SECTION I

1. SECTION I Introduction

2. This page intentionally left blank

3. Introductions • Recognition of the Review Committee and Gemini • Introductions

4. Overview of the Presentation • We will start with the current status of the project including an overview of the project schedule, summary of the opto-mechanical design, electrical design, systems design, and the cost performance to date. • The summary of the committee report items will include an issues compliance matrix, and address specific committee concerns. • In the project overview section we will present both the plan to the RR and the plan to completion. A discussion of the remaining issues between Gemini and NOAO is included. • Project management will cover the GNIRS project organization, the schedule, critical path, remaining capital and labor costs, cost performance tracking, reporting, etc. • The new GNIRS configuration will be presented in summary to familiarize the committee with the new instrument design. We will present examples of the requirements flowdown process, the top level configuration, and system integration. • Risk ID and mitigation is planned for the second day and will address all risk items previously pointed out by the committee plus additional items related to the new design, and the plan to mitigate these risks. • Sidney Wolff will then conclude our presentations and we will adjourn for the committee to caucus.

5. Overview of the Presentation • Current status of the project • Summary of committee report items • Project overview • Project management • The new GNIRS configuration • Risk identification and mitigation plan • Conclusion • Committee Caucus

6. This page intentionally left blank

7. Committee Charge • What is NOAO’s current cost estimate to complete GNIRS and on what schedule? • Is this estimate consistent with NOAO’s planned resources over the duration of the GNIRS project? • Have the technical issues (AURA report attached for reference) identified by the AURA review committee been addressed adequately to permit continuation of GNIRS? • Does NOAO now have in place an appropriate management structure to track, plan, and control resources to ensure that GNIRS will be delivered on time and budget? • Are there any approaches to designing and fabricating GNIRS that can significantly accelerate the planned delivery, e.g., through the injection of additional NOAO resources, outsourcing the fabrication of components, etc.? • Have all contractual matters involving out of scope work, definition of work, and interfacing requirements been settled with IGPO?

8. GNIRS Reprogramming Addresses All Committee Report Items • USGP WPM meets nearly daily with PM • All information USGP requests is provided, in the format requested • USGP attends all weekly staff meetings, notified of all other meetings in advance • PM solicits USGP input frequently • More involvement of USGP in daily GNIRS activities • Actively soliciting IGPO input • Responsive to IGPO concerns • More direct communication with NOAO Director • Between Project and USGP WPM • Systems engineering is a critical capability • Meets all technical requirements • Meets original weight requirements

9. GNIRS Reprogramming Addresses All Committee Report Items • Clearly defined NOAO/USGP relationship • We have a new philosophy of working • IGPO is a customer • Our project is open (e.g., web site) • We have a new management structure • Full time Project Manager who reports directly to NOAO Director • USGP WPM reports to NOAO Director • GNIRS has new engineering & systems team • Engineers do the design • Formed systems engineering team (3 scientists plus PM) • GNIRS is a new configuration • Optical design is essentially intact • Repackaged or redesigned entire instrument • Addresses all technical issues in the AURA committee report

10. This page intentionally left blank

11. SECTION II Summary of Committee Report Items

12. Committee Report Identified 9 Basic Concerns • New design addresses technical issues • Systems engineering guided the design effort • We have addressed the risk items and have a mitigation plan • We have the best engineers in the organization on the project • The project has high priority and reports directly to Sidney Wolff • The IFU and OIWFS interfaces and integration have been addressed • The instrument integration will be led by the project scientists • Project Management shortcomings have been addressed • We are confident the instrument will meet requirements

13. Committee Report Identified 9 Basic Concerns • Unresolved technical issues • No rigorous requirements flow down • Lack of risk ID and mitigation plan • Capability of engineering staff • Organizational hierarchy • IFU and OIWFS integration issues • Lines of responsibility for systems integration • Project management • Overall technical capabilities of the GNIRS instrument

14. This page intentionally left blank

15. Committee Report Pointed Out 5 Technical Risk Areas • Cool down time and thermal gradients • Optical focus, alignment, mirror finish and baffling • Handling frame and local handling • OIWFS modularity and integration/test • IFU ICD and space constraints

16. This page intentionally left blank

17. Compliance Matrix

18. This page intentionally left blank

19. SECTION III Current Status of the GNIRS Project

20. Activities Chart to Restart Review • Major milestones: • 1/18 Hawaii review • 2/10 OIWFS ICD deficiencies identified • 3/9 Durham IFU meeting • 3/15 Interim review #1 • 5/25 Interim review #2 • 6/21 Baseline completed for RR • 6/1,7/2 ICD reviews • 7/20-21 Restart Review • Major activities: • Preliminary opto-mechanical layout • Cold motor T&E • Final configuration design • Requirements flowdown • Electrical systems design • Restart Reviewpreparation

21. Activities Chart to Restart Review

22. Projected Cost Performance Through July 31, 1999 • Labor budget: $443.8K • Projected thru 8/1: $337.1K • Capital budget: $ 59.0K • Projected thru 8/1: $ 75.0K • Total under plan $ 90.7K

23. Restart Review work is approximately 89% complete • Budgeted labor dollars through RR is 76% spent • RR budgeted non-payroll capital is 127% spent • Performance (1/1-7/30) • BCWS = $443.8K (budgeted cost of work scheduled) • BCWP = $394.9K (budgeted cost of work performed, total project to RR) • ACWP = $337.1K (actual cost of work performed total project to RR) • CPI = 1.17 (cost performance index = BCWP/ACWP) • SPI = 0.89 (schedule performance index = BCWP/BCWS) • Project is 11% behind schedule (overall to RR) • Critical path is 19% behind schedule (opto-mechanical design) • Schedule to completion takes this into account • Under-spending reflects actual costs vs average rate planning • FTE loading very close to prediction • Cost delta’s related to actual salary rated vs planning numbers

24. Reviews Prior to Restart Review • Virtual reviews solicited from • Tom O’Brien, OSU • Donald Pettie, ROE • Bobby Ulich, Kaman Aerospace • In-process reviews: • March 15 • May 25

25. Engineering Design will Finish December ‘99 • Under-estimated the opto-mechanical design task • OIWFS more complicated than anticipated • Design is mature enough to qualify for this review • Three in-process reviews held • Virtual reviews solicited from individuals outside NOAO • Reviewed by NSF and AURA in May ‘99

26. Design Status Systems • Done by the systems engineering team led by Jay Elias • Primary vehicle is the System Design Note (SDN) • Major way of communicating requirements and analysis/test results • Can be initiated by any member of the GNIRS team • Not restricted to the requirements definition • Produced for every level of the design Optical-Mechanical • Main optical bench, bulkhead structure, and thermal/structural interfaces are on critical path of the project • All mechanisms have been addressed and preliminary designs exist • More work to do on all • Final designs will be tied to results of the drive prototyping • Optical design update is complete • Only adjustments in camera lens spacing, etc., and stray light analysis remain • The preliminary mechanical design will be complete in the last quarter of this year Electrical • Details on specifics of connector panels and wiring remain to be defined • All major electrical interfaces are defined and specified • Includes planning for the integration of OIWFS hardware

27. Design Status • Systems Engineering and Requirements Flowdown Activity is 95% complete • Preliminary Opto-Mechanical Design is 81% Complete • Preliminary Electrical Design is 75% Complete

28. This page intentionally left blank

29. SECTION IV Project Overview

30. This page intentionally left blank

31. Outline • WBS • Total Project including work to RR • Project schedule • Plan to completion • Critical path • Capital and labor costs • Resource needs

32. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) • The WBS covers the entire project from January to Completion in June, 2000 • Main Elements: • Management and Reporting • Systems Engineering • Mechanical • Electronics • Software • Alignment and Integration • Deliverables • Procurement • Charge numbers are derived from the WBS

33. WBS • Chart on wall • Accounts for activities to 6th level • Contains summary rollups of costs of each work element • Main tool for tracking costs and assessing cost performance

34. Milestones • System Software Complete • Receive WFS Hardware • Integration Start • Integration Complete • System Test Complete • Deliverables • Pre-Acceptance Test • Ship to Hilo • Final Acceptance Test • Training • Complete Engineering Design • Final Manuals Complete • Analysis Complete • Mechanism Drive Prototype Complete • Prefab Review • Mechanism • Filter Wheel • Decker Slit slide • Slit Module • Prism Turret • Grating Turret • Camera Turret • Camera Focus • Environmental Cover • Acquisition Mirror

35. Project Schedule • Schedule overview to completion • Summary schedule chart • Detail schedule on wall • Project plan on wall • Highlights of the Project Plan • Plan to completion • key milestones • milestone chart

36. This page intentionally left blank

37. Critical Path • Engineering design • Prototype mechanism drive testing • Pre-Fab review • Integration and test • Camera turret assembly • Acceptance Test

38. Projected Labor and Capital Cost

39. Capital and Labor Cost • Cost to complete is $3.9 million • Includes expenditures from January 1, 1999 • Labor cost to Restart Review was $443.8K and capital cost was $75K. • Labor cost to go is $2.88 million for 519 man months • Capital cost to go is $409K, including outsourcing of fabrication items

40. This page intentionally left blank

41. Sufficient Key Resources are Committed to do this Project • Facilities are available and designated for this project effort • Shop • Lab space • Cleanroom • Test dewar • Equipment • ME’s, MD’s, IM’s are key resources to complete design and fabrication • PS(s) will be involved in and supervise integration and test • PS(s) form systems engineering team to monitor all technical activities

42. This page intentionally left blank

43. Strategy Based on New Design with Proven Concepts • No new development • Design for ease of fabrication/assembly/test • Fabrication strategy • In-house IM’s used primarily for mechanism fabrication and assembly with conventional machining • Out-sourcing to vendors where cost effective • Castings are planned for several large assemblies

44. This page intentionally left blank

45. SECTION V Project Management

46. This page intentionally left blank

47. Outline • Project organization • Management methods • Reporting • Reviews planned • Configuration control • Customer relations

48. The Project Reports Directly to Sidney Wolff • Lines of authority and responsibility • All project functions report to the Project Manager • Mechanical design is under mechanical engineering • Systems engineering has technical prerogative • GNIRS Project Staff • Project Manager Neil Gaughan • Project Scientists Jay Elias/Brooke Gregory/Dick Joyce • Mechanical Engineers Larry Goble/Gary Muller • Electrical Engineers Andy Rudeen • Optical Engineer Ming Liang • Mechanical Designers John Andrew/Dave Rosin/Eric Downey • Mechanical Tech Al Davis • Electrical Tech Ken Don • Programmer Richard Wolff • Instrument Maker 4 assigned • Project Assistant Dan Eklund • Administrative Assistant Melissa Bowersock • Draw on other ETS resources as required

49. The Project Reports Directly to Sidney Wolff

50. This page intentionally left blank