# Presentation: 168864

## Dzero Run IIb PMG

**Agenda**
**Upgrade/Project Status****	****V. O’Dell**
**+ outline of Response to Director’s review report**
**Trigger Status****	****	****D. Wood**
**Silicon Layer 0 Status:****	****R. Lipton**

## Director’s Milestones (31/07/2004)

**Director’s Milestones (31/07/2004)**

## Director’s Milestones (31/07/2004)

## Cost Performance Report(31/07/2004)

**SPI = BCWP/BCWS = 0.88, CPI = BCWP/ACWP = 2.43**
**SPI Trigger =0.74, SPI Silicon = 0.92, SPI Online = 1.11**

## Management Highlights July/August 

**MOUs/SOWs for life of project finished for**
**Columbia**
**Boston University (with CTT change request)**
**University of Arizona (with CTM change request)**
**University of Virginia MOU/SOWs in signature phase **
**Change requests**
**New change request for Silicon Pitch Adaptors, as recommended by Director’s review**
**Small cost/no schedule impact**
**Production Readiness Reviews**
**Production readiness review for STT this Friday (9/10)**
**Will be organizing PRR for TAB/GAB soon**
**Installation/Commissioning**
**Many meetings with project personnel to review and fine tune the installation/commissioning schedule and plans**

## Director’s Review – L0 

**Recommendations:**
**(About the delayed hybrid delivery)... my only recommendation would be to follow up on the promised delivery, understand now if vendor is experiencing any problems, and have a team in place to wipe, probe, stuff, bond, and thoroughly test completed hybrids in late August/early September. The project leaders are all too aware that hybrid deliveries and hybrid quality issues are invariably the pacing items on silicon detector projects. **
**Done. Hybrids have now arrived and are being wiped. See talk by Ron Lipton.**
**(About keeping key personnel on project at SiDet) ...My recommendation would be for the project leaders to meet at SiDet with the PPD management, perhaps after the change in Division head, and to provide some introduction to the project and indicate what resources, including any key personnel, are needed for the construction effort. The project should take care to also include technician effort needed for support activities, such as modifying fixtures and building and assembling mock-ups. **
**We have made specific requests for key personnel for module production. This went through both D0 department and SiDet and was requested to John Cooper. With the new management in place, we will set up such a meeting.**
**(About H-Disk refurbishment/L0 aperture measurements): ... From the presentations and follow-up discussions it is not clear to me how confident the project is in the aperture clearance for Layer 0 even with the proposed changes to reduce the profile of the detector. My personal instinct would be to remove and ‘refurbish’ the H-disk detectors during the upcoming shutdown period and to inspect the aperture, perhaps with a boroscope, during the H-disk work. I would do this even in the absence of key personnel from Moscow State University. This would have the advantage of getting the H-disk work out of the way and, more importantly, assuring the project that there are no unknown restrictions within the 2.4 meter installation region. There is some risk to rest of the vertex detector with any of this work, and the D0 collaboration would need to approve the operation. Also, I would not make this recommendation if the project leaders felt that it would sap resources that are needed for the module construction effort. **
**We have investigated H-Disk refurbishment/L0 aperture measurements and other 04 shutdown activities and we will do the survey. The H-Disk refurbishment was dropped for lack of time during this shutdown. The inner H-Disks are better than we thought they were - ~90% operational so will likely not be refurbished during the ’05 shutdown either. See talk by Ron Lipton.**

## Director’s Review – L0 

**With the assistance of Marvin Johnson and others the project has done a good job in reducing pick-up noise effects of the type that plagued, and continue to plague, the CDF Layer 00 detector. Still, in order to understand and mitigate any remaining operational or coherent noise issues it is important that the completed detector be operated at SiDet for a period of at least 6-8 weeks. I would hope that there would be enough flexibility in the Lab’s schedule that the start of the shutdown could even be delayed if necessary to accommodate this integration study. **
**Agreed. This was already in the schedule (~6 weeks). Any schedule gain that is made allows us a longer integration study. We will ensure at least 6 weeks even if the schedule is delayed.**
**The one week allotted between “L0 Silicon Cable-up Complete” and “Silicon Ready for Resumption of Tevatron Operation” seems to me to be a bit on the short side. However, it is difficult to scale from experiences on much larger silicon detector installation efforts to a single layer, 48 module system. I would recommend that as the time of the L0 installation shut-down draws near, the Project refines its timeline for the installation and technical commissioning based upon a firmer understanding of what the work will actually entail. The timeline should ideally be independent of any pre-conception as to the length of the shutdown. **
**We are continuously reviewing the installation schedule. What we learn during 2004 shutdown will be fed bak into the schedule. We will certainly revisit the installation timeline as installation dates get closer. Note that “Silicon Ready for Resumption of Tevatron Operation” does not mean the L0 is ready to take data – we plan to leave the detector open for ~ 6 weeks for debugging.**
**One last suggestion, and one that is outside the scope of this review: For oversight and accounting purposes the upgrade project ends with the completed detector ready for delivery to DAB. However, I think that the D0 should view installation, commissioning – both technical and physics, and maintenance as an interconnected process. In some ways it would be better if the installation of the Layer 0 detector was viewed as the beginning of a process. I would further hope that there be some continuity between the construction and commissioning efforts and that the commissioning team is as richly layered as is the current construction team. Finally, it is important for the D0 collaboration to give both support and prominence to the commissioning effort. These comments are made in light of a previous experience where the process did not go as smoothly as one would have wanted. **
**We agree with this and this is part of our motivation for impaneling the SC-IPC committee which is very actively reviewing the installation to physics commissioning schedule and effort using the experience of the full collaboration and with full support and participation of the construction and operations groups.**

## Director’s Review - Trigger

**Recommendations**
**Secure the manpower for all installation needed in the 2004 shutdown to allow testing during the data taking of FY05. **
**Agreed. This has been addressed – see talk by Darien.**
**Establish a forum (presumably through the Director for Research) for ongoing dialog with CDF and the Accelerator Division on the timing of the FY05 shutdown (maybe this exists already).**
**Agreed. The director is aware of this. **
**It would be helpful to have a presentation on the trigger simulation and validation efforts some time in early 2005. **
**OK. Trigger simulation workshops are ongoing. We would be prepared to give such a presentation on this timescale.**
**It would be useful to have a presentation of the SC-IPC task list around the same time.**
**OK. SC-IPC gives regular updates to the collaboration.**

## Director’s Review - AFEII

**Recommendations**
**The committee feels that the collaboration should carefully consider their strategy, including when to make the decision whether or not to proceed with an AFE replacement. **
**We have done this. By combing through the schedule and performing some tasks in parallel we have gained ~ 1 month. Our current schedule is:**
**D0 internal review 12/04****	****	****(was 1/05)**
**Laboratory review ****	****1/05****	****	****(was 2/05)**
**(final project approval)**
**Production begins****	****2/05****	****	****(was 3/05)**
**This means installation would begin ~1/06 (according to current schedule).**

## Director’s Review - AFEII

**Where we are:**
**AFE II schedule has been revisited with an aim to speeding things along**
**Parallel layout of AFEII-t (instead of the original serial layout).**
**We would like Wesson’s group (PPD) to work on this.**
**This request has been transmitted to Jim Strait.**
**Current status:**
**AFE II  board close to being submitted (~end of this week)**
**Expect an ~3 week turnaround between submission and stuffed prototype board ready for testing**
**This implies prototype board will be ready for testing by October**
**Plan is for John Anderson to test the board**
**Mosis submission of TripT is in.**
**Prototype TripT chips due back 3****rd**** week of October**
**We have had discussions with Jim Strait about manpower for AFE R&D**
**Need to secure engineering/technical support from PPD for this aggressive schedule. We have requested:**
**Paul Rubinov, lead engineer (Full Time)**
**1⁄2 time programmer, additional full time engineer, full time technician for all testing, timely testing of TripT(Abder!) when it is delivered.**
**We have requested these people (by name). For the R&D to lead to a successful project execution, we need these people ASAP. **
**We will follow up on the requests with Jim over the coming weeks**** **
**Plan ongoing dialog with DZero operations and PPD**** **
**Need to ensure the R&D phase for the AFEII doesn’t fall through the cracks**

## Director’s Review – Installation and Commissioning

**Recommendations**
**Include in the ‘04 shutdown the activities of L0 surveying (unless risks exceed paybacks). Perform a risk analysis for the L0 ‘05 installation and preliminary  engineering assessment by January ’05. **
**The first point (survey activities) has been addressed. See talk by Ron Lipton.**
**We will work on the risk analysis once we get the survey results**
**Proactively approach the PPD Division Management and the Directorate to coordinate usage of manpower resources during the ’04 and ’05 shutdowns. **
**This dialog is beginning. We have approached PPD for ’04 shutdown activities. We are revising our estimates for the ’05 shutdown. Once we have this in hand, we will approach PPD about this.**
**Reevaluate the M&S Installation Cost estimate after the survey performed during shutdown ’04. (To Directorate) Consider transferring the control of M&S funds for Installation from Operations to MIE Project. **
**We plan to reevalute the M&S costs after the survey. We are combing through the entire installation M&S costs to fine tune our estimates. **
**The second point is tricky given the lifetime of the project. Coupling of installation to construction project could be problematic.**
**Initiate communication with CDF and AD for shutdown ’05 duration.**
**This dialog is beginning. Consciousness has been raised at the highest levels.**

## Director’s Review – Cost & Schedule

**Cost Recommendations:**
**Performance management indicators do not consistently reflect actual costs for the work that has been completed. The area with the largest discrepancies is for work being done at the universities for which invoices have not been received. More effort should be put into getting estimated expenditures from the universities so the costs can be more accurately estimated and accrued, so a more detailed analysis of the cost variances can be performed to determine if corrective actions are required.**
**We are working on this. We have focused on getting all the MOUs/SOWs in place so that accruals can be done in a timely manner. We will also set up an accounting structure to make sure the costs are more accurately measured.**** **
**Schedule Recommendations**
**Pitch Adapters for Layer 0 Silicon Detector were not part of original scope and have been added to the work, are in the prototype state and are being paid on MRI funds. This scope of work was not added via a Change Request and not added to the schedule. Currently there are issues in the prototype phase. This additional scope could have impact on the schedule for Layer 0. The Pitch Adapter should be added to the project scope via the Change Control process and then added into the project schedule. **
**This has been done. See Change Request. Both $$ and schedule impact are minimal.**
**Layer 0 has “Ready to Move” milestone with a baseline schedule milestone of 5/25/06 an aggressive schedule date of 7/21/05. Layer 0 Management forecasts an approximate 2 months earlier completion date, but they have not modifying the aggressive/working schedule. The aggressive/working schedule should be modified to reflect the current forecast for work completion.**
**This has been done.  The 7/21 date includes 6 weeks of full integration at SiDet.**

## Director’s Review – Cost & Schedule (Continued)

**Schedule Recommendations (Continued)**
**The four DOE Level 1 Milestones in the PEP have the same completion dates for the equivalent Level II Directorate's Milestones, which does not allow any contingency between the milestones. To minimize the risk of the Level 1 milestone dates being missed, a heightened level of awareness needs to be adopted for these four milestones. This can be addressed by emphasizing these milestones separately in the Project's Monthly Report. Additionally, the Directorate should assess whether or not the dates of the equivalent Level 2 Directorate Milestones should be modified to allow float between the Level 1 and Level 2 milestones. **
**This has been addressed by adding a section to the monthly report, highlighting the four DOE Level 1 Milestones. We have not modified the dates of the L2 Director’s milestones for this.**
**There were several examples of variances between the current working schedule and how work will be performed. There are concerns from the project management that the effort to update the schedules and costing tool for the smaller changes could be difficult with the present level of project office support. The Project Manger should address this concern as soon as possible. **
**We are updating some of these areas. We are trying to make do with the level of support we have. **

## Director’s Review - Management

**Recommendations:**
**Resolve the issues about DOE Headquarters/DOE Field Office/Directorate milestones. **
**Done. (addressed in previous slides)**
**Include all tasks (ex: pitch adapter) in the project schedule.**
**Done. (addressed in previous slides) **
**Formalize the L0 Silicon testing plan after May ’05 (end of production) and before the ’05 shutdown.**
**We are working on this.**
**Initiate communications with Division Heads and Directorate to obtain manpower resources in an appropriate manner. **
**We are beginning to address this. We have initiated conversations with (new) PPD head. **
**Insure availability of key personnel at SiDet for the L0 Assembly during the ’04 shutdown. **
**We have addressed this.**
**Present a plan for the assessment and analysis of the risks connected with the L0 Installation. **
**This issue was addressed in previous slides. We are working on this and will update it after the ’04 aperture measurements are complete.****	****  **