august 2 and 3, 2010 project cost, schedule, risk and contingency jay elias
TRANSCRIPT
2
• References:– KOSMOS Management document– KOSMOS Project Plan & Budget Narrative– KOSMOS Risks document– KOSMOS WBS– KOSMOS Schedule
4
Current Status
• OSU design contract started Dec. 1, 2009
• NOAO had 3 main budget components– Initial preparatory phase (Aug until Dec. 1,
2009)– Design phase science activities (non-
ReSTAR)– Design phase ReSTAR effort
5
Current Status
• OSU will have largely spent funds by end of this month (Aug), as planned ($241K)– Final invoice after completion of design
review
6
Current Status
• NOAO expenditures recorded through June 30:– Initial preparatory phase spent $40K– Design phase science activities spent $4K
out of $31K budget – Design phase ReSTAR effort spent $46K of
$145K budget– Expenditures in July/Aug will be substantial
(but not $100K)
7
Current Status
• Why did NOAO over-estimate expenditures?– Science effort low because project scientist
position became vacant, individuals “helping out” generally did not charge
– Over-estimated required commitment for project management generally
– Guess is that final expenditures will be somewhat over 50% of budget• This experience is folded into estimates that follow
8
KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule
• Process:– OSU built up a master plan based on remaining
design effort and experience with OSMOS I&T– NOAO did a more detailed estimate (given lack
of experience with OSMOS) and verified schedule was consistent with OSU plan
– Both effectively a bottom-up estimate starting at level 2 or 3 of WBS• Won’t discuss details unless requested, see
references
9
KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule
• Process:– OSU contingency estimated for major
procurement categories and for manpower at relevant parts of schedule (hence, both budget and schedule contingency)
– NOAO used “risk factor” approach (cf. ALMA, TMT, etc.) at the task level, roll up into pool. Associated schedule contingency consistent with OSU plan
10
Budget Summary
Institution OSU NOAO (ReStar)
NOAO (Base)
BaselinePayroll $208,966 $591,167 $51,445Non-Payroll $281,307 $234,094 $2,520Baseline F&A $124,932ContingencyContingency $73,100 $129,611 $7,144Contingency F&A
$9,584
Sub-Total$697,889
$954,872 $61,109Total $1,015,980Cont./Baseline 13.4% 15.6%
11
Contingency
• Rolled up at the institutional level– Easier to manage than if done at project
level– Overall just under 15% of baseline costs –
plausible given nature of project– We expect to spend it – properly
estimated, that’s what it’s for
12
Budget Summary by WBS
• Some remarks:– Because of granular budgeting at OSU
(and standard university policies for faculty salaries), OSU costs concentrated in a few elements
– Some WBS elements are more separate than others – e.g., 6 & 10 linked
13
Budget Summary by WBSWBS OSU NOAO Total1: Project Management $53,162 $118,125 $171,287
2: Science Team Activities $43,079 $53,965 $97,044
3: Systems Engineering $0 $57,972. $57,972
4: Optics $271,559 $1,646 $273,2055: Spectrograph Mechanical $104,363 $95,888 $200,251
6: Spectrograph Controls and Telemetry
$61,604 $0 $61,604
7: Facility Modifications $0 $6,173 $6,173
8: Detector System $0 $259,030 $259,0309: Top-Level Software $0 $127,425 $127,425
10: Integration and Test $75,340 $90,965 $166,305
11: Shipping $6,100 $0 $6,10012: Documentation and Training
$0 $39,838 $39,838
13: Slit Mask Fabrication $0 $18,200 $18,200
Contingency $82,685 $146,755 $220,300Total $697,889 $1,015,980 $1,713,869
Table 5.2 –Project Cost by WBS Element
14
Total Cost
• Including construction phase budget and anticipated expenditures for design phase, total instrument cost will be just under $2.1M
15
Schedule
• Detailed schedule available on-line (on-wall)– Most major tasks flow independently into
I&T phase– Mechanical design and fab is the main
exception– Interaction between spectrograph control
software and top-level software
16
Schedule
• Schedule looked at NOAO labor loading– Mechanical fabrication and software efforts
near 100% but not over for a few months• Need to coordinate with ODI
– Other tasks under 100% loading for people involved
• OSU schedule is built up using available staff at 100% when needed
17
Mechanical Design & Fab
• Example of flow of work for enclosure– Instrument electronics box drawings available early
and needed early; fabrication occurs Sept/Oct– Main enclosure drawings need redesign but
enclosure not needed until end of March ‘11 (misc parts needed later); design and fab phased accordingly
19
Significant RisksRisk ID Risk Name Probability Severity Summary Description Mitigations and Reductions
3.1 ICD Status Moderate Moderate ICDs not complete at design review
ICDs almost entirely between sub-systems with existing designs; critical software ICDs most nearly complete
4.1 Optics Performance-1
Moderate Moderate Melt variance will affect UV performance
Measurement of melt indices; re-optimization of design
4.2 Optics Performance-2
Moderate Moderate Coating performance may reduce throughput
Iteration with vendors; production of test or witness samples
4.3 Optics Cost/Schedule
High Low Camera design more complex than OSMOS
Only 1 asphere; aspheres moderate
4.4 ADC vignetting
High Low Mayall ADC undersized Work near zenith or at parallactic angle for full MOS field
5.1 Instrument Flexure
High Low Instrument flexure complicates night-time calibration
Purchase stiffer focus stages; undo some OSMOS light-weighting to produce stiffer overall structure; examine
7.1 Calibration Field
High Low Rotator/Guider Calibration field undersized
Day-time use of "white spot", night sky lines; flexure reduction
9.1 Software complexity
Moderate Moderate Software interactions among multiple sub-systems from both NOAO & OSU
Ensure critical ICDs fully developed; nearly all software exists already
13.1 MOS mask production
Low High MOS mask software provided by 3rd parties
Not on critical path for commissioning; assessment point in Jan.