1 / 27

Contractor Assurance in Science

Contractor Assurance in Science. Contractor Assurance System Overview Young-Kee Kim Deputy Director, Fermilab June 13, 2011. Outline of Presentation. Where do the requirements come from? Contract DOE Office of High Energy Physics Generally accepted scientific standards

claral
Download Presentation

Contractor Assurance in Science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Contractor Assurance in Science Contractor Assurance System Overview Young-Kee Kim Deputy Director, Fermilab June 13, 2011

  2. Outline of Presentation • Where do the requirements come from? • Contract • DOE Office of High Energy Physics • Generally accepted scientific standards • Hierarchy of requirements/expectations • Strategic Plan for the field (national) • Fermilab defined and evolving role within the national strategic plan • Implementation of individual projects/programs at Fermilab • Assurance processes in place • National Advisory Committees: HEPAP and its subpannels (P5, PASAG) • Fermilab Advisory Committees: Physics (PAC) and Accelerator (AAC) • Peer reviews by DOE and FRA • Fermilab management systems • CAS implementation for Science • Timescale and deliverables • Science program – structure Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  3. Where do the requirements come from? Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  4. Hierarchy of Requirements • Fermilab is the major component of the national strategic plan and as such plays an important role at all levels: • Input to the national strategic plan • Roles defined in the national strategic plan • Programs and projects that are aligned and support the national strategic plan National Strategic Plan Fermilab Role in the National Plan Fermilab Programs and Projects Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  5. Fermilab provides major input for the national strategic plan working with the community. For example: Steering Group (2007) provided the principal input for the current national plan described by the HEPAP Supanel P5 (2008) Major revisions to the national strategic plan occur every few years Deputy Director has management responsibility for generating that input Inputs are developed by task forces and workshops working jointly with the community and vetted principally by the Fermilab Physics Advisory Committee before being presented to DOE and its advisory panels. Once a national plan such as the P5 Plan (2008) is accepted by DOE, or we receive other recommendations from national advisory committees such as PASAG, Fermilab adjusts its plans to be aligned with the national plan. The relation of Fermilab to the national strategic plan is reviewed by Fermilab Advisory Committees (Physics: PAC, and Accelerator: AAC) FRA Board of Directors and Subcommittees DOE Institutional Review and numerous reviews of the various aspects of the Fermilab program National Strategic Plan Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  6. Fermilab’s Role in the National Plan • The national strategic plan organizes the field in three domains: Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  7. Fermilab’s Role in the National Plan • Energy Frontier: • Tevatron program reviewed through regular programmatic reviews by PAC, AAC, FRA Board and DOE reviews • Fermilab is the lead lab for support of the LHC accelerator (ad-hoc specific reviews) and the CMS detector and physics (specific review by the NSF/DOE JOG) • Fermilab is the lead lab in Muon Collider R&D (specific review by MUTAC and MCOG and ad-hoc reviews by DOE), and a lead lab of the ILC (ILCSGA and ad-hoc reviews by DOE) • Intensity Frontier: • Fermilab’s accelerator facilities after the Tevatron shutdown concentrate on the intensity frontier aimed at world leadrship in the study of neutrinos and rare processes • Aligned with the P5 plan for the US program • Initiatives selected with advice from PAC and AAC; reviewed by FRA Board, its subcommittee and FRA Visiting Committee; DOE programmatic and project reviews • Cosmic Frontier: • Major programs in dark matter, dark energy and ultra-high energy cosmic rays • Aligned with the P5 plan and with the PASAG recommendations; internally reviewed by advisory committees for program selection and by PAC • Reviewed through regular programmatic reviews by PAC, FRA Board and ad-hoc DOE reviews Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  8. Fermilab’s Role in the National Plan Budget • To insure consistency of the overall plan and realistic expectations, we work closely with the DOE in budget formulation and adjustments through the year • Annual laboratory plan, priorities and budget briefing to OHEP • Continuous updates and adjustment throughout the year Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  9. Fermilab’s Role in the National Plan • Continuous updates and monitoring to match Fermilab’s role in the national strategic plan with available resources is done by the senior management team at Fermilab and through weekly meetings of the Fermilab senior management team and FSO manager with the leadership of the DOE OHEP • Fermilab’s overall role within the US plan is reviewed and presented to • the Strategic Planning Subcommittee of the FRA Board 3 times a year • the High Energy Advisory Panel (HEPAP) on a periodic basis • the P5 and other subpanels of HEPAP on a periodic basis • the DOE Office of Science laboratory planning presentation once a year • the PAC twice a year, the AAC once a year • the DOE S&T review once a year • the DOE through the budget formulation presentation once a year • ad hoc presentations as required by the DOE Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  10. Fermilab’s Role in the National Plan Workforce Planning • Workforce planning to carry out Fermilab’s role in the national strategic plan • Fermilab has a mechanism, OHAP (Organization and Human Asset Plan), to review the skills across the entire laboratory and guide the evolution of the workforce to carry out the laboratory’s mission. This annual OHAP process (started in 2007): • identifies the current staff and their skill sets (more than 200 skill sets were identified), • reviews the timeline and workforce needs of current and future programs and projects, • analyses differences between current skills and skill sets needed for future programs and projects, and • provides recommendations for the evolution of the workforce – various task forces and scientists survey (5-year plan). Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  11. Individual Programs and Projects • Individual programs are monitored continuously through • Regular meetings between lab management and program leaders • Physics Advisory Committee. It meets twice a year for a multi-day review of selected programs and projects • To insure best development and use of accelerators, the Fermilab Accelerator Advisory Committee meets once a year to review accelerators and future plans on accelerators • FRA BoD Visiting Committee yearly review, reported to FRA BoD • DOE in-depth comparative reviews organized by “Budget and Reporting Category” (B&R Codes) across all the national laboratories. These reviews are carried out every three years for a given B&R • DOE’s annual S&T reviews (3 days) of operations, science and technology. • DOE Institutional Reviews (4 days) of the whole program (S&T review and research review). These reviews have just been restarted and are meant to be every four years Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  12. Individual Programs and Projects • Individual projects meet the DOE Poject Management Order and are monitored continuously through • Application of Earn Value Management System with monthly reports • Directors ad-hoc reviews • Project Management Group (PMG) that brings together the lab management, FSO representative, mangers of the project and relevant resource managers on roughly a monthly schedule • “Lehman” project reviews • Individual projects and programs are supported by and comply with laboratory wide systems • Integrated Safety Management, ISO 14001 and OSHAS 18001 • Integrated Quality Assurance • Engineering Standards • Documentation Standards Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  13. Assurance Processes in Place Information (dates, charge, presentations, report) available on Web Primary focus Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  14. Assurance Processes in Place On-going efforts towards higher efficiency • We have processes in place. • There are redundant reviews for similar topics, thus less efficient • Efforts towards higher efficiency • PAC meetings: reduced from 3 to 2 times a year (2009) • ARRA meetings (COO, FSO representative, Project manager, …) • Weekly meetings (early FY09)  Monthly meetings (Jan. 2010)  Quarterly meetings (Apr. 2010) • FRA Board meetings: considering to reduce from 3 to 2 times a year • FRA Visiting Committee reviews: members could attend the DOE annual S&T or Institutional Review instead of its own review Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  15. Assurance Processes in Place Reviews for new projects NOvA as an example 2-3 times a year DOE and Director’s reviews on NOvA project DOE S&T, Institutional reviews, PAC, FRA, FRA VC, … Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  16. CA Implementation in Science timescale and deliverables Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011 • Existing documents: e.g. • Quality Assurance Guidelines for Scientific Research (Aug. 29, 2009) http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OQBP/index/oqbp_active_procedures/QA_Guidelines_for_Scientific_Research_Rev_001.pdf • Procedures for Experimenters; PFX (May 17, 2011) http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/PFX/PFX.pdf • Map science documentation and practices to contract requirements; Review policies, determine needs and change if necessary; Identify additional documentation or required updates • Targeted due date is December 2011 – January 2012 • Management System Description (MSD) • Awaiting MSD document structure to be finalized • Targeted due date is to have approved MSD by March 31, 2012

  17. CA Implementation in Science Quality Assurance Guidelines for Scientific Research Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  18. CA Implementation in Science Quality Assurance Guidelines for Scientific Research Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  19. CA Implementation in Science Procedures for Researchers Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  20. CA Implementation in Science Structure Model:Levels 1, 2 & 3 Organization's approach to implement a system to fulfill the laboratory mission and requirements of the prime contract. Defines functions and tasks of management and/or service(s) Constitute a core business function or support function. This is not an organization chart: it describes CAS documentation ownership Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  21. Fermilab Organization Overall Projects: Large (>$750M): reports to Director Medium ($150M – $750M): reports to Associate Lab Director Small (<$150M): reports to Division Head Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  22. Fermilab Organization Office of Program and Project Support Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  23. CA Implementation in Science Science Program – Structure: Level 1 & 2 Science Program Young-Kee Kim This is not an organization chart: it describes CAS documentation ownership Accelerators Stuart Henderson Scientific Projects Peter Garbincius Particle Physics Research Greg Bock Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  24. CA Implementation in Science Science Program – Structure: Accelerators Major Processes Science Program Young-Kee Kim This is not an organization chart: it describes CAS documentation ownership Accelerators Stuart Henderson Scientific Projects Peter Garbincius Particle Physics Research Greg Bock Linear Accelerator Booster Accelerator External Beams Tevatron Main Injector Accelerator Development Accelerator Research Antiproton Recycler Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  25. CA Implementation in Science Science Program – Structure: Science Projects Major Processes Science Program Young-Kee Kim This is not an organization chart: it describes CAS documentation ownership Accelerators Stuart Henderson Scientific Projects Peter Garbincius Particle Physics Research Greg Bock MicroBooNE SLI-UUP Project X DES NOvA LBNE Mu2e SuperCDMS Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  26. CA Implementation in Science Science Program – Structure: Particle Physics Research Major Processes Science Program Young-Kee Kim This is not an organization chart: it describes CAS documentation ownership Accelerators Stuart Henderson Scientific Projects Peter Garbincius Particle Physics Research Greg Bock Scientific Publications Theory Experiment Proposals Research programs Detector Technology Development Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

  27. Questions? Contractor Assurance in Science, Young-Kee Kim, June 13, 2011

More Related