|
Issue |
2 |
|
Document ID |
EIS-meet-sdt-minutes-2 |
|
File |
D:\Users\mwt\Projects\Solar-B\EIS\docs\meet\sdt\Minutes2.doc |
|
Authors |
Matthew Whyndham, MSSL |
|
Date |
12 November, 1998 |
Contents
Introduction *
Agenda *
PPARC Steering Committee 1 *
US Partner Selection *
Management Plan *
Design *
These are the minutes of the EIS System Design Team meeting number 2 (SDT-2).
Held at the MSSL Library, Thursday, November 12, 1998, 3pm.
Those present
MWT, MSSL
AJM, MSSL
WTO, MSSL
RAG, MSSL
CJM, MSSL
SJW, MSSL
Apologies: DGS
. Report from Steering Commitee 1
2. Progress of the selection process
... educated guesses as to the
timing of its continuation,
... impact this has on efforts here -
e.g. budget constraints.
3. Discussion of the Management Plan.
Please go to http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/Solar-B
then follow the link "online" under Information for Partners
you should find a list of documents, look for
"Management Plan". You should find a variety of documents
Formats available. The HTML version is a bit rough! If you can,
you are better served by the others.
We should aim on collectively fleshing out this plan.
4. Progress of the design.
A chance to say where we are in the ongoing dialogue with Hara,
which is mostly focussed on the EIS-MDP interface.
Is it time the direction of this discussion was defined more clearly?
| Notes from Steering Committee (1) | EIS-meet-steercom-notes1 | html | Ps | Doc | ||
| Steering Committee reports | EIS-meet-steercom-reports | Html | ps | Doc | ||
| Steering Committee financial statement | (removed from archive) |
Notes from the steering committee meeting as well as the report given to it can be found in the above reference documents. The steering committee will meet periodically through the life of the project. It comprises academics from a number of institutions and representatives from PPARC.
At this meeting I showed the Overview schedule (including major milestones) as currently understood. This is identical to the schedule found in the UK proposal was the exception that the launch date has been adjusted by six months. We need to plan in more detail for the period up to the PDR.
We (SDT) should also review the project work breakdown structure.
| Overview Schedule (1) | EIS-man-schedule-overview1 | Ps | Mpp | |||
| Work Breakdown Structure (1) | EIS-sys-eng-WBS1 | ps | Mpp |
Has are the major conclusions of the steering committee.
"Assume that discussions can begin with the US partner on the 1st January. Assume that the US funding start will be April 1st 1999. Consider the timing of the PDR in conjunction with the US partner. Provide the committee with the following:"
| 15 December | Preliminary version of the management plan. |
| 15 January | Revised set of milestones to launch |
| 14 February | A 3-country version of the management plan. |
| 14 February | Preliminary re-profiling |
| 14 February | Revised risk analysis |
| 30 April | final re-profiling |
Next Meeting 25th Feb. Location TBD (likely to be central London).
See above.
| Management Plan | EIS-man-manplan-1d | html | ps | doc |
The management plan has not been substantially revised since the last meeting. It is important that this document is a useful document for everyone. It would be futile to think that 100 per cent of our procedures could be written in it, but I would like to think that we could describe 65 per cent of them quite easily. The reasons for doing this are: so that we agree with one another on what we are doing; so that other interested parties (for example the steering committee) can have confidence in our work; and to provide a useful record (references where appropriate) of the main technical characteristics of instrument.
I am encouraged in this by the fact that the steering committee would like to see the management plan developed, and indeed have encouraged me to prepare a three country version of the management plan-so that all members of the EIS consortium subscribe to it.
I will insert bullets in the sections that we discussed-relating to reviews and timing of design freezes-and notify the team. The plan will go to issue 1 (at the moment it is at draft 1d ) when there is some representative content in every section. This could be prescriptive i.e. "the full Test matrix will appear here".
So let me have your suggestions!
There was a general discussion about the differences between the preliminary design review (PDR) and the critical design review (CDR). At the PDR the following should be defined: critical system interfaces; the systems hierarchy (relationship between subsystems). The internal details of each Subsystem are essentially a free at the PDR stage, whereas their conceptual details become frozen at the CDR. The successful completion of the CDR will allow construction of hardware at EM and STM level.
Need to fix characteristics of MDP interface.
AJM and MWT to begin revision of interfaces document. MWT will then review this with RAG (data flows) and WTO (mechanical and thermal) to get a general picture of which interfaces are present in the entire system. We should attempt to identify the interfaces that should be frozen at the PDR.
RAG General statement of design philosophy - revised slightly this can be forwarded to Hara for information.
AJM update of block diagram - should this be listed in the document system?
It was felt that there was an opportunity to use the time that we have available to us to "sharpen our tools ". We could do this by linking with the SXI project. Chris and Alec should meet with Dave to see where there were common areas.