LIGO Document M1500263-v7

Guidelines for Advanced LIGO Detector Improvement (DI) Project Review(s)

Document #:
LIGO-M1500263-v7
Document type:
M - Management or Policy
Other Versions:
LIGO-M1500263-v1
05 Oct 2016, 13:59
Abstract:
This document provides programmatic guidelines for the development phases of proposed Detector Improvements (DI) to the advanced LIGO (aLIGO) detector from the requirements and conceptual design phase through fabrication.
This document supersedes the Advanced LIGO document, M050220, Guidelines for Advanced LIGO Detector Construction Activities.

Detector Improvement (DI) Project Review Guidelines
* Large projects -- Multiple reviews
* Medium projects -- Single expedited technical review
* For small, straight-forward projects -- an ECR approval is sufficient

Keywords:
OMT MEMO
Notes and Changes:
release (-v2) notes:
1) Switched the terminology from 'detector upgrade' to 'Detector Improvement (DI)' to be consistent with the activity based WBS for Operations starting in FY 2019, per M1700019
2) Notes that Systems Engineering defines expedited or abbreviated reviews for small scale/scope DI projects.

release (-v3) notes:
1.) added 'including cabling, feedthrough, stray light and viewport considerations.' to the PDR and FDR checklists.

release (-v4) notes:
1) added IRR checklist to section 11.4 and expanded IRR section 9.2.

release (-v5) notes:
1) Added key to IRR Checklist (section 11.4) to allow definition of what was intended as deliverables on Interfaces.
2) Added to IRR Checklist key (section 11.4) to allow definition of what was intended as deliverables on Software.

release (-v6) notes:
1) updated table 11.4 for IRR to expand on electronics and software deliverables.
2) confirmed risk registry review is included and referenced in the summary tables.

release (-v7) notes:
1) Included new requirement to include and review TRL at both PDR and FDR. (For now highlighted in yellow.)


Pending change (-v8):
define 'work package', and when a work package is required, per template M1800083, and when it is not required.


Suggestion for future consideration:
1) Compare and normalize the design review content with INCOSE and/or NASA Systems Engineering guidance.

2) Review current documentation and consider adding further steps to the systems engineering process to consider potential risk register entries at the design state for new major equipment of facilities. For example, could a risk assessment process have recommended mitigation of filter cavity enclosure ballistic risk, a top-five ranked risk, earlier in the design phase? (This is on hold until new risk registry process is reviewed and implemented)

3) Add DI Guidelines from Abstract to top of the document.


DCC Version 3.5.2, contact DCC Help