U.S. ATLAS-00-01

#### 

DRAFT

**U.S ATLAS Computing Project Management Plan**

**January 5, 2000**

List of Abbreviations

1\. ATLAS Objectives [5](#atlas-objectives)

1.1 Scientific Objectives [5](#scientific-objectives)

1.2 Technical Objectives [5](#technical-objectives)

1.3 Cost Objectives [5](#cost-objectives)

1.4 Schedule Objectives [5](#schedule-objectives)

2 ATLAS Organization [5](#atlas-organization)

2.1 Introduction [5](#introduction)

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

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

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

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

2.5.1 U.S. ATLAS Project Manager [9](#u.s.-atlas-project-manager)

2.5.2 Institutional Board [10](#institutional-board)

2.5.3 Executive Committee [10](#executive-committee)

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

2.5.5 Subsystem Managers [11](#subsystem-managers)

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

2.5.7 Project Advisory Panel [11](#project-advisory-panel)

2.5.8 Physics and Computing Advisory Panel
[12](#physics-and-computing-advisory-panel)

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

2.6.1 U.S. LHC Program Office [12](#u.s.-lhc-program-office)

2.6.2 U.S. LHC Project Office [13](#u.s.-lhc-project-office)

3 Physics and Computing Project [13](#physics-and-computing-project)

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

3.1.1 Physics [14](#physics)

3.1.2 Software [14](#software)

3.2 Facilities Subproject [14](#facilities-subproject)

3.3 Upper level project management: description of responsibilities
[15](#upper-level-project-management-description-of-responsibilities)

3.3.1 Associate Project Manager [15](#associate-project-manager)

3.3.2 Project Engineer [15](#project-engineer)

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

3.3.4 Physics Subproject Manager [15](#physics-subproject-manager)

3.3.5 Software Subproject Manager [16](#software-subproject-manager)

3.3.6 Facilities Subproject Manager [16](#facilities-subproject-manager)

3.3.7 Computing Coordination Board [16](#computing-coordination-board)

3.4 Software Agreements [16](#software-agreements)

3.5 Memoranda of Understanding [17](#memoranda-of-understanding)

3.6 Computing and Physics Policies [17](#computing-and-physics-policies)

3.6.1 Local Computing Hardware Support
[17](#local-computing-hardware-support)

3.6.2 Physicist Support [17](#physicist-support)

3.6.3 Relation to the Construction Project
[17](#relation-to-the-construction-project)

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

3.7.1 Core Software [18](#core-software)

3.7.2 Detector Specific Simulation and Reconstruction Software
[18](#detector-specific-simulation-and-reconstruction-software)

3.7.3. Physics Support [19](#physics-support)

3.7.4. Facilities [19](#facilities)

3.7.5 Cost Escalation and Contingency
[20](#cost-escalation-and-contingency)

4 Management and Control System [22](#management-and-control-system)

4.1 Baseline Development [22](#baseline-development)

4.2 Project Performance [22](#project-performance)

4.3 Reporting [23](#reporting)

4.3.1 Technical Progress [23](#technical-progress)

4.3.2 Costs [23](#costs)

4.3.3 Performance [23](#performance)

4.4 Procurements [23](#procurements)

4.5 Change Management [23](#change-management)

4.6 Host Laboratory Oversight [26](#host-laboratory-oversight)

4.7 Meetings with DOE and NSF [26](#meetings-with-doe-and-nsf)

4.8 Periodic Reviews [26](#periodic-reviews)

5 Review and Modification of this Project Management Plan
[26](#review-and-modification-of-this-project-management-plan)

6 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) [27](#work-breakdown-structure-wbs)

[List of Appendices]{.underline}

Appendix 1: Proposed Budget for U.S. ATLAS Computing

Appendix 2: Management Structure of the U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing
Project

Appendix 3: DOE-NSF-U.S. ATLAS Organization

Appendix 4: U.S. ATLAS Major Project Milestones (Level 2)

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 Budged Cost of Work Schedules

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

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

# ATLAS Objectives

## 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 more than 10^7^ events per year. The critical objectives
to achieve these goals are:

-   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

The current cost estimate is in Appendix 1.

## 1.4 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 2005 for the start of data
taking. Appendix 4 provides a list of the Level 2 Milestones.

# 2 ATLAS Organization

## 

## 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. In
essence, they have responsibilities for R&D, engineering design,
prototyping, fabrication, installation and normal maintenance and
operation of detector systems and components as agreed to and described
in the IMOU, the MOU, and their addenda. The responsibilities of the
CERN management are described in Article VIII of the same Protocol.

The U.S. ATLAS Construction 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 Project Manager (hereafter
referred to as the Project Manager or PM). The Project Manager has the
principal authority for day-to-day management and administration of all
project activities. 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.

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 central management team also includes Technical and Resource
Coordinators, both are CERN staff members whose appointments to their
roles require CERN management approval. The Technical Coordinator has
the overall responsibility for the technical aspects of the detector
construction. This includes responsibility for the integration of the
ATLAS subsystems and for coordinating the CERN infrastructure, including
the installation of the experiment in the surface and underground areas.
The Resource Coordinator is responsible for budget and manpower
planning, including securing the Common Projects resources, and for
negotiating the MOUs with the various funding agencies.

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

Each ATLAS subsystem has a Project Leader directly and ultimately
responsible for ensuring that the design and construction of the
corresponding subsystem are carried out on schedule, within the cost
ceiling, and in a way that guarantees the required performance and
reliability. Each major ATLAS subsystem is overseen by a
technically-oriented Steering Group, with expertise in all the relevant
technical areas.

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 implements 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.

ATLAS has adopted procedures for quality control and change requests
valid for all Collaboration partners. For example, a Product Breakdown
Structure (PBS/WBS) structure has been established and a global
Engineering Data Management System (EDMS) is used to manage documents
pertaining to ATLAS Technical Coordination, the ATLAS Detector, General
Facilities, Assembly and Test Areas and Offline Computing. A CERN
Drawing Directory (CDD) is used to manage all drawings. It is understood
that the U.S. institutions use these management procedures and tools at
the same level as all the other ATLAS institutions.

## 2.3 ATLAS Physics and Computing Organization

The ATLAS Physics and Computing Organization consists of 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, in charge of coordinating core
software activities and overall support functions. The Computer Steering
Group (CSG) consists of the Computing Coordinator, who acts as chair,
the Physics Coordinator, the Chair of the Quality Control Group, the
Offline Coordinators representing each of the subsystems (Inner
Detector, TRT, LAr, Tile, Muon, Trigger/DAQ and Event Filter), and the
chair of the National Computing Board (NCB).

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.

## 2.4 Membership of the U.S.ATLAS Collaboration

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration consists of physicists and engineers from
all U.S. institutions collaborating on the ATLAS experiment at the CERN
LHC. Table 3-1 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.

(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)

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)

## 2.5 U.S. ATLAS Project Management Structure

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 2 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

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 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.

1.  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.

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

3.  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.

4.  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.

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

6.  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.

7.  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.

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

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

10. 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.

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

12. 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.

13. 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:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Semiconductor tracker (1),

-   TRT (1),

-   Liquid argon calorimeter and forward calorimeter (2),

-   Tile calorimeter (1),

-   Muon spectrometer (2),

-   Trigger/DAQ subsystems (1),

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   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 Computing Project. (The scope of the U.S. ATLAS 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
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 Subsystem Managers

The 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 U.S. ATLAS Project Manager upon recommendation of the IB members
whose institutions are involved in that subsystem. The Subsystem
Managers, augmented by the Institutional Board Convener, also act as a
subcommittee of the Executive Committee advising the PM on technical,
budgetary, and managerial issues relevant to the U.S. ATLAS Project.
Prior to making important technical and managerial decisions, the PM
will consult with this subcommittee.

### 2.5.6 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. 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:

1.  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;

2.  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;

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

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

5.  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;

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

The NSF Division of Physics has delegated financial accountability to
Columbia University inclusive of line management authority,
responsibility and accountability for overall project implementation,
and contract administration. The Director of Nevis Laboratory is
responsible for dispersal of NSF funds according to the allocations
recommended by the U.S. ATLAS Project Manager and consistent with NSF
Major Research Equipment (MRE) policies.

### 2.5.7 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.

### 2.5.8 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 on the rate of progress in
and adherence to the Computing project plan as it relates to cost,
schedule and technical performance. The activities of the PCAP are
described in more detail in the project management plan for U.S. ATLAS
Software and Computing.

## 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 3.

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.

### 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.

# 3 Physics and Computing Project

There are two primary goals of the U.S. ATLAS 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 in a
degree which 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 Computing Project.

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

-   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 either CERN, the
    International ATLAS Collaboration and the U.S. ATLAS Computing
    Project.

The Computing Project covers the period from 1999 through the duration
of the experiment. For expediency, the Project is delineated into two
phases: the initial phase of the development of software, and support
facilities prior to data taking, expected to be 2005, and the
maintenance phase, where the Project must stay current with changes in
computing technology, and provide ongoing support and development
functions.

## 

## 3.1 Physics and Computing Subproject Management

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

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

-   Software: specifications of software deliverables are designated by
    International ATLAS to U.S. ATLAS. Software deliverables are made
    from U.S. ATLAS to International ATLAS, where they are incorporated
    into the overall software package.

### 3.1.1 Physics 

The goal of the physics subproject is to provide support functions for
physics related tasks both for the U.S. ATLAS Collaboration and specific
responsibilities as negotiated with International ATLAS, such as support
of certain event generators. The physics subproject deals with the
development and maintenance of certain 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.
This aspect is explicitly not included in the Physics Subproject.

### 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,
CERN and the general high energy physics community, 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

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 methodologies, 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.

## 3.2 Facilities Subproject

The goals of the facilities subproject are 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:

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

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

3.  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 hardware
    support functions are also carried out at these locations.

4.  Participation in the construction of grid software.

5.  Modeling tasks to optimize resource usage.

## 3.3 Upper level project management: description of responsibilities

### 

### Associate Project Manager

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

2.  Execute the approved project plan.

3.  Establish and maintain the project organization and tracking, with
    the resources of BNL. This includes the management of procurements,
    schedules, reporting, etc.

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

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

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

7.  Provide coordination and oversight to the subprojects, by requiring
    appropriate reporting and tracking, and the results of technical
    review.

8.  Review and approve memoranda of understanding (MOU) between CERN and
    the Project, and between the Project and U.S. ATLAS Collaborating
    institutions.

9.  Allocate money and resources within the project.

10. Exercise change control authority.

11. Establish advisory committees where appropriate.

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

### Project Engineer

1.  Provide technical input to the development of the baseline project
    plan, especially with respect to budget and personnel requirements,
    deliverables, milestones and contingency.

2.  Develop an integrated cost and schedule plan.

3.  Reporting variances from the scope, schedule or cost estimates to
    the APM.

### Level 2 Managers: Generic Responsibilities

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

1.  Develop, in collaboration with the APM the definition of the
    milestones and deliverables of the subproject.

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

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

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

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

6.  Deliver the scope of the subproject on schedule, within budget and
    in conformance with the technical specifications of the project.

7.  Be accountable for all funds allocated to the subproject.

8.  Maintain the cost and schedule plan for the subproject.

9.  Provide reports as required to the APM, PM.

### 

### Physics Subproject Manager

1.  Provide support for physics generators, as per agreement with
    International ATLAS

2.  Support for physics objects

3.  Creation of benchmark studies to assess software and facilities
    readiness

4.  Management of the user side of the mock data challenges

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

### Software Subproject Manager

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

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

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

4\. Assist the APM in the development of software MOU's between the
Computing Project and CERN

5\. Assist the APM in the development of software 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.

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

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

8\. Oversee core software deliverables from the U.S.

### Facilities Subproject Manager

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

2.  Implement the plan for the U.S. ATLAS computing facilities.

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

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

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

6.  Assist the APM in the development of facilities MOU's between the
    Computing Project and CERN.

7.  Assist the APM in the development of facilities MOU's between the
    U.S. ATLAS Project and participating institutions.

### 3.3.7 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 Deputy APM, the Software and
Facilities Managers and three other representatives from the U.S. ATLAS
Collaboration. 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 at U.S. ATLAS Collaboration Meetings. The
Computing Coordination Board also oversees the selection of sites for
Tier 2 centers.

## 3.4 Software Agreements

A software agreement is established between the International ATLAS
Collaboration and the U.S. ATLAS Computing and Physics Project,
specifying the nature of the deliverables and/or level of effort
associated the deliverables and their maintenance. Out of the overall
software agreement established between International ATLAS and the U.S.
ATLAS Computing and Physics Project, relevant software agreements are
established between the U.S. ATLAS Computing and Physics Project and
participating U.S. ATLAS Institutions. The principal software agreement
is signed by the APM, appropriate representatives of the funding
agencies and the Spokespersons of the ATLAS Experiment. The software
agreements between the U.S. ATLAS Computing and Physics Project are
signed by the APM and the relevant representatives of the participating
institutions.

## 3.5 Memoranda of Understanding

An MOU is established between the International ATLAS Collaboration and
the U.S. ATLAS Computing and Physics Project, specifying the nature of
the deliverables and/or level of effort associated the deliverables and
their maintenance. Out of the overall MOU established between
International ATLAS and the U.S. ATLAS Computing and Physics Project,
relevant software agreements are established between the U.S. ATLAS
Computing and Physics Project and participating U.S. ATLAS Institutions.

## 3.6 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.

### 3.6.1 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 development purposes. Modest support
will be provided for software development at institutions that have
taken on a significant responsibility, provided 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.

### 3.6.2 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.

### 3.6.3 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. In areas of commonality, however, there can be a
cost sharing between the two projects, as agreed upon by the PM and APM.
Examples of this would be computing support for simulations that
directly impact detector design issues, or software that is common to
both online and offline reconstruction. It is the ultimate
responsibility of the PM, in consultation with the APM to decide on
where boundaries exist between the two projects and how cost sharing is
to be carried out.

## 3.7 Cost Estimates for Physics and Computing

In Appendix 1, we list a preliminary cost profile for the Physics and
Computing Project, from 1999 through 2006. The asymptote of level
funding may not occur until the year 2008, however. Nonetheless the
funding for FY '06 can be taken as indicative as the typical level of
steady state funding. A breakdown of the costs may be found in the
Software and Facilities work plans.

### 3.7.1 Core Software

Core software estimates were derived from comparisons with the effort
required at existing experiments (BaBar, CDF and D0). The data
management effort includes roughly one half of the overall effort to be
devoted to data management systems, where it is expected that other
collaborators would take up the additional effort. The control/framework
effort is self-contained as a U.S. responsibility. Note that some
sharing with other experiments may reduce the overall cost burden.

The details of the anticipated software deliverables to ATLAS are
described in the U.S. ATLAS Software Development Work Plan. In the table
below, we detail the cost estimates for the core software effort through
the year FY 06. Note that in the years FY 01 and beyond, we have used a
contingency of 40%. Although this number is rough at the moment, it is
not incommensurate with the contingencies for similar efforts, and will
be refined as the Physics and Computing Project develops more refined
estimates.

Table 3-1: Cost Estimates for the core software efforts (FY00\$)

![](media/image1.wmf)

### 3.7.2 Detector Specific Simulation and Reconstruction Software

Here it is expected that the majority of the effort comes from
physicists supported on the base program. It is noted that some level of
support in the area of software integration, particularly in the areas
of distributed computing environments, and code management will require
some effort from software professionals. We have included an asymptote
of two software professionals per subsystem, with the activity profile
indicated in the spreadsheet. It should be noted that one expects an
effort of roughly 50 postdoctoral scientists in this area, who are to be
funded on the base program, and hence do not appear on project. We
assume a roughly linear ramp from the present to the asymptote in 2006
of 50 postdoctoral scientists.

### 

The following table gives an outline of the estimated Project manpower
required to support the simulation and reconstruction activities. Note
that this only specifies computing professionals to support each
subsystem and does not specify the physicist activity on the base
program. The computing professionals are expected to support the
activities centered in geographical sites associated with the simulation
and reconstruction work on specific subsystems. Note that we are
specifying an asymptotic level of two computing professionals per
detector subsystem, with no contingency. This is specified as a
level-of-effort. The details of the simulation and reconstruction
activities and plans are described in detail in the U.S. ATLAS Software
Development Workplan.

Table 3-2: Simulation and Reconstruction Activities Supported on Project
Funds (FY00\$)

![](media/image2.wmf)

### 3.7.3. Physics Support

It is anticipated that there will be effort in the area of the Physics
Subproject that will require a software professional whose job it is to
provide updates to event generators and interfaces to ATLAS software,
and maintain documentation for usage in the ATLAS environment. In
addition to this, the establishment of software to monitor physics
benchmark studies and preparations for mock data challenges will take a
substantial amount of effort. We anticipate that a software professional
will be essential to support this effort, which is part of the project
aspects of computing. This is deemed as a level-of-effort of one FTE
software professional, starting in FY 01.

Table 3-3: Physics Support Software Professional (FY00\$)

![](media/image3.wmf)

### 3.7.4. 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 sum to a level beyond that of the Tier site. 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 details of the facilities planning are given in the U.S.
ATLAS Facilities Workplan.

Requirements for the scale of computing facilities is coupled with the
needs of the collaboration and has 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 includes 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 cost estimates given below are based on the assumed scale of the
computing required for Tier 1 and Tier 2 regional facilities. The
details of the assumptions and scope of the facilities considered here
are given in the U.S. ATLAS Computing Facilities Workplan. Note that in
the table below, there is no contingency shown, although in our
summaries, we have applied a uniform contingency of 40% from FY 01 on
until FY 06.

Table 3-4: Facilities Cost Profile (FY00\$)

![](media/image4.wmf)

### 3.7.5 Cost Escalation and Contingency

All items are evaluated in FY 00 dollars. At the summary level of each
item, after appropriate contingencies have been applied, we use a set of
cost escalation figures, based on standard government guidance, to
derive at-year cost estimates. These summaries are show in the table
below.

**Table 3-5: Cost summaries including escalation (FY00\$)**

![](media/image5.wmf)

This information is displayed graphically below as a function of fiscal
year. Note that the distinction between the Regional Center and the
associated costs for the Tier 2 centers are not completely inseparable
as the cost of links has been absorbed into the cost of the Regional
Center.

![](media/image12.wmf)

# 4 Management and Control System

The U.S. [ATLAS]{.smallcaps} project management control system (PMCS)
incorporates three primary elements in the scope definition. These
elements are the same as in the construction project, and will be
followed to the extent possible in the physics and computing project.

-   Baseline Development - Defining project scope and establishing the
    necessary cost and schedule baselines and work execution plans.

-   Project Performance - Project status monitoring, reporting and
    performance analysis.

-   Change Control - Management of project baselines and contingency
    funds.

## 4.1 Baseline Development

The cost and schedule baseline and the hierarchical relationships are
defined in a Work Breakdown Structure. Detailed cost estimates have been
developed using appropriate standard estimating methodologies, and
integrated with the work scope definition. Schedules and plans are being
developed using a disciplined approach that integrates the work scope
with the cost estimate. Resources defined in the detailed estimate are
applied to the tasks established in the schedule to generate a
time-phased budget. These resource-loaded schedules are then aligned to
the budget profile and this establishes the schedule and cost baseline.
This baseline establishes the Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS)
which is used to formulate the overall funding profile.

## 4.2 Project Performance

Project performance integrates the work authorization with the funds
management and accounting processes to provide a performance analysis
capability that is used for reporting to both management and the
DOE/NSF. Funds management is based on funds authorized by both the DOE
and NSF that are allocated to the individual institutions in accordance
with the baseline estimate and the needs of the project. Funding is
planned to occur twice each year. Work authorization is provided for
each institution through the U.S. Institutional MOU process which
defines the full work scope, including deliverables, and establishes the
fiscal year funding. A yearly amendment to the Institutional MOU
specifies the funding ceiling to each institution for each subsystem.
Standard accounting processes are used to collect actual costs for
completed work and to define the funds available for the remainder of
the fiscal year. Performance analysis is provided through processing the
schedules where comparisons are made between Budgeted Cost of Work
Performed (BCWP) and (BCWS) as well as between BCWP and Actual Cost of
Work Performed (ACWP). These comparisons provide a determination of
project status, and help identify potential problems that cause schedule
and cost variances.

The rudiments of performance analysis are embedded in the PCMS. The
resource-loaded schedules generated during baseline development are
statused on a quarterly basis and a comparison of BCWP and BCWS will
yield a Schedule Variance (SV) that can be isolated to the specific task
or tasks causing the variance. Also a comparison of BCWP and ACWP will
yield a Cost Variance that can be attributed to the specific task or
tasks causing the variance. This information can be used to establish
work-arounds that will hopefully mitigate the problems.

A status report is issued each quarter that contains the following
information:

1.  U.S. ATLAS Project Managers overview and assessment of the project

2.  A narrative describing the status of technical work, significant
    project accomplishments, problems and corrective action if
    applicable

3.  A milestone schedule and status report at WBS level 2, identifying
    completed milestones, slippage and the percentage planned and
    completed based on cost performance data

4.  Milestone Log

5.  Critical path items will be identified for each WBS level 2
    Subsystem

6.  A Cost Schedule Status Report (CSSR) at WBS level 2 identifying
    BCWS, BCWP, ACWP, SV, CV, Budget at Completion (BAC), Estimate at
    Completion (EAC) and Variance at Completion

7.  Variance analysis and corrective action plans where applicable

## Reporting

### 4.3.1 Technical Progress

The responsible person in each institution responsible for effort on the
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 due on a quarterly basis and is
sent to the Subsystem Manager(s). Each Subsystem Manager(s) collates the
input and sends it to the Project Manager by the 15^th^ of the month
after the end of each quarter. 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.

### 4.3.2 Costs

Each institution reports on each Level 5 item which is active in the
following categories: The reports are placed on Atlas2 in:
/pub/Incoming/Project_Management/Reporting/ Financial_Reporting. This is
due on the 15^th^ of the month following the end of the quarter in the
Project Office. Reports are provided to the Subsystem Managers.

### 4.3.3 Performance

Each Subsystem Manager provides an estimate of the progress of each WBS
Level 5 item by percentage by the 15^th^ of the month after the end of
the quarter. This is accomplished by updating EXCEL spreadsheets located
on Atlas2 in /Project_Office/Reporting/Status. These reports of schedule
and cost variance can be rolled up to any higher level.

There are schedule status and turn-around documents. These are
standardized for schedules and performance measurements at Level 5 of
the WBS.

Reporting processes are employed to provide timely, accurate periodic
progress reports which enable analysis, evaluation, and corrective
action of work scope, schedule, and cost performance against the
approved baseline.

## Procurements

The U.S. ATLAS Construction Project has defined procurements over \$100k
as major and subject to PO tracking and control. These will be listed in
a future version. \*\*\*\*\*

U.S. ATLAS Project Manager approval is required before a bid is
solicited for a major procurement. The U.S. ATLAS Project Manager
approves the actual contract award.

## 4.5 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 --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

Computing Project Engineer

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.

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

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

3.  Any change to the project contingency budget.

The CCB considers the change and its impact, consulting, when necessary,
with appropriate outside technical experts. Thresholds for the approval
of changes to the detector configuration, cost and schedule are
summarized in Table 4-2 along with those responsible for each level of
change. After the CCB recommends action on the BCP, the PM approves or
rejects the BCP. The BNL Associate Laboratory Director is also required
to approve all BCPs involving a cost or schedule change. Upon approval,
the change is incorporated into the baseline. An audit trail is provided
for each change.

Contingency funds are held by the U.S. ATLAS Project Manager.
Contingency funds may be allocated in response to requests for funds
required in excess of the base cost. Such requests are reviewed and
approved in accordance with the change control procedures.

**Table 4-: U.S. ATLAS Change Control Process**

![](media/image13.wmf)

Table 4-2: U.S. ATLAS Change Control Thresholds

+--------+------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|        | Level 1          | Level 2            | Level 3            |
|        |                  |                    |                    |
|        | DOE/NSF Joint    | DOE/NSF Project    | [U.S.              |
|        | Oversight Group  | Manager            | ATLAS]{.smallcaps} |
|        |                  |                    | Project Manager    |
|        |                  |                    | and BNL Associate  |
|        |                  |                    | Laboratory         |
|        |                  |                    | Director           |
+--------+------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| *      | Changes to the   | Changes to the     | Changes that do    |
| *Techn | project purpose  | baseline list of   | not affect the     |
| ical** | or goals.        | deliverables       | Level 1 and Level  |
|        |                  |                    | 2 control items.   |
+--------+------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **     | Changes to the   | Changes to the     | Changes to the     |
| Cost** | Total Project    | Level 2 Cost       | cost baseline at   |
|        | Cost             | Baseline.          | WBS Level 3.       |
+--------+------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Sche | Greater than     | Greater than       | Any change in a    |
| dule** | 6-month change   | 3-month change in  | Level 3 milestone  |
|        | in a Level 1     | a Level 2          |                    |
|        |                  | milestone          |                    |
+--------+------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|        |                  |                    |                    |
+--------+------------------+--------------------+--------------------+

## 4.6 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.

## 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 Construction 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 Periodic 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 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
sets 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.

# 5 Review and Modification of this Project Management Plan

After its adoption, this Project Management Plan is periodically
reviewed by the Project Manager, the Associate Project Manager, and the
Subsystem Managers as part of the preparation for reviews by the PAP.
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 changes to the plan require approval of
the Joint Oversight Group. Modifications of the Project Management Plan
will require approval of the PM, the Associate Laboratory Director, the
DOE/NSF Project Manager, and the Joint Oversight Group.

# 6 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

2.1 Physics

Covers "project" aspects of physics. This includes evaluation and
creation of benchmarks for the performance of software, preparation for
mock data challenges, and the support of event generators and their
ATLAS interfaces that the U.S. takes on as responsibilities.

> 2.1.1 Physics Benchmarks
>
> Project based effort devoted to establishing physics benchmarks to
> track the performance of software releases.
>
> 2.1.2 Mock Data Challenges
>
> Effort, including software, directed at the preparation for and
> evaluation of mock data challenges within the U.S. and any global
> ATLAS effort.
>
> 2.1.3 Event Generation
>
> Support of event generators and interfaces to ATLAS software.
>
> 2.1.4 Physics object software
>
> Software for the creation and manipulation of physics objects (e.g.
> jets, electrons, missing energy)

2.2 Software Projects

Software projects that are part of the overall ATLAS (also LHC) effort.
This work includes contributions to projects that the U.S. takes on as
part of an overall MOU with ATLAS for software deliverables. In
distinction, there is software effort associated with the regional
center effort, which is mainly targeted as support for U.S. users.

> 2.2.1 Core Software
>
> Non detector specific software efforts in the U.S. as part of the
> general computing infrastructure.
>
> 2.2.1.1 Control/Framework Software
>
> Steering code to provide overall framework for ATLAS software
>
> 2.2.1.2 Database Management Systems
>
> Database systems, including interfaces to commercial products.
>
> 2.2.1.3 Event Model
>
> Description of the event as seen from the viewpoint of the physicist
> and how it maps into the datastore.
>
> 2.2.1.4 User Analysis Tools
>
> Includes event visualization, histogramming and fitting packages
>
> 2.2.1.5 General Simulation and Reconstruction Software
>
> Covers general (i.e. not detector specific) aspects of simulation and
> reconstruction. Examples include general detector description.
>
> 2.2.2 Detector specific simulation and reconstruction
>
> 2.2.2.1 Inner Track simulation and reconstruction software
>
> Software, including calibration, for simulation and reconstruction for
> the inner tracker subsystem.
>
> 2.2.2.2 Transition Radiation Tracker simulation and reconstruction
> software
>
> Software, including calibration, for simulation and reconstruction for
> the TRT subsystem.
>
> 2.2.2.3 Liquid Argon Calorimeter simulation and reconstruction
> software
>
> Software, including calibration, for simulation and reconstruction for
> the LAr subsystem.
>
> 2.2.2.4 Tilecal simulation and reconstruction software
>
> Software, including calibration, for simulation and reconstruction for
> the Tilecal subsystem.
>
> 2.2.2.5 Muon simulation and reconstruction software
>
> Software, including calibration, for simulation and reconstruction for
> the muon subsystem.
>
> 2.2.2.6 Trigger/DAQ software
>
> Software supporting the trigger and DAQ system.
>
> 2.2.2.7 Background studies
>
> Associated with shielding, etc.
>
> 2.2.3 Collaborative Tools
>
> Tools that allow collaboration from remote sites, including video
> conferencing, virtual notebooks, etc.
>
> 2.2.4 Software Support
>
> Installation, support, and help desk for US installations of ATLAS
> offline software. US ATLAS Software Librarian.
>
> 2.2.5 Training
>
> Training of physicists and students in software methodology,
> documentation and ATLAS specific packages.

2.3 Facilities

> 2.3.1 Tier 1 Regional Center at BNL
>
> 2.3.1.1 Hardware
>
> 2.3.1.1.1 Development and Test systems
>
> Development software platforms for core and detector specific
> simulation and reconstruction software. Testing of prototype systems
> for full scale regional center.
>
> 2.3.1.1.2 Simulation and reconstruction
>
> Simulation and reconstruction hardware associated with CPU intensive
> tasks at the Regional center.
>
> 2.3.1.1.3 Data storage
>
> Tape and disk hardware for storage of simulated and actual data.
>
> 2.3.1.1.4 Information servers
>
> Web sites and e-mail servers.
>
> 2.3.1.1.5 Desktop systems
>
> Desktop computing resources for local users and visitors to regional
> center.
>
> 2.3.1.1.6 Data Mining/Analysis

7.  Local Area Network

> 2.3.1.1.8 Infrastructure support
>
> 2.3.1.2 Facilities Software
>
> Support for third party and community software tools used by ATLAS,
> and facility-related software. Note that in many cases, the majority
> of the software tools are written elsewhere, but they must be
> supported for U.S. users, including necessary adaptations to U.S.
> platforms, needs, etc.
>
> 2.3.1.2.6 Database and database management
>
> Software purchase, modifications and interfaces for the management of
> event, calibration and other data resident at Regional Center.
>
> 2.3.1.2.7 Data distribution software
>
> This includes collection of data from CERN, and distribution of data
> to U.S. ATLAS users at remote sites.
>
> 2.3.1.2.8 Production Software
>
> Software supporting large-scale simulation, reconstruction and
> analysis production jobs, and relevant server software.
>
> 2.3.1.3 System and User Support
>
> 2.3.1.3.6 Documentation
>
> Support for the preparation, access to, management of and distribution
> of documentation for ATLAS software and the detector.
>
> 2.3.1.3.7 Code Management and Distribution Tools
>
> Software tools to support code versioning, building releases and
> distribution.
>
> 2.3.1.3.8 Software Development Tools
>
> Tools for designing, developing and testing software.
>
> 2.3.1.3.9 System Administration, Monitoring Tools
>
> Tools for administration and monitoring of the regional center --
> accounts, usage, etc.
>
> 2.3.1.3.10 User Help Desk
>
> Personnel and tools to support consultancy
>
> 2.3.1.3.11 Facility R&D, Prototyping, Design and Integration
>
> 2.3.1.4 Maintenance
>
> 2.3.1.4.1 Hardware maintenance
>
> Maintenance contracts, etc for center hardware
>
> 2.3.1.4.2 Software maintenance
>
> Cost of licensing and maintenance of regional center software
>
> 2.3.1.4.3 Systems operation
>
> Cost of regional center operation, includes media costs, operations
> staff
>
> 2.3.1.4.4 Infrastructure support
>
> Management staff, building and site expenses.
>
> 2.3.2 Remote (Tier 2,3) analysis centers
>
> 2.3.2.1 Hardware
>
> 2.3.2.1.1 Development and Test Systems
>
> Support software platforms for core and detector specific simulation
> and reconstruction software.
>
> 2.3.2.1.2 Simulation and reconstruction
>
> Simulation and reconstruction hardware associated with CPU intensive
> tasks at remote analysis centers.
>
> 2.3.2.1.3 Data storage
>
> Tape and disk hardware for storage of simulated and actual data.
>
> 2.3.2.1.4 Information servers
>
> Web and e-mail servers at remote sites
>
> 2.3.2.1.5 Desktop systems
>
> Desktop computing resources to users at remote sites
>
> 2.3.2.1.6 Local Area Network
>
> 2.3.2.2 Software
>
> Software particular to remote sites.
>
> 2.3.2.2.1 Database and database management
>
> Purchase and maintenance of database systems at remote sites.
>
> 2.3.2.2.2 Simulation Software
>
> Support of simulation software at remote sites.
>
> 2.3.2.2.3 Data and Physics Analysis Software
>
> Support of reconstruction and analysis software for U.S. users at
> remote sites
>
> 2.3.2.3 System and User Support
>
> 2.3.2.3.1 Collaborative tools
>
> Collaborative tools that enable the linkage of remote sites and
> support of the collaboration over long distances.
>
> 2.3.2.3.2 Code Management and Distribution Tools
>
> Software tools to support code versioning, building releases and
> distribution
>
> 2.3.2.3.3 Software Development Tools
>
> Tools for designing, developing and testing software
>
> 2.3.2.3.4 System Administration, Monitoring
>
> Administration and monitoring of remote sites.
>
> 2.3.2.4 Maintenance at Remote Sites
>
> 2.3.2.4.1 Hardware maintenance
>
> Maintenance contracts, etc. for hardware at remote sites
>
> 2.3.2.4.2 Software maintenance
>
> Cost of licensing and maintenance of software at remote sites
>
> 2.3.2.4.3 Systems operations
>
> Cost of remote site operations, including media costs, operations
> staff
>
> 2.3.2.4.4 Infrastructure support
>
> Management staff, building and site expenses
>
> 2.3.3 World Wide Networking
>
> 2.3.3.1 WAN R&D, modeling and monitoring
>
> 2.3.3.2 Domestic Networking
>
> 2.3.3.3 International Networking
>
> Includes hardware, leasing, infrastructure and operations of
> networking capabilities to CERN, for data transfer, collaboration
> needs (video conferencing), server links, etc. Cost of shipping tapes
> from CERN to U.S. can be considered "networking" -- broadly
> considered.
>
> 2.3.4 MONARC
>
> Analysis of networked architectures for ATLAS computing

![](media/image14.wmf)

![](media/image15.wmf)

![](media/image16.wmf)

**Appendix 4: U.S. ATLAS Major Project Milestones (Level 2)**

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Subsystem**   **Schedule     **Description**                 **Baseline   **Forecast
                  Designator**                                   Schedule**   (F) / Actual
                                                                              (A) Date**
  --------------- -------------- ------------------------------- ------------ ------------
                                                                              

  **Software      SP L2/1        Prototype release of            01-May-00    01-May-00
  Projects                       reconstruction framework                     
  (2.2)**                                                                     

                  SP L2/2        Alpha release design review     01-Jun-00    01-Jun-00

                  SP L2/3        Alpha release of control        01-Sep-00    01-Sep-00
                                 framework (basic functionality)              

                  SP L2/4        Freeze beta architecture and    01-Mar-00    01-Mar-00
                                 database interface                           

                  SP L2/5        Control framework first         01-Jan-01    01-Jan-01
                                 production release                           

                  SP L2/6        Full function release design    01-Jul-01    01-Jul-01
                                 review                                       

                  SP L2/7        Full function release of        01-Oct-01    01-Oct-01
                                 control framework (general use)              

                  SP L2/8        Freeze distributed architecture 01-Apr-02    01-Apr-02

                  SP L2/9        Control framework V1 design     01-Jul-02    01-Jul-02
                                 review                                       

                  SP L2/10       Control framework V2 design     01-Oct-02    01-Oct-02
                                 review                                       

                  SP L2/11       Release of database             01-Oct-02    01-Oct-02
                                 infrastructure in support of                 
                                 control framework's production               
                                 release                                      

                  SP L2/12       Control framework second        01-May-04    01-May-04
                                 production release (post-MDC)                

                                                                              

  **Facilities    FAC L2/1       Selection of 1st Tier 2 site    01-Oct-00    01-Oct-00
  (2.3)**                                                                     

                  FAC L2/1       Procure dedicate Automate Tape  01-Jun-01    01-Jun-01
                                 Library (ALT)                                

                  FAC L2/2       Demo Tier 2 transparent use of  01-Jan-02    01-Jan-02
                                 Tier 1 ATL                                   

                  FAC L2/3       Establish dedicated Tier 1 /    01-Jan-02    01-Jan-02
                                 CERN link                                    

                  FAC L2/4       Select remaining (4) Tier 2     01-Jan-03    01-Jan-03
                                 sites                                        

                  FAC L2/5       Mock Data Challenge I (25%      01-May-03    01-May-03
                                 turn-on capacity)                            

                  FAC L2/6       Final commit to HSM             01-Oct-03    01-Oct-03

                  FAC L2/7       Demo full hierarchy transparent 01-Apr-04    01-Apr-04
                                 operation                                    

                  FAC L2/8       Mock Data Challenge II (50%     01-Jun-04    01-Jun-04
                                 turn-on capacity)                            

                  FAC L2/9       Achieve turn-on capacities      01-Jan-05    01-Jan-05

                                                                              
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------