[Alma_na] Computing Construction FTE-y - Email from Dr. Lo, Please read!

[Janet Bauer]

Dear Brian,

 

I am finding with some concern about the lack of proper process within
the Executives to exert control over cost and scope increase.

 

The proposed changes in your email you sent the JAO should have first
been discussed and approved within the NA ALMA Project Office.  To
decide on a scope increase in the process of discussion with the PMCS is
entirely inappropriate.  The CDR or PDR are also inappropriate vehicles
for scope increase.

 

The Executives are carrying out the tasks and responsible for the cost. 

The JAO, while overeeing the entire project programmatically, has no
responsbility, and therefore incentive, towards controlling cost, and
surprisingly sofar also scope.

 

Furthermore, I am finding that each IPT has no responsibility or
accountability towards controlling cost either.  Things are done and
decisions are made, and somehow funding is expected to be available.

 

I am using your email as an example, without meaning to single you out.


We have a generic issue to address.  This process will be part of the
discussion at the Friday DHs' videoconference.

 

Cheers,

KYL

 

 

 

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Brian Glendenning wrote:

 

> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:36:28 -0600

> From: Brian Glendenning <bglenden at nrao.edu>

> To: 'Joint ALMA Office' <jao at nrao.edu>

> Cc: 'Gianni Raffi' <graffi at eso.org>

> Subject: [Jao] Computing construction FTE-y

> 

> Dear Management IPT:

> 

> The changes that will be proposed to the CIPT construction software 

> development budget fall into the following categories:

> 

> 1. 41 FTE-y: for future work on baseline scope as presented at CDR2. 

> This is caused by a mixture of mis-estimation and unanticipated
operations impact.

> 

> 2. 8 FTE-y: Operations software (new scope). We had assumed and 

> proposed that this be funded entirely in interim operations, but at 

> the PMCS meetings (and with the input of Silva) it was decided that 

> until 2008 it should instead be a construction funded activity.

> 

> 3. 16 FTE-y: Calendar normalization. NA charged 2002 to the 

> construction budget but not Europe, nevertheless the work is 

> inter-related and must conclude at the same time. This is a worst case


> figure, R. Simon has an action to determine more exact historical 

> staffing, but Glendenning notes that on 2002-06-01 he had 10 staff and


> on 2002-12-01 he had 11, so ~10 FTE-y should be closer, and if the 

> charging started at 2006.5 there might be an additional factor of 2
reduction.

> 

> 4. 16 FTE-y: Recognition of current and past overstaffing. Caused by 

> fractional personnel planning vs. actual whole persons hired, and 

> additional personnel supplied by executives to maintain baseline 

> scope. Glendenning believes that at least on the NA side this will 

> also prove to be an over-estimate.

> 

> This does not include costs proposed to be on interim operations, ARC 

> items, nor IT items not specific to Computing. It also does not 

> include a non-shared NA ALMA contribution to AIPS++ which was 

> back-charged to 1 October 2003 and which as I understand it is 

> anticipated to conclude 30 Sept

> 2005 (~4 FTE-y = 2 FTE/y for 2 years).

> 

> I should note that I have sent this in without further consultation, 

> and (at

> least) Raffi, Beckers, or Simon might have some corrections to the
above.

> 

> Cheers,

> Brian

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Jao mailing list

> Jao at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu

> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/jao

> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listmgr.nrao.edu/pipermail/alma_na/attachments/20040901/0211344a/attachment.html>