Difference between revisions of "UITF Meeting - May 19, 2016"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "I pulled together some info from the Conduct of Engineering Manual (CoEM) that would apply to the design and use of new hardware or electronics for UITF PSS beam current monit...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I pulled together some info from the Conduct of Engineering Manual (CoEM) that would apply to the design and use of new hardware or electronics for UITF PSS beam current monitor. Namely: | I pulled together some info from the Conduct of Engineering Manual (CoEM) that would apply to the design and use of new hardware or electronics for UITF PSS beam current monitor. Namely: | ||
| − | + | * there should be a project lead | |
| − | + | * there should be an identified design authority/system owner who is the technical expert and is responsible for: | |
| − | + | ** The ultimate technical adequacy of the system. | |
| − | + | ** Establishing the design requirements. | |
| − | + | ** Establishing acceptance criteria to define satisfactory work completion. | |
| − | + | ** Reviewing and approving proposed changes to configured items and commissioned systems for which they are responsible for. This includes ensuring that proposed changes are reviewed for their impact to safety as well as effective reviews by subject matter experts. | |
This can start out with the design authority and be handed to a system owner after installation and commissioning... | This can start out with the design authority and be handed to a system owner after installation and commissioning... | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The associated information should be retained in a project engineering evidence folder of some kind that contains at least: | The associated information should be retained in a project engineering evidence folder of some kind that contains at least: | ||
| − | + | # Requirements / Performance Specifications for a Level 1 CM System, i.e. critical to mission/operation, high safety impact, operational and maintenance information at hand. (Table 2 (pages 54-56): System Performance Specification list the requirements for Level 1 CM Systems) | |
| − | + | # Deliverables | |
| − | + | # Preliminary Drawings (uncontrolled) | |
| − | + | # Engineering Calculations / Analyses / Simulations | |
| − | + | # Design Review(s) | |
| − | + | # Final Drawings (controlled) | |
| − | + | # Installation and testing plans, test reports, acceptance and any sort of Validation and Verification Data, Commissioning Data | |
| − | + | # Change Control according to Figure 10 (page 69): Change Control Process | |
| − | + | # Quality Control Documents | |
There are some specific required steps. I think the sooner we have a technology selected (whether it's new cavities or existing cavities with a new down-converter) the sooner we can pair up activities related to the current measurement device with requirements in the CoEM, the sooner we'll know how much work we have left to do... | There are some specific required steps. I think the sooner we have a technology selected (whether it's new cavities or existing cavities with a new down-converter) the sooner we can pair up activities related to the current measurement device with requirements in the CoEM, the sooner we'll know how much work we have left to do... | ||
Latest revision as of 11:43, 19 May 2016
I pulled together some info from the Conduct of Engineering Manual (CoEM) that would apply to the design and use of new hardware or electronics for UITF PSS beam current monitor. Namely:
- there should be a project lead
- there should be an identified design authority/system owner who is the technical expert and is responsible for:
- The ultimate technical adequacy of the system.
- Establishing the design requirements.
- Establishing acceptance criteria to define satisfactory work completion.
- Reviewing and approving proposed changes to configured items and commissioned systems for which they are responsible for. This includes ensuring that proposed changes are reviewed for their impact to safety as well as effective reviews by subject matter experts.
This can start out with the design authority and be handed to a system owner after installation and commissioning...
This is probably a category 2 or 3 project or task (see the manual page 21) and Probably needs a formal Design Requirements Document (see pages 36 and 37) with revision control. There should be (one or more) design reviews that evaluate whether it can meet design deliverables.
The associated information should be retained in a project engineering evidence folder of some kind that contains at least:
- Requirements / Performance Specifications for a Level 1 CM System, i.e. critical to mission/operation, high safety impact, operational and maintenance information at hand. (Table 2 (pages 54-56): System Performance Specification list the requirements for Level 1 CM Systems)
- Deliverables
- Preliminary Drawings (uncontrolled)
- Engineering Calculations / Analyses / Simulations
- Design Review(s)
- Final Drawings (controlled)
- Installation and testing plans, test reports, acceptance and any sort of Validation and Verification Data, Commissioning Data
- Change Control according to Figure 10 (page 69): Change Control Process
- Quality Control Documents
There are some specific required steps. I think the sooner we have a technology selected (whether it's new cavities or existing cavities with a new down-converter) the sooner we can pair up activities related to the current measurement device with requirements in the CoEM, the sooner we'll know how much work we have left to do...
AS soon as the technology is selected, we can deal with it at an SCMB meeting. I'm just trying to make sure all the pieces are moving toward convergence...
Bob -- Robert May Deputy EHS&Q Jefferson Lab