Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory



DOCPROPERTY wtname \* MERGEFORMAT Technical Note Template DOCPROPERTY IBA|LBNL_AUTHOR \* MERGEFORMAT Release Date: DOCPROPERTY IBA|RELEASED_AT \* MERGEFORMAT DOCPROPERTY IBA|RELEASED_AT_DATE \* MERGEFORMAT Document Number: DOCPROPERTY "Document number" \* MERGEFORMAT AL-1008-7759 Revision: DOCPROPERTY RevisionInfo \* MERGEFORMAT ADocument Status: DOCPROPERTY lifeCycleState \* MERGEFORMAT WorkingDocument Type: DOCPROPERTY IBA|DRAWING_TYPE \* MERGEFORMAT Category Code: DOCPROPERTY IBA|CATEGORY_CODE \* MERGEFORMAT DOCPROPERTY IBA|TITLE1 \* MERGEFORMAT DOCPROPERTY IBA|TITLE2 \* MERGEFORMAT DOCPROPERTY IBA|TITLE3 \* MERGEFORMAT Table of Contents TOC \o "2-6" \h \z \t "Heading 1,1,ALS-U Appendix,1" 1Revision History PAGEREF _Toc5262055 \h 32Approvals PAGEREF _Toc5262056 \h 33Abbreviations and Acronyms PAGEREF _Toc5262057 \h 34Introduction PAGEREF _Toc5262058 \h 45Review Process PAGEREF _Toc5262059 \h 45.1Review Definitions PAGEREF _Toc5262060 \h 45.2Review Preparation and Timeline PAGEREF _Toc5262061 \h 55.2.1Charge Questions PAGEREF _Toc5262062 \h 55.2.2Review Presentation Topics PAGEREF _Toc5262063 \h 75.2.2.1Design Phase Review Presentation Structure PAGEREF _Toc5262064 \h 75.2.2.2Implementation Phase Review Presentation Structure PAGEREF _Toc5262065 \h 75.3Review Execution PAGEREF _Toc5262066 \h 95.3.1Step 1 – Identify Reviews PAGEREF _Toc5262067 \h 95.3.2Step 2 – Assemble the Review Plan PAGEREF _Toc5262068 \h 95.3.3Step 3 – Execute the Review Plan and Prepare for Review PAGEREF _Toc5262069 \h 95.3.4Step 4 – Hold the Review PAGEREF _Toc5262070 \h 105.3.5Step 5 – Execute Post-Review Activities PAGEREF _Toc5262071 \h 106Applicable Documents PAGEREF _Toc5262072 \h 11Revision HistoryRev.CM NumberDescription of ChangeAInitial releaseApprovalsThe following individual(s) shall approve this document:ApproverProject RoleRoberta Leftwich-VannALS-U Project ManagerKen ChowALS-U Chief EngineerWindchill Approved / Concurred By DOCPROPERTY IBA|RELEASED_BY \* MERGEFORMAT Abbreviations and AcronymsACLAcceptance Criteria ListALSAdvanced Light SourceALS-UAdvanced Light Source UpgradeARRAccelerator Readiness ReviewBOMBill Of MaterialBRRBeamline Readiness ReviewCADComputer Aided DesignCAMControl Account ManagerCDRConceptual Design ReviewCMMCoordinate Measuring MachineDCCLBNL Document Control CenterDOEDepartment of EnergyDRDeviation RequestESDEngineering Specification DocumentFDRFinal Design ReviewICDInterface Control DocumentKPPKey Performance ParameterLBNLLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryMRRManufacturing Readiness ReviewNCRNon-Conformance ReportORROperational Readiness ReviewPDRPreliminary Design ReviewPRRProcurement Readiness ReviewQAQuality AssuranceSARSystem Acceptance ReviewSOWStatement Of WorkTIPTest and Inspection PlanWIWork InstructionsIntroductionThe Advanced Light Source Upgrade project (ALS-U) upgrades the existing Advanced Light Source (ALS) to achieve an increase in soft x-rays brightness and coherent flux. A project wide review process has been developed to ensure a unified expectation of a review. The review process provides definitions, and processes leading up to, executing, and closing out a review. Review ProcessThe following sections describe the review process to be applied to any of the reviews outlined in the ‘ALS-U Project Review Cycle’ (AL-1134-1533). This is to provide guidance to the required steps prior to carrying out the review, carrying out the review, and items required to complete the review.Review DefinitionsThe following list provides definitions to the different terms used prior, during, and after the review:Agenda – is a list of high-level items that will be presented during the review, and includes durations and presenter names.Charge Questions – are questions to be answered by the review committee. Questions are typically broad in scope with yes/no answers. Section REF _Ref4053316 \r \h 5.2.1 lists example ments – are items that are opinions or items of interest from the review committee. Comments are documented in the Review Report. Dry Runs – are practice sessions for review presenters.Findings – are factual restatements of important points presented during the review. Findings are documented in the Review Report.Recommendations – are items that require a response by the project team. Recommendations are documented in the Review Report and are tracked to closure. Review Date – is the date the review takes place. Depending on the review scope, a review can last one hour to multiple days. The date selected should reflect availability of the review committee members and the developed Primavera P6 schedule.Review Materials – are documents supplied to the review committee. The minimum documents provided to the reviewers are described in the specific review deliverables found in Windchill under AL-1134-1533.Review Report – is a document that contains the findings, comments, recommendations, and answers to the charge questions. The Review Committee Chair is responsible for completion of the Review Report and delivery to the Review Manager. The Review Report template can be found in Windchill under AL-1016-9437.Stakeholder – are ALS-U members that are directly affected by the review outcome. Stakeholders at a minimum shall include CAMs that are identified as interfaces.Review Preparation and TimelineThe Review Manager is responsible for executing or delegating the items listed in REF _Ref4067167 \h Table 5.1 prior to performing the review. The table and the items described within it comprise the review plan. The Review Manager shall generate a table specific to the review of interest that includes columns specifying the following for each table item:Specific target completion dates, Name of the responsible individual (the Review Manager or a delegate), Name of the approver, Names of individuals to be consulted, and Names of individuals to be informed. Approvers are typically the technical manager one level above the Review Manager within the project organization. Charge QuestionsThe following are examples of charge questions that can be used during the different phases of the review processes.Preliminary and Final Design Review (PDR and FDR):Are the specifications clearly defined?Does the design meet the specifications?Are technical risks identified and mitigations for addressing these risks adequately defined?Are there other issues we should be aware of?Are the required materials for passing a PDR (or FDR) completed?Table STYLEREF 1 \s 5. SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1 1: Items that the Review Manager needs to complete prior to a technical review.DescriptionMinimum TimelineDevelop draft charge questions4 – 8 weeks prior to reviewDevelop draft agenda4 – 8 weeks prior to reviewSelect possible review date(s)4 – 8 weeks prior to reviewDetermine list of potential reviewers and review committee chair4 – 8 weeks prior to reviewInvite potential reviewers and review committee chair4 – 8 weeks prior to reviewGenerate ALS-U stakeholders list that should be included in the review4 – 8 weeks prior to reviewReserve room and invite attendees via Google Calendar4 – 8 weeks prior to reviewArrange for review committee logistics (e.g. airfare, hotel, site access, parking)4 weeks prior to reviewRequest conference services for any food and drink accommodations4 weeks prior to reviewGenerate website or folder for reviewers to access review material and update invitation to include link to website or folder2 weeks prior to reviewUpload review material to website or folder and inform review committee that material is available for review1 week prior to reviewPerform dry runs0.5 week prior to reviewManufacturing Readiness Review (MRR):Are the necessary maturity levels of the documents achieved and released to DCC?Are all the CAD models, drawings, and Bill of Material (BOM) released to the DCC?Any QA related items that need to be addressed such that the as built system can be evaluated?Does the production rate and schedule meet the project overall delivery schedule?Procurement Readiness Review (PRR):Is Statement of Work (SOW) complete and clearly defines the procurement scope, schedule, and processes.Are all the required documents to procure the component(s) and or system sufficient and released to DCC?Does the procurement strategy meet all DOE regulations?Are there any procurement related items that need to be addressed prior to initiating the procurement process?System Acceptance Review (SAR):Are all the non-conformance reports (NCR), deviation requests (DR) documented and released to DCC?Were all the accepted non-conformance reports (NCR) and deviation requests (DR) evaluated to meet the technical objective of the projects?Did any of the accepted non-conformance reports and deviation requests indicate any concern for the project to meet its objective?Are there any other component(s) or system(s) tests need to be performed prior to start of the Removal and Installation phase of the project?Operational Readiness Review (ORR):Was the project able to demonstrate that it has met its KPP thresholds?Was the project able to demonstrate that it has met its KPP objectives? Are there any other operational tests that need to be carried out prior to closing out the project?Any other items that need to be addressed prior to closing out the project?Review Presentation TopicsThe following describes the suggested structure for the Design and Implementation Phase reviews. Design Phase Review Presentation StructureDepending on the scope of a review, the items outlined in REF _Ref4661706 \h Table 5.2 could be covered in a single presentation or in multiple presentations. The goal is that the items should be addressed to show the review committee that the required level of maturity along with supporting evidence that the design selected meets project performance, cost and schedule.Implementation Phase Review Presentation StructureThe Manufacturing Readiness Review (MRR), Procurement Readiness Review (PRR), System Acceptance Review (SAR), Beamline Readiness Review (BRR), Accelerator Readiness Review (ARR), and Operational Readiness Review (ORR) are all part of the Implementation Phase of the project review cycles. Each of these individual reviews have specific items that should be addressed during the review. REF _Ref4661822 \h Table 5.3 provides guidelines of the topics to be covered during the reviews. Table STYLEREF 1 \s 5. SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1 2: Guidelines for topics to be covered during a PDR or FDR.ItemDescriptionOverviewShow overview of the designExplain the primary function of the designExplain how subassemblies are connectedShow project teamSpecificationsShow how are specifications are captured in DCC with revision controlList major specifications (can be categorized in shall and goals) of the design for reviewers to adequately evaluate the design (e.g. global requirements, National Codes, vacuum, stability, alignment, material restrictions, safety system)Provide reference to Engineering Specification Document (ESD)InterfacesReference Interface Control Document (ICD)List major interfaces (e.g. volume claims, mechanical and electrical interfaces, utilities)DesignShow and describe the design detailsUse analysis and or test results to show that specifications are metShow integration and alignment strategy as a story board. The story board shows major assembly and alignment steps.Alignment methods (e.g. use of laser tracker, levels, CMM, tape measure)QA DocumentationsShow overview of QA documentsHow will specifications be verifiedMaturityShow number of documents in progress vs completed and the maturity of these documents (e.g. ESDs, ICDs, ADs, CAD models, drawings, BOM, ACL, TIP, WI)Safety and ErgonomicsList safety issues or concerns that are inherent with the design (e.g. stored energy (springs, pressure vessel), exposed electrical contacts, radiation shielding, high magnetic fields, noise and or thermal hazards, pinch pointsList safety concerns during assembly, integration, and alignmentWhat engineering controls are in placeEH&S items that govern the designRisks and how they are managedShow top risk items and how they are being managedMitigation strategyWhat is the consequence if the risk occurs?Cost and schedule implicationsCost and ScheduleShow overall schedule (design, manufacturing, procurement, assembly, integration, and alignment)Highlight interdependencies to other portions of the project with milestonesProvide cost and effort estimates How many FTEs?Table STYLEREF 1 \s 5. SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1 3: Guidelines for topics to be covered during a PDR or icApplicable ReviewDescriptionOverviewAllShow overview of the designExplain the primary function of the designExplain how subassemblies are connectedShow project teamDocuments Released to DCCAllShow the number of documents released to DCC.Indicate any documents that still need to be released to DCC.Test resultsSARORRShow and discuss how the results met the specifications Review ExecutionStep 1 – Identify ReviewsRequired reviews are identified using a graded approach as outlined in AL-1134-1533, with specific component/subsystem granularity determined by the CAM in consultation with the associated System Manager. Additional technical reviews may be identified by CAMs, Systems Managers, or other project staff as needed. These additional reviews are proposed to the Chief Engineer, Systems Engineering Manager, QA Manager, Procurement Manager, or Project Office and may be added to the project’s list of reviews. The project’s list of reviews is managed by the Systems Engineering Manager and approved by the Chief Engineer, Project Manager, and Project Director.Step 2 – Assemble the Review PlanSystem Managers, in consultation with the Chief Engineer, identifies a Review Manager for each review on the project’s review list as the date of the review approaches (two to three months prior to the review). The Review Manager creates a review plan table (ref. Section REF _Ref4662087 \r \h 5.2) and communicates the plan to the review plan’s approvers, consultants, and informed individuals.Step 3 – Execute the Review Plan and Prepare for ReviewThe Review Manager executes the activities on the review plan, or delegates their execution. The following items are available to the Review Manager for developing review plan activities:Example charge questions (Section REF _Ref4053316 \r \h \* MERGEFORMAT 5.2.1)Guidelines for topics to be covered in review presentations (Section REF _Ref4664426 \r \h \* MERGEFORMAT 5.2.2)The Review Manager also ensures review deliverables are on track to reach the required maturity levels prior to the review, using the following review checklists:AL-1130-4638 for CDRsAL-1130-4636 for PDRsAL-1130-4637 for FDRsAL-1130-4639 for MRRsAL-1134-3102 for PRRsAL-1130-4640 for SARsAL-1130-4641 for BRRsAL-1130-4642 for ARRAL-1130-4643 for ORRThe primary role of the Review Manager during this step is preparing the review presenters and the project team for a successful review. In this capacity, the Review Manager is expected to take an active role in shaping the message, anticipating potential reviewer questions, and unifying the presentation material into a cohesive narrative.The Review Manager should reach out to the Review Committee Chair in preparation for the review, to ensure common understanding of the purpose and nature of the review, agreement on the agenda proposed by the Review Manager, and to provide an opportunity for the Review Committee to request specific information of interest. Step 4 – Hold the ReviewThe Review Manager serves as the primary point of contact to the ALS-U project team and the Review Committee Chair serves as the primary point of contact to the Review Committee. A quorum is achieved, once all the review committee members are present; unless the Review Committee Chair deems that it appropriate to continue without the full review committee. During the review, the Review Committee Chair directs the flow of the review and may request additional information or modifications to the agenda. The project’s response to requests are directed through the Review Manager, typically in consultation with the other project team members such as System Managers, Chief Engineer, Project Manager and Project Director.Step 5 – Execute Post-Review ActivitiesTechnical reviews typically include a draft presentation of initial review findings, comments, recommendations, and charge question answers during the close-out portion towards the end of the review day(s) given by the Review Committee. This is followed by a formal written Review Report in the days or weeks following the review date. Activities to be completed after the review is held include:Documenting the recommendations in the project’s Recommendations TrackerResponding to recommendations that arose out of the reviewUpdating and finalizing documents as neededCompleting remaining checklist items, if anyReleasing the review checklist to DCC with approval by the requisite project staffRefer to AL-1134-1533 for the list of approvers for different reviews Applicable DocumentsThis section identifies applicable documents that are considered to be a part of this document. All information contained in an applicable document shall be valid to the full extent, unless specifically noted within this document. Applicable documents shall be obtained from the LBNL Document Control Center (DCC).Document NumberTitleAL-1016-9437ALS-U Design Review Report TemplateAL-1130-4636ALS-U Preliminary Design Review Checklist AL-1130-4637ALS-U Final Design Review Checklist AL-1130-4638ALS-U Conceptual Design Review ChecklistAL-1130-4639ALS-U Manufacturing Readiness Review ChecklistAL-1130-4640ALS-U System Acceptance Review ChecklistAL-1130-4641ALS-U Beamline Readiness Review ChecklistAL-1130-4642ALS-U Accelerator Readiness Review ChecklistAL-1130-4643ALS-U Operational Readiness Review ChecklistAL-1134-1533ALS-U Project Review CycleAL-1134-3102ALS-U Procurement Readiness Review Checklist ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download