STUDY SUMMARY - IPMU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>SUMMARY</strong> REPORT WIDE FIELD FIBER-FED OPTICAL MULTI-OBJECT SPECTROMETER (WFMOS) telescope environment and interfaces in critical locations and/or simple measurements to characterize the local environments. 5. Some spectrograph gratings do not meet the delivery date. This schedule assumes delivery of all gratings is in time for integration and test. Sufficient testing and early integration can be done with a low-spec grating and/or a single accepted grating. 6. Positioner Contractor unable to Perform. This acknowledges a single source for a critical deliverable. Mitigate with close monitoring and supplement with JPL resources if needed. This approach has been used often in the past with good success. 7. Spectrograph aspherics difficult to manufacture. This risk is listed because only verbal quotes have been obtained from the vendors. It is expected to be addressed quickly by seeking alternate vendors as well as active involvement and management of the selected vendor. Risk decisions are supported by analyses and recommendations from the project team, but are ultimately made by the Project Manager in the same manner that all cost, schedule and performance impact decisions are made. If the scope of any change impacts Level 1 or 2 requirements, the management team, the advisory board, and Gemini are part of the decision process. The descope list provides the leverage for accepting reasonable risk and maintaining confidence that a meaningful instrument can be developed within the fixed budget even if many of the identified risks are actualized. The plan identifies functional or performance capabilities, which may be dropped at some later point of the project, allowing cost savings to be applied to the area where risks happened. It also describes where risks may be added (through dropping a test, or other activity with resulting cost avoidance) acceptably in order to cover unplanned costs in other areas. As with the risk list, the descope list will evolve through the instrument development and needs to be continuously assessed and updated. 7.5 Reserves The total project reserves required is estimated at 20%; this 20% excludes the $8M allocated for the Subaru provided elements and does not factor in the Gemini-held contingency. The reserves are established by assessing risks associated with each WBS element (Management and Cost Volume, section 5.2). Higher reserves are allocated to areas that: 1) require more development effort and therefore have more uncertainty in meeting performance cost and schedule, 2) show risk of cost growth on procurements, 3) have a higher level of complexity in design or schedule coordination, and 4) have two or more identified significant risks at the project start. The reserves do not explicitly include an allocation for exchange rate uncertainty and instead a conservative exchange rate has been used to absorb rate fluctuations. Reserves above the partners’ contract-required 15% are held at JPL and managed at the project level to provide maximum flexibility in risk management. Allocation of reserves is a process that references the specific risk item and balances resources according to the summary of risks, schedule, and remaining resources. The project risks and reserves are reviewed and updated monthly with the project team and Gemini and quarterly with the advisory board. A clear assessment and justification for the release of reserves is developed with the subsystem leads to assess the impact across the instrument system. The final decision is made by the PM with concurrence from the PI. The advisory board will be notified of the potential for significant changes as they arise. A minimum level of reserves for each project phase is defined and managed to ensure sufficient funding is available through delivery. This is discussed further in the Management and Cost Volume. 81
<strong>SUMMARY</strong> REPORT WIDE FIELD FIBER-FED OPTICAL MULTI-OBJECT SPECTROMETER (WFMOS) 8.0 References Goodsell, Stephen J.; Blanken, Maarten F.; Corradi, Romano; Dee, Kevin M.; and Jolley, P. D., “AutoFib2: small fibers,” Proc. SPIE 4841, 1367–1375, 2003. Guzzo, Luigi et al., Nature 451, 541–544, 2008. Parry, Ian R.; Lewis, Ian J.; Sharples, Ray M.; Dodsworth, G. N.; Webster, J.; Gellatly, David W.; Jones, Lewis R.; and Watson, Frederick G., “Autofib--2: an automated fiber positioner for the prime focus of the William Herschel Telescope,” Proc. SPIE 2198, 125–133, 1994. White, M., Song, Y.-S., and Percival, W.J., 2008. arXiv:0810.1518. 82
Page 1 and 2:
WIDE FIELD FIBER-FED OPTICAL MULTI-
Page 3 and 4:
One of three identical Schmidt Spec
Page 5 and 6:
SUMMARY REPORT WIDE FIELD FIBER-FED
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: SUMMARY REPORT WIDE FIELD FIBER-FED
Page 89: SUMMARY REPORT WIDE FIELD FIBER-FED
Page 99: SUMMARY REPORT WIDE FIELD FIBER-FED
show all

STUDY SUMMARY - IPMU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?