Rare Symmetry Violating Processes Project

 

Work Breakdown Structure

**Current RSVP WBS Structure\
Ver. 3.0    October 4, 2004**

 

  ------------ --------- ----------------------- -------------------------
  **System**   **WBS**   **Description**         **System Manager**

  Project      1.1       Project Office          W. Willis, Columbia
  Office                                         University/BNL;\
                                                 J. Kotcher, Columbia
                                                 University/BNL (Deputy)

  KOPIO        1.2                               M. Marx, SUNY Stony Brook

               1.2.1     Vacuum System           TBD

               1.2.2     Preradiator             Toshio Numao, TRIUMF

               1.2.3     Calorimeter             Vladimir Issakov, Yale

               1.2.4     Charged Particle Veto   Andries vanderSchaaf,
                                                 Zurich

               1.2.5     Photon Veto             Oleg Mineev,\
                                                 INR Moscow

               1.2.6     Catcher                 Noburo Sasao, Kyoto
                                                 University

               1.2.7     Trigger                 Nello Nappi, Perugia

               1.2.8     DAQ                     George Redlinger, BNL

               1.2.9     Offline Computing       Renee Poutissou, TRIUMF

               1.2.10    Detector Systems        Ralph Brown,\
                                                 BNL

               1.2.11    Project Services        Steve Kane,\
                                                 BNL

  MECO         1.3                               M. Hebert, University of
                                                 California, Irvine

               1.3.1     Extinction              W. Molzon (acting), UC
                                                 Irvine

               1.3.2     Production Target and   M. Hebert (acting),\
                         Shield                  UC Irvine

               1.3.3     Solenoids               B. Smith, MIT

               1.3.4     Muon Beamline           W. Morse,\
                                                 BNL Physics

               1.3.5     Tracker                 E. Hungerford, Houston

               1.3.6     Calorimeter             P. Nemethy, NYU

               1.3.7     Cosmic Ray Shield       J. Kane,\
                                                 William & Mary

               1.3.8     DAQ & Online Computing  K. Kumar, UMass

               1.3.9     Simulations and Offline TBD
                         Analysis                

               1.3.10    Installation and        TBD
                         Integration             

               1.3.11    MECO Project Office     M. Hebert, UC Irvine

  AGS          1.4                               P. Pile, BNL

               1.4.1     AGS/Booster             K. Brown

               1.4.2     Switchyard              A. Pendzick

               1.4.3     KOPIO                   C. Pearson

               1.4.4     MECO                    D. Phillips

               1.4.5     Project Administration  P. Pile
  ------------ --------- ----------------------- -------------------------

 

Rare Symmetry Violating Processes Project

 

Work Breakdown Structure

**Current RSVP WBS Structure\
Ver. 2.0 September 23, 2004**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.75in" height="4.946527777777778in"}

**WBS 1.0: STAR Time of Flight Project**

**Work Breakdown Structure**

**April 29, 2005**

**System WBS Description System Manager**

Project Office 1.1 Project Director G. Eppley; Rice

Project Engineer R. L. Brown; BNL

US-China Project 1.2 Project Manager H. Huang; UCLA

Coordination

Detector-Mechanical 1.3 Project Manager W. J. Llope; Rice

Systems

Tray Ass'y & Test 1.3.1 Subsystem Manager J. Hoffmann; UT

Gas System 1.3.2 Subsystem Manager L. Kotchenda; MEPHI

HV System 1.3.3 Subsystem Manager V. Ghazikhanian; UCLA

Start Detector 1.3.4 Subsystem Manager W. J. Llope; Rice

Infrastructure 1.3.5 Subsystem Manager D. Padrazo; BNL

Electronics Systems 1.4 Project Manager J. Schambach; UT

Board Purchase & 1.4.1 Subsystem Manager T. Nussbaum; Rice

Test

Integration & System 1.4.2 Subsystem Manager T. Nussbaum; Rice

Testing

Installation & 1.4.3 Subsystem Manager J. Schambach; UT

Commissioning

Configuration & 1.4.4 Subsystem Manager TBD

Control Software

Low Voltage 1.4.5 Subsystem Manager V. Ghazikhanian; UCLA

Systems

![](media/image2.wmf)

Contingency Analysis

This document describes how the contingency for a given WBS element is
to be calculated.  If a Project Manager or subsystem Manager has a
reason why these factors are not appropriate, this must be documented in
the Cost Book.

 ***Risk*** is a function of the following factors:  The
*sophistication* of the technology, the *maturity* of the design effort,
the *accuracy* of the cost sources and the *impact of delays* in the
schedule.  ***Risk analysis*** shall be performed for each WBS element
at the lowest level estimated.  Results of this analysis will be related
to a contingency which shall be listed for each WBS element.  The goal
is to make the method of contingency determination uniform amongst all
project WBS elements.

> **Definitions**
>
>  **Base Cost Estimate** -- The estimated cost of doing things
> correctly the first time; UNLESS from past experience you are fairly
> certain that it will take more time.  In other words, contingency is
> NOT to be included in the base cost.
>
>  **Cost Contingency** -- The amount of money, above and beyond the
> base cost, that is required to ensure the project\'s success. This
> money is used only for omissions and unexpected difficulties that may
> arise.  Contingency funds are held by the Project Director.
>
> **Risk Factors**
>
> **Technical Risk** -- Look only at the technical content or technology
> required to complete the element.  Technical risk has to do with how
> common the technology is that\'s required to accomplish the task or
> fabricate the component.  If the technology is so common that the
> element can be bought \"off-the-shelf\", i.e., there are several
> vendors that stock and sell the item, it has very low technical risk,
> therefore a risk factor of 1 is appropriate.  On the opposite end of
> the scale are elements that extend the current \"state-of-the-art\" in
> this technology.  These are elements that carry technical risk factors
> of 10 or 15.  Between these are: making modifications to existing
> designs (risk factor 2-3), creating a new design which does not
> require state-of-the-art technology (risk factor 4 & 6), and creating
> a design which requires R&D, and advances the state-of-the-art
> slightly (risk factor 8 & 10).
>
> **Cost Risk** -- Look only at the data available at the time you
> establish an estimate of the cost.  It may help to subdivide cost risk
> into 4 categories.
>
> The ***first category*** is for elements for which you have a recent
> price quote from a vendor or a recent catalog price. If the price of
> the complete element, or the sum of its parts, can be found in a
> catalog, the appropriate risk factor to be applied is 1. If you have
> an engineering drawing or specification for the element, and a
> reliable vendor has recently quoted a price based on these, the cost
> risk factor to be applied is 2. Similarly, if a vendor has quoted a
> price based on a sketch that represents the element, and the
> element\'s design will not change prior to its fabrication, the
> appropriate cost risk factor would be 3.
>
> The ***second category*** is for elements for which you or your
> institution has some relevant experience.  If the element is similar
> to something you\'ve done previously, and you know the cost of this
> similar experience, the cost risk factor is 4.  If the element is
> something in which you have not had recent experience, but is
> something which your institution is capable of doing, the cost risk is
> 6.  If the element is not necessarily similar to something you have
> done before, and is not similar to your institutions\' in-house
> capabilities, but is something that your institution feels comfortable
> estimating, the risk factor is 8.
>
> The ***third category*** is for elements for which you have
> information that, when scaled, can give insight into the cost of an
> element or series of elements.  The cost risk factor for this category
> is 10. 
>
> The ***fourth category*** is for elements for which you have made a
> more or less educated guess, using your judgment as an engineer or
> physicist.  If you have had experience of a similar nature, but not
> necessarily designing, fabricating or installing another device, and
> feel comfortable estimating the labor type and quantity necessary to
> perform this function, a cost risk factor of 15 would be appropriate.
>
> If you do not have suitable background or experience to estimate an
> item, don\'t estimate it yourself, ask someone with more appropriate
> experience to estimate it for you.  If you do it yourself anyway, you
> can see how in some cases the appropriate contingency could be
> thousands of per cent and all the guidelines in the world for
> establishing contingency wouldn\'t do any good!
>
> **Schedule Risk** -- If a delay in the completion of the element could
> lead to a delay in a critical path or near critical path component,
> the schedule risk is 8.  If a delay in the completion of the element
> could cause a schedule slip in a subsystem which is not on the
> critical path, the schedule risk is 4.  Only elements where a delay in
> their completion would not affect the completion of any other item
> have schedule risks of 2.
>
> **Design Risk** -- Directly related to the maturity of the design
> effort. When the element design is nearly complete, quantity counts
> and parts lists finished, the risk associated with design maturity is
> for all intents and purposes nil; therefore a risk factor of 0 is
> applied.  This is also the case when the element is an
> \"off-the-shelf\" item and the parts counts and quantities are
> finalized.  When the element is still just an idea or concept, with
> crude sketches the only justification for the cost estimate, the risk
> associated with design state is high or 15.  Between these two
> extremes are the stages of conceptual design and preliminary  design. 
> In conceptual design, when layout drawings of the entire element are
> approaching completion, some preliminary scoping analyses have been
> completed, and parts counts are preliminary, the design risk factor is
> 8.  During preliminary design, when there are complete layout
> drawings, some details worked out, complete parts counts, and some
> analysis for sizing and showing design feasibility, the appropriate
> design risk is 4.
>
> **Weighting Factors**
>
> The weight applied to the risk factors depends on whether their are
> multiple or single risks involved in completing an element. 
>
>  The weights applied to ***technical risk*** depend upon whether the
> element requires you to push the current state-of-the-art in design,
> manufacturing, or both.  Obviously, if the element requires you to
> push both, the weight to be applied is high, or 4; if either the
> design or manufacturing are commonplace, the weighting factor is 2.
>
>  For weights applied to ***cost risk***, the two factors are *material
> costs* and *labor costs*.  If either of these are in doubt, but not
> both, the weight to be applied to cost risk is 1.  If they are both in
> doubt, the weight applied is 2.
>
> The weight factor given to ***schedule risk*** is always 1.
>
> The weight factor given to ***design risk*** is always 1 and so is not
> shown explicitly.
>
> ** ****Procedure**
>
> The following is the procedure for estimating contingency. If you are
> using the Project Access database to enter the estimate, these risk
> and weighting factors can be input directly, and Access will perform
> the calculations for **Steps 3-5** automatically. If the task is
> complete, the contingency should be equal to zero:
>
> **Step 1 --** Compare the conceptual state of the element with **Table
> 1** to determine risk factors.  A technical risk factor is assigned
> based on the technology level of the design.  A design risk factor is
> assigned based upon the current state (maturity) of the design.  A
> cost risk factor is assigned based on the estimating methodology used
> to arrive at a cost estimate for that element.  Similarly, a schedule
> risk factor is identified based on that element\'s criticality to the
> overall schedule.
>
> **Step 2 --** Compare the potential risk within an element with
> **Table 2** to determine the appropriate weighting factors. 
>
> **Step 3 --** Multiply the individual risk factors by the appropriate
> weighting factors and then sum them to determine the composite
> contingency percentage.
>
> **Step 4 --** Do this for each element at its lowest level.
>
> **Step 5 --** Calculate the dollar amount of contingency for an
> element by multiplying the base cost by the composite contingency
> percentage.

**TABLE 1**

**TECHNICAL, COST, SCHEDULE and DESIGN RISK FACTORS**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   -------                                                             |
| --- ------------------ ---------------- -------------- -------------- |
|   **R                                                                 |
| isk     **Technical**      **Cost**         **Schedule**   **Design** |
|   Factor**                                                            |
|                                                                       |
|   0                                                                   |
|     Not used           Not used         Not used       Detail design\ |
|                                                                       |
|                                                           \> 50% done |
|                                                                       |
|   1                                                                   |
|           Existing design    Off-the-shelf or Not used       Not used |
|              and\               catalog item                          |
|              off-the-shelf H/W                                        |
|                                                                       |
|   2                                                                   |
|           Minor              Vendor quote     No schedule    Not used |
|              modifications to   from             impact on any        |
|              an existing design established      other item           |
|                                 drawings                              |
|                                                                       |
|   3                                                                   |
|           Extensive          Vendor quote     Not used       Not used |
|              modifications to   with some design                      |
|              an existing design sketches                              |
|                                                                       |
|   4                                                                   |
|        New design;\       In-house         Delays         Preliminary |
|                                                                       |
|       nothing exotic     estimate based   completion of  design \>50% |
|                                                                       |
|                            on previous      non-critical   done; some |
|                                                                       |
|                         similar          subsystem item analysis done |
|                                 experience                            |
|                                                                       |
|   6                                                                   |
|           New design;        In-house         Not used       Not used |
|              different from     estimate for                          |
|              established        item with                             |
|              designs or         minimal                               |
|              existing           experience but                        |
|              technology         related to                            |
|                                 existing                              |
|                                 capabilities                          |
|                                                                       |
|   8                                                                   |
|         New design;        In-house         Delays         Conceptual |
|                                                                       |
|      requires some R&D  estimate for     completion of  design phase; |
|                                                                       |
|     but does not       item with        critical path  some drawings; |
|                                                                       |
|      advance the\       minimal          subsystem item many sketches |
|              state-of-the-art   experience and                        |
|                                 minimal in-house                      |
|                                 capability                            |
|                                                                       |
|   1                                                                   |
| 0         New design of new  Top-down         Not used       Not used |
|              technology;        estimate from                         |
|              advances           analogous                             |
|              state-of-the-art   programs                              |
|                                                                       |
|   15                                                                  |
|       New design; well   Engineering      Not used       Concept only |
|              beyond current\    judgment                              |
|              state-of-the-art                                         |
|   -------                                                             |
| --- ------------------ ---------------- -------------- -------------- |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**TABLE 2**

**TECHNICAL, COST, SCHEDULE and DESIGN WEIGHTING FACTORS**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
| | **Risk   | > **Condition**                     | **Weighting    |   |
| | Factor** |                                     | Factor**       |   |
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
| | **Tec    | > Design OR Manufacturing           | 2              |   |
| | hnical** |                                     |                |   |
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
| |          | > Design AND Manufacturing          | 4              |   |
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
| | **Cost** | > Material Cost OR Labor Rate       | 1              |   |
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
| |          | > Material Cost AND Labor Rate      | 2              |   |
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
| | **Sc     | > Same for all                      | 1              |   |
| | hedule** |                                     |                |   |
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
| | **       | > Same for all                      | 1              |   |
| | Design** |                                     |                |   |
| +----------+-------------------------------------+----------------+   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+