chairperson who serves for a non-renewable
two-year term. The Deputy Chairperson, elected in the middle of the
Chairperson's term, succeeds the Chairperson at the end of his/her term.
The CB Chairperson has appointed (and the CB ratified) a smaller
advisory group with whom he/she can readily consult between ATLAS
collaboration meetings.

For Physics and Computing, the ATLAS National Computing Board (NCB) has
one representative member per participating country, and is constituted
to oversee the allocation of contributed resources to the needs of ATLAS
computing. It reports to the Computing Oversight Board (COB), consisting
of the Spokesperson, Deputy Spokesperson, Computing Coordinator and
Physics Coordinator on resource and policy issues involving computing at
the member countries in ATLAS.

Executive responsibility within ATLAS is carried by the Spokesperson who
is elected by the CB to a renewable three-year term. The Spokesperson is
empowered to nominate one or two deputies (there is presently one) to
serve for the duration of the Spokesperson's term in office. The
Spokesperson represents the ATLAS Collaboration before all relevant
bodies, and carries the overall responsibility for the ATLAS Detector
Project.

The ATLAS Spokesperson chairs and Executive Board (EB), consisting of
high-level representatives of all the major detector subsystems, the
Technical and Resource Coordinators, the Physics and Computing
Coordinators. The Executive Board directs the execution of the ATLAS
project according to the policies established by the Collaboration
Board.

It is understood that the U.S.-ATLAS management must operate within the
regulations imposed by the U.S. funding agencies, the funding
appropriated by the U.S. Congress, and the terms of the U.S.-CERN
Protocol on LHC Experiments. Subject to these limitations, it is
expected that the U.S.-ATLAS management responds to all decisions taken
by the ATLAS Resource Review Board (RRB) and the Collaboration Board.
The RRB comprises representatives from all ATLAS funding agencies and
the managements of CERN and the ATLAS Collaboration. The U.S. has DOE
and NSF representatives. The RRB meets twice per year, usually in April
and October.

The role of the RRB includes:

reaching agreement on the ATLAS Memorandum of Understanding

monitoring the Common Projects and the use of the Common Funds

monitoring the general financial and manpower support

reaching agreement on a maintenance and operation procedure and
monitoring its functioning

endorsing the annual construction and maintenance and operation budgets
of the detector

As far as project execution is concerned, decisions by the ATLAS
Executive Board (EB) should also be adopted directly or, if not
compatible with the U.S. operating procedures, adapted so as to match
the EB decision as closely as possible. In the latter case ATLAS
management should be consulted and informed about the detailed U.S.
implementation.

## 2.3 ATLAS Physics and Computing Organization

The ATLAS Physics and Computing Project (see Appendix 4) is managed by
two co-leaders, one is the Physics Coordinator, who is in charge of
organizing efforts in the area of physics objects, event generators and
benchmark studies. The other is the Computing Coordinator who is
directly responsible for ensuring that the computing goals of the
experiment are met on time and on budget in a way the guarantees the
required performance and reliability objectives. The Computing Project
is overseen by a technically oriented Computing Steering Group,
consisting of representatives from each major detector subsystem in the
areas of simulation, reconstruction and data management. In addition to
the subsystem-based representation, there is one overall leader in the
area of data management, simulation and reconstruction. See Appendix 3
for a management diagram.

The National Computing Board (NCB) consists of one representative from
each country in the collaboration, and has an elected chair who serves
for a two year term.

Software agreements are discussed between the relevant NCB
representatives and in the CSG. This discussion focuses on the available
resources from any given country and the needs of ATLAS. After
discussion between these two groups, a proposal for the Institutional
Commitments for Computing deliverables is made to the Collaboration
Board, which approves the Software Agreements. The Software Agreements
are then reviewed by the RRB and are approved by the Research Director
of CERN and codified as Memoranda of Understanding for Computing.

## Membership of the U.S.ATLAS Collaboration

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration consists of physics and software
professionals from U.S. ATLAS institutions collaborating on the ATLAS
experiment at the CERN LHC. Table 2-1.shows a list of the participating
institutions. Individuals from these institutions share responsibility
for the construction and execution of the experiment with collaborators
from the international high-energy physics community outside the U.S.
Members of the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration take on responsibilities for
computing and physics within the ATLAS experiment. Major portions of
these responsibilities may be funded as part of the U.S. ATLAS Physics
and Computing Project, and these responsibilities may become the subject
of Software Agreements and/or Memoranda of Understanding between U.S.
ATLAS and the ATLAS experiment. These aspects are subject to Project
management and control. Other aspects, such as detector specific
contributions (e.g. to reconstruction algorithms) are part of the base
program, and may also be the subject of Software Agreements and/or
Memoranda of Understanding. Project funded activities that are the
subject of Software Agreements and/or Memoranda of Understanding between
U.S. ATLAS and the ATLAS experiment are codified in the form of
Institutional Memoranda of Understanding between U.S. ATLAS and the
collaborating institution. See Appendix 10 for List of Institutional
Responsibilities.

**Table 2-: U.S. ATLAS Participating Institutions**

(Agency support shown in parentheses)

Argonne National Laboratory (DOE)

University of Arizona (DOE)

Boston University (DOE)

Brandeis University (DOE/NSF)

Brookhaven National Laboratory (DOE)

University of California, Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(DOE/NSF)

University of California, Irvine (DOE/NSF)

University of California, Santa Cruz (DOE/NSF)

University of Chicago (NSF)

Columbia University (Nevis Laboratory) (NSF)

Duke University (DOE)

Hampton University (NSF)

Harvard University (DOE/NSF)

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (DOE)

Indiana University (DOE)

Iowa State University (DOE)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (DOE)

University of Michigan (DOE)

Michigan State University (NSF)

University of New Mexico (DOE)

State University of New York at Albany (DOE)

State University of New York at Stony Brook (DOE/NSF)

Northern Illinois University (NSF)

Ohio State University (DOE)

University of Oklahoma/Langston University (DOE)

University of Pennsylvania (DOE)

University of Pittsburgh (DOE/NSF)

University of Rochester (DOE/NSF)

Southern Methodist University (DOE)

University of Texas at Arlington (DOE/NSF)

Tufts University (DOE)

University of Washington (NSF)

University of Wisconsin, Madison (DOE)

## U.S. ATLAS Project Management Structure

The U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project is undertaken as part of
the LHC Research, Software and Computing Plan, as described in the Host
Lab letters signed by the DOE/NSF and BNL Director, dated November 2000
and August 1999. This letter is in Appendix 8.

To facilitate interactions with the U.S. funding agencies and for
effective management of U.S. ATLAS activities and resources, a project
management structure has been established with the Project Office
located at BNL. Appendix 1 shows the organization chart for U.S. ATLAS.
This organization is headed by a U.S. ATLAS Project Manager supported by
a Project Office along with U.S. Subsystem Managers for each of the
major detector elements in which the U.S. is involved. The organization
also includes an Institutional Board with representation from each
collaborating institution, and an Executive Committee. The
responsibilities of each will be described below. The U.S. ATLAS
planning and management is being done in close cooperation with the
overall ATLAS management. The U.S. Subsystem Managers interact closely
with the corresponding overall ATLAS Subsystem Project Leaders, and the
U.S. ATLAS Project Manager maintains close contact with the ATLAS
Spokesperson, and the Technical and Resource Coordinators.

### 2.5.1 U.S. ATLAS Project Manager

The U.S. ATLAS Project Manager (PM) has the responsibility of providing
programmatic coordination and management for the U.S. ATLAS Construction
Project and the Research Program addressed here. He/she represents the
U.S. ATLAS Project in interactions with overall ATLAS management, CERN,
DOE, NSF, the universities and national laboratories involved and BNL,
the Host Laboratory. The PM is appointed by the Director of BNL and with
concurrence of the DOE and NSF upon recommendation from the U.S. ATLAS
Collaboration. The PM will serve as long as there is the continuing
confidence of the Collaboration, the Director of BNL, and the funding
agencies. He/she reports to the BNL Director (or his/her appointed
representative). In the event that a new PM is chosen, the selection of
the new PM will require the concurrence and confidence of the
Collaboration, the Director of BNL, and the funding agencies. He/she
reports to the BNL Director (or his/her appointed representative). The
PM is advised in this role by an Executive Committee, which includes all
U.S. Subsystem Managers, as described below. The PM may select a Deputy
to assist him. With respect to technical, budgetary, and managerial
issues, the U.S. Subsystem Managers, augmented by the Institutional
Board Convener, act as a subcommittee of the Executive Committee to
provide advice to the PM on a regular basis. Consultation with this
subcommittee is part of the process by which the PM makes important
technical and managerial decisions. An example of such a managerial
decision would be a modification of institutional responsibilities. The
management responsibilities of the U.S. ATLAS Project Manager include:

-   Appointing, after consultation with the Collaboration, of U.S.
    Subsystem Managers (SMs) responsible for coordination and management
    within each detector subsystem. The SMs will serve with the PM's
    continuing concurrence.

-   Preparing the yearly funding requests to DOE and NSF for the
    anticipated U.S. ATLAS activities.

-   Recommending to DOE and NSF the institution-by-institution funding
    allocations to support the U.S. ATLAS efforts. These recommendations
    will be made with the advice of the SMs, and the U.S ATLAS Executive
    Committee.

-   Approving budgets and allocating funds in consultation with the SMs
    and managing contingency budgets in accord with the Change Control
    Process in Section 4.5.

-   Establishing, with the support of BNL management, a U.S. ATLAS
    Project Office with appropriate support services.

-   Working with BNL management to set up and respond to whatever
    advisory or other mechanisms BNL management feels necessary to carry
    out its oversight responsibility.

-   Keeping the BNL Director or his chosen representative well informed
    on the progress of the U.S. ATLAS effort, and reporting promptly any
    problems whose solutions may benefit from the joint efforts of the
    PM and BNL management.

-   Interacting with CERN on issues affecting resource allocation and
    availability, preparation of the international MOUs defining U.S.
    deliverables and concurring in these MOUs.

-   Advising the DOE and NSF representatives at the ATLAS Resource
    Review Board meetings.

-   Negotiating and signing the U.S. Institutional MOUs representing
    agreements between the U.S. ATLAS Project Office and the U.S. ATLAS
    collaborating institutions specifying the deliverables to be
    provided and the resources available on an
    institution-by-institution basis.

-   Periodically reporting on project status and issues to the Agencies
    and the Joint Oversight Group.

-   Conducting, at least twice a year, meetings with the U.S. ATLAS
    Executive Committee to discuss budget planning, milestones, and
    other U.S. ATLAS management issues.

-   Making periodic reports to the U.S. ATLAS Institutional Board to
    ensure that the Collaboration is fully informed about important
    issues.

The channels for funding, reporting, and transmission of both types of
MOUs are shown in Construction PMP. DOE funding will be a mixture of
grants and Research Contracts through BNL. NSF funding will be through
subcontracts through Columbia University. Further details on the
identities and roles of the various participants in the U.S. ATLAS
Collaboration governance are given below.

### 2.5.2 Institutional Board

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration has an Institutional Board (IB) with one
member from each collaborating institution and a Convener elected by the
Board. The Convener serves for a two-year renewable term. The IB will
normally meet several times per year. Under normal circumstances the
meetings are open to the Collaboration, although closed meetings may be
called by the Convener to discuss detailed or difficult issues. All
voting is by IB members only, except in the case of the absence of a
member when the missing member may appoint an alternate.

The IB members represent the interests of their institutions and serve
as points of contact between the U.S. ATLAS management structure and the
collaborators from their institutions. They are selected by the ATLAS
participants from their institutions.

The Institutional Board deals with general policy issues affecting the
U.S. ATLAS Collaboration. As chairman of this board the Convener will
organize meetings on issues of general interest that arise and will
speak for U.S. ATLAS on issues that affect the Collaboration. The
Convener also will recommend for ratification to the Institutional Board
the ad hoc committees charged with running the elections for the
Convener and for the membership of the Executive Committee, as described
in the next section. The Convener will recommend to the Institutional
Board the establishment of any standing committees to deal with
collaboration wide issues if the need arises. The Institutional Board
also provides its recommendation on the appointment of the Project
Manager to the BNL Director, and DOE and the NSF.

### 2.5.3 Executive Committee

The Executive Committee advises the Project Manager on global and policy
issues affecting the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration or the U.S. ATLAS
Construction and the Physics and Computing Projects. It also deals with
issues external to the U.S. ATLAS Construction Project such as
education, computing, physics analysis etc. The Executive Committee has
meetings at least twice per year. Its membership is the following:

The Deputy Project Manager,

Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing,

Subsystem Managers, including each level 2 manager from the Physics and
Computing Project (PCP)

The Subsystem Representatives from each subsystem in which U.S. groups
are playing a major role, their number being given in parentheses:

-   Semiconductor tracker (1),

-   TRT (1),

-   Liquid argon calorimeter and forward calorimeter (2),

-   Tile calorimeter (1),

-   Muon spectrometer (2),

-   Trigger/DAQ subsystems (1),

The Education Coordinator,

The U.S. members of the overall ATLAS Executive Board,

The Convener of the Institutional Board.

The Subsystem Representatives are elected for two-year renewable terms
by the IB members whose institutions are associated with the given
subsystem.

The Education Coordinator, also elected for a two-year renewable term by
the IB, is expected to actively promote educational programs associated
with ATLAS and with the U.S. member institutions, and to report to the
Executive Committee on these issues. He/she will also act as liaison to
DOE and NSF for educational activities. The intended audiences for these
education activities are a) the general public, b) secondary school
students, c) undergraduates, and d) primary and secondary school
teachers.

### 2.5.4 Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing

The Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing (APM) is
responsible for the technical, schedule and cost aspects of the U.S.
ATLAS Physics and Computing Project. (The scope of the U.S. ATLAS
Physics and Computing Project is part of the U.S. preparations for
participation in the ATLAS research program and is not part of the U.S.
ATLAS Construction Project.) This Physics and Computing Project will
follow all the features of this Project Management Plan in terms of
defining a WBS for the deliverables, a detailed cost estimate and
resource-loaded schedule, controls and reporting. The APM develops the
budgets for the institutions participating. The U.S. ATLAS Project
Manager appoints the APM with concurrence from the Executive Committee.
The APM appoints Software, Facilities and Physics Subsystem Managers
with the concurrence of the Executive Committee.

### 2.5.5 Computing Subsystem Managers

The Computing Subsystem Managers are responsible for the technical,
schedule, and cost aspects of their subsystems. They develop the budgets
for the institutions participating in their subsystems. They are
appointed by the Associate Project Manager upon recommendation of the IB
members whose institutions are involved in that subsystem. The Computing
Subsystem Managers, augmented by the Institutional Board Convener, also
act as a subcommittee of the Executive Committee advising the APM on
technical, budgetary, and managerial issues relevant to the U.S. ATLAS
Computing Project. Prior to making important technical and managerial
decisions, the APM will consult with this subcommittee.

### 2.5.6 Information Technology Development

The computing and software systems being designed for the LHC face a
series of unprecedented challenges associated with communication and
collaboration at a distance, long term robust operation, globally
distributed computational and data resources. In addition to the demands
on computing associated with models of data analysis seen in previous
generations of experiments, the size of the LHC collaborations produce
an additional challenge. Future computing and software systems must
provide rapid access to global collaborations to massive distributed
computing and data archives, must operate across networks of varying
capabilities, and must possess sufficient robustness and flexibility to
support international collaborative research over a period of decades.
The creation of such information technology systems requires careful
design using modern engineering tools and close collaboration with
computer professionals and industry.

Recent dramatic increases in network capacities have opened new
possibilities for collaborative research, placing networks in a position
of strategic importance for global collaborations, such as ATLAS. The
recent development of Data Grids offers a comprehensive framework for
supporting collaborative research. Data Grids are geographically
separated computation resources, configured for shared use with large
data movement between sites. Such grids preserve local autonomy while
providing an immense, shared computing resource that can be accessed
anywhere in the world.

U.S. ATLAS is working with a number of groups that are working on Data
Grids, both in the U.S. and in Europe. These groups are collaborations
of physicists and computer scientists who are working on the
implementations of specific protocols and provide feedback to the
computer scientist developers on the needs of their experiments. These
collaborations include the NSF sponsored GridPhysicsNetwork (GriPhyN)
and the international Virtual Data Grid (iVDG), the DOE sponsored
Particle Physics Data Grid (PPDG) and the European Data Grid project. In
addition to these, smaller IT funding sources are utilized which support
the project, but would come under the heading of IT research as well.
The collaborations with computer scientists necessitates a coherent
structure within the U.S. ATLAS project that can interact with these
external organizations to produce a usable system.

It is critical that the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project have
well identified connections to the external groups engaged in research
and development work on data grids to assure a well-integrated program.
To this end, U.S. ATLAS establishes a designated single point of contact
who acts as a liaison to the external groups. Funds earmarked for U.S.
ATLAS use in these collaborative efforts are tagged as project funds and
subject to the same tracking controls as other project funds. These
funds have a special designation to enable separate tracking. A list of
the liaison personnel and their direct supervisors are listed below.

[Collaboration Liaison Manager]{.underline}

GriPhyN Collaboration R. Gardner T. Wenaus

Grid Telemetry R. Gardner R. Baker/B. Gibbard

Particle Physics Data Grid T. Wenaus T. Wenaus

European Data Grid C. Tull T. Wenaus

HEP Networking S. McKee R. Baker/B. Gibbard

iVDGL R. Gardner/J. Huth R. Baker/B. Gibbard

### 

### 2.5.7 Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and Columbia University

The DOE and NSF have assigned BNL management oversight responsibility
for the U.S. ATLAS Construction Project, as well as the U.S. ATLAS
Research Program. This responsibility was conveyed in a letter from the
agencies (see Appendix 8). The BNL Director has the responsibility to
assure that the detector effort is being soundly managed, that technical
progress is proceeding in a timely way, that technical or financial
problems, if any, are being identified and properly addressed, and that
an adequate management organization is in place and functioning. The BNL
Director has delegated certain responsibilities and authorities to the
Associate Laboratory Director for High Energy and Nuclear Physics. The
Associate Director is responsible for day-to-day management oversight of
the Construction Projects and the U.S. ATLAS Project Manager reports to
him. Specific responsibilities of the BNL Directorate include:

-   Establish an advisory structure external to the U.S. ATLAS project
    for the purpose of monitoring both management and technical progress
    for all U.S. ATLAS activities;

-   Assure that the Project Manager has adequate staff and support, and
    that U.S. ATLAS management systems are matched to the needs of the
    project;

-   Consult regularly with the Project Manager to assure timely
    resolution of management challenges;

-   Concur with the International Memorandum of Understanding specifying
    U.S. deliverables for the U.S. ATLAS project funded by DOE and NSF.

-   Concur with the institutional Memoranda of Understanding for the
    U.S. ATLAS collaborating institutions that specify the deliverables
    to be provided and the resources available for each institution;

-   Ensure that accurate and complete project reporting to the DOE and
    NSF is provided in a timely manner.

-   Approve any Baseline Change Proposals.

The NSF Division of Physics has delegated financial accountability to
Columbia University in the domain of the core computing activities, with
contract administration as described in the NSF - Columbia Cooperative
Agreement. The Director of Nevis Laboratory is responsible for dispersal
of NSF funds according to the allocations recommended by the U.S. ATLAS
Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing, approved by the
U.S. ATLAS Project Manager and consistent with NSF policies. In non-core
computing activities, such as cooperative research and development
between U.S. ATLAS members and computer scientists, funds may be
allocated as part of individual grants to U.S. ATLAS institutions from
both the NSF and the DOE. Components of these individual grants are
identified as under project control and work performed under these
auspices are subject to project control functions.

A proposal requesting support from the NSF for Computing, M&O and
Upgrades has been submitted to the NSF in October 2001 entitled: "The
ATLAS Research Program: Empowering U.S. Universities."

### 2.5.8 Project Advisory Panel

The Project Advisory Panel (PAP) is appointed by the Brookhaven
Associate Laboratory Director, High Energy & Nuclear Physics. The role
of the PAP in the U.S. ATLAS Detector Project is to provide oversight of
the work performed in the Project plus advice to Laboratory management
on the rate of progress in and adherence to the project plan as it
relates to cost, schedule and technical performance. The primary
mechanism for performing this oversight role is attendance at the
Project Manager's periodic technical reviews of the U.S. ATLAS
subsystems, followed by discussions among the attending PAP members with
Project principals and Subsystem Managers. If necessary, additional
other mechanisms may be employed as deemed necessary to exercise the
oversight function. These may include special reviews or meetings and
attendance at Department of Energy/National Science Foundation (DOE/NSF)
reviews of the U.S. ATLAS Project. The PAP reports to Laboratory
management by means of oral discussions plus a written report following
each significant PAP review. PAP reports are transmitted to DOE and NSF.

### 2.5.9 Physics and Computing Advisory Panel

The Physics and Computing Advisory Panel (PCAP) is appointed by U.S.
ATLAS Project Manager. The role of the PCAP in the U.S. ATLAS Detector
Project will be to provide advice to the PM and APM on the development
of, and on the rate of progress in and adherence to this Physics and
Computing Project plan as it relates to cost, schedule and technical
performance.

## 

## 2.6 Department of Energy (DOE) and National Science Foundation (NSF)

The Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)
are the funding agencies for the U.S. ATLAS Construction Project. As
such they monitor technical, schedule, and cost progress for the
program. The organizational structure is shown in Appendix 2.

The DOE has delegated responsibility for the U.S. ATLAS activities to
the Office of Science, Division of High Energy Physics. The NSF has
delegated responsibility for the U.S. ATLAS project to the Division of
Physics, Elementary Particle Physics Programs.

The U.S. ATLAS Project receives substantial support from both DOE and
NSF. Almost all the subsystems involve close collaboration between DOE
and NSF supported groups. It is therefore essential that DOE and NSF
oversight be closely coordinated. The DOE and NSF have agreed to
establish a Joint Oversight Group (JOG) as the highest level of joint
U.S. LHC Program management oversight. The JOG has responsibility to see
that the U.S. LHC Program is effectively managed and executed so as to
meet the commitments made to CERN under the International Agreement and
its Protocols. The JOG provides programmatic guidance and direction for
the U.S. LHC Construction Project and the U.S. LHC Research Program and
coordinates DOE and NSF policy and procedures with respect to both. The
JOG approves and oversees implementation of the U.S. LHC Project
Execution Plan (PEP) and individual Project Management Plans which are
incorporated into the PEP including the U.S. ATLAS Construction Project
Management Plan.

All documents approved by JOG are subject to the rules and practices of
each agency and the signed Agreements and Protocols.

The U.S. LHC Program Office and U.S. LHC Project Office are established
to carry out the management functions described in the PEP. As the DOE
has been designated lead agency for the U.S. LHC Program, the U.S. LHC
Program Manager and the U.S. LHC Project Manager, who respectively head
the program and project offices, will generally be DOE employees. The
Associate U.S. LHC Program Manager will generally be an NSF employee.

Funding is derived from a number of sources. The National Science
Foundation intends to support the majority of the U.S. ATLAS Physics and
Computing Project through a multi-year proposal, which is effective from
2002 through the start of data taking. This will be covered in a new
cooperative agreement with Columbia University (2.5.7), which is
distinct from the cooperative agreement established for construction
funds, which are capped. In addition to these funds, the funds employed
as part of the Data Grid Projects are accounted for as Project funds and
subject to tracking. Prior to the funding of the multi-year grant from
the NSF, funding support from the NSF was derived from a grant
administered through Columbia University.

The Department of Energy provides funding through Brookhaven National
Laboratories and also as direct installments to the financial plans of
the participating National Laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory and
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The funding level is communicated
to the APM as an overall profile that terminates at the end of the
fiscal year 2007, when the Project makes the transition to the Research
Program.

### 2.6.1 U.S. LHC Program Office

The U.S. LHC Program Office has the overall responsibility for
day-to-day program management of the U.S. LHC Program as described in
the PEP. In this capacity, it reports directly to the JOG and acts as
its executive arm. The office is jointly responsible with the U.S. LHC
Project Office for preparation and maintenance of the PEP, and
interfaces with the DOE Division of High Energy Physics and the NSF
Division of Physics, which are the respective agency offices charged
with responsibility to oversee the U.S. LHC Program. The Program Manager
and Associate Program Manager are responsible for coordination between
the agencies of the joint oversight activities described in the
Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NSF and in the PEP.

### 2.6.2 U.S. LHC Project Office

The U.S. LHC Project Office is responsible for day-to-day oversight of
the U.S. LHC Projects as described in the PEP. In this capacity, the
U.S. LHC Project Manager reports to the U.S. LHC Program Manager, and
routinely interfaces with the Project Managers for each of the U.S. LHC
Projects. These managers represent the contractors and grantees to DOE
and NSF. These contractors and grantees have direct responsibility to
design, fabricate, and provide to CERN the goods and services agreed in
the International Agreement and Protocols.

There are two primary goals of the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing
Project. The first is to provide the software, computing and support
resources to enable collaborating U.S. physicists to fully participate
in, and make significant contributions to the physics program of ATLAS.
The second primary goal is to contribute to the overall ATLAS Computing
effort to a degree that is both commensurate with the proportionate
scale of the U.S. contributions to the detector construction and well
matched to the expertise of the U.S. physicists specializing in
computing.

The computing effort for the ATLAS experiment far exceeds that of
previous high-energy physics experiments in the scale of data volume,
CPU requirements, data distribution across a global network, complexity
of the software environment, and a widespread geographic distribution of
developers and users of software.

There are three components of the Physics and Computing Project:

-   Physics: Support of event generators, physics simulation,
    specification of physics aspects of facilities support.

-   Software: Development and maintenance of software deliverables to
    the International ATLAS project, as specified in software agreements
    and memoranda of understanding between CERN, the International ATLAS
    Collaboration and the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project.

-   Facilities: Hardware, networking and software support of U.S.
    Collaborators in data analysis and in computing contributions to the
    ATLAS Collaboration.

The Physics and Computing Project covers the period from 1999 through
the duration of the experiment. The Physics and Computing Project is
delineated into two phases. In the first phase, covering the period from
1999, through the start of data taking, expected in 2006, the Physics
and Computing Project is associated with the Construction Phase of the
Project. After 2006, the Physics and Computing Project is associated
with the Research and Operations Project. The relation of the Physics
and Computing Project to the Construction and to the Research and
Operations Project are described in their respective Project Management
Plans.

## 3.1 Physics and Computing Subproject Management

The project organization is presented in Appendix 3. The structure of
the project organization reflects the three main components of the
Physics and Computing Project: physics, facilities and software
deliverables. These three components have level 2 WBS specifications and
corresponding level 2 managers. The management structure is designed to
reflect a division of labor in the responsibilities for deliverables to
International ATLAS.

-   Physics: Support of event generators, physics simulations and
    algorithms for physics objects as agreed to by International ATLAS
    and U.S. ATLAS.

-   Software: Software deliverables are agreed to by International ATLAS
    and U.S. ATLAS.

-   Facilities: Specifications of platform needs of U.S. ATLAS are
    negotiated with International ATLAS in the formulation of policies.
    Data and software releases are delivered from International ATLAS to
    U.S. ATLAS, where local support functions are provided for both.

### 3.1.1 Physics 

The goal of the physics subproject is to provide support functions for
physics related tasks for the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration and fulfill
specific responsibilities as negotiated with International ATLAS, such
as support of certain event generators. The physics subproject deals
with the development and maintenance of reconstruction algorithms for
classes of physics objects (e.g. jets, missing energy). The physics
subproject role also involves the establishment of crucial benchmark
studies to measure the performance of software and facilities systems,
in particular the coordination of mock data challenges for U.S.
Facilities. There will be a substantial independence of all
collaborators, U.S. and Internationally, in the area of data analysis,
with the principle of democratic access to the data.

### 3.1.2 Software

The goal of the software subproject is to provide a set of deliverable
software packages to U.S. ATLAS, the International ATLAS Collaboration
and CERN, as negotiated with these organizations and specified in the
form of software agreements and Memoranda of Understanding. Within the
project, software is divided into the following categories:

-   Core: General purpose software that is not specific to a given
    detector subsystem

-   Detector specific simulation and reconstruction

-   Training

-   Collaborative tools

-   Development and support of the software infrastructure to ensure
    U.S. Collaborators can perform successful analyses

Note that traditionally, detector specific simulation and reconstruction
activities have been carried out by physicists and in the past have not
involved the use of Project funds for their support. With modern
software methodology, and with the increased complexity associated with
the scale of the project, it is necessary to have a more systematic
approach to this, including the use of some software professionals to
support the activities of physicists and assist in the maintenance of
reconstruction and simulation packages. Much of the specifications of
reconstruction algorithms are based on decisions made by the
International ATLAS Collaboration, and duties associated with the
project include the implementation, documentation and maintenance of the
associated software packages.

Requirements on the software are developed by the International ATLAS
Collaboration, and deliverables are negotiated with the International
Collaboration as part of software memoranda of understanding.

### 

### 3.1.3 Facilities Subproject

The goals of the facilities subproject is to provide the basis for the
support of U.S. ATLAS physicists in the analysis of data from the ATLAS
experiment, and to carry out specific computing tasks for the
International ATLAS experiment as per agreement between the two. The
facilities subproject consists of the following major pieces:

-   Regional (Tier 1) computing center at Brookhaven National
    Laboratory.

-   Software support of a code repository at BNL and support of U.S.
    Physicists in the use of ATLAS software.

-   Tier 2 centers. There will be roughly 5 tier 2 centers for U.S.
    ATLAS. These are to be linked together and with the Tier 1 center to
    form a coherent computing grid environment. Software and hardware
    support functions are also carried out at these locations.

-   Participation in the construction of grid software.

-   Modeling tasks to optimize resource usage.

Tier 2 Centers: The selection criteria for Tier 2 centers are detailed
in the memo to the collaboration in Appendix 5.

## 3.2 Upper level project management: description of responsibilities

### 

### Associate Project Manager

-   Develop a project plan, conforming to the technical and scientific
    needs and policies of ATLAS and U.S. ATLAS.

-   Manage execution of the approved project plan.

-   Establish and maintain the project organization and tracking, with
    the resources of BNL; this includes the management of procurements,
    schedules, reporting, etc.

-   Develop the annual budget request to the DOE and NSF; the budget
    requests are reviewed by the level 2 project managers and are
    approved by the Project Manager.

-   Act as a liaison between the project and the ATLAS Computing
    management.

-   Appoint the L2 managers with the advice and concurrence of the EC
    and Project Manager.

-   Provide coordination and management direction to the subprojects,
    including requirements for appropriate reporting and tracking, and
    responses to technical reviews.

-   Review and approve memoranda of understanding (MOU) between CERN and
    the Project.

-   Allocate budgets and resources within the project.

-   Exercise change control authority within project change control
    protocols.

-   Establish advisory committees where appropriate, and project
    obligations.

-   Provide reports and organize reviews in conjunction with the funding
    agencies.

-   Review and approve institutional memoranda of understanding (IMOU)
    between the Project Office and U.S. ATLAS institutions.

### Level 2 Managers: Generic Responsibilities

The level 2 managers share a common set of responsibilities in their
relation to the project. These are to:

-   Develop, in collaboration with the APM the definitions of the
    milestones and deliverables of the subproject.

### 

-   Develop, subject to review by the APM, the technical specifications
    of each component and deliverable of the sub-project.

### 

-   Define, in consultation with the APM the organizational substructure
    of the subproject.

### 

-   Develop, with the guidance of the APM, the annual budget proposal
    for the subproject.

### 

-   Identify resource imbalances within their subprojects and recommend
    adjustments within the limits of the allocated resources.

### 

-   Manage execution of the full scope of the subproject on schedule,
    within budget and in conformance with the technical specifications
    of the project.

### 

-   Be accountable for all funding and resources allocated to the
    subproject.

### 

-   Develop and maintain the cost and schedule plan for the subproject.

### 

-   Provide reports and tracking information as required to the APM, PM.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assist the APM in the development of MOU's between the Physics and
    Computing Project and CERN

-   Assist the APM in the development of MOU's between the U.S. ATLAS
    Project and participating institutions. Assess the resource
    requirements of proposed U.S. ATLAS software deliverables to ensure
    a proper matching between resources and deliverables.

-   Implement QA/QC policies as specified by the international ATLAS
    Collaboration.

### Physics Subproject Manager

-   Provide support for physics generators, simulations, and physics
    object algorithms as per agreement with International ATLAS

-   Provide support for physics objects

-   Create schedule and oversee the execution of benchmark studies to
    assess software and facilities readiness

-   Manage the user side of the mock data challenges

-   Provide requirements for the U.S. ATLAS computing facilities and
    relevant software packages

### Software Subproject Manager

-   Provide oversight to agreed simulation/reconstruction activities
    undertaken by U.S. ATLAS groups.

-   Provide oversight and input to the U.S. ATLAS Training Coordinator
    in relevant software technologies.

-   Appoint level 3 and 4 managers in the software subproject, with the
    advice and concurrence of the APM.

-   Assess the needs of U.S. Physicists for support of ATLAS software
    packages, develop and implement a support plan.

-   Assess the technical risks of implementation strategies being
    proposed by participating U.S. Institutions and advise the APM and
    International ATLAS of any unacceptable risks

-   Oversee core software and collaboratory tool deliverables from the
    U.S.

### Facilities Subproject Manager

-   Assess the resource requirements of proposed U.S. ATLAS facilities
    and develop a plan to meet these requirements at the regional
    center.

-   Manage the implementation of the plan for the U.S. ATLAS computing
    facilities.

-   Represent the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project on matters
    related to computing at regional centers.

-   Develop and maintain a plan to address the U.S. contributions to the
    computational needs of the ATLAS experiment, including data analysis
    and simulation.

-   Appoint level 3 and 4 managers in the Facilities subproject, with
    the advice and concurrence of the APM.

### 3.2.1 Computing Coordination Board 

The Computing Coordination Board is jointly chaired by the Physics
Manager and the IB Chair. Sitting on the board are the Associate Project
Manager for Physics and Computing, the Software and Facilities Managers
and three other representatives from the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration. The
three at-large representatives are selected by the Institute Board. The
purpose of the Computing Coordination Board is to aid in the allocation
of existing resources and assess the needs of the collaboration, and
provide advice to the Associate Project Manager on these issues. The
Computing Coordination Board represents the means for direct input from
the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration into the Physics and Computing Project. The
co-chairs are delegated to poll the Collaboration on any Physics and
Computing issues as they see fit, and to organize Physics and Computing
sessions as they see fit. The Computing Coordination Board also oversees
the selection of sites for Tier 2 centers.

### 3.2.2 Institutional Responsibilities

Institutional responsibilities are assigned via an Institutional
Memorandum of Understanding that is signed once for the duration of the
physics and computing project, and has a high-level signator in the
institution who can guarantee the use of facilities or other support in
the institution, along with the Associate Manager for Physics and
Computing and the concurrence of the overall project manager. Statements
of work are agreed to on an annual basis and are signed by the Associate
Manager for Physics and Computing and an identified principal at the
institution. Changes to Institutional Memoranda of Understanding are
covered under the change control process.

## 

## 3.3 Software Agreements

Software agreements are established between the International ATLAS
Collaboration and the U.S. Physics and Computing Project. In the
Software agreements, specific areas of responsibility are delineated as
per the U.S. ATLAS WBS and International ATLAS PBS as the domain(s) of
applicability of the agreement. Software agreements may include multiple
WBS/PBS items at different levels. The software agreements include an
overall description of the effort, including the basis for modification
of the agreement, a specification of the deliverable expected, the
duration of the agreement and a rough indication of the level of effort
required in FTE\'s for the agreement. The software agreements also
include a technical annex(es) that establish the requirements associated
with the deliverable and, in effect, represent a description of the
deliverable. It should be noted that requirements will change, and when
they do, the technical annex can be updated with no additional approval
necessary, providing there is not a significant corresponding change in
the level of effort required. The software agreement is signed by the
Physics Coordinator for International ATLAS, the APM for Physics and
Computing, the Spokesperson for International ATLAS, the Project
Manager, the Resource Manager for International ATLAS and the Associate
Director of BNL under whom the Project is organized. In addition, for
multi-lateral software agreements, the corresponding representative of
involved countries and institutions will also sign.

## 3.4 International Memoranda of Understanding

Memoranda of Understanding encompassing software deliverables and
analysis and computing support will be created between International
ATLAS and CERN on the one hand, and the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing
Project on the other. The international MOU will encompass and supercede
the group of Software Agreements pertaining to the U.S. ATLAS software
deliverables, and, in addition, will describe the facilities under U.S.
ATLAS Project Management that are to part of an overall shared resource
of computing facilities employed by International ATLAS and CERN for
data analysis. The international MOU will be signed by the spokesperson
of ATLAS, the Head of the IT Division at CERN, the International ATLAS
Computing and Physics Coordinators, the APM for Physics and Computing,
the Project Manager, and the Associate Laboratory Director for
Brookhaven National Laboratory. When the International Memorandum of
Understanding is complete, this section will be updated to reflect that
fact.

## 3.5 Computing and Physics Policies

A number of policy issues must be spelled out. These include local
platform support, and the use of physicists within the project.

### 

### 3.5.1 Local Computing Hardware Support

Until the establishment of Tier 2 centers, most of the CPU and I/O
intensive computing jobs are to be performed at the Tier 1 regional
center. It is recognized that there is a need for modest platform
support locally at institutions for the purposes of development. Modest
support will be provided for software development at institutions that
have taken on a significant responsibility, providing a working
arrangement can be made such that there is coordination in the purchase
of U.S. supported platforms, and the understanding that the majority of
the computation is to be carried out at the Tier 1 center. As Tier 2
centers are established, there will be a net migration of some effort to
these areas.

### 3.5.2 Physicist Support

It is recognized that there will be a substantial amount of physicist
support required. This is estimated to be at the level of roughly 50
post-doctoral scientists at the start of active data taking. As a matter
of policy, it is noted that physicists are not to be included in the
project funding, yet this is a substantial amount of manpower which much
exist in order for the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Goals to be met.
These physicists must come from the base program. Ideally a large
fraction of this may be incremental or may be the result of redirection
of effort.

We note that there is an additional category of support staff, which is
considered to be on project. This is in the category of applications
physicist. An applications physicist is typically a computer
professional who has a strong background in physics and computing, and
is not on an academic track. In the areas of detector specific
simulation and reconstruction, we expect that there will be roughly two
applications physicists per subsystem contributing to the development
and maintenance of software deliverables. Some personnel may be split
between part-time appointments, part research, part applications
support, with the research portion supported by the base program.

### 3.5.3 Software Licensing

Software licensing costs for the Regional Center and officially
established Tier 2 centers are considered part of the project costs.
Long term software maintenance for pieces of code that are deliverables
of U.S. ATLAS are included as part of the project costs. For other
ATLAS-specific code, it is assumed that these are maintained by
institutions that undertake these projects as deliverables, and this
maintenance is described as part of the Memoranda of Understanding
and/or Software Agreements. Where possible, decisions on software
products take into account licensing costs as part of the procurement
process.

### 3.5.4 QA/QC

Standards for software quality assurance and control are set by the
International ATLAS collaboration, including coding standards and
release policy and management. U.S. ATLAS will adopt all tools agreed
upon by the International ATLAS Collaboration. Level 2 and 3 managers in
the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project are responsible for
implementing QA/QC policies adhered to by the International ATLAS
Collaboration, including the use of common tools adopted by the
international collaboration.

### 3.5.5 Relation to the Construction Project

A number of areas have potential overlap with the construction project.
Broadly speaking, any software or computing that is directly in support
of, and derives from the construction project falls in the domain of the
construction project. Cost sharing between the construction and physics
and computing projects are done in areas of project management, where
common management tools are employed to the extent possible, and
personnel effort are shared between the two projects.

### 3.5.6 Software Support

Provide site licensing as required for software support of development
and use of applications related to analysis.

## 

## 3.6 Cost Estimates for Physics and Computing

A cost profile of the required funding is shown in Appendix 7. The
allocation at a high level between software, facilities, physics,
project management, grid R+D and management reserve are indicated as
separate categories. The corresponding number of FTE\'s supported in
these profiles is also indicated. The costing is based on an
understanding of the actual salaries of people currently on the project,
and a scale of software professional salaries that reflects the typical
variation among different classes of software professional and regional
variations in cost of living.

## 

### 3.6.1 Training, Collaboratory Tools, Software Support

Training, Collaboratory Tools and Software Support all fall in the
domain of the Software part of the Physics and Computing Project (WBS
2.2). Software support is deemed a \"level of effort\" of one computing
professional who maintains ATLAS releases on the U.S. supported
platforms and makes available code releases to U.S. users. Training and
Collaboratory tools are the means by which the Collaboration is
effectively trained in modern computing practices and communication is
effected among the collaborators. Although the cost associated with both
items are small, it represents a substantial leverage to the overall
program.

### 3.6.2 Facilities

The U.S. ATLAS computing facilities are based on a hierarchical model of
sites, starting with the CERN facilities as the primary (Tier 0) site.
The assumption is that all of the raw data from ATLAS are stored at this
Tier 0 site. The U.S. Regional Center, or Tier 1 site, located at
Brookhaven National Laboratories, will cache a subset of this data and
perform computing tasks as required both by the ATLAS Collaboration and
U.S. ATLAS in support of U.S. responsibilities and analysis activities.
Beyond the Tier 1 sites, are a set of five or six Tier 2 centers, each
of which have a fraction of the capabilities of the Tier 1 sites, but in
aggregate, the CPU will sum to a level beyond that of the Tier 1 site,
whereas the manpower and hardware costs at the Tier 1 site exceed those
of the sum of the Tier 2 sites. The various sites in the hierarchy are
linked together by a computational grid, which allows transparent access
to users and automatic scheduling of resources. The U.S. Facilities
support U.S. physicists working on ATLAS and also the International
ATLAS Collaboration. The details of the facilities planning are given in
the U.S. ATLAS Facilities Workplan.

Requirements for the scale of computing facilities are coupled with the
needs of the collaboration and have substantial input from the Physics
Manager and the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration at large. The basic principle
is to allow the widest possible access to data and CPU power to all
users. A major component of this infrastructure is the system of
high-bandwidth links between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites.

Another aspect of the Facilities subproject is user support, which
includes a help desk at the Tier 1 site, and a local storage and release
of ATLAS and supporting software. Since there is an ongoing need to
perform simulations to optimize trigger performance, shielding, the
detector configuration, etc, with many U.S. physicists participating in
these exercises, it is essential that the Tier 1 facilities, already in
existence at Brookhaven, be maintained and continually upgraded as
milestones such as the mock data challenges are approached.

The U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project is based on a build-to-cost
philosophy, as the funding profile is neither certain, nor sufficient to
employ a deliverable-contingency system. In this philosophy, the
requirements of deliverables are scaled to meet the available resources.
Some of the funding for the project comes from sources that are not
entirely part of the management control structure, and must be viewed as
\"level-of-effort\" and is collaborative in nature.

## 4.1 Baseline Development

The cost and schedule baseline are organized in a hierarchical
work-breakdown structure format (see Appendix 9). The project is
dominated by two main components: manpower to produce software and
install and support hardware configurations on the one hand, and
commodity hardware costs on the other hand. Estimates of personnel
effort are the primary estimators for the scope of both software and
facility support. Estimates of commodity hardware pricing and
extrapolations are the primary estimators for the remaining scope of the
facilities subproject. Schedules for deliverables are used as the basis
of the establishment of milestones. The current list of High Level
Milestones is in Appendix 6. The funding profiles indicated by the
funding agencies are then used to estimate the effort required to meet
the milestones. After an iterative process where deliverable estimates
and schedules are adjusted with the funding profile as a goal, a
baseline is established where both the estimated personnel and hardware
requirements are applied to meet the milestones. The cost profile,
broken out by high-level WBS number, is identified in Appendix 7.

The two areas where effort is delineated are:

-   Personnel effort. The amount of effort for any given deliverable, or
    service, is estimated based on prior experience, and the number of
    FTE\'s is used as the baseline. In the case of software
    deliverables, a sliding scale of requirements is used as the
    contingency, and the project employs a \"build-to-cost\" approach
    where the software deliverable requirements are scaled to match the
    available resources. Software agreements, and institutional MOU\'s
    will contain statements of the indicative manpower to reach a
    particular deliverable or produce a reliable service.

-   Hardware. Hardware costs are derived from present day commodity
    pricing, and extrapolated using \"Moore\'s Law\", which is an
    approximately valid scaling of the change in commodity costs as a
    function of time. It should be noted that \"Moore\'s Law\" has been
    demonstrably valid over long timescales (years), but may show
    fluctuations when viewed on timescales shorter than a year. As with
    the personnel effort, allocations of funds for hardware are used to
    purchase the maximum amount of hardware consonant with the needs of
    the project for any given pricing.

## Computing Project Performance

Estimates for personnel effort are derived from by resource loading the
relevant WBS items, with effort represented as FTE-months. These efforts
may include both progress toward a milestone or deliverable, or level of
effort in terms of support. This effort is denoted as \"Projected
Personnel Effort\" (PPE). At the relevant level of WBS, the level where
the resource loading occurs, project managers are expected to track, on
a quarterly basis, the percentage completion of progress toward a
milestone, or the percentage of effort compared to expectations. When
the percentages are applied against the projected personnel effort, a
resulting \"Actual Personnel Effort\" (APE) is derived. A variance is
then generated which compares the PPE to the APE. A negative variance
means that effort is falling short of its goals, a positive variance
means that the project is progressing faster than anticipated. The entry
of a percentage completion, and the metric of PPE versus APE should be
regarded as an approximate indicator of performance, and large variances
will signal further investigation.

Estimates for performance in terms of hardware installation are based on
a goal of the aggregate CPU, networking, disk, tertiary and other
capacities at the start of the experiment. Capacities are defined as
hardware that has been installed, is functioning and is supported. Given
the process of baselining, there is an expectation of the amount of
installed, supported hardware, and an actual capacity. The performance
is reported in terms of the percentage of the final, installed capacity
on a quarterly basis, and compared to the expectation. The difference
between the percentage of expected and percentage of installed capacity
is used to generate a variance in installed hardware.

## 4.3 Reporting

### 4.3.1 Technical Progress

Quarterly Reports

The responsible person in each institution responsible for effort on the
Physics and Computing Project (PCP) writes the progress by Level 3 WBS
on a quarterly basis. Each item should refer to the appropriate Level 5
WBS element and any relevant milestones which are completed. This is
sent to the Computing Subsystem Manager(s). Each Subsystem Manager(s)
collates the input and sends it to the Associate Project Manager by the
15^th^ of the month after the end of each quarter. In addition to
reporting on progress against milestones, a comparison of performed
versus budgeted work in terms of FTE-months and the relevant hardware
categories are reported. A summary of actual costs incurred is also
made, along with a running tally of costs since the inception of the
project. The APM for PCP reviews the reports and collates them into a
single report, which is made available to the collaboration. Reports are
to be logged centrally at a location associated with the U.S. ATLAS
Project Office.

## Procurements

The U.S. ATLAS Construction Project has defined procurements over \$100k
as major and subject to PO tracking and control.

The approval of the Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing
is required before a bid is solicited for a major procurement. The
Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing approves the actual
contract award.

## Change Management

The Change Control Process outlined in Table 4-1 is used to control
changes to the Technical, Cost and Schedule Baselines. The membership of
the Change Control Board (CCB) consists of the following:

[Chair]{.underline} --Associate Project Manager for Physics and
Computing

Project Manager

Deputy Project Manager for Physics and Computing

Subsystem Managers

Facilities Manager

Software Manager

Physics Manager

Project Office

Project Planning Manager

Baseline Change Proposals (BCP) for changes to the detector Technical,
Cost and Schedule baselines are referred to the CCB. The following
changes are required to be submitted for consideration by the Physics
and Computing CCB:

-   Any change that affects the interaction with ATLAS computing. Such
    changes also require the concurrence of the ATLAS Change Control
    Board.

-   Any change that impacts the performance, the cost or schedule
    baselines within established thresholds, of the U.S. deliverables.

-   Any change that requires a commitment of over \$25k of the Project
    Research funds in any given fiscal year.

In addition to the CCB, any changes in the deliverables resulting from
contemplated change control is done in consultation with the relevant
principals from the International ATLAS Collaboration, mainly, but not
exclusively limited to the International ATLAS Computing Coordinator.
With the concurrence of the CCB, the APM declares that a change
discussed will be implemented and works with the L2 managers to
establish a new baseline as a result. This decision is then codified in
a memo sent to file describing the action taken. The change will then
result in amended Institutional MOU\'s and new funding ceilings are
established. If necessary, any relevant software agreements or MOU\'s
will be modified to reflect any changes in capabilities of deliverables
resulting from the change control process. The new baseline is
incorporated as part of the project performance system.

## Host Laboratory Oversight

As discussed earlier, the BNL Director has been charged by DOE and NSF
with management oversight responsibility for the U.S. ATLAS activities,
and he may delegate this responsibility to the BNL Associate Laboratory
Director, High Energy and Nuclear Physics. The Associate Laboratory
Director (ALD) has appointed a Project Advisory Panel (PAP) consisting
of individuals outside of the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration with expertise in
the technical areas relevant to the Project and the management of large
projects, to assist him in carrying out his oversight responsibility.
The PAP meets at least once per year, or more frequently if required,
and its report to the ALD is also transmitted to the DOE/NSF Joint
Oversight Group and to the U.S. ATLAS Project Manager. The ALD works
with the PM to address any significant problems uncovered in a PAP
review. An external technical advisory group that reports to the Project
Manager is to be appointed by the Project Manager. It meets periodically
to review the status of the Physics and Computing Project and makes
recommendations to the Project Manager and APM.

## 4.7 Meetings with DOE and NSF

There are regular coordination meetings between the DOE/NSF Project
Manager, the Joint Oversight Group, the ALD, and U.S.
[ATLAS]{.smallcaps} project management personnel for problem
identification, discussion of issues, and development of solutions.
Written reports on the status of the U.S. ATLAS Computing Project are
submitted regularly, as specified in Table 4-3.

**Table 4-3: Periodic Reports to DOE and NSF**

  ----------- ------------ -------------------- --------------------------
  REPORT      FREQUENCY    SOURCE               RECIPIENTS

  Project     Quarterly    U.S. ATLAS           DOE/NSF Program/Project
  Status                   Collaboration        Staff, BNL Associate
                                                Laboratory Director, PAP,
                                                Executive Committee,
                                                Institutional
                                                Representatives
  ----------- ------------ -------------------- --------------------------

## 4.8 Reviews

## 

Peer reviews, both internal and external to the Collaboration, provide a
critical perspective and important means of validating designs, plans,
concepts, and progress. The Project Advisory Panel, appointed by the BNL
Associate Laboratory Director provides a major mechanism for project
review. The PAP will have computing expertise on it, and will receive
the reports of the PCAP. The DOE and NSF will set up their own
Technical, Management, Cost and Schedule Review Panels to review the
research, development, fabrication, assembly and management of the
project. In addition, the PM and APM set up internal review committees
to provide technical assessments of various U.S. ATLAS activities, as
he/she considers appropriate. Normally, all review reports are made
available to members of the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration. However, if a
particular report contains some material that, in the opinion of the
authority to which the report is addressed, is too sensitive for general
dissemination, that material may be deleted and replaced by a summary
for the benefit of the Collaboration.

After its adoption, the Project Manager, the Associate Project Manager,
and the Subsystem Managers as part of the preparation for reviews by the
PAP periodically review this Project Management Plan. Proposals for its
modification may be initiated by the PM, the APM, the Executive
Committee, the BNL Associate Laboratory Director, and the funding
agencies. Significant modifications to the Plan require approval of the
JOG. Modifications of the Project Management Plan will require approval
of the PM, the Associate Laboratory Director, the DOE/NSF Project
Manager, and the U.S. ATLAS Executive Board.

![](media/image1.wmf)

![](media/image2.wmf)

##### ![](media/image3.wmf)Appendix 3: Management Structure of the u.s. atlas physics and Computing Project

##### Appendix 4: Organizational Structure of Computing and Physics

##### in the International ATLAS Collaboration

##### Appendix 5: Tier 2 Selection Process

Dear Atlas Collaborator,

This letter proposes a selection process to determine the sites of the
NSF funded US ATLAS Tier 2 computing facilities. We intend that this
process shall be as open and objective as possible. Two sites will be
chosen as research and development oriented prototype Tier 2 facilities
that will play an integral role in the ATLAS MDC2 in 2003. One of these
two prototype facilities will be chosen in January 2001 and the other
will be chosen in April 2001. The selection process to determine the
locations of the permanent US ATLAS Tier 2 facilities will begin in the
second half of 2002. A decision on the locations of the five permanent
facilities will be made by April 1, 2003, and funding for the permanent
Tier 2 facilities will begin in FY'04. The two initial prototype centers
will have the option of competing to become permanent facilities, but
the proposals for all locations will be considered by the same criteria.

Prototype Tier 2 Description and Selection Process

The primary focus of the two prototype tier 2 facilities will be
research and development of grid computing and validation of the ATLAS
tiered computing model. The funding for these facilities and the
commitment of the facilities to US ATLAS will terminate at the end of
FY'03. Funding for one of these facilities is expected to begin in
FY'01. The second prototype Tier 2 center will start to receive funding
in FY'02, and in FY'03 both prototype facilities will be expected to
participate fully in MDC2.

Candidates for selection as a prototype US ATLAS Tier 2 computing center
shall be judged based on the degree to which the site their satisfies
the criteria listed below. This list of criteria is not intended to be
completely exhaustive, and other factors may be considered as relevant.
Sites that will provide more realistic testing of the computing model in
the MDC 2 time frame will be preferred.

1\) The chosen site must be acceptable to the NSF. This is an absolute
requirement because Tier 2 funding must be approved by the NSF. The site
must consult with the NSF to determine eligibility prior to submitting a
proposal.

2\) The chosen site must be active in Grid research. The number of
research personnel and the degree of their involvement in Grid research
projects (such as GriPhyN, PPDG and Globus) will be a significant
measure of the site's satisfaction of this requirement.

3\) The chosen site must name a technically capable principal
investigator who will devote a significant fraction of her/his time to
the Tier 2 effort (as distinct from Grid research). The amount of time
that the PI expects to devote should be clearly stated in the site's
proposal. The principal investigator will be responsible for managing
the Tier 2 facility and will contribute to the development of the US
ATLAS distributed computing model.

4\) The chosen site must leverage existing infrastructure and resources
such as local area network, WAN connection, support staff and possibly
existing hardware such as processors and disk storage. The emphasis will
be on finding sites where the greatest capacity for MDC 2 activities can
be achieved with the limited hardware funding that will be available.

5\) The site\'s WAN connectivity will be considered to maximize benefit
to the development of the ATLAS distributed computing model.

Any site wishing to be considered as a candidate for location of the
first prototype facility should submit a letter to the Tier 1 facility
managers no later than January 15, 2001 so that the site can be selected
before the end of January. Sites wishing to be considered as candidates
for the location of the second prototype facility must submit a letter
to the Tier 1 facility managers no later than March 1, 2001. Sites that
were unsuccessful in the January selection may submit amended proposals.
The second prototype site will be selected by April 1, 2001. The letters
submitted for either of these two prototype facilities should explain
why a particular site should be selected. Letters should address the
selection criteria, including details of existing or planned local
resources that will be leveraged in support of the prototype facility.
Proposals may also address any additional factors that the principal
investigator considers relevant. Letters should also explain how the
Tier 2 prototype development activity would affect Grid research and
development activities at the site. The Tier 1 facility managers will
review all of the requests and interview applicants as necessary. The
Tier 1 facility managers will send a report to the US ATLAS Computing
Coordination Board and the US ATLAS Computing Project Manager detailing
the results of their review and recommending the selection of one site.
The US ATLAS Computing Project Manager, in consideration of the report
from the Tier 1 facility managers and any additional input from the
Computing Coordination Board shall make the final decision where to
locate each prototype center.

Permanent Tier 2 Facility Selection Process

The selection criteria for the permanent Tier 2 facilities will be
decided by the Computing Coordination Board with input from the Tier 1
facility managers, the US ATLAS computing project manager and the
principal investigators for the two prototype Tier 2 sites. These
criteria will be finalized and distributed to all US ATLAS collaborators
by July 2002. Proposals will be submitted by October, 2002 by all US
institutions that wish to be considered as permanent Tier 2 facilities.
The Computing Coordination Board will appoint a review committee to
review these proposals. The review committee will read all of the
proposals and follow up with visits to candidate sites as necessary to
evaluate which Tier 2 sites will provide the greatest benefits to US
ATLAS. The review committee will transmit a report on its findings and
recommendations to the US ATLAS Computing Project Manager by March 14,
2003. The US ATLAS Computing Project Manager, in consideration of this
report and any additional input from the Computing Coordination Board,
will make the final decision where to locate the permanent Tier 2
centers by April 1, 2003.

##### Appendix 6: List of High Level Milestones

1999/1/1 Milestone 1 TByte database prototype us 2.2.1.3

2000/5/9 Milestone Release of Athena pre-alpha version us 2.2.1.2

2000/9/29 Milestone DB access from framework completed us 2.2.1.3

2000/9/29 Milestone Athena alpha version release us 2.2.1.2

2000/10/30 Milestone Geant3 DIGI data available us 2.2.1.4

2000/12/22 Milestone Java graphics framework fully functional us 2.2.1.7

2000/12/22 Milestone Inner tracker reconstruction as good as ATRECON
atlas 3.2.3

2000/12/22 Milestone System reconstruction as good as ATRECON us
2.2.2.10

2000/12/22 Milestone LAr reconstruction as good as ATRECON us 2.2.2.4.3

2000/12/22 Milestone Reading LAr test beam from Objy into Athena
possible us 2.2.2.4.5

2000/12/22 Milestone Tilecal reconstruction as good as ATRECON us
2.2.2.5.4

2000/12/22 Milestone Muon reconstruction as good as ATRECON us 2.2.2.6.4

2000/12/22 Milestone Electron/photon reconstruction as good as ATRECON
us 2.2.2.10.2

2000/12/22 Milestone Jets/missing ET reconstruction as good as ATRECON
us 2.2.2.10.3

2000/12/22 Milestone B tagging reconstruction as good as ATRECON us
2.2.2.10.5

2000/12/22 Milestone Global muon reconstruction as good as ATRECON us
2.2.2.10.4

2000/12/31 Milestone Geant3 HIT data available us 2.2.1.4

2001/1/2 Milestone First definition of regional centers us 2.2.1.8.2

2001/01/26 Milestone Athena beta release us 2.2.1.2

2001/05/11 Milestone Fast simulation validated us 2.2.2.1.2

2001/5/14 Milestone Athena gamma release us 2.2.1.2

2001/5/14 Milestone Database milestones coordinated with Athena gamma
release us 2.2.1.3

2001/05/31 Milestone ARC report completed us 2.2.1.2

2001/5/31 Milestone Database architecture document us 2.2.1.3.1

2001/6/29 Milestone Decide on data base product us 2.2.1.3

2001/6/29 Milestone Library of generators available atlas 3.8.1

2001/7/16 Milestone Summer 2001 database milestones (date approximate)
us 2.2.1.3

2001/9/30 Milestone Athena release us 2.2.1.2

2001/9/30 Milestone Database milestones coordinated with Athena release
us 2.2.1.3

2001/11/30 Milestone Final assessment of Athena as T/DAQ EF framework us
2.4.1

2001/12/12 Milestone Mock Data Challenge 0 Completed us 2.4.5.1

2001/12/21 Milestone Combined reconstruction as good as ATRECON us
2.2.2.10

2001/12/21 Milestone Athena production version V1 release us 2.2.1.2

2001/12/21 Milestone Database milestones coordinated with Athena release
us 2.2.1.3

2001/12/21 Milestone Geant4 physics validated us 2.2.2.1.4

2001/12/21 Milestone First major cycle of OO software completed us 2.4.1

2001/12/21 Milestone OO/C++ reconstruction validated us 2.1

2001/12/21 Milestone Computing MOU concluded us 2.4.1

2001/12/21 Milestone First full release of LAr OO/C++ software us
2.2.2.4.1

2001/12/31 Milestone Integrated and deployed distributed data service us
2.2.1.3.17

2001/12/31 Milestone Core software agreements complete us 2.4.1

2001/12/31 Milestone Full validation of Geant4 physics us 2.2.2.1.4

2002/1/2 Milestone Database milestones at start of Data Challenge 1 us
2.2.1.3

2002/7/30 Milestone Mock Data Challenge 1 completed us 2.4.5.2

2002/7/30 Milestone Database milestones at end of Data Challenge 1 us
2.2.1.3

2002/11/29 Milestone Computing TDR finished us 2.4.3

2002/12/31 Milestone Comprehensive production distributed data service
deployed us 2.2.1.3.17

2002/12/31 Milestone 10% processing farm prototype in place us 2.2.2.1.6

2002/12/31 Milestone 100 TByte database prototype complete us 2.2.1.3

2003/6/30 Milestone Production remote job submission service deployed us
2.2.1.10.4

2003/7/31 Milestone Decide first production OS us 2.2.2.1.6

2003/9/30 Milestone Mock Data Challenge 2 completed us 2.4.5.3

2003/12/22 Milestone Second major cycle of OO software completed us
2.4.1

2004/6/30 Milestone Physics readiness report completed us 2.4.4

2004/7/30 Milestone Test full chain in real environment us 2.2.2.1.6

2004/12/31 Milestone Full database infrastructure available us 2.2.1.3

2004/12/31 Milestone 40% processing farm prototype us 2.2.2.1.6

2005/12/31 Milestone LHC starts beam tuning us 2.4.6

2006/4/1 Milestone LHC pilot run starts us 2.4.6

2006/6/30 Milestone 100% processing farm us 2.2.2.1.6

2006/8/1 Milestone First LHC physics run us 2.4.6

##### Appendix 7: Projected Budget and FTE Profile

##### 

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="2.7256944444444446in"}

Budget Summary level WBS item in at year kilo dollars

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="1.9569444444444444in"}

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### Appendix 8: Letter J. Marburger from J. O'Fallon and J. Lightbody

***U.S. Department of Energy***

***and the***

***National Science Foundation***

**JOINT OVERSIGHT GROUP**

> August 12, 1999

Dr. John Marburger

Director

Brookhaven National Laboratory

P.O. Box 5000

Upton, New York 11973-5000

Dear Dr. Marburger:

The U.S. Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Construction Project is well
underway. The International Agreement between the United States and the
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) provides that beyond
the LHC Construction Project U.S. scientists participate as full
partners in the LHC Research Program. The Department of Energy (DOE) and
the National Science Foundation (NSF) are now considering the elements
necessary for successful U.S. participation in the Research Program
following the completion of the U.S. LHC Construction Project and
commissioning of the facility.

The International Agreement provides that the U.S. funding agencies
represent the U.S. interests with the governing bodies of CERN. This
representation will be carried out primarily through the DOE/NSF Joint
Oversight Group (JOG). The JOG, in turn, interacts with the U.S.
collaborations to provide the funding, oversight, and infrastructure
needed for the U.S. involvement. The scientific collaborations, which
are responsible for the specification, design, and fabrication of the
two detectors, ATLAS and CMS, will also be responsible for operation of
the detectors and analysis of the physics data. The U.S. groups, U.S.
ATLAS and U.S. CMS, are expected to share in these responsibilities. Due
to the long lead times involved in preparing for the research program,
we must act now to formalize the management arrangements for the
research phase. In particular, there must be a formal management
structure with clear lines of fiscal authority to support the current
efforts to design and implement the software, computing, and networking
that will enable U.S. physicists to be competitive in data analysis.

The conclusion of a series of agency reviews of directions for LHC
computing is that the computing should be managed as a project with a
clear management structure. The Host Laboratory model has proven to be a
successful vehicle for the U.S. LHC Construction Project. Consequently,
the JOG wants to use this model for the U.S. LHC Research Program, which
comprises the activities necessary for participation in the operation of
the ATLAS and CMS detectors and in the related physics programs. With
regard to the ATLAS detector, we are asking Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL), in addition to hosting the U.S. ATLAS Construction
Project, to assume the role of Host Laboratory for the U.S. ATLAS
Research Program, consistent with the International Agreement and its
Detector Protocol.

Host laboratory responsibilities for the U.S. ATLAS Research Program
include management oversight for U.S. ATLAS computing. It is understood
that, along with management oversight for the computing project, BNL
will function as the Regional Center (Tier 1) for U.S. ATLAS computing.
We request that, as Host Laboratory, in concert with the U.S. ATLAS
Collaboration, BNL direct the preparation of a Project Management Plan
(PMP) for U.S. ATLAS software, computing and networking. This plan
should recognize the software and computing initiatives already
underway. Since these activities are intimately involved with the
extraction of physics results, the full ATLAS Collaboration must be
involved in the evolution of the PMP. The draft PMP should be submitted
to the JOG for review and approval prior to implementation.

Just as the detector collaborations are embarking on a new paradigm for
data analysis, the funding agencies are embarking with the U.S. LHC
Research Program on a new paradigm of international cooperation. To
ensure that the U.S. program is well managed and productive, we ask that
you accept the Host Laboratory role outlined above for BNL, indicating
your willingness by signing on the concurrence line below.

Thank you in advance for your help in continuing our successful
partnership in management oversight of the U.S. LHC Program.

![](media/image6.png){width="5.118055555555555in"
height="0.9736111111111111in"}Sincerely,

John R. O\'Fallon John W. Lightbody, Jr.

Co-chair Co-chair

Joint Oversight Group Joint Oversight Group

Department of Energy National Science Foundation

On behalf of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. I accept the role of
Host Laboratory for the U.S. ATLAS Research Program.

![](media/image7.png){width="3.4166666666666665in"
height="0.4701388888888889in"}

Dr. John Marburger, Director

Brookhaven National Laboratory

cc:

Rodger Cashmore, CERN

Robert Eisenstein, NSF

John Huth, Harvard

Peter Jenni, CERN

Tom Kirk, BNL

Martha A. Krebs, SC-i

Luciano Maiani, CERN

George Malosh, BNL

Peter Paul, BNL

S. Peter Rosen, SC-20

William Willis, Columbia

##### Appendix 9: WBS

**[WBS Description ATLAS PBS]{.underline}
[2](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us&proj=us) [US
ATLAS Physics and Computing ]{.underline}**

Manager: J.Huth

This is the overall Physics and Computing Project, which is in effect
from the inception of the PMP WBS (November 2000), until the start of
the LHC, expected to be in 2007, when the Project becomes part of the
U.S. ATLAS research program.

**[2.1](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/physics&proj=us)
[Physics]{.underline}**

Manager: I.Hinchliffe

The Physics subproject includes support of Data Challenges in the U.S.,
and U.S. deliverables to International ATLAS in the support of event
generators.

[2.1.1](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/physics/mcgen&proj=us)
Event generators

Maintenence of interfaces between generators and atlas code

Maintenance of third party software in atlas repository

[2.1.2](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/physics/dc&proj=us)
Coordination of Data Challenges

Support of event generation, and coordinate end-user analysis efforts to
utilize data generated for challenge.

**[2.2](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/sw&proj=us)
[ATLAS-specific Software ]{.underline}**

Manager: T.Wenaus

Development of offline software for the ATLAS experiment.

[2.2.1](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/sw/core&proj=us)
Common Core

Non-detector specific software efforts which are part of the core ATLAS
offline computing infrastructure. The scope includes development,
support (including the provision of user support) and maintenance.

[2.2.2](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/sw/simrec&proj=us)
Simulation and Reconstruction

Software for the (post-generator) simulation and reconstruction of ATLAS
events.

[2.2.3](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/sw/collab&proj=us)
Collaborative tools

Tools that allow collaboration from remote sites, including
videoconferencing, electronic notebooks, grid services, etc.

[2.2.4](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/sw/support&proj=us)
Software support

Installation, support, and help desk for U.S. installations of ATLAS
offline software. U.S. ATLAS software librarian. Tools supporting
software development.

[2.2.5](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/sw/train&proj=us)
Training

Training of physicists, software professionals and students in software
tools and methodologies, languages, ATLAS specific software packages,
etc.

[2.2.6]{.underline} Data production

Managed production using standard offline software releases.

**[2.3](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/facilities&proj=us)
[Facilities ]{.underline}**

Manager: B.Gibbard/R.Baker

Computing facilities, systems support, facility software and tools

[2.3.1](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/facilities/tier1&proj=us)
Tier 1 Computing Facility at Brookhaven National Lab

[2.3.2](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/facilities/dit&proj=us)
Distributed IT Infrastructure

**[2.4](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common&proj=us)
[Common items]{.underline}**

Manager: J.Huth

Items with a scope of the full ATLAS Computing and Physics Project,
including project coordination and planning, and organization of major
milestones.

[2.4.1](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common/plan&proj=us)
Coordination and planning

ATLAS Computing Project overall coordination and planning

[2.4.2](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common/model&proj=us)
Computing model for analysis
[5.2](../../../../../../../../Planning/atlaswbs.html#/general/model)

[2.4.3](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common/comptdr&proj=us)
Computing TDR
[1.2](../../../../../../../../Planning/atlaswbs.html#/common/comptdr)

Preparation of the computing technical design report (end 2002)

[2.4.4](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common/phytdr&proj=us)
\'Physics TDR prime\'

Physics TDR done in preparation for data taking (end 2004)

[2.4.5](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common/dc&proj=us)
Data Challenges

[2.4.6](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common/start&proj=us)
Startup commissioning

Activities in support of commissioning and initial physics running of
ATLAS

[2.4.7](http://atlassw1.phy.bnl.gov/servlets/XProject/?wbs=/us/common/prod&proj=us)
Physics operations support

Activities in support of production physics running of ATLAS

##### Appendix 10: Institutional Responsibilities

Institutional Responsibilities

  -------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------
  Institution          Responsibility                    Contact

                                                          

  ANL                  Data Management                   David Malon

  ANL                  Tilecal Reconstruction            Tom LeCompte

  University of        Shielding evaluation              Mike Shupe
  Arizona                                                

  Boston University    Muon reconstruction               James Shank

  Boston University    Grid applications                 James Shank

  BNL                  Regional Center for U.S. ATLAS    Bruce Gibbard

  BNL                  Software support                  Torre Wenaus

  BNL                  Event model                       Srini
                                                         Rajagopalan

  BNL                  Muon reconstruction               Torre Wenaus

  BNL                  EM Calorimeter Reconstruction     Srini
                                                         Rajagopalan

  BNL                  Data management                   Torre Wenaus

  University of        Software training                 Frank Merritt
  Chicago                                                

  University of        Tilecal Reconstruction            Frank Merritt
  Chicago                                                

  Columbia University  EM Calorimeter Reconstruction     Misha Leltchouk

  Harvard University   Project Management                John Huth

  Indiana University   Distributed IT Infrastructure     Rob Gardner

  Indiana University   TRT reconstruction/simulation     Fred Luehring

  LBNL                 Architecture Framework            Craig Tull

  LBNL                 Physics support                   Ian Hinchliffe

  LBNL                 Event Model                       Paolo Califiura

  UCSC                 Atlantis                          Alan Litke
  -------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------