Post on 04-Jan-2016
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 1
Project ManagementW. J. Foyt
Project ManagementW. J. Foyt
Project ScopeTimelineCost EstimateRisk/ContingencyStaffingProject Controls ProcurementCD-1 DocumentationIssuesSummary
Project ScopeTimelineCost EstimateRisk/ContingencyStaffingProject Controls ProcurementCD-1 DocumentationIssuesSummary
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 2
Project ScopeProject Scope
Work breakdown structure –WBS 1.1 Project ManagementWBS 1.2 X-ray Pump/Probe (XPP)WBS 1.3 Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI)WBS 1.4 X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS)WBS 1.5 DiagnosticsWBS 1.6 Controls & Data SystemsWBS 2.0 Other Project Costs
Work breakdown structure –WBS 1.1 Project ManagementWBS 1.2 X-ray Pump/Probe (XPP)WBS 1.3 Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI)WBS 1.4 X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS)WBS 1.5 DiagnosticsWBS 1.6 Controls & Data SystemsWBS 2.0 Other Project Costs
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 3
Project ScopeProject Scope
Scope definition –LUSI project consists of three x-ray instruments (XPP, CXI and XCS), associated diagnostics, controls & data systems and project management. Priority – CXI and XPP to be baselined (CD-2a) in Dec. 2007.These instruments to be capable of producing science when LCLS operational. This will be LUSI’s CD-4a.3rd instrument (XCS) to be baselined at CD-2b. 3 instruments to be complete at CD-4b.
Scope definition –LUSI project consists of three x-ray instruments (XPP, CXI and XCS), associated diagnostics, controls & data systems and project management. Priority – CXI and XPP to be baselined (CD-2a) in Dec. 2007.These instruments to be capable of producing science when LCLS operational. This will be LUSI’s CD-4a.3rd instrument (XCS) to be baselined at CD-2b. 3 instruments to be complete at CD-4b.
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 4
Project ScopeProject Scope
Key performance parameters –CD-4 will be staged: two partial instruments at CD-4a (Feb.’10), three complete instruments at CD-4b (Mar.’12)CD–4a:
CXI operational with detector, diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with shared laser system, detector (1st article), diagnostics and controls & data systems
CD-4b:CXI operational with compressor, detector, particle injector and full diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with dedicated laser, detector, off-set monochromator and full diagnostics and controls & data systems XCS operational with detector, optics, sample environment and full diagnostics and controls & data systems
Complete instrument parameter list in PPEP (5.1)
Key performance parameters –CD-4 will be staged: two partial instruments at CD-4a (Feb.’10), three complete instruments at CD-4b (Mar.’12)CD–4a:
CXI operational with detector, diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with shared laser system, detector (1st article), diagnostics and controls & data systems
CD-4b:CXI operational with compressor, detector, particle injector and full diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with dedicated laser, detector, off-set monochromator and full diagnostics and controls & data systems XCS operational with detector, optics, sample environment and full diagnostics and controls & data systems
Complete instrument parameter list in PPEP (5.1)
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 5
TimelineTimeline
Major events -Major events -Aug. 2005 CD-0
Feb. 2006 Detector MOU - BNL
July 2007 CD-1
Nov. 2007 Split & Delay MOU - DESY
Dec. 2007 CD-2a
Jan. 2008 Particle Inj. MOU - LLNL
July 2008 CD-3a
Nov. 2008 Split & Delay Rec’d
May 2009 XPP Detector Rec’d
Oct. 2009 CD- 2b
Nov. 2009 Particle Inj. Rec’d
Feb. 2010 CD-4a
Mar. 2010 CD-3b
Sept. 2011 XCS Detector Rec’d
Mar. 2012 CD-4b
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 6
Cost EstimateCost Estimate
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 7
Cost EstimateCost Estimate
Funding profile –
Obligation profile –
0.0
3,000.0
6,000.0
9,000.0
12,000.0
15,000.0
PY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
CONTINGENCY
CONTROLS
DIAGNOSTICS
XCS
CXI
XPP
PROJ. MGT
OPC
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 8
Details -Details -
Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
LUSI COST ESTIMATE $60,000.0DIRECT $30,586.0
PROJ MGT $3,264.7XPP
7,914.6CXI
6,714.6XCS
5,826.6DIAGNOSTICS 2,329.7CTRLS & DATA SYS 4,535.8
INDIRECT 8,120.0ESCALATION 3,218.8CONTINGENCY 13,175.2OPC 4,900.0
LUSI COST ESTIMATE $60,000.0DIRECT $30,586.0
PROJ MGT $3,264.7XPP
7,914.6CXI
6,714.6XCS
5,826.6DIAGNOSTICS 2,329.7CTRLS & DATA SYS 4,535.8
INDIRECT 8,120.0ESCALATION 3,218.8CONTINGENCY 13,175.2OPC 4,900.0
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 9
Cost EstimateCost Estimate
WBS 2.0 Other Project Costs = $4,900k
Salary/Wage & Fringe 1,224kMS&T 670kDetector R&D 1,812kIndirect Costs 1,194k
WBS 2.0 Other Project Costs = $4,900k
Salary/Wage & Fringe 1,224kMS&T 670kDetector R&D 1,812kIndirect Costs 1,194k
OPC4,900K$
MS&T
SALARY, WAGE & FRINGE
DETECTOR R&D
INDIRECT COSTS
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 10
Cost EstimateCost Estimate
Methodology -Costs collected at levels 3, 4 or 5 of the WBS
Labor by type in person weeks (44/yr) Calculated to FY’07$ using modified LCLS ratesBNL detector estimates provided via MOULLNL provided particle injector estimate; MOU in processPurchased materials & services entered by quantity & unit value
Excluding MOUs, quotes/catalog items represent >50% of estimate
Material burden factor (4.8%)Indirect (G&A) 20% calculated on labor & travelContingency based on risk assessment at line item levelEscalation (FY ’07 base year):
Labor escalated @ 4.0% / yearMaterial escalated @ 2.3% / year
Methodology -Costs collected at levels 3, 4 or 5 of the WBS
Labor by type in person weeks (44/yr) Calculated to FY’07$ using modified LCLS ratesBNL detector estimates provided via MOULLNL provided particle injector estimate; MOU in processPurchased materials & services entered by quantity & unit value
Excluding MOUs, quotes/catalog items represent >50% of estimate
Material burden factor (4.8%)Indirect (G&A) 20% calculated on labor & travelContingency based on risk assessment at line item levelEscalation (FY ’07 base year):
Labor escalated @ 4.0% / yearMaterial escalated @ 2.3% / year
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 11
Cost EstimateCost Estimate
Cost estimate worksheet –Cost estimate worksheet –
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 12
Risk / ContingencyRisk / Contingency
LUSI risk analysis identifies potential risks by:type - cost, schedule, technicalconsequence - marginal, significant, or criticallikelihood - unlikely, likely, or very likelyIntersection of these elements categorizes the potential risk to the project as either low, medium, or highOf 19 potential risks identified and documented in Risk Registry, 2 are categorized as High:
Delay in FY funding (CR)Staffing difficulties
Risk Registry will be evaluated monthly or when an event requires re-assessment As project becomes mature risk assessment will be more quantitative including estimates of potential costs, schedule impacts, cost of implementing mitigation strategy, and the residual risk.
LUSI risk analysis identifies potential risks by:type - cost, schedule, technicalconsequence - marginal, significant, or criticallikelihood - unlikely, likely, or very likelyIntersection of these elements categorizes the potential risk to the project as either low, medium, or highOf 19 potential risks identified and documented in Risk Registry, 2 are categorized as High:
Delay in FY funding (CR)Staffing difficulties
Risk Registry will be evaluated monthly or when an event requires re-assessment As project becomes mature risk assessment will be more quantitative including estimates of potential costs, schedule impacts, cost of implementing mitigation strategy, and the residual risk.
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 13
Risk / ContingencyRisk / Contingency
Risk Matrix utilized in estimate preparation–Risk Matrix utilized in estimate preparation–RISK FACTOR (x only one) X RISK WEIGHT (x only one) X
Existing design & off-the-shelf hardware 1
Minor modifications to an existing design 2
Extensive modifications to an existing design 3
New design, nothing exotic 4 Design or manufacturing 2
New design, different from established designs or existing technology 6 Design & manufacturing 4
New design, requires some R&D, but does not advance the state of the art 8
New design, devlopment of new technology that advances the state of the art 10
New design, way beyond the state of the art. 15
Off-the-shelf or catalog item 1
Vendor quote from established drawings 2
Vendor quote with some design sketches 3
In-house estimate based on previous similar experience 4 Material cost or labor rate 1
In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to exisiting capabilities 6 Material cost & labor rate 2
In-house estimate for item with minimal experience & minimal in-house capability 8
Top-down estimate from analogous programs 10
Engineering judgement 15
No schedule impact on any other item 2 Same for all 1
Delays completion of noncritical path subsytem item 4 Same for all 1
Delays completion of critical path subsytem item 8 Same for all 1SC
HED
ULE
TEC
HN
ICA
LC
OST
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 14
Risk / ContingencyRisk / Contingency
Application of Risk Matrix & contingency development–Application of Risk Matrix & contingency development–
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 15
Risk / ContingencyRisk / Contingency
Contingency – is developed utilizing a risk analysis at the lowest level of the WBS. An algorithm sums the technical, cost and schedule risk multiplied by the weight of the occurrence.
Contingency – is developed utilizing a risk analysis at the lowest level of the WBS. An algorithm sums the technical, cost and schedule risk multiplied by the weight of the occurrence.
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 16
Risk / ContingencyRisk / Contingency
Project contingency –Project contingency –
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 17
StaffingStaffing
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
PE
RS
ON
YE
AR
S
07 08 09 10 11 12FISCAL YEAR
LUSI PROJECT STAFFING
Technical Support Staff
Software Development
Engrg/Design/Drafting
Scientific
Management
Other Project Costs
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 18
Project ControlsProject Controls
LUSI utilizes existing LCLS EVMS, policies, procedures and project controls staff On-site EVMS training for Project staff planned1st two instruments to be baselined in Dec.’07Earned Value (EV) reporting begins in FY 08.BNL (Detectors) and LLNL (Injector) will report EV against approved baseline schedules
LUSI utilizes existing LCLS EVMS, policies, procedures and project controls staff On-site EVMS training for Project staff planned1st two instruments to be baselined in Dec.’07Earned Value (EV) reporting begins in FY 08.BNL (Detectors) and LLNL (Injector) will report EV against approved baseline schedules
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 19
Project ControlsProject Controls
Managing the Baseline –Prior to presenting a Baseline Change Request (BCR) to the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), the request will be reviewed by LUSI management. This review will include:
Background leading to the requestExtent of the problemProposed solutionOther solutions consideredStakeholders review (System Managers, QA, ES&H, RM Coordinator)Impact of the BCR
Will there be a technical impactWhat resources are affectedWill this require a draw on contingencyWhat milestones, if any, are impactedIntegrated Schedule Analysis
Impact of not approving this BCRAffected drawings, parts or requirements
LUSI BCR process detailed in PPEP (6.0)
Managing the Baseline –Prior to presenting a Baseline Change Request (BCR) to the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), the request will be reviewed by LUSI management. This review will include:
Background leading to the requestExtent of the problemProposed solutionOther solutions consideredStakeholders review (System Managers, QA, ES&H, RM Coordinator)Impact of the BCR
Will there be a technical impactWhat resources are affectedWill this require a draw on contingencyWhat milestones, if any, are impactedIntegrated Schedule Analysis
Impact of not approving this BCRAffected drawings, parts or requirements
LUSI BCR process detailed in PPEP (6.0)
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 20
ProcurementProcurement
LUSI is utilizing LCLS procurement cellAdvanced Procurement Plans (APP) being developed for all procurements on the critical path or with an order value >25k$ APP provides rolling 6 month window of planned procurement activityLUSI administration will monitor all phases of procurement
LUSI is utilizing LCLS procurement cellAdvanced Procurement Plans (APP) being developed for all procurements on the critical path or with an order value >25k$ APP provides rolling 6 month window of planned procurement activityLUSI administration will monitor all phases of procurement
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 21
CD -1 DocumentationCD -1 Documentation
Documentation required for CD-1 approval –(documentation prepared for Jan. review updated to reflect action item)
Documentation required for CD-1 approval –(documentation prepared for Jan. review updated to reflect action item)
Conceptual Design Report published July 2007
Design Review Report issued July 2007
Acquisition Strategy draft released June 2007
Prel. Project Execution Plan draft released June 2007
Risk Management Plan/Assessment issued June 2007
Prel. Security Vulnerability Assessment issued Dec. 2006
Prel. Hazard Analysis Report issued July 2007
Quality Assurance Program – LUSI Quality Implementing Procedure issued June 2007
Value Management Plan issued May 2007
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 22
IssuesIssues
A Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY ‘08 would impact schedule. With minimal carry forward and a projected burn rate of ~460k$/mo, LUSI could manage the 1st qtr of FY ’08 by withholding the balance of FY ’07 and delaying FY ’08 detector funding. Maintaining the detector schedule through 1st qtr would require an additional 650k$ in FY 07.Potential CRs in the out years should be manageable without significant impact to the project schedule due to the funding profile.
A Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY ‘08 would impact schedule. With minimal carry forward and a projected burn rate of ~460k$/mo, LUSI could manage the 1st qtr of FY ’08 by withholding the balance of FY ’07 and delaying FY ’08 detector funding. Maintaining the detector schedule through 1st qtr would require an additional 650k$ in FY 07.Potential CRs in the out years should be manageable without significant impact to the project schedule due to the funding profile.
W.J. Foytwfoyt@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 23
SummarySummary
Input from internal and external reviews have proven invaluable.Action item from Jan. 2007 review was resolved on schedule and plan is being worked to meet or exceed requirement.All recommendations from Jan. 2007 review have been responded to.LUSI staff has sharpened its plan and is prepared to deliver world class instruments on time and within budget.
Input from internal and external reviews have proven invaluable.Action item from Jan. 2007 review was resolved on schedule and plan is being worked to meet or exceed requirement.All recommendations from Jan. 2007 review have been responded to.LUSI staff has sharpened its plan and is prepared to deliver world class instruments on time and within budget.