1 / 28

IMWG First phase results & plans

IMWG First phase results & plans. J. De Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander. Contents. Preamble Use cases analysis Boundary conditions & roles A taste of the tool Plans and organization. Preamble.

hagop
Download Presentation

IMWG First phase results & plans

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. IMWGFirst phase results & plans J. De Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  2. Contents • Preamble • Use cases analysis • Boundary conditions & roles • A taste of the tool • Plans and organization J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  3. Preamble End of January, IMWG mandate was sent by R. Saban to GS, BE, PH, TE, HSE department leaders and LHC experiments technical coordinators Proposal is to provide • One single database of intervention data incl. the common as well as (potentially) client specific intervention data. • One workflow engine (EDH based). • A web tool to input work declarations to plan, schedule, prepare and coordinate all the activities. • Standardized reporting facilities • Standardized interface to CMMS, ADAMS… • Standardized interface to clients. J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  4. Preamble • End May  • End June The Intervention Management Working Group received the mandate of: • Identifying the use cases of each activity and actor. • Defining a milestone plan and prioritize the implementation of the different use cases • Provide core module by end of 2011. • Following up the development and reporting back to management J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  5. Use cases analysis J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  6. Use case analysis • Coordination teams: ALICE, ATLAS, booster, CMS, LHCb, LHC machine, PS, SPS • Equipment groups: EL, CV, EPC, ASE • Safety unit: RP, HSE (AET) Presented their own process & wishes Informal discussions with other equipment groups and strong link with CMMWG See Web site: https://aistools.cern.ch/docs/display/AISP/LHC J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  7. Use case analysis: coordination teams In Feb. 10’ audits made of CMS and LHC machine process (with CMS, GS, LHC machine, OP-TI) for the (future) development of ACT and WAT  Workflow were very similar Process of the other coordination teams showed that • Practices are also similar • Specificities do exist, but are not incompatibles • Need for an Advanced &unique Computerized system • Need for a robust and supported tool J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  8. Use case analysis: Equipment groups • One entry for all the areas • Strong link with Computerized Maintenance Management System • Schedule functionalities J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  9. Use cases • Announce work • Attach safety document as needed • Announce work from list of ODMs • CLONE! Important functionality • EN/CV: limit “submit for approval” to authorized people • Visits are also interventions • View Gantt • Affect resources to task (or WP) • Named lists of people. “Teams” • Approve work • View list of planned interventions • View details • Link requests to RP piquet interventions (done now for SPS) J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  10. Equipment groups, Announce work Intervention database A single input tool to inform everybody!

  11. Equipment groups, Announce work Intervention database A single input tool to inform everybody!

  12. More use cases • Re-schedule (modify dates) on Gantt • Import&ExportMSProject files • Is this necessary if there is a GANTT view? • Manage safety information • Link lock out documents (TE/ABT) • Manage dose rates • Link to DIMR documents (! Must be driven by RP and RGE rules. Unclear at this point) • Link with Engineering Change Requests • Link to access system for non LHC interventions • Risk management • Link to list of risks • Predefined list of risks based on location and dates* • Include detector “planning” in schedule • Magnet on/off, calibration, … • Link several interventions in one “work package” • E.g. consignation, vacuum, transport, magnet, … • Could be very useful for planning since one task is dependent on another • Link interventions • In project fashion, “cannot start before”, “cannot end before”, … J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  13. Eq. groups, create from ODM Possibility to re-use ODM information and link To work packages and tasks. Intervention database J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  14. View list of interventions • List flexible in terms of output columns and search criteria • Eq. group wants to see own interventions • TI wants to see all interventions of the day • LHC-OP wants to see pending interventions for a location with duration less than n hours, • MEF wants to see all interventions planned for a certain period, or all interventions in a certain state • … J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  15. View details of intervention • Report • View all(?) details of intervention • Link to relevant documents (safety, ODM, any EDMS doc, etc) • Possibility to generate your own reports according to needs and interest. J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  16. Boundary conditions & roles J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  17. Input forms • Fast and streamlined to user needs • These forms will be used very often and must be optimized. • It is worth the effort developing specialized forms for different types of users • Flexible • Core information the same across the board • Additional information by location (by user?) e.g. CMS magnet, LHCb data taking flag, • Needs WILL evolve. J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  18. Open database • Leave direct DB access possible to users • CMS ACT tool must be able to keep current user interfaces • Some users need to integrate intervention data in own tools (TI dashboard, …) • Project will NOT be able to cater for ALL needs for all users. Standard functionality delivered, special development open to users. • Data structures stable over time, yet flexible J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  19. Centralized location management • Intervention management tool to work with valid locations • Locations relate to access control, to risks, to equipment, etc. • Today too many reference lists of locations • Patrimony, LHC layout, CMS ACT, … • Building numbers, sectors, vacuum sectors, cryo sectors, GPS co-ordinates, building names, … • Appoint one service responsible • Keep up to date list of valid locations • Allow additions as necessary J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  20. A taste of the tool J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  21. Plans and organization J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  22. New Tool - modules Schedule module GMAO - ODM Import-Export module Safety modules Preparation Catalog of intervention Approval Location / Risks Follow-up RP module Close Consign. module Reports & filters SIP (online state) module Export (excel) module J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  23. Organization • In order to • progress quickly • Avoid round trips • You get the tool and screens you want • Our proposal is to create sub working groups who will study one module. • The IMWG will meet each two weeks to review the proposals of the sub working groups J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  24. Priority 1: Core functionalities • From a declaration to its approval • Including generation of safety forms (AET, fire permit, IS37) • linked to the access system & TIOC list • Including basic reports and link to documentation management • Including data service layer (ACT) • Workflow • Data model • Problems of locations need to be clear, or at least the structure Preparation Approval Follow-up Close J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  25. Next phases: Other functionnalities • Define priorities between: • Advanced schedule module • Maintenance Management module • Catalog of intervention • Flexible filters and reports • Safety and documentation module (ECR, other safety documents: PPSPS, VIC..) • Location vs risks vs time • RP module • Lock-out module J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  26. Sub-Working groups CORE J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  27. Thanks for your attention! J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

  28. Develop ROLE concept • WAT task specifies long list of individuals who could be involved in the intervention • CERN access control management forces each person to ask for all the access he needs and the manager to sign for all persons who ask. • A role based system would allow • a task to be carried out by “two electricians”, rather than by a list of 30 persons • an access control manager to give “TI operators” access to B513 and not individuals who change every so often • supervisors to design roles for persons J. de Jonghe, K. Foraz, M. Jaekel, P. Sollander

More Related