Introduction
Charge to the DOE/NASA Review Committee
In a December 19, 2000, memorandum (Appendix A) the DOE/NASA Joint Oversight Group requested Mr Daniel Lehman, Director, DOE Construction Management Support
Division, to conduct a pre-baseline review of the GLAST LAT project on February 13-15, 2001. The charge to the Review Committee was to:
Review the technical progress, including the status of R&D, relative to the scientific requirements for the instrument.
Evaluate the proposed budget, cost, and schedule profile to assess the sufficiency of funds, personnel commitment, and contingency levels, ensuring the project can be completed on time and within budget.
Assess the effectiveness of the management structures in relation to the GLAST mission organization and their connections with international collaborating institutions This evaluation should focus on their capability to deliver the Large Area Telescope (LAT) according to specified requirements, budget constraints, and the timeline set for the anticipated launch date.
The Committee, led by Mr Daniel R Lehman, Director of the DOE Division of Construction Management Support in the Office of Science, was structured into eight subcommittees Members were selected from universities, DOE National Laboratories, and NASA Space Flight Centers, with details on committee membership and subcommittee organization available in Appendix B.
The review was the first DOE/NASA review of the LAT project of a combined series that fulfills the otherwise-separate requirements of the DOE and NASA management oversight processes
The review occurred from February 13-15, 2001, at SLAC, featuring a plenary session on the first day that focused on comprehensive presentations by the LAT project management and leaders of the detector subprojects These presentations primarily referenced the Flight Proposal for GLAST.
Large Area Telescope Flight Investigation, submitted in response to AO 99-OSS-03.
On the second day, subcommittee members convened in the morning with their project counterparts to review the technical status, scope, cost, and schedule of each subsystem The well-prepared presentations facilitated productive discussions The afternoon was dedicated to subcommittee discussions and the drafting of review reports The final closeout meeting with GLAST LAT management occurred on the morning of the third day.
The assessment of technical requirements, cost estimates, schedules, and management structures primarily relied on comparisons with past experiences Compared to high energy physics detectors known to DOE reviewers, the LAT is considered a small and straightforward detector NASA reviewers were accustomed to the additional complexities associated with space qualification The cost and schedule were based on the budget outlined in the Flight Proposal, awaiting a new, detailed "bottoms-up" estimate.
The Assessment Process
The review was the first DOE/NASA review of the LAT project of a combined series that fulfills the otherwise-separate requirements of the DOE and NASA management oversight processes
The review conducted from February 13-15, 2001, at SLAC focused on overview presentations by the LAT project management and leaders of various detector subprojects These presentations primarily referenced the Flight Proposal for GLAST.
Large Area Telescope Flight Investigation, submitted in response to AO 99-OSS-03.
On the second day, subcommittee members convened with their project counterparts to review the technical status, scope, cost, schedule, and management of each subsystem The well-prepared presentations facilitated productive discussions The afternoon was dedicated to subcommittee discussions and the drafting of review reports The closeout meeting with GLAST LAT management occurred on the morning of the third day.
The assessment of technical requirements, cost estimates, schedules, and management structures primarily relied on comparisons with past experiences The Large Area Telescope (LAT) is considered a small and straightforward detector in relation to high energy physics detectors familiar to DOE reviewers NASA reviewers were accustomed to the additional complexities associated with space qualification The cost and schedule were based on the budget outlined in the Flight Proposal, awaiting a new, detailed "bottoms-up" estimate.
Technical Systems Evaluations
Tracker (WBS 4.1.4)
A feasible design for the tracker was presented and can be implemented within the available time.
The silicon sensors have been designed A suitable vendor has been identified and a first fabrication run of prototype devices is underway.
The front-end integrated circuit is straightforward and can be developed using established processes The design for the readout integrated circuit is nearly finalized and is set for fabrication in the coming months.
A strong consortium of groups in Italy has taken responsibility for assembling and testing the ladders, trays, and towers Plans for verification and testing are still rudimentary
A comprehensive schedule has been created, but it is currently too tight A detailed cost estimate from the subproject indicates a total of $8.7 million, with labor costs accounting for $4.5 million, suggesting that the overall estimate is reasonable Additionally, there is a total contingency of $1.7 million, which is exclusively allocated to materials and services, with no contingency set aside for labor.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Japan and University of California, Santa Cruz has been signed A draft MOA with the Italian groups exists
The LAT Tracker is aligned with the scientific objectives, leveraging established technology and extensive experience in high-energy physics The design is highly developed, and the Committee reviewed a viable implementation plan that fits within the available timeframe The necessary performance metrics are achievable with conventional technologies.
A seasoned group has established specifications for silicon sensors, instilling confidence in both the design and the chosen vendor Currently, a first fabrication run of prototype devices is in progress, with testing availability anticipated shortly.
The front end integrated circuit is straightforward and can be developed using established processes The design for the readout integrated circuit is nearly finalized and is expected to be submitted for fabrication in the coming months.
A web-based tracking program for monitoring status and location of all components is under development.
A detailed scheme for integrating towers into the grid has been explored, emphasizing the importance of modular sensor biasing to prevent the loss of an entire tower due to issues like noisy detectors or power supply failures Additionally, there may be further opportunities to enhance fault tolerance, warranting further analysis of specific failure modes within subsystems.
Current verification and testing plans for integrated circuits, ladders, trays, and towers are still in their early stages, necessitating more comprehensive testing procedures to align with design schedules for test systems This need spans electronic, mechanical, and thermal testing, with a notable emphasis on enhancing efforts in electronics As multiple tests often occur simultaneously towards the end of the assembly phase, it is crucial to ensure that adequate testing facilities are available when required.
Engineering resources for electronics appear to be inadequate, especially for documentation.
A detailed and comprehensive schedule has been developed with the right elements However, its current form is very tight, with delivery of the final tower scheduled for January 7,
In 2004, the project schedule was delayed by seven days due to sensor delivery issues impacting the tower assembly timeline To address this challenge, increasing the production rate and implementing more parallel assembly processes are essential Identifying potential production bottlenecks and developing mitigation plans will be crucial for progress Currently, the existing schedule lacks effectiveness in monitoring technical advancements, highlighting the need for additional "working level" milestones to enhance oversight.
A preliminary cost estimate was presented, and while there was limited time for a comprehensive assessment, the overall figure seems reasonable considering the primary cost drivers Identifying the main cost drivers and accurately allocating material and labor expenses proved challenging.
A detailed breakdown of costs and contingencies, including labor, materials, and services, is essential for effective project tracking Enhanced focus on project, cost, and schedule monitoring may be required to ensure successful outcomes.
The MOAs include clear lists of responsibilities and deliverables.
1 Identify, at least four month’s, explicit schedule contingency for delivery of the towers for final assembly
2 Add labor contingency to the cost estimate
3 Develop and review procedures for handling all high-value and mission-critical items.
4 Develop detailed test procedures beginning now.
5 Ensure adequate documentation, particularly for electronics.
6 Complete Memorandum of Agreement with the Italian groups.
Anticoincidence Detector (WBS 4.1.6)
The Anticoincidence Detector (ACD) aims for an impressive efficiency of 99.97% in rejecting charged particles, translating to an inefficiency rate of just 0.0003 Achieving this high level of performance necessitates the use of tiles with excellent light yield and ensuring the detector's hermeticity to minimize any cracks.
Segmentation of ACD should be able to maintain efficiency for gamma events (reduce self-veto due to backsplash).
Electronic noise has to be low enough not to cause more than one percent false vetos.
Major milestones for ACD subsystem
ACD & Thermal Blanket Preliminary Design Review June 2001
ACD & Thermal Blanket Critical Design Review June 2002
ACD Flight Subsystem Assembly Complete October 2003
Flight ACD Ready for Integration at SLAC January 2004
The current cost estimate for the ACD, based on the November 1999 GLAST proposal, is approximately $9.5 million, which will be funded by NASA It is important to note that a contingency analysis has not yet been conducted Below is the detailed cost breakdown for the lower level of the project.
Technology chosen for the ACD (scintillating tiles with WLS fiber readout) matches the performance requirements (fast response, hermeticity, efficiency in cosmic ray rejection, low self veto for gammas) well.
The design of the ACD remains unoptimized, with no technical drawings available for tile installation Additionally, the selection of fiber layout in the tiles could influence the mechanical support design In contrast, the electronics design is comparatively more developed.
Short-term schedule for ACD is very aggressive In particular, the Preliminary Design
Review is scheduled for June 2001 Long-term schedule (ACD delivery to SLAC by January
2004) is comfortable, assuming the design will be finalized soon.
The project's cost remains uncertain, with unknown contingencies Notably, labor estimates for mechanics and quality assurance appear low in comparison to management and electronics expenses A comprehensive bottoms-up cost estimate is currently underway.
1 Perform optimization of the optics design: a Consider using clear fibers to transmit light between tiles and photomultiplier tubes to increase light yield. b Consider a simpler layout of WLS fiber (present design has up to 30 fibers/tile, a total 145 tiles) to reduce complexity of fiber routing.
2 Perform tests (bench measurements/Monte Carlo/Balloon) to prove that scintillating fiber ribbons reduce inefficiency of the ACD in the crack region (2-3 millimeters) to the level that satisfies the physics requirements of the GLAST mission.
3 Provide complete technical drawings for mounting of tiles and readout photomultiplier tubes on the support structure.
4 Perform a full bottoms-up cost estimate, including realistic fabrication, assembly, and installation scenario, with contingency covering possible increases of cost (if design not finalized).
Calorimeter (WBS 4.1.5)
The LAT calorimeter, in conjunction with the silicon tracker, plays a vital role in reconstructing the energy of incoming photons and is essential for identifying and rejecting background noise Designed to study gamma rays within the energy range of 10 MeV to 300 GeV, the calorimeter utilizes Thallium (Tl) doped Cesium Iodide (CsI) crystals due to their high light output Each of the 16 identical modules consists of eight layers of twelve crystals arranged hodoscopically, with a total depth of 8.5 radiation lengths, ensuring that energy resolution is primarily influenced by leakage rather than gaps between crystals The calorimeter's longitudinal and transverse segmentation facilitates accurate determination of shower shapes and leakage corrections, while light asymmetry measurements from both ends of the crystals enable precise localization of energy deposition within individual crystals.
Each crystal is equipped with two PIN diodes at its ends, which face challenges due to extreme temperature fluctuations and vibrations experienced by the calorimeter The optimal approach is to adhere the diodes directly to the crystal face; however, the optical quality of the glue joints between the PIN diodes and the crystal has been found to deteriorate during temperature cycling.
It appears that only one vendor will be selected to provide the 1,600 crystals required for the calorimeter This decision is based primarily on cost considerations
The calorimeter has a mass contingency of 2 percent, necessitating careful monitoring of crystal dimensions Typically, a considerable portion of the delivered crystals approaches the upper limit of the specified tolerance, as they are cut slightly larger during production to accommodate further material removal in the final polishing process.
The estimated cost of the U.S contribution to the calorimeter is approximately $11,382.4 K, with substantial foreign contributions anticipated A contingency of around ten percent is included for the U.S share, and it is noteworthy that labor constitutes the majority of the overall expenses rather than materials.
The cost estimate for the calorimeter system has not been updated since the proposal Since that time, responsibility for the design of two Application Specific Integrated Circuits
The procurement and qualification of production ASICs have been transferred from France to the U.S at SLAC, but it remains unclear who is responsible for these final processes Additionally, these aspects have not been factored into the overall cost estimate.
The calorimeter schedule is dictated by top-down milestones and lacks resource loading, resulting in an aggressive timeline without contingency plans This schedule does not align with the funding profile, raising concerns about the availability of financial resources necessary for achieving the technical progress required to meet the tight deadlines of the Preliminary Design Report.
The analog front end ASIC design was delayed for two years because of issues internal to the French collaborators Responsibility for the design has been transferred to SLAC.
The Calorimeter Subsystem Manager is N Johnson and the Calorimeter Project Manager is
P Carosso, both from the Naval Research Laboratory The other participating U.S institution is SLAC Collaborators from France and Sweden also play important roles in the calorimeter project.
Serious issues have arisen among French institutions involved in the calorimeter project, leading to significant negative consequences, including a hold on GLAST funding by the French funding agency Currently, these institutions are reapplying for essential funding to fulfill their project responsibilities Additionally, the front-end analog ASIC has been inactive for two years due to this situation before being taken over by SLAC.
The calorimeter team possesses exceptional technical expertise, demonstrating a deep understanding of the relationship between the experiment's physics objectives and the calorimeter's performance needs They have developed numerous innovative solutions to address technical challenges, with a well-designed mechanical structure and electronics interfaces Additionally, there is ample existing expertise available to tackle any remaining technical issues effectively.
To mitigate potential schedule delays and technical issues, large crystal orders are often divided among multiple vendors While the chosen vendor has a proven track record for managing substantial orders, relying on a single supplier still carries inherent risks.
The crystal qualification tests have been well planned The Swedish partners are well organized to do the job
A contingency of ten percent is insufficient for this labor-intensive project To effectively meet the tight schedule, it is essential to have additional contingency funds available to allocate extra labor where necessary, ensuring that the project progresses on time.
A well-structured schedule is crucial for meeting imposed milestones and ensuring readiness for a specific launch date Understanding critical paths and identifying areas where additional resources can be allocated is essential for accelerating the timeline and achieving project goals efficiently.
French institutions are investing around $17 million in the calorimeter project, focusing on the procurement and testing of PIN diodes, as well as their integration with crystal modules However, ongoing disorganization and lack of commitment from the French partners pose significant risks to the calorimeter system Nevertheless, the recent recruitment of key personnel in the French team offers a glimmer of hope for improved collaboration and project stability.
1 Sign and implement Memorandum of Agreements with all international partners as soon as possible.
2 Organize the French effort and commitment to agreed upon roles, responsibilities, and schedule as soon as possible.
3 Develop an integrated bottoms-up resource loaded schedule with adequate contingency that takes into account the anticipated funding profile Re-evaluate the schedule for the Preliminary Design Report.
4 Update the cost estimate and assign an adequate contingency.
5 Resolve the PIN diode glue problems This should be given a high priority by both the Naval Research Laboratory and the French institutions.
6 Define responsibility for procurement, qualification, and testing of production ASICs and include in the schedule The source of funds and manpower for this activity should be identified and included in the cost estimate.
Reconstruction and Analysis (Ground Software)
Key elements of the Science Analysis Software have been in development for an extended period, with successful prototypes created for the simulation and reconstruction of particle interactions within the instrument This progress offers valuable insights into the necessary efforts for this crucial aspect of the software project.
Despite the relatively low data rate and the simplicity of the detector, the challenges of software and computing in this project are manageable compared to large high-energy physics experiments However, the development of Scientific Analysis Software remains a crucial element for the project's overall success.
The presented Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) closely resembled the initial material received by the Committee; however, the manpower estimates and budget have been revised, resulting in a significant increase in the overall budget.
The timeline for the Preliminary Design Report of the software did not align with the schedules of other Preliminary Design Reports and appeared to take place after the baseline review.
The major components of the project are: a The Simulation and Reconstruction Software b Analysis Infrastructure and Framework c The Data Production Facility d Scientific and Calibration Software
The first three components are well defined and much progress has already been made on items “a” and “b.” The third component is well understood but less urgent
The final component of the project remains ambiguous, particularly regarding the distribution of work among team members and the funding sources It is uncertain how much will be covered by the project's budget versus contributions from other collaborative groups or foreign entities Additionally, the role of the Science Support Center in providing resources is unclear Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity concerning which aspects of the calibration software and algorithms will be developed by this project and which will be sourced externally.
Resource estimates do not include “off budget” contributions even where they are important to the success of the project.
The project has chosen to adopt several high energy physics codes, including Gaudi, Root, and GEANT4, to reduce the total amount of effort This is good However, the
The committee has identified a lack of sufficient resources to support the development of high-energy physics products, particularly noting that GEANT4 requires debugging at various levels This ongoing effort is crucial and should not be overlooked or undervalued It is reasonable to allocate two full-time equivalents (FTEs) for steady-state support to address these needs effectively.
The individual Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) items reveal that simulation and reconstruction will be largely completed within the next year, requiring continuous involvement from two programmers for refinements and development support until startup Additionally, the infrastructure and framework, which includes essential activities like code release management and database support (such as ORACLE and MySQL), will demand one or two full-time programmers during the construction phase Lastly, the Data Production Facility software is also a critical component of the project.
A robust and well-documented system is essential, featuring a strong database to facilitate handover to junior programmers or operators Support for production, simulation, and calibration during construction, including balloon flight, is crucial The Committee considers the estimate of three full-time equivalent (FTE) programmers to be realistic However, they find the calibration process poorly defined and believe that the current resource estimates are insufficient.
FTE’s includes three scientists doing algorithms and one programmer to support them until 2003 After 2003, this reduces to one scientist doing algorithm development and
30 percent of an FTE programmer for support
The estimates provided rely on the contributions of the detector subsystems While the EGRET software offers a foundational model for making these estimates, it is insufficient for direct adoption A comprehensive "wish list" outlines the necessary software developments, which includes nine essential components.
FTEs, steady state, including the above mentioned calibration activity
Funding of programmers at Goddard through this project has been discussed There is also the possibility of physicists doing this off budget
It is expected that some of the work will be done by the Science Support Center
To ensure GLAST receives the necessary software on schedule, it is crucial to establish a clear agreement, despite potential misalignments between the goals and timelines of the SSC and mission physicists.
There is a very good plan but there are several issues that must be clearly resolved before it can be ready for baselining Key issues include:
Definition of project scope and responsibility especially with respect to calibration and science software.
Pinning down all off-project sources of effort and funding with MOAs and including the effort in the project.
The small group driving this initiative is managing to sustain its efforts, but it must focus on maintaining its current foundation while rapidly expanding The urgency to bolster software development for design and construction projects amplifies this need Securing funding for existing team members is crucial, as some of their support is currently uncertain.
Certain components of the software are critical to the mission and are clearly identified It is essential to include a reasonable contingency in the cost estimate to account for additional efforts and unforeseen circumstances.
Currently, these activities account for approximately 40% of the overall effort Increasing the contingency to 50% would enable the addition of a substantial yet manageable number of programmers to address schedule delays in these critical areas.
Other parts of the software are less critical and are also typically more open-ended
These have “scope contingency” and should be defined as well as possible but then be viewed as
“level of effort” and assigned only a very small dollar contingency.
The Committee has projected a 20 percent overall contingency for the project, contingent upon the full scope remaining as initially defined This estimate reflects the current understanding of the project; however, management is advised to determine the appropriate contingency once the project details are fully established.
Understanding the availability of "off budget" efforts from scientists funded through base programs is crucial In high energy physics, a substantial amount of work is contributed in this manner However, this is not as prevalent in astrophysics, primarily due to the shorter average duration of post-doctoral positions and established traditions within the discipline.
Trigger and Data Acquisition
In anticipation of the Preliminary Design Review scheduled for August 2001, requirement documents are being developed for LAT Electronic Systems, focusing on individual subsystems and key components, particularly ASICs.
The technology and design choices that have been made are prudent and do not involve any speculative technologies.
The design of various analog and digital ASICs is driven by the power, space, and channel count requirements of the electronics While the digital ASIC designs are well-conceived, they remain in development, reflecting the project's current stage The team of designers assembled for this project is expected to find the ASIC design process manageable and efficient.
Three mixed analog and digital ASICs are required for the front-end electronics of the silicon tracker, calorimeter, and ACD Recently, the responsibility for the calorimeter ASIC has been transferred to SLAC, where a new team is currently engaged in its design.
The design of the tracker and calorimeter ASICs is progressing well, with capable design teams established for each component Both teams have successfully developed partial prototypes, indicating strong advancement Additionally, the ASIC designs are effectively integrated into the overall system architecture of the LAT, ensuring a cohesive functionality.
The ACD ASIC design is currently in its initial conceptual phase, aligning with the overall development of the ACD Progress is anticipated over the next year, moving towards the prototype stage.
Flight software is being developed by a dedicated team working closely with electronics designers This small group is focused on creating and implementing software for the instrument, primarily based at SLAC.
The system's management utilizes project management tools to effectively monitor budgets and schedules A comprehensive schedule has been established to track progress in relation to the requirements of the detectors.
A very impressive and competent group of electronic designers has been assembled to work on this project The overall system design is carefully thought out and documented.
The SLAC team working on LAT electronics has limited experience in spaceflight instrumentation, highlighting the need for regular consultations with industry experts To meet NASA's stringent documentation, integration, and verification requirements, it may be necessary to hire or consult with seasoned spaceflight professionals.
It is important to manage and track the parts of the electronics being produced at remote institutions as carefully and thoroughly as the work at SLAC.
A commendable effort at analysis of failure modes and reliability has been made, and should continue.
The management of electronic subsystems has been outstanding; however, numerous tasks, including preparing requirements documents, conducting design reviews, performing balloon tests, and submitting ASICs, will demand attention in the coming year To ensure the project remains on schedule, any requests for additional resources must be addressed promptly.
It is important to fill the open position for a software engineer stationed at SLAC to develop flight software as soon as possible
1 Carefully consider the need for additional manpower to work on flight software based on the estimated needs of this project.
2 Project management should quickly heed and act upon any requests by the management of the electronic subsystem for additional assistance.
Integration and Test
The subcommittee conducted a review of the Mechanical System Design, Integration and Test, as well as the Balloon Flight components of the project However, the assessment did not include an evaluation of the reliability and quality assurance plans.
The balloon flight program is progressing well, utilizing completed tracker, calorimeter, and ACD hardware from earlier subtests With new readout software in place, this flight offers a valuable opportunity for operational software testing and data analysis development Scheduled for June 2001, the project is approximately two-thirds complete in terms of cost, with an estimated budget of around $1 million.
Mechanical system design and integration and test were reviewed together There is a common WBS manager for both.
The Mechanical System Design (MSD) task encompasses several critical components: it involves the integration and management of mechanical designs, the development of spacecraft interfaces, and ensuring reliability and quality assurance for mechanical and thermal systems Additionally, it includes system-level hardware design focused on thermal control, radiators, and grid systems Finally, the MSD task supports LAT integration and testing, subsystem integration and verification, as well as overall mission integration and testing.
Integration and test task includes: 1) management, coordination and development of
The article focuses on several key areas: first, it addresses LAT integration and testing activities; second, it emphasizes the importance of reliability and quality assurance through subsystem verification results; third, it outlines the preparation for integration and testing, including the development of LAT facilities and calibration equipment; fourth, it discusses the calibration unit and the preparation of flight LAT for integration and testing; finally, it highlights the support provided for mission integration and testing activities.
The current technical resources for the Balloon Flight initiative are sufficient, although there is competition for these resources due to the upcoming preliminary design review preparation To maximize the project's value, it is crucial to conduct rapid analysis of the balloon data The program establishes a primary focus for the software development efforts.
The Mechanical System Design and Integration and Test efforts are centralized in the project office, ensuring that these functions are effectively communicated to subprojects Each subproject has its own shadow group that collaborates on the overall verification and test plans Consequently, the same personnel who designed and built the device will also conduct parts of the verification tests While this approach aligns with the practices in high energy physics projects, it offers less independence compared to typical NASA efforts.
The project is in the process of creating a preliminary framework for calibration and verification activities While the specifics of this framework are still in development, a working group has been suggested to compile the necessary elements in the upcoming months It is essential to establish communication with the subgroups within the same timeline and to verify their capabilities regarding the desired verification activities.
This WBS item anticipates that additional integration and test support during the final assembly and checkout phase will be provided by subprojects However, the absence of a detailed verification and test plan poses challenges for WBS managers in accurately estimating the resources needed for integration and test tasks throughout the project.
The project team engaged in extensive discussions regarding the final beam test, opting to test only a select few towers instead of the entire device They evaluated the trade-offs and confirmed that this approach meets the project's requirements It is essential to conduct a thorough review of each major system test throughout the project, emphasizing technical needs and expectations while allowing sufficient time for result analysis.
The thermal and mechanical design of the grid has been through several iterations and appears adequate at this time in the project.
The LAT and GLAST projects have established a clear understanding of performance and interface documentation flow among subprojects While several high-level document drafts are available, interface documents have yet to be created, and there is currently no schedule in place for their production.
Document and information control and dissemination systems are being established.
The schedule shows minimal visible float, but there could be underlying schedule contingencies Additionally, the lack of a defined philosophy for statistical versus complete testing of components with large quantities significantly affects the testing schedules.
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) lacks clarity regarding which integration and testing components require staffing and which are purely functional The flow of funding from multiple sources, combined with insufficient scope definition, complicates the assessment of resources allocated to individual WBS items The proposed budgets are $5 million for WBS 4.1.8 and $4.7 million for WBS 4.1.9.
The subsystem manager outlined the personnel estimate within the baseline, highlighting staff ramp-up plans for FY 2001 and FY 2002 across various WBS items The project is currently conducting interviews and has made offers for two open positions.
With current staffing levels, the anticipated workload for the next six months is expected to be significant, potentially leading to personnel being overextended if challenges arise The Committee advocates for the recruitment of additional staff to enhance the existing capable team.
1 Hire an integration and test expert, now scheduled for late FY 2001, as soon as possible.
2 Complete the performance specifications, at least to Rev 0, by the time of the
3 Complete the Interface Control Documents, at least to Rev 0, by the time of the Preliminary Design Baseline Review.
4 Create the verification and test plan, working with the other subprojects, to confirm the requirements, timing, and resources required to implement this plan.
5 Include testing of the LAT by independent personnel in the verification and test plan.
Cost Estimate
GLAST management has provided a LAT baseline cost estimate of $80.7 million in real year dollars, accompanied by a contingency of $23 million, which accounts for 28.5 percent of the baseline cost Consequently, the total project cost is projected to be $103.7 million in real year dollars, as outlined in the November 1999 proposal.
LAT secures funding from two primary sources and also receives hardware support from international collaborators Although LAT has some leeway to reallocate spending between these sources, there are specific restrictions on using funds for certain tasks that are designated by only one funding source.
In Fiscal Year 2000, the project incurred actual costs of $4,251,000, while for Fiscal Year 2001, GLAST plans to allocate $11,888,000 This brings the total expenditure to $16,139,000, which represents approximately 20% of the overall planned project budget Notably, there was minimal contingency funding available for both FY 2000 and FY 2001.
GLAST management is currently implementing a Project Management Control System (PMCS) that utilizes an earned value system to report on cost and schedule performance, with cost details typically provided down to the fifth level This PMCS is designed based on the B-Factory cost and schedule system, ensuring compliance with the management requirements set forth by DOE and NASA.
GLAST management is currently working on a comprehensive, resource-loaded integrated cost and schedule plan for the LAT project, which is anticipated to be finalized by April 30, 2001 Once reviewed and approved by GLAST management, this plan will serve as the baseline for the LAT initiative.
The PMCS team has selected Primavera P-3 as the scheduling database tool for the GLAST project, while COBRA has been chosen to manage actual costs and generate reports for NASA and DOE.
The PMCS team has demonstrated exceptional competence, and the Committee appreciates their detailed presentation and open discussion regarding the current status and future challenges It is important to note that the core team responsible for developing the baseline consists mainly of consultants from Applied Integration Management, who are expected to depart from the project in April or May 2001.
In PMCS, resource loading is evaluated in monetary terms, encompassing both Materials and Services as well as labor efforts This approach hinders the PMCS system's ability to aggregate manpower requirements in terms of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), especially for Department of Energy (DOE) scientific support derived from base programs Although contingency is assessed by Level 2 subsystems during the baseline development through a risk and weighted matrix, it will be preserved at Level 1.
Table 3-1 LAT DOE & NASA Interim Cost Estimate (Escalated K$)
WBS# Subsystem DOE NASA Total
LAT Total Estimated Cost (TEC) $80,715.0
LAT Total Project Cost (TPC) $103,700.0
To ensure a seamless transition into the implementation phase of the project, it is crucial to establish the core members of the Project Management Control System team promptly This allows sufficient time for the transfer of technology and information from consultants to the permanent team.
To support the baseline review of the GLAST project, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive bottoms-up cost and schedule estimate that is resource-loaded This estimate should include qualifications detailing the methodology used, such as quotes or engineering estimates for material and service costs, as well as fully loaded institutional labor rates for manpower expenses.
Conduct a thorough bottoms-up contingency analysis for the LAT project, focusing on relevant parameters such as risk and weight factors at the lowest Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) level This analysis will support the baseline review by clearly identifying and presenting the resulting contingencies in an easily accessible format.
4 Manpower should be tracked explicitly as FTE’s in the Project Management Control System.
Schedule and Funding
The integrated cost and schedule baseline features approximately 4,000 scheduled activities and includes milestones aligned with a targeted launch date of September 2005, incorporating a three-month period of designated slack within the project timeline.
During the implementation phase of the LAT project, the master P-3 project file will be maintained in the Project Office The subsystem manager or their designee will provide monthly updates on earned value, reflecting the work performed, to the PMCS staff.
When an integrated cost and schedule baseline is established, the critical path(s) of each subsystem should be identified.
Prior to spacecraft integration, it is essential to account for all offline testing activities, including vibration and acoustic testing, to effectively utilize the three-month slack period for integration availability.
The LAT faces a demanding timeline leading up to its launch date To enhance schedule flexibility, GLAST management should prioritize advancing work and procurement processes whenever feasible.
Table 4-1 LAT DOE & NASA Funding Estimate (Escalated K$)
FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Total
1 Continue to formalize and complete the integrated schedule, focusing on establishing the critical paths for each subsystem.
2 Include all activities in the integrated schedule, including non-costed and foreign activities.
3 Ensure that sufficient slack exists for the individual subsystem schedules
4 Introduce a milestone hierarchy into Project Management Control System
5 Develop and implement the GLAST Project Management Plan to capture the contingency thresholds and configuration management to control schedule changes.
Project Management
The GLAST LAT Project Office (IPO) includes key roles such as the Principal Investigator, Project Manager, Technical Manager, Instrument Scientist, system engineers, and subsystem managers Currently, LAT management is focused on creating essential documents and tools for effective project oversight, including the Project Management Plan and PMCS They are finalizing Memoranda of Agreement with collaborating institutions and funding agencies while expanding their team to fill additional project positions The IPO is also overseeing the establishment of a baseline for the GLAST LAT project.
The IPO team consists of highly skilled professionals with extensive experience and a diverse range of expertise in managing large projects They are developing an effective array of tools and documentation to ensure efficient project management.
There is a lot of work to do in getting ready to baseline this project; the IPO seems well aware of this Among these tasks are:
The development of a comprehensive, resource-loaded schedule is crucial, as it must align with the funding profile and schedule constraints A key objective for the IPO leading up to the Baseline Review is to establish a realistic project timeline that incorporates reasonable contingencies for both schedule and costs Additionally, this schedule must allocate sufficient time for Integration and Testing to ensure project success.
2 Growth of the IPO staff to provide adequate system engineering resources, with the appropriate mix of skills and the right level of effort.
3 Completion of a Project Management Plan that meets the needs of both DOE and NASA, while maintaining as much project management flexibility as possible.