GLAST Large Area Telescope: Baseline Review Preparations Tanya Boysen

1. Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope GLAST Large Area Telescope: Baseline Review Preparations Tanya Boysen Stanford Linear Accelerator Center LAT Project Controls Manager tkb@slac.stanford.edu

2. Baseline Review Preparations Outline • Baseline Preparations • Technical (Scope) • Schedule • Cost • Recommendations from February Review • Plan for Completion T. Boysen 2

3. Baseline Preparations • Technical (Scope) • WBS complete for 12 subsystems; 1 still to be confirmed. • Subsystem managers responsible for technical baseline documents. All subsystem L2 and L3 requirements written and reviewed. • Schedule • All inputs have been received from subsystem managers. • Half are completed, half are being actively iterated with PMCS team. • Cost • All cost estimates received from subsystem managers. • 4 complete; the rest are being actively iterated (most of these iterations concern some final detail). T. Boysen 3

4. February Review Recommendations Management Recommendation #4 • “Develop an integrated, resource loaded schedule and cost estimate.” • Current statistics: • 6080 Schedule Activities • 6300 Schedule Relationships • 200 Work Packages T. Boysen 4

5. Status of PMCS Inputs T. Boysen 5

6. Status of PMCS Inputs (cont’d) T. Boysen 6

7. Have established and communicated a plan for the monthly cost/schedule status cycle. Have been collecting actual cost information since March. First complete cycle conducted (data for June). Educated the participants on the process and the reports. Examined variances to plan. Status as of August 30 will support the baseline review. Monthly Status Cycle T. Boysen 7

8. June, 2001 Status T. Boysen 8

9. June, 2001 Status T. Boysen 9

10. February Review Recommendations Schedule & Funding Recommendation #1 • “Continue to formalize and complete the integrated schedule, focusing on establishing the critical paths for each subsystem.” • Currently in the last stages of schedule development: • Identifying key milestones/levels • Creating linkages between subsystems • Checking schedule logic • Critical path analysis has begun, and will be fully realized by mid-September T. Boysen 10

11. February Review Recommendations Schedule & Funding Recommendation #2 • “Include all activities in the integrated schedule, including non-costed and foreign activities.” • Entire project scope in the schedule. Schedule & Funding Recommendation #3 • “Ensure that sufficient slack exists for the individual subsystem schedules.” • Six-month launch delay • LAT integration delayed by three months T. Boysen 11

12. February Review Recommendations Schedule & Funding Recommendation #4 • “Introduce a milestone hierarchy into the Project Management Control System.” • L1, L2, L3 milestones identified and agreed upon by Althouse, Lambros, Valle. • L4 milestones identified by subsystem managers, being reviewed by the IPO. T. Boysen 12

13. Milestones to Level 3 T. Boysen 13

14. Milestones to Level 3, cont’d T. Boysen 14

15. February Review Recommendations Cost Estimate Recommendation #1 • “Core members of PMCS team in place as quickly as possible to allow adequate time to transfer technology and information from the consultants to the permanent team, and to provide a smooth transition into the implementation phase of the project.” • Will develop a blended team of AIM consultants and regular SLAC employees, to optimize issues of continuity, expertise, and cost. • Currently recruiting for two Project Controls Analyst positions at SLAC. • AIM presence will not decrease until transition to a blended team is achieved. T. Boysen 15

16. Clark Rhoads AIM Margaret Smith AIM Diane Trapp AIM George Cooper AIM GLAST/LAT PMCS Organization Tanya Boysen SLAC Project Controls Manager Jeff Chan AIM T. Boysen 16

17. February Review Recommendations Cost Estimate Recommendation #2 • “Complete a bottoms-up resource loaded cost and schedule estimate for the GLAST project to support the baseline review. Estimate qualifications should be provided describing the estimate, such as quotes or engineering estimates for M&S costs, or fully loaded institutional labor rates for manpower costs.” • Labor rates confirmed with all institutions. • Basis of estimate complete for 4 subsystems. T. Boysen 17

18. February Review Recommendations Cost Estimate Recommendation #3 • “Perform a bottoms-up contingency analysis based upon the appropriate parameters at the lowest WBS for the LAT project to support the baseline review. Resulting contingencies should be explicitly identified and easily viewed.” • 6 subsystems have completed contingency analyses. • Using same contingency method as BABAR, weighting technical, design, cost, and schedule risks. T. Boysen 18

19. February Review Recommendations Cost Estimate Recommendation #4 • “Manpower should be tracked explicitly as FTE’s in the Project Management Control System.” • Developing plans for manpower via the resource-loaded schedule development, for both funded and contributed manpower. • 3 of the subsystems have completed manpower plans, the remainder are iterating or on “one last little detail.” • Working with participating institutions to enable monthly reporting of actual manpower levels. 3 are successfully reporting manpower. T. Boysen 19

20. Plan for Completion • LAT budget meeting August 15 • Cost & schedule inputs received and incorporated into PMCS by August 31 • Work package planning • Schedule integration • Critical path analysis – mid-September • Receive August actual cost information - September 17 • Identify and review variances • Set Performance Measurement Baseline – first week of October. • Schedule = Performance = Actuals (for historical data) • Submit baseline material – October 15. T. Boysen 20

21. Looking Forward • Documentation and instruction (October). • Work authorization agreements to communicate and formalize annual expectations from the top down (October). • LAT Project Controls web page (November). T. Boysen 21