Docstoc

Upgrade

Document Sample
Upgrade Powered By Docstoc
					      Risk Summary (V2.3)                                                                                                                                                                                                                        3/8/2012
Project Name:         R&D for CMS Upgrade
PI                    Prof. G Hall                                                                                        Low Risk                 1-2
Version               4.0
Last Update:          14-Sep-11                                                                                       Medium Risk                  3-8

                                                                                                                          High Risk                9-20

Ref                                                                                                                                     Inherent Risk Score                                      Existing Controls
                                Risk Description                 Potential impact on project                                            L      I      TOTAL
          1           Reduced STFC funding                       Delay in completion of project, Reduced travel; Cut of posts;             4      3        12 Costs scrutinised; Cash flow management.
                                                                 delaying requisition spend; curtailment of project




          2           Reduced university departmental funding Delay in completion of projects due to lack of staff                        4        3       12 Most staff are STFC funded. Risk due to lack of staff is covered in Section 2.




          3           CERN funding shortfall, or international   Late start to SLHC project, significant cost to STFC to adapt,           3        3        9 STFC to work with CERN and follow progress of SLHC approval, with appropriate planning for
                      support for CERN budget                    need for longer term R&D                                                                     timescale and funding required to maintain pace of UK developments. Cost impact is most
                                                                                                                                                              likely to be provision and maintenance of staff posts during the construction period, so not
                                                                                                                                                              yet an excessive level.
          4           Shortfall in US collaborator funding       Delay due to shared contributions not materialising on time and          2        3        6 Principal impact is on WP3. Put in place collaborative agreements. Work with US collaborators
                                                                 inability to complete design or manufacture in timely way.                                   to support their funding applications and approval process.




          5           Shortfall in European or CERN              Late start to R&D elsewhere with late definition of certain              2        3        6 Collaboration management and STFC to monitor status of SLHC project. Presently little in the
                      collaborator funding                       specifications, eg sensors.                                                                  project is strongly dependent on collaborator funding, with the notable exception of CERN.



          6           Required ASIC engineers not available      Delay in completion of the project. Affects primarily progress of        2        2        4 Well documented designs to facilitate easier handover to replacement staff, compliant with
                      due to staff turnover, lack of             WP2                                                                                          RAL ISO9001 Quality Management system. It is not likely that RAL engineers can be replaced
                      recruitment, competition from other                                                                                                     easily so either external collaborators would need co-opting, or extra cost of accelerating
                      projects.                                                                                                                               work at a later stage.
          7           Required engineers for FED not available   Delay in completion of the project. Affects primarily progress of        2        2        4 Well documented FED designs to facilitate easier handover to replacement staff compliant
                      due to staff turnover, lack of             WP2                                                                                          with Ral ISO9001 Quality Management system. Design work could be transferred to Imperial
                      recruitment, competition from other                                                                                                     if suitable person can be freed, or work accelerated at later stage, or new collaborators found
                      projects.                                                                                                                               outside the project.

          8           Lack, or absence, of technical effort.     Modest delay in completion of the project. Affects primarily WP2         2        2        4 Anticipate requirements. Forward planning. Possible outsourcing of some activities. Hire short
                                                                                                                                                              term effort if suitable person can be found.

          9           Loss of key collaboration members          Delay in completion of the project. Affects all WP                       2        3        6 Maintain good documentation. Share information and document progress. Relocate software
                                                                                                                                                              work to a different institution.



          10          Loss of staff or inability to recruit      Delay to project                                                         2        3        6 Monitor status. Calrification is needed to understand where the vulnerability lies and if it can
                                                                                                                                                              be remedied by expenditure.

          11          Extended absence or loss, eg, due to       Delay to projects but not expected to have immediate impact.             3        2        6 Designate a deputy where possible, share information and planning with co-workers.
                      illness, new appointment, etc.                                                                                                          Maintain good communications with PI. Negotiate with department for extra recruitment or
                                                                                                                                                              coverage of other duties.

          12          Extended absence of senior managers,       Risk of project failing to meet deadlines/deliverables                   2        3        6 Distribute management responsibilities and share information so WP leaders can continue
                      with significant extra workload on UK                                                                                                   project as required.
                      staff members.



                                                                                                                               1 of 7
Risk Summary (V2.3)                                                                                                                                                                                                           3/8/2012
    13          Loss of Key Staff in Bristol              Delay in completion of the project. Affects all WP. Main concern       3   3    9 Transfer responsibilities to collaborators, including potentially outside UK. Computing tasks
                                                          is for WP1 and impact on WP3                                                      can be redistributed, or additional staff recruited. Maintain working margin in staff
                                                                                                                                            expenditure.

    14          Loss of Key Staff in Brunel               Delay in completion of the project. Affects only WP1                   4   1    4 Transfer responsibilities to UK collaborators.


    15          Loss of Key Staff at Imperial             Delay in completion of the project. Affects all WPs.                   2   4    8 Most critical staff are M. Raymond, G. Iles. Anticipate and forward plan. Transfer ASIC work
                                                                                                                                            to RAL (design), or share more widely, eg with Bristol (evaluation) or within Imperial.
                                                                                                                                            Computing tasks can be redistributed, or additional staff recruited. Maintain working margin
                                                                                                                                            in staff expenditure.
    16          Loss of Key Staff at RAL PPD              Delay in completion of the project. Affects only WP1.                  2   3    6 effectively has happened and mitigated via transfer of responsibilities to collaborators.




    17          Loss of Key Staff                         Loss of engineering expertise will result in a delay of the order of   2   3    6 Transfer designs to CERN and to other collaborating UK laboratories , with assistance of Los
                                                          year since all designs will have to be ported to other labs.                      Alamos engineers. This is already an objective.

    18          Loss of access to preferred foundry       Delay to WP2                                                           2   4    8 Contract already negotiated. Alternative foundries exist but time would be needed to transfer
                                                                                                                                            designs and ensure process fully met all requirements.

    19          Technical problems with 130 nm CMOS       3 month delay (affects WP2, impact on Imperial RA contract             3   2    6 Anticipate contingency requirements at each stage of project, eg after design submission
                process (e.g. failure of run)             duration)                                                                         while waiting for return of parts. Work closely with chosen foundry to monitor process and
                                                                                                                                            collaborate on remedial actions. Risk also includes delays due to work load in foundry, so
                                                                                                                                            increased.
    20          Access to chosen radiation tolerant       Significant delay in ability to complete SLHC Tracker project          2   5   10 Use alternative foundries. Share costs and design effort required with other SLHC
                technology affected by government                                                                                           collaborators. CERN and STFC to remain abreast of regulatory requirements and plan
                decisions                                                                                                                   accordingly. Where possible ensure reasonable degree of technology independence of
                                                                                                                                            designs.




    21          Insufficient Grid resources for simulation Delay to most WP1 deliverables with knock-on effects to other         2   3    6 Maximise available computing resources, maintain efficient use of resources.
                                                           WP

    22          ASIC design failure (fatal flaw in design) 6 month delay of schedule, cost of additional MPW submission          3   3    9 Design reviews at regular intervals during design phase, in accordance with ISO9001



    23          Technical problems with 130 nm CMOS       Delay in schedule. See also risks under section 3.                     2   3    6 Translate designs to equivalent technologies from alternative supplier. Evaluate, in
                process at significant level                                                                                                collaborations, radiation tolerance and technical specifications of equivalent processes to
                                                                                                                                            ensure a availability.
    24          FED does not meet requirements, e.g.      Delay in schedule. Alternative components required for ASIC and        3   2    6 Work closely with collaborators within ASIC design and other CMS SLHC working groups to
                system architecture, ASIC interface and   system evaluation.                                                                influence timely decisions. Keep FED design flexible by exploiting commercial development
                interconnect choices.                                                                                                       boards for prototyping stages. Ensure fundamental firmware modules can be adapted and
                                                                                                                                            ported to new hardware if necessary. Adapt existing hardware to meet new ASIC and other
                                                                                                                                            evaluation requirements.


    25          5Gbit links PCB design layout             Delay to the project and links at lower speed which will limit our     2   3    6 Regular design reviews. Critical designs to be sent to external independent experts for
                                                          capabilities to test the full potential of the design.                            checking. Decide if reduced performance can be tolerated at this phase of project.

    26          Absence of hardware to complete test      Delay in test beam studies                                             4   2    8 Increase evaluation which can be carried out in laboratory, which might require additional
                beam programme                                                                                                              hardware to be developed to extend capability and emulate circumstances. Evaluate in more
                                                                                                                                            detail benefits of test beam programme.


    27          Software development depends on           Delay to deliverables or reduced scope                                 3   3    9 Work closely with other collaborators on common software tasks. Re-scope deliverables if
                progress in places other than the UK                                                                                        appropriate.

    28          ASIC slowed by external decisions, e.g.   Delay in schedule                                                      3   3    9 Work closely with collaborators within system design and other CMS SLHC working groups to
                sensor specifications, system                                                                                               influence timely decisions
                architecture




                                                                                                                       2 of 7
Risk Summary (V2.3)                                                                                                                                                                                                            3/8/2012
    29          FPGA firmware is more complex than           Delay in WP3 schedule                                                 3   2    6 Expert consultancy, or engineering effort.
                anticipated


    30          Significant change in SLHC machine           Revision of UK project specifications to meet new requirements        4   3   12 Collaboration management to monitor status of SLHC project.
                specifications
    31          Change in SLHC final focus design with       Revision of UK project specifications to meet new requirements        4   3   12 Collaboration management and STFC to monitor status of SLHC project. This particular
                impact on radiation levels or tracker                                                                                         requirement now seems much less likely, partly from interaction with LHC collaborations
                occupancy levels in CMS detector

    32          Objectives turn out to be signficantly       Most likely to affect trigger requirements. If so, CMS trigger is     3   5   15 CMS Trigger teams to develop alternative strategies to ensure trigger is robust, and good
                more difficult to realise than anticipated   likely to be at risk. Beyond scope of this R&D project but is                    physics programme can be carried out with alternative triggers, eg multi-lepton or multi-jets.
                                                             expected to be of importance.




    33          Failure to track exposure to currency        Not enough money to contribute to Los Alamos costs or other           2   3    6 Monitor and share costs of submissions and manufacture
                fluctuations                                 fabrication expenditures




    34          Significant unexpected problem               Delay in reaching objectives. Costs incurred in organising review,    2   1    2 Organise in-depth review with appropriate experts
                necessitating external review of WP          with outside experts.

    35          Destruction of Laboratory/Test area.         Delay to project.                                                     1   5    5 Maintain appropriate security and fire detection/protection systems. Transfer work to another
                                                                                                                                              institute. Impact will depend on which lab is affected.

    36          Loss of dedicated data disks                 Delay to project.                                                     2   1    2 Ensure critical data is replicated and/or archived



    37          Problems or lack of supply of critical       Delay in WP3 schedule                                                 3   3    9 Identify alternative suppliers for appropriate parts, such as optical components. However, the
                components for trigger boards                                                                                                 number of vendors is limited. For FPGAs, this is even more the case and switching to another
                                                                                                                                              vendor would have major time implications.


    38          Changes to CERN plans for                    Late start to SLHC project, significant cost to STFC to adapt,        4   3   12 STFC to work with CERN and follow progress of SLHC approval, with appropriate planning for
                implementation of the accelerator            need for longer term R&D                                                         timescale and funding required to maintain pace of UK developments. Cost impact is most
                upgrades or overall experiment upgrade                                                                                        likely to be provision and maintenance of staff posts.
                schedule.


    39          Reduced PPD funding                          Delay in completion of project, cut of posts; delaying requisition    4   3   12 Match available staff to UK project. Present responsibilities for WP1 have mainly been
                                                             spend; limit to scope of project                                                 relinquished and most of WP1 work for R&D phase is complete. Impact would mainly be on
                                                                                                                                              presently unapproved (as new) part of project for pixel upgrade.See also risk 16




                                                                                                                          3 of 7
     Risk Summary (V2.3)                                                                                                 3/8/2012




Mitigating Factors             Residual Risk Score                  Comment            Proposed Action        Cost
                           L           I           TOTAL                                                 (£ thousands)
Impact of CSR was less         4              2            8 Risk added 09/02/2010.
than feared, as LHC                                          Risk reviewed Sep 2011
and upgrades remained
high priority.
Reprofiling the project
matched developments
in R&D and funding
elsewhere.
Impact of CSR and              3            2              6 Risk added 09/02/2010.
overall funding is                                           Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
significant but not
dramatic. Key RG
participants not
affected.
CERN budget looks in           2            3              6 Risk added 09/02/2010.
good shape.LHC                                               Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
progress good in 2010
and in 2011.
Project has become             2            2              4 Risk added 09/02/2010.
less dependent on US                                         Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
collaborators wiith the
development of a
successful mini-T
prototype.
Funding for Hi Lumi            2            3              6 Risk added 09/02/2010.
LHC and CMS upgrades                                         Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
continues to progress,
although slowly.

Increasing number of           2            2              4 Risk added 09/02/2010.                           50
engineers has been                                           Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
made available.

FED might be based on          2            2              4 Risk added 09/02/2010.                           50
a design like the WP3                                        Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
mini-T, and limit
significantly the work
required.
Remains a concern, but         2            2              4 Risk added 09/02/2010.                           20
so far impact has been                                       Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
tolerable.
Loss of certain                2            3              6 Risk added 09/02/2010.
individuals would have                                       Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
a big impact but so far
risk seems modest.

Recruitment largely            2            2              4 Risk added 09/02/2010.
complete                                                     Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

Has occurred, yet              3            2              6 Risk added 09/02/2010.                           50
project has continued                                        Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
successfully.

Has occurred, yet              2            2              4 Risk added 09/02/2010.
project has continued                                        Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
successfully.



                                                                                         4 of 7
     Risk Summary (V2.3)                                                                                                       3/8/2012
Little room for            3   3   9 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              100
manoeuvre without                    Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
additional brdiging
funding
                           2   2   4 Risk added 09/02/2010. Some HEFCE funding made available at Brunel for 6 months
                                     Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

                           2   3   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.
                                     Risk reviewed Sep 2011.


Impact would now be        2   2   4 Risk added 09/02/2010.
mainly on a new                      Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
activity which has not
yet been fully
approved.
Dependence on Los          1   2   2 Risk added 09/02/2010.
Alamos eliminated                    Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

Alternatives are in use    2   3   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.
in the HEP community                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

Delays in delivery are     3   2   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              20
more likely, and have                Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
been encountered

This subject is            1   5   5 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              100
frequently discussed                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
and would present a
larger issue for CERN
and the SLHC than
simply this project. It
cannot be ruled out in
but does not at present
seem more likely than
in the past.
GridPP4 approved           1   3   3 Risk added 09/02/2010.
                                     Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

Modern design is           2   3   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              112
gradually becoming                   Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
less risky, although not
risk-free.
Remains unlikely.          2   3   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              100
                                     Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

Still early but            3   2   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              50
approaches such as the               Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
use of a general
purpose board,
adapated from, eg,
mini-T look promising
alternatives.
Progress is excellent      2   2   4 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              50
and risk looks to be                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
declining.
Preparation for test       1   2   2 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              75
beam activities well                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
advanced and sufficient
backup should be in
place.
Good progress and risk     1   2   2 Risk added 09/02/2010. Some risk due to reduction in non-UK effort. We are in the
has declined                         Risk reviewed Sep 2011. process of redfining the work taking this into account.

Still likely but affects   3   2   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.                                                              25
very lng term so there               Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
is time to react.




                                                                                     5 of 7
     Risk Summary (V2.3)                                                       3/8/2012
Greater expertise in the   1   3   3 Risk added 09/02/2010.               40
collaboration which is               Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
constantly increasing.

Risk is declining with     2   3   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.
LHC progress                         Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
Risk is declining with     1   3   3 Risk added 09/02/2010.
LHC progress                         Risk reviewed Sep 2011.


This may still affect      2   4   8 Risk added 09/02/2010.
track-trigger but it                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
seems less likely that
an alternative cannot
be found which would
be adequate, even if
not ideal.
WP3 no longer depends      1   2   2 Risk added 09/02/2010.
significantly on Los                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
Alamos. Main currency
fluctuation has been
CHF but components
are mainly in USD.
Now seems less likely      1   2   2 Risk added 09/02/2010.               10
                                     Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

Work could be              1   4   4 Risk added 09/02/2010.
transferred                          Risk reviewed Sep 2011.

Responsibility of RAL      2   3   6 Risk added 09/02/2010.               20
TD for ASIC designs.                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
Imperial has copies of
WP3 designs.
Anticipate purchases of    2   3   6    Risk added July 2010.             40
key parts where                        Risk reviewed Sep 2011.
possible, and produce
reduced numbers of
boards
Increasing the R&D         4   2   8   Risk added 7/02/2011.
phase may not increase                 Risk reviewed Sep 2011
the overall cost greatly
since construction costs
are simply delayed.
                           3   2   6    Risk added Sep 2011




                                                                 6 of 7
                           I score    Monetary value £
Notes   Low impact                1   < 21,000
        Medium Impact             2   21,000 to 50,000
        High Impact               3   51,000 to 100,000
        Very High Impact          5   > 100,000




        Low                Rare       Occurs in
                                      exceptional
        Grading 1                     circumstances
        Medium             Possible   Might occur
        Grading 2
        High               Likely     Quite likely to
        Grading 3                     occur
        Very High          Almost     frequent
        Grading 4          certain

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:3/8/2012
language:
pages:7