Gindex

The following is a review the GNIRS project recovery plan by Wayne Van
Citters and Doug Simons on May 3-4, 1999. The schematic attachment
mentioned at the end of the report is not available for posting at this time.

Review of GNIRS Recovery Plan
3-4 May 1999

Background and Summary Conclusion

The background and earlier actions taken by NOAO with regard to the cost and schedule overrun for the Gemini Near-Infrared Spectrograph (GNIRS) are well summarized in a memorandum from the NOAO Director to William Smith of AURA, Inc. I reviewed the current status and planning for the project in Tucson on 3-4 May, accompanied on 4 May by Dr. Doug Simons from the Gemini Project Office. The purpose of this review was to assure myself that an acceptable recovery plan was in place.

I met extensively with the current Project Manager, the lead Project Scientist, the mechanical engineer, the design group, the US Gemini Project Office engineer and the US Project Scientist, as well as with Doug Simons. In short I am optimistic that the NOAO team is well along the road to recovery. One will be considerably more certain in about nine months from now when the thermal and flexure analysis of the new configuration has been completed and the detailed drawings being produced from the 3-D design currently are almost complete. However neither Doug Simons nor I could identify any serious shortcomings in planning or the current design approach.

The current Project Manager has established a very professional and effective management structure and system. Neil Gaughan has the background in this area and clearly knows what his team is doing and how to get the most from the resources he has. Neil does not believe in level-of-effort "area coverage" as a philosophy for managing a project. He identifies tasks and specific resources to accomplish those tasks. He is tracking the resources through timecard reports against WBS elements. The team at work is small, very dedicated to the task, and understands what that task is.

I do not think it an exaggeration to say that none of the objectionable features of the old management structures, attitudes, or (indeed) design features of the previous program is in evidence. The program is being managed in a very open and collegial manner; the USGPO is an active (and, in fact, welcome) participant in the program. Open interchange is sought from the Gemini Project. They are clearly regarded as the customer; if Gemini is not pleased the team is not doing its job.

Even at the surface level that I could see, the design is simple, clean, and elegant. The time invested in training the designers in the use of the 3-D packages (approximately two months since the beginning of the year) is time well spent. It is already paying off in terms of areas where clearances, assembly problems, interference with the optical path, and so on simply could not be uncovered with a 2-D approach until much later in the program. This will avoid very costly delays and re-work down stream. A formal weight budget is in place organized by sub-assembly (to be more precise, by drawing). All of the design files, schedule, budget information, weight budget, reports, design notes, planning and so on is openly available on the GNIRS web page.

There will be a re-start review with Gemini on July 20. The current design effort will result in a design that will be put under configuration control on June 21. This design will be costed, and a final schedule produced. Cryogenic testing of prototype mechanisms and motors as well as materials choices will be complete. Gaughan is approaching the re-start review as a Critical Design Review. While the detailed 2-D fab drawings will not be complete, he plans to go to manufacture in parallel with their completion to keep to delivery of the accepted instrument on or before 6/2002. The current estimated cost-to-complete is $3.841M. This figure will be refined when the design becomes configuration controlled on 21 June and the detailed schedule is produced for the 20 July review.

Specific Points

I had established my view of the necessary elements of such a plan in advance. Here I provide a brief evaluation of each of the elements in light of my review in Tucson:

A thorough review of the management that developed an understanding of the reasons for the original problem.

AURA, Inc. chartered an outside review committee that examined the situation and made a report. That report was made available to NSF and is a good assessment of where the problems were. That report has formed the basis for the actions taken by NOAO. It is important to note that the project manager, two mechanical engineers, and the chief designer for the GNIRS project have all been replaced, and three of these four individuals no longer work for NOAO.

A thorough review of the design approach leading to an informed decision regarding how best to proceed.

This review was carried out in the late fall and winter. In December 1998 the new Project Manager and his engineering team concluded that the design that existed could not be built for a reasonable amount of money. They were also not convinced that it would meet the science requirements and issues of maintenance were raised. As a result NOAO began an effort that was termed "repackaging" since it preserved the basic optical design. However, it was soon obvious that a successful "repackaging" had to be, essentially, a new design effort.

A realistic look at the re-design effort led to a period to re-work the conceptual design. Somewhat in parallel Gaughan decided to invest in training in 3-D design packages as noted above. The period since about March has been spent in an intense re-design effort in close consultation with Gemini; it will culminate in the re-start review on July 20.

Clear statement from NOAO management regarding priority of project

{Clean management structure for project

Written policy from Director to ETS Manager

Written statement to all of NOAO chartering project and empowering PM

Written statement from Director to Gemini Director detailing above}

See attached statement from NOAO Director. Elements of this statement have been contained in various memoranda and promulgated in various meetings. All that I talked to in Tucson felt that this was clear. Nonetheless I believe that it is useful to have the force of the written statement and so asked that the Director gather these into one clear policy statement.

Path to re-start review and sufficient resources assigned to be successful

The path to the restart review is carefully laid out and the team is dedicated to providing the detail appropriate to a CDR at that review. Continual input and feedback is requested of Gemini as the customer. The material for the review will be available on the GNIRS web page at least a week in advance of the review.

Gaughan feels that he has the team in place that can accomplish what needs to be done. Areas of to watch (which Neil is totally aware of) include thermal modeling, FEA, software. The team meets weekly to review progress and work technical and interface issues. On one hand the meetings are informal and promote free exchange. On the other hand, Gaughan does not hesitate to make decisions after listening to the input of the team.

Judgement of Gemini that conceptual design and projected schedule still deliver a desirable instrument.

As noted above, input from Gemini has been sought regularly. The GNIRS team visited the Gemini Project in January and presented the new instrument concept. Gemini was enthusiastic. During that review the GNIRS Project Manager and Project Scientist met in private with the Gemini Director, Gemini Project Manager and Gemini Project Scientist. A new and vastly improved working relationship was crafted.

At the March interim review the Gemini representative expressed much confidence in the design in his report (attached).

Doug Simons has kept close watch on activity in Tucson and did spend the 4^th of May examining progress and plans in parallel with me. He has expressed the same degree of confidence in this team that is reflected in these notes. Obviously success is very difficult to guarantee, but he also feels that the GNIRS team is now on the right track.

On the broad, partnership front the Gemini Science Committee (which represents the scientific communities of all of the partners) has strongly endorsed the desirability of GNIRS, even with the delivery delayed to 6/2002.

Clear, clean relationship among Gemini, USGPO, NOAO project is an essential part of the management structure. This must be in writing and communicated to all parties.

I discussed this with the Project Manager, the USGPO, and with the NOAO Director. All are in agreement that this is area is in much better shape and that the formal arrangements are written down (being contained in the various work scope arrangements). We all agreed to be alert to any possible erosion of the present relationships that might indicate a problem somewhere in the system.

Scientifically acceptable stop-gap measures to provide the highest priority capabilities until GNIRS becomes available

At my request Doug Simons has provided the attached schematic description of the area in observational "phase space" that will be occupied by GNIRS and the interim measures in place or planned to cover the highest priority areas until GNIRS delivery.

Home	Planning	Progress Reports	System Design Notes	Meetings/Reviews	Configuration Images

Requirements	Subsystems	Memoranda	Staff	FTP Site	Internal Info

If you have any questions or suggestions regarding this website, please contact Melissa Bowersock.

NOAO Intranet Services

NOAO Copyright
Statement

National Optical Astronomy Observatories, 950 North Cherry Avenue, P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, Arizona 85726,
Phone: (520) 318-8000, Fax: (520) 318-8360