Project management case study

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 104 | Comments: 0 | Views: 684
of 72
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Project management case study

Comments

Content

Project Management Case Study

PEP-II at Stanford
Lowell Klaisner, Chief Engineer
January, 2002

Stanford University

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

PEP-II B Factory
Total Estimated Cost (TEC) $177 million Five Years to Construct (1993-1998) Two Rings of Magnets and Vacuum Chambers in a 2.2 km tunnel “Factory” – Requires High Up Time Replacement of an Existing Machine (PEP)
Minimum of Civil Construction Uses existing infrastructure at SLAC

Collaboration of Three Laboratories
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Collaboration with IHEP in Beijing
Magnets for the Low Energy Ring

Finished On-Time and On-Budget and Met Scientific Goals

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Environment

Competition between Cornell University (NSF) and Stanford University (DOE) Started shortly after the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) Started as a Presidential Initiative – President Clinton A parallel project was initiated in Japan at KEK. These projects can confirm each others data. The performance of these two projects is remarkably similar.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Layout of the SLAC Accelerators

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Definition
A Major System Acquisition involving the modification of the SLAC linac and the Positron-Electron Project (PEP) storage ring to develop a facility to study the particle physics of high luminosity electron-positron collisions at center-of-mass energies in the 10 GeV region

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Goals
To create a facility for observing collisions of electrons and positrons with sufficient luminosity, and with particles of sufficiently different energies, to measure the extent to which charge-parity (CP) conservation is violated in the decay of B-mesons. The secondary purpose of this project is to support broad-based studies of the bottom and charm quarks, the tau lepton, and two-photon interactions — all processes that require large numbers of events — by providing higher luminosity than hitherto available. Although not within the scope of the PEP-II Project, a collateral program of synchrotron radiation physics would be possible.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Implementation

To accomplish these goals, beams of electrons and positrons having unequal energies— roughly 3 GeV and 9 GeV— are collided so that products of the collision are moving in the laboratory rather than stationary as is the case when the two colliding beams have equal energies. To collide beams of different energies requires two storage rings, one for the 9-GeV beam (the high-energy ring) and one for the 3-GeV beam (the low-energy ring). Specialized beam optical systems were constructed at the interaction regions. To fill the storage rings with electrons and positrons, the SLAC linac was modified, beam transport lines were added in the linac enclosure, and the existing beam transport lines connecting the linac and PEP were modified.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

PEP-II RF Section

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Major Players
A collaboration between: SLAC – Lead Laboratory
Linac and PEP Tunnel

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
Completed ALS similar to the LER

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Interaction region special processes

The primary DOE participants: Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science) Division of High Energy Physics (DHEP) DOE Operations Office (OAK) Stanford Site Office (SSO)

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities
PEP-II PROJECT OVERSIGHT

LBL Director C. Shank

SLAC Director B. Richter

LLNL Acting Director B. Tarter

Machine Advisory Committee Standing Committee International Team of Advisors Meet Every 6 Mos PEP-II Management

Interlab Coordinating Committee Jonathan Dorfan (SLAC Chair) William Barletta (LBL) Tony Chargin (LLNL) Meet Once Every Month

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities
SLAC Director
The SLAC Director has the ultimate responsibility for designing and constructing the PEP-II Project. The Director delegated the authority to manage the PEP-II Project to Dr. Jonathan Dorfan, the PEP-II Project Director.

LBL/LLNL Directors
The LBL and LLNL Directors assure that the appropriate laboratory resources are applied to support the project. These Directors review the findings of the Machine Advisory Committee with the SLAC Director.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities

Machine Advisory Committee
The Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) advises the three laboratory Directors and provides guidance and feedback to the Project staff. The MAC is an committee of international accelerator experts.

Interlaboratory Coordinating Council
The Interlaboratory Coordinating Council (ICC) is charged with solving interlaboratory issues. Each laboratory Director appoints one member to the Council.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities

PEP-II Project Director – (SLAC)
Recruit, Organize and Motivate the key staff Oversee design, construction, installation, and commissioning Direct long term planning for the project Represent the project in interactions with the DOE and the other laboratories Chair the Configuration Control Board Chair the Interlaboratory Coordinating Council Provide an interface to the detector construction

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities

Deputy Project Director – (LBNL)
Providing support for all the functions performed by the PEP-II Project Director Facilitating and overseeing interlaboratory coordination Serving as a member of the Configuration Control Board

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities
Deputy for Accelerator Physics
Serving as the line manager of the accelerator System Managers (HER, LER, IR, Injection, Controls and RF) Working with the Deputy for Engineering/Chief Engineer to ensure that physics design criteria are correctly interpreted in making engineering designs Planning commissioning activities for components, subsystems, and accelerators Advising the PEP-II Project Director on accelerator physics issues Serving as a member of the Configuration Control Board and as Chair of the Parameters Committee

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities
Deputy for Engineering/Chief Engineer
Coordinating engineering Directing project planning, scheduling, and budgeting Overseeing the Project Management Control System Engineering standards Technical document control – interlaboratory communication Serving as Configuration Manager and as a member of the Configuration Control Board and the Parameters Committee

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities
System Managers (HER, LER, IR, Injection, Controls, Utilities, RF)
Planning and managing the design, construction, installation, and commissioning Serving as the Cost Account Managers for cost accounts in their subprojects Serving as members of the Configuration Control Board

System Engineers (HER, LER, IR, Injection, Controls, RF)
Managing the engineering for the subproject Managing cost estimating and earned value reporting for the subproject

PEP-II Project ES&H Officer

PEP-II Project Quality Assurance Officer
01/18/2002 Project Management Case Study

PEP-II Organization
John Rees Andrea Chan Special Assistant Project Database Project Director Deputy Project Director Deputy for Accel. Physics Deputy for Eng. (Chief Eng.) Deputy to Chief Engineer Jonathan Dorfan Tom Elioff John Seeman Lowell Klaisner Tom McCarville Administration ES&H Quality Assurance Cost and Schedule Dona Jones Sandy Pierson Richard Fischer

HER System Manager [John Seeman] HER System Engineer Eric Reuter HER Mags & Supports [Bill Davies-White] HER Pwr Conversion Alfredo Saab HER RF Heinz Schwarz HER Vacuum Charles Perkins HER Diagnostics

LER System Manager Mike Zisman LER System Engineer Ron Yourd LER Mags & Supports Tom Henderson LER Pwr Conversion Terry Jackson LER RF Heinz Schwarz LER Vacuum Don Hunt LER Diagnostics James Hinkson IR IR IR IR

IR System Manager Hobey DeStaebler IR System Engineer Bob Yamamoto Mags & Supports Johanna Swan Pwr Conversion Dan Shimer

Inj System Mnager Elliott Bloom INJ System Engineer Bruce Feerick INJ Mags & Supports Bruce Feerick INJ Pwr Conversion Tony Donaldson

Cntls System Manager Tom Himel Cntls System Engineer Dave Nelson

Util. System Manager Burl Skaggs

Vacuum Lou Bertolini Diagnostics

INJ

Vacuum Julia Weinberg

INJ

Diagnostics Gary Godfrey

SLAC LBNL LLNL

HER

Bunch Feedback Gerard Oxoby

LER

Bunch Feedback Walt Barry

HER

Installation Thomas Taylor

LER

Installation Thomas Taylor

IR

Installation Tom Taylor

INJ

Installation Patrick Smith

HER

Alignment Matt Pietryka

LER

Alignment Matt Pietryka

IR

Alignment Matt Pietryka

INJ

Alignment Matt Pietryka Rev. 2 7/8/94

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Management Responsibilities
PEP-II Project Cost & Schedule Manager
Maintenance of the baseline cost estimate and schedule Monthly updating of schedule progress Monthly collection of project actual costs Production of monthly Cost and Schedule Status Report Analyzing actual cost reports from the participating labs for correctness Assisting the Project Director and the Deputies in budgeting

Database Group
The Database Group is responsible for designing, developing, maintaining, and qualifying the major databases that support the project.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Work Breakdown Structure
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is used for defining work packages and developing and tracking the cost and schedule for the project. Each level 2 element has a System Manager, usually a physicist, who is responsible for the execution of the project plans for that element. This maps onto the organizational chart. The System Manager is assisted by a System Engineer who establishes the budget, controls costs, assures quality and safety, controls documentation, and keeps the system on schedule. The responsibility for each level 2 element lies with one of the collaborating institutions. Other institutions may be involved in the execution but a lead institution is defined for each element. To the extent possible, each level 2 element covers a specific piece of geography, which minimizes the complexity of the interface between elements.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Work Breakdown Structure
The WBS is used for cost reporting. The project reported costs and progress to the DOE monthly at level 2 of the WBS. The project management reviewed costs and progress monthly at level 3. The System Managers reviewed costs and progress monthly at the lower levels of the WBS. Changes to parameters of the machine are controlled by a Configuration Control Board chaired by the Project Director. The impact of any such change on the associated cost, schedule, and WBS dictionary was evaluated by the Configuration Control Board. The PEP-II Cost and Schedule Manager is responsible for maintaining the current cost, schedule and dictionary and the records of all changes. All changes must be approved by the Project Director prior to implementation.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Work Breakdown Structure
Organization of the WBS
Level 1 defines the total project.
1 PEP-II collider which includes all of the work for this project

Level 2 defines the major subsystems for the PEP-II collider as follows:
1.1 High Energy Ring 1.2 Low Energy Ring 1.3 Interaction Region 1.4 Injector 1.5 Controls 1.6 Utilities 1.7 Safety and Protection 1.8 Management 1.A Radio Frequency Systems

Levels below this define the elements of the subsystem
01/18/2002 Project Management Case Study

Work Breakdown Structure
1.1.1 HER Magnets 1.1.2 HER Power Conversion 1.1.3 HER RF 1.1.4 HER Vacuum 1.1.5 HER Feedback 1.1.6 HER Diagnostics 1.1.7 HER Installation 1.1.8 HER Alignment 1.1.9 HER Supports and Stands

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Acty ID

Activity description

Orig Dur

Early start

Early finish

1995 1996 1997 1998 JAFEMA AP MA JUJUAU SE OC NO DEJAFEMA AP MA JUJUAU SE OC NO DEJAFEMA AP MA JUJUAU SE OC NO DEJAFE MA AP MA JUJU

LOW ENERGY RING
1.2.4 LER VACUUM
Magnet Chamber Assembly
LRVA01 LRVA02 LRVA03 LRVA04 LRVA05 LRVA06 LRVA07 LRVA08 LRVA09 LRVA10 LRVA11 LRVA12 LRVA13 LRVA14 LRVA15 LRVA16 LRVA17 LRVA18 LRVA19 LRVA20 LRVA21 LRVA22 LRVA23 LRVA24 LRVA25 LRVA25A LRVA26 LRVA27 LRVA28 LRVA29 LRVA30 LRVA31 LRVA32 LRVA32A LRVA32B MAGNET CHAMBER Magnet Chamber Analysis, Design, Detail, Checkin MC Extrusion Procurement 1st Article Extrusion & tooling Modification. Receive Series MC Extrusion Measure Beam Chamber Dimn Fabricate MC Bend Tooling in LBNL ANL Weld R/D & Weld Fixture Fab. MC/ Flange 1st Mach. Proc. Machine Prototype MC in LBNL Weld Prototype MC in LBNL Install Prototype MC in Raft Bending MC in LBNL MC First Machining 1st Article ANL Weld First Article & QA Serial Prod. First Machining ANL Serial Prod. Weld MC Final Machining Procurement MC Final Machining First Article QA MC Final Machining 1st Article MC Serial Final Machining QA MC Serial Final Machining BPM Procurement BPM Delivery QA BPM by LBNL BPM Avail to Begin BPM Installation UHV Cleaning MC First Article Install BPM & Calib. First Article Vacuum Processing MC First Article UHV Cleaning All MC Install Serial Prod. BPM & Calib. Vacuum Processing All MC MC & Arc Quad. Raft Integration Begin MC & Arc Quad. Raft Integration Comp MC & Arc Quad. Raft Integration 0 01/03/95A 380 01/03/95A 42 01/31/95A 135 03/30/95A 58 10/05/95A 30 12/26/95A 20 02/06/96A 115 12/19/95A 20 03/26/96A 32 12/06/95A 3 01/19/96A 12 01/25/96A 10 03/05/96A 50 04/23/96A 5 07/25/96A 40 07/23/96A 80 08/06/96A 30 07/16/96A 17 01/02/97A 5 02/07/97A 100 02/17/97A 100 02/24/97A 40 03/19/96A 100 07/10/96A 100 07/24/96A 0 4 02/17/97A 5 02/18/97A 5 02/20/97A 120 03/17/97A 120 03/19/97A 124 03/07/97A 140 04/01/97A 0 07/01/97A 0 06/01/98 07/15/96A 03/29/95A 10/04/95A 12/25/95A 02/05/96A 03/04/96A 05/27/96A 04/22/96A 01/18/96A 01/23/96A 02/09/96A 03/18/96A 07/17/96A 07/31/96A 09/13/96A 11/22/96A 10/31/96A 02/07/97A 02/14/97A 03/16/98 04/14/98 05/08/96A 12/06/96A 12/20/96A 12/20/96A 02/17/97A 02/19/97A 02/24/97A 04/15/98 04/17/98 04/17/98 06/01/98

Start Date Finish Date Data Date

09/01/93 06/25/99 01/28/98

Early Bar Progress Bar Critical Activity

PEP2 PEP-II PROJECT 1.2 Vacuum System Magnet Chamber Assembly

© Primavera Systems, Inc.

Project Control
Commissioning Goals
LER Beam Energy HER Beam Energy Luminosity 2.8 to 3.5 GeV 7 to 10 GeV N/A

Experimenter’s Expectations
LER Beam Energy HER Beam Energy Luminosity 3.1 GeV 9.0 GeV 3 X 1033 cm-2 s-1

“Ultimate” Capability of Major Components
LER Beam Energy HER Beam Energy Luminosity 4.0 GeV 12.0 GeV 3 A in either ring

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

PEP-II Funding Plan
200 180 160
Appropriations

140 120 100
Obligations

80 60 40 20 0 1993
Cost

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Years
01/18/2002 Project Management Case Study

PEP-II Project Labor Estimate
(Presented in Man Years)
WBS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 LABEL HIGH ENERGY RING LOW ENERGY RING INTERACTION REGION INJECTOR CONTROLS UTILITIES SAFETY & PROTECTION MANAGEMENT PEP-II Total TOTAL MY 299.8 233.2 34.8 59.3 67.5 18.7 5.5 39.8 758.6 FY 94 50.8 8.7 0.7 15.0 1.4 3.1 0.4 6.4 86.5 FY 95 101.7 30.0 0.9 17.8 10.7 4.0 1.8 8.6 175.4 FY 96 95.6 56.8 4.0 17.9 22.8 11.4 3.1 8.6 220.2 FY 97 45.6 94.1 17.6 8.6 20.3 0.2 0.3 8.6 195.2 FY 98 6.0 43.6 11.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 81.3

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

DOE Relationships

DOE Oakland Operations Office
Provide expert ES&H review of the B-Factory National Environmental Policy Act documentation, the B-Factory Safety Analysis Reports (Preliminary and Final), and the B-Factory technical requirements and design to ensure compliance with DOE and other applicable regulatory ES&H requirements

Stanford Site Office:
Coordinates with the OAK Operations Office to provide resources and Matrix Team support in the areas of Budget, Finance, Legal, Contracts Management and ES&H Provide independent assessment of the regularly transmitted reports to DHEP by the B-Factory Project Manager

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

DOE Relationships
DOE B-Factory Project Manager:
Has the principal responsibility for the day-to-day management and administration of Plant and Capital Equipment and Operating funded BFactory project activities in accordance with guidance from the DHEP B-Factory Program Manager and the prescribed DOE Order 4700.1 (Project Management System) for a Major System Acquisition.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Stanford/SLAC Relationship

Under the SLAC Prime Contract with the DOE, Stanford University was responsible for the construction of the PEP-II Facility – monitored by the Scientific Policy Committee. Within SLAC, the PEP-II Project Director was responsible for completion of the project as defined by technical, cost, and schedule baselines. Also, he was the Associate Director for the PEP-II Division. In support of the PEP-II effort, SLAC provided technical and administrative assistance through the the existing laboratory infrastructure.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Management Control System
The PMCS is the point of integration for the schedule and cost baselines and provides the PEP-II Project and the DOE with the tools to monitor cost, schedule, and technical performance on a monthly basis. Monthly performance measurement figures were based on 3 quantities:
Schedule status (earned value) Actual financial status (costs and commitments) The cost and schedule baseline.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

PMCS Implementation
An experienced PMCS manager from an SSC detector project. Staffed using a consulting firm, analyze the data and prepare reports. Extra staff was added at the beginning to get the system up and running quickly. PEP-II used Primavera and Cobra to implement the PMCS Direct monthly feeds of actuals from LBNL and LLNL

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Management Control System

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Management Control System
Cost Performance Report - Work Breakdown Structure Contract Type/No: Project Name/No: Report Period: DE-AC03-76SF PEP-II Project 11/30/96 12/31/96 Negotiated Cost Est. Cost Authorized Tgt. Profit/ Tgt. Est Share Contract Estimated Contract Unpriced Work Fee % Price Price Ratio Ceiling Ceiling 1 177,000,000 0 0 0 177,000,000 0 177,000,000 0 WBS[2] Current Period Cumulative to Date At Completion Actual Actual Budgeted Cost Cost Variance Budgeted Cost Cost Variance Latest Work Work Work Work Work Work Revised Item Scheduled Performed Performed Schedule Cost Scheduled Performed Performed Schedule Cost Budgeted Estimate Variance (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 1.1 HIGH ENERGY RING 1,451 1,417 1,385 (34) 32 48,493 46,230 48,365 (2,263) (2,135) 51365 51365 0 1.2 LOW ENERGY RING 2,615 1,034 2,179 (1,581) (1,145) 29,706 25,514 26,775 (4,192) (1,261) 47803 47803 0 1.3 INTERACTION REGIO 331 71 96 (260) (25) 3,642 2,772 2,921 (870) (149) 8211 8211 0 1.4 INJECTOR 137 156 435 19 (279) 11,927 11,455 14,418 (472) (2,963) 12063 12669 (606) 1.5 CONTROLS 559 306 265 (253) 41 6,461 6,157 5,860 (304) 297 7065 7065 0 1.6 UTILITIES 199 22 82 (177) (60) 7,435 7,337 7,196 (98) 141 7435 7435 0 1.7 SAFETY & PROTECT 16 27 151 11 (124) 1,013 948 1,441 (65) (493) 1024 1024 0 1.8 MANAGEMENT 46 46 119 0 (73) 5,238 5,238 6,072 0 (834) 5564 5835 (271) 1.9 INDIRECTS 112 112 49 0 63 2,492 2,492 2,145 0 347 4645 4645 0 1.A MACHINE RF 1,900 1,149 1,650 (751) (501) 19,076 17,955 16,747 (1,121) 1,208 24551 23950 601 Gen. and Admin. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undist. Budget Sub Total 7,366 4,340 6,411 (3,026) (2,071) 135,483 126,098 131,940 (9,385) (5,842) 169726 170002 (276) Management Resrv. 7274 0 7274 Total 7,366 4,340 6,411 (3,026) (2,071) 135,483 126,098 131,940 (9,385) (5,842) 177000 170002 6998 Contractor: SLAC Location: Stanford, CA Quantity

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Risk Assessment
Technical Risk
High thermal loads on vacuum components (megawatts) Electron beam welding

Schedule Risk
LER magnets manufactured in China by IHEP Klystrons manufactured in Germany by Phillips Complicated interaction region

Cost Risk
Major procurements Tightening labor market (Davis-Bacon labor)

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Procurements
Advanced Procurement Plans
Procurements over $1 million or requiring special handling Chief Engineer reviewed these plans with the Oakland Operations Procurement Manager. Saves time, avoids conflict and wasted motion.

Weekly meetings with the SLAC procurement manager
Resolve problems Improve communications Promote Teamwork

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Procurements
Managing Suppliers
Identify, Major Procurements, Critical Path Procurements, and Problem Vendors Establish intermediate milestones Visit these suppliers in person Work with them to solve problems
Specifications Partial Shipments Help them plan and anticipate problems

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Managing Float
Avoid “If I am not last, I am on schedule”
Generates additional unplanned costs. Adds risk by reducing float Reduces opportunity for early commissioning

Monitor the float of “off critical” paths

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Milestone Report
Activity ID Activity Description Projected Finish Total float Baseline Finish TF -1 Mo. TF -2 Mos. TF -3 Mos. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

MILESTONE LEVEL 0 - SECRETARY OF ENERG
MS1001 MS1010 MS1020 MS1025 Approval of Mission Need Limited Approval of New Start Full Approval of New Start Approval to Proceed with Construction 10/29/93A 01/03/94A 04/15/94A 06/21/94A 10/29/93 01/03/94 04/15/94 04/30/94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MILESTONE LEVEL 1- OFFICE OF ENERGY RESEARC
MS2000 MS2010 MS2030 MS2040 MS2050 MS2070 MS2080 MS2090 Approve Start of Project BSR Complete (Approval to proceed w/PEP II PEP Removal Complete First Production Klystron Delivered Accelerator Readiness Review Complete HER Installation Complete LER Installation Complete Electron-Positron Beams Collide - PEP2 Proj Comp 01/03/94A 08/12/94A 11/15/94A 06/07/96A 04/15/97A 08/29/97A 06/10/98 07/28/98 14 45 01/03/94 09/30/94 03/31/95 06/30/96 03/31/97 03/31/98 06/30/98 09/30/98 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 60

MILESTONE LEVEL 2 - OAKLAND DOE PROJECT MG
MS3000 MS3010 MS3020 MS3030 MS3060 MS3070 MS3080 Start Project Complete Business Strategy Group Review Technical Safety Review - PSAD Approved PMCS Evaluation Period Start Complete 1.2 MW Klystron Test R&D PMCS Approval by Project Office Electron Bypass and Extraction Lines Complete 01/03/94A 05/31/94A 06/29/94A 10/28/94A 02/28/95A 02/07/95A 08/14/95A 01/03/94 05/31/94 06/29/94 11/30/94 02/28/95 03/31/95 07/31/95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Start Date Finish Date Data Date

09/01/93 06/25/99 01/28/98

Early Bar Progress Bar Critical Activity

PEP-II Project DOE Milestone Schedule

© Primavera Systems, Inc.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

E-Beam Welder – Personal Attention

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

LER Magnets – Visit Vendor

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

LER Photon Stop – Move Tasks

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Celebrate Milestones

“Golden Bolt” Ceremony – High Energy Ring Last Vacuum Connection
01/18/2002 Project Management Case Study

Project Management Meetings
Project Director's Coordination Meeting This weekly meeting involved the Project Management, the head of the Cost and Schedule group, ES&H and QA officers, and a procurement representative. This meeting provided the highest level of project coordination and system integration monitoring Design Reviews Each major section of a subsystem had a technical review at the time of completion of the preliminary design and prior to major procurement and/or construction

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

PEP-II RF Cavity

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

RF Cavity

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

RF Cavity Production

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

RF Cavity

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Stress and Temperature Analysis

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

“PEP Rallies”
Participants were bussed to one of the laboratories. The Project Director would give an overview of the status of the project. The participants would tour the local facilities. Time was set aside for food and conversation. Helped build a sense of teamwork between the organizations.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

“PEP Rallies”

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

DOE Reviews
Weekly DOE/PEP-II Meeting Held between the DOE Project Manager, the Project Director and relevant staff to discuss current business and issues.

Monthly Review Held between the DOE Project Manager, the Project Director and their staffs to review the current status of project work and to discuss outstanding issues.

Semiannual Review (Lehman Review) A thorough review of the project's technical cost, schedule and management performance held by DOE/ER. Presentations by key project personnel addressed issues agreed to in advance by DOE and the Project Director.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Configuration Control Board
CCB Chairman: The PEP-II Project Director. The Chairman reviews and may approve changes that come before the CCB. Configuration Manager: The Chief Engineer. He manages change control activities, maintains and enforces control procedures, organizes the agenda for change control meetings, and ensures changes are properly evaluated and documented. Board Members: In addition to the CCB Chairman and the Configuration Manager, the Deputy Director, Deputy for Accelerator Physics, Cost and Schedule Manager, and the System Managers. All System Managers must review every change to assess impact and ensure that interfaces have been properly considered. The Cost and Schedule Manager must review every change to evaluate the impact to overall Project cost and schedule.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Configuration Control Log

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Configuration Control Thresholds
PEP-II PROJECT CHANGE CONTROL THRESHOLD SUMMARY Acquisition Exec (Level 0) Change of Mission Program (Level 1) Changes in BFactory configuration or Key Technical Design Parameters as defined in Table H-1. DOE Project (Level 2) Changes that affect ES&H requirements. Contractor (Level 3) Changes in system requirements or design which do not Changes in affect Key Technical conventional facilities Design parameter as that do not affect Key defined in Table H-1. Technical Design parameters nor accelerator configuration. Greater than a 3 but Any change to less than a 6-month project schedule that delay in a Level 0. is not defined as a Level 0, 1, or 2 Greater than a 3 but milestone. less than a 6-month delay in a Level 1 or 2 milestone as defined in Table B-1. Any change in cost Any change in cost at greater than 10% at WBS level 3. change control level 2 per Table I-1. Technical

Schedule

Greater than 6month change in Level 0 Milestone, as defined in Table B-1.

Greater than a 6month delay in a Level 0 or 1 milestone as defined in Table B-1.

Cost

Any change to the TEC or TPC greater than +/-$50 Million. Any single change greater than +/-$50 Million within TEC/TPC. Excludes directed changes.

Any change in TEC/TPC. Any single change to WBS Level 2 greater than +/-$10 M. Any change in cost to the TEC/TPC at change control level 1 per Table I-1

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Contingency Management
At project initiation, contingency funds amounted to $33 Million (23%) with an EAC of $144 Million. Contingency was calculated on a system by system basis. Then the contingency was lumped together and controlled by the Project Director. System Managers did not have an assigned contingency. They had to request assignment of contingency funds from the project contingency through the Change Control Process.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Operational Readiness
The PEP-II facility is operated by the Operations Section of the SLAC Accelerator Department in accordance with the SLAC Guidelines for Operations. These documents define the roles, responsibilities and authorities of the physicists, engineers, and technicians involved in the operation of accelerator systems at SLAC, and specify guidelines governing maintenance, operator training, and responses to a variety of circumstances which may arise in accelerator operations. These were modified for the new PEP-II equipment (e.g. equipment specific lock and tag procedures)

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Operational Readiness – 1st Stage
The PEP-II facility was commissioned in stages. In the first stage, the injector system will be brought into operation, generating and accelerating beams of electrons and positrons with characteristics suitable for eventual use in filling the PEP-II storage rings. This stage was within the existing safety envelope. It required a full review and approval by SLAC's internal safety review system, but a formal Accelerator Readiness Review (ARR) was not be required.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Operational Readiness – 2nd Stage
The second stage of the PEP-II commissioning involved transporting beams into the PEP tunnel and injecting into portions of the HER and LER rings. At this point, the PEP-II personnel protection system and beam containment systems was complete and certified, although the installation of accelerator components will not yet be complete in the Interaction Region and some parts of the PEP tunnel. Prior to initiating the second stage of commissioning, a formal Accelerator Readiness Review was conducted. This review was conducted by the project management and approved by the DOE Project Manager.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Completion

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Project Completion

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

PEP-II Dedication Ceremony

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Performance

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Lessons Learned
Use a central PMCS. Use the reports from this system at reviews. The excuse that the PMCS data is wrong is unacceptable. Managers are expected to correct any errors. Avoid “odd man out scheduling”. Don’t allow systems to automatically slip their schedule because another system has slipped. Use a vertical organization. Responsibilities are clear. Matrix organizations muddy the water. A new division was created to build PEP-II.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Lessons Learned
Use phased commissioning if possible. Bring on upstream systems as early as possible. This allows you to find problems sooner and closes out the costs. It creates clear milestones. Don’t procrastinate on hard decisions. For example, work may need to be moved from one collaborator. Use both internal and external reviews to assure the quality of the designs.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Lessons Learned
For Congress: Fund projects on the original funding profile The best way to control cost is to stay on schedule. This often means added cost in the short term will save money overall. Celebrate milestones and, particularly, the completion of the project. Pay attention to team building.

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

PEP-II Dedication Ceremony

01/18/2002

Project Management Case Study

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close