Feedback from Instrument Teams at IKON 14 Instrument

  • Slides: 5
Download presentation
Feedback from Instrument Teams at IKON 14 Instrument Class: Engineering & Imaging BEER: Beamline

Feedback from Instrument Teams at IKON 14 Instrument Class: Engineering & Imaging BEER: Beamline for European Materials Engineering Research ODIN: Optical and Diffraction Imaging with Neutrons Technische Universität München Nuclear Physics Institute CAS Czech Republic Přemysl Beran Jan Šaroun Petr Lukáš Petr Šittner ESS ICC Robin Woracek Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Technische Universität München Germany Jochen Fenske Gregor Nowak Dirk Jan Siemers Rüdiger Kiehn John Hedde Peter Staron Martin Müller Jorg Burmester Michael Lerche Elbio Calzada Burkhard Schillinger Michael Schulz Paul Scherrer Institut Switzerland Manuel Morgano Markus Strobl ESS ICC Robin Woracek 1

In which areas have we made progress during this IKON meeting ? • It

In which areas have we made progress during this IKON meeting ? • It is hard to measure/show progress in the format of an IKON meeting • Communication during IKON has improved • Level of communication about delays appears more open and honest now: That is much appreciated • Certain topics are recognized by ESS and start to be addressed (e. g. CE marking, EMC). Next steps: will this be actually put into action… What and who enabled this progress ? • EMC topic (Thomas Gahl) Central electrical engineer should start asap Where did we not progress: • HIGH LEVEL: • Defining schedule, Contracts, TA’s • TA cannot be finalized before the schedule is fixed: yet details are asked for detailed designs + procurement (Example: NBOA) • Progress depends on willingness of partner institute management to go for any work (example: tendering) without TA • The communication outside IKON still needs improvement • e. g. ESS asks for a lot of information asap, but team feels: documents are received and checked if chess number exists, but content ‘not utilized’ • Could certain work be minimized: e. g. CE document already contains information on everything 2 including hazard analysis, handling, life cycle, …

Where did we not progress: • Asking/collecting information during the IKON session not feasible

Where did we not progress: • Asking/collecting information during the IKON session not feasible (proposal should be discussed instead) • The bunker project was not discussed: • high level of uncertainty to instruments teams remains (and what it means financially, design and installation) Installation: • Unrealistic proposal for installation (3 sessions addressing this): weekly onsite meetings, 1 safety person/instrument always present • Regarding installation plan: ODIN stresses it is based on (’very generous’) assumptions. ”There is enough storage and staging space available on site. This is particularly true for TUM work units since we MUST NOT store anything at TUM in order to avoid VAT. ” • ESS needs a lot of information of complex nature (delivery, space, insurance, etc) • Challenging to manage this information and keep up to date (for only one person) • Suggestion (Elbio ODIN): dummy test facility: Components delivered to Lund -> check for damage/consequences of delays and insurance -> check assembly well before the real installation -> identify bottlenecks (crane is only an obvious one) • Who would make this dummy? Design of it and who will pay? It will save money in the end? 3

What topics shall we address jointly now ? • What would really help the

What topics shall we address jointly now ? • What would really help the team(s): other instruments show details of their design to other teams • at the moment only ESS has/should have the overall overview • Share a list/table with components and progress of it between teams? • Example: The overview of chopper vendors (NCG) was well received in order to evaluate the lead times (as starting point) How can teams we help each other? What is needed? • People from all sides (instrument teams and ESS) are willing to help and become active (however external constraints often hinder this). • Instrument teams: Are ready to start (e. g. motion control), but again delayed with contracts and agreements • Example: MCA wants to provide standards (still not fixed), in-kind project not started -> so no official start possible yet • Relevant changes are often buried in ‘minutes’. Person to filter critical information and inform instrument teams (should be job of ICC: need appropriate time recourses to do a proper job): Newsletter by Ken? • ESS team: always have a test session running on vidyo (for testing of the connection without actual meeting) • ESS team: Content manager for confluence! (remove old information, check duplicates and conflicting information; ‘living documents’ often confusing) • V 20 is of great help for method development, software and detector tests (new ESS recourses appreciated to progress faster) 4

Which focus for the next IKON meeting in Sept. 2018 ? • How to

Which focus for the next IKON meeting in Sept. 2018 ? • How to write a TA if the access dates don’t exist/are constantly changed? • Could instrument teams share their progress level to other instruments • Progress of the engineering design. Sharing ideas of design between teams • need to think of format, could ESS groups show overview • SAD overview of SE suite Who to involve in the preparation ? • More technical side/people from instruments 5