ILC EDMS Selection Committee Progress Report

Tom Markiewicz SLAC 11 March 2006 Bangalore GDE Meeting

2 / 21

Committee Members

John Ferguson – CERN Lars Hagge - DESY Tom Markiewicz - SLAC (Chair) Richard Stanek - FNAL Nobu Toge - KEK Harry Weerts - Argonne

Tom Markiewicz

Charge to the Committee

The committee should recommend a specific web based software solution, which may mean an integrated collection of distinct software packages that will allow ILC collaborators worldwide to store, search for and retrieve various kinds of documents. At least three basic kinds of documents must be handled: 1.

meeting/conference/seminar related files 2.

3.

publications/white papers/notes and engineering documents: – CAD drawings, cost estimates, vendor quotes, and QC documents. 3 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

4 / 21

Timeline (from Charge)

A

progress report

to the GDE should be made at the December 2005 meeting. It is

hoped

that a

decision

can be made

early

enough in

2006

that

implementation

, testing and backfilling of the archive can occur

before

the fourth meeting of the GDE in

March 2006,

with

release

to the general ILC community targeted to

April 1, 2006

.

Tom Markiewicz

5 / 21

Status

A decision has been made to recommend a product suite composed of – InDiCo – meeting management – CERN Document Server – general documentation – UGS TeamCenter – CAD and ILC “Lifecycle Management” ILC Specific servers have been commissioned – InDiCo: http://ilcagenda.cern.ch/ – CDS: http://ilcdoc.cern.ch/ Negotiations for ILC-devoted technical support of these products with CERN DG and DESY Research Director have begun

Tom Markiewicz

Why This Talk Today?

In an ideal world (think restaurant, commercial software) some group would package all the tools, load them with content, debug the system and have a trained support staff ready before “product launch”

–

You never have a second chance to make a first impression We want to take opportunity of this meeting to discuss the best way to proceed with the “GDE” before “going public” to the wider ILC community

6 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

7 / 21

Treading the Slippery Slope Between Recommendation, Implementation, Configuration & Support

• • •

The EDMS Selection Committee is not qualified and has not agreed to do anything other than to recommend and justify its recommendation There are many other stakeholders who need to be consulted regarding configuration Embedding these tools in an appropriate environment along with other tools required for effective international communication (email-listservers, discussion boards, wiki pages, vid-con, tel-con,..), secure yet convenient user authentication, project management tools (cost breakdown and work breakdown tools) and creating a support team will be essential if ILC wants a unfragmented knowledgebase

–

We strongly recommend that Exec Comm takes action here

Tom Markiewicz

Access to Tools Through EDMS Web Page: Possible Solutions

http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_dms_selection: ilc_dms_selection_home 8 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

Access to Tools Through EDMS Web Page: Possible Solutions

9 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

Agenda

Eventual Top Level Architecture

Unified Search & Store Interface Management Document Management ILC “Lifecycle” Management Before it declares success and retires, EDMS committee will work with current technical experts to •implement a basic version of this architecture •devise an interim support model, upgrade path & schedule 10 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

11 / 21

Monolithic vs. Separate Products

Considering the phase transitions the EDMS is meant to span gaseous to frozen scientific to engineering light to heavy free submission to controlled submission many untrained users to relatively few highly trained users all roughly correlated to period when variants in design & configuration is done by physicists and is to be encouraged and facilitated vs. period when strict engineering change control by project managers, engineers, designers and purchase agents is desired, we did not think a monolithic solution would be viable.

Tom Markiewicz

12 / 21

Justification of Choice in a Nutshell

Once the model became one where “best of breed” was allowed: INDICO was chosen for its “value added” meeting & conference management features, CDS Agenda heritage, strong support team with active plans for product improvement & willingness to host ILC Deciding whether or not to merge document management, which has a component of “change control” or “management authorization” with the EDMS products that have good but “heavy” “work flow” engines was difficult. Need, especially at this point in ILC lifecycle to encourage communication led to decision to use separate product. CDSware flow configuration, strong support team & willingness to host.

was chosen as it will eventually be integrated with InDiCo, has flexible work

We do feel a beta test is required before this decision is cast in stone.

Decision between Axalant (CERN/LHC) and Teamcenter (DESY/XFEL) products for hard core EDMS came to conscious choice of a “tightly” coupled 3D CAD-EDMS Teamcenter designed to support collaborative engineering over the battle tested older product used to build the LHC that uses an “integration team” to ensure part compatibility. Intrinsic to this decision was the admission by all parties that:

TeamCenter had all the basic hooks required to develop its “work flow” and needed time & experience CERN would help in this effort Tight coupling between “privileged” CAD systems did not exclude ANY CAD system used in the manner employed at CERN

More on this topic later.

An ILC specific instance and beta testing recommended here as well.

Tom Markiewicz

ILC InDiCo Server

13 / 21 Basic category “tree” discussed with ExecComm & implemented “Managers” appointed for each category Beta-testers recruited: ~50 meetings in system TWM fields questions & punts to CERN when required Start of a “Wish list,” “Bug List” & “Q&A” on EDMS wiki

Tom Markiewicz

14 / 21

InDiCo Search

Implemented on CERN server, soon to added to ILC Server

Tom Markiewicz

ILC Document Server

15 / 21 Site created so that ILC can understand how to best set “collection” types, “category” types and work flow (approval chain) CCB (N.Toge) asked to be first beta tester for multi-part BCD document NO ILC customization or testing done yet.

Tom Markiewicz

Relation between EDMS & CAD

DESY operates a Web-based EDMS with Multi-CAD connectors design engineer CAD System-1 EDMS-CAD-1 Connector design engineer CAD System-2 EDMS-CAD-2 Connector user Web Browser 3D-Viewer 16 / 21 ILC labs without own CAD data management can directly connect to the DESY-EDMS via Internet DESY-EDMS CAD System-x EDMS-CAD-x Connector design engineer Currently DESY EDMS CAD configured for IDES Extension to SolidEdge underway Extension to CATIA planned “Drawings” (as opposed to integrated 3-D assemblies) from ANY CAD product can be stored

Tom Markiewicz

At least three options exist for connecting ILC labs which are operating their own local data managers to the DESY-EDMS, depending on the nature of their CAD systems and data managers: DESY-EDMS EDMS-CAD-1 Connector CAD System-1 Local Data Manager Im-/Export EDMS-CAD-x Connector CAD System-x seat # i CAD System-x seat # n Local Data Manager

Option 1

Engineers save to either the local data manager or to the DESY-EDMS 17 / 21 CAD System-y seat # i CAD System-y seat # n Local Data Manager

Option 2

Engineers export from locally connected CAD-y seat and import into DESY-connected CAD-1 seat (and vice versa) CAD System-x seat # i CAD System-x seat # n

Option 3

Engineers exchange data between their local data manager and the DESY-EDMS (direct connect, transfer file …)

Tom Markiewicz

18 / 21 •

Real Time EDMS Examples

Example 1: US Industrial Cost Study for RDR

–

Would like a complete package of drawings for vendors to study in order to estimate US cost of Type III+ cryomodule

–

3D solid model has just been created using combination of DESY and INFN drawings and parts (inside DESY EDMS)

–

BOM includes a list of all the parts but many parts do not yet have associated drawings. Drawings may exist but are not yet related to the parts.

• Question: Do I have the latest drawing and is it consistent with the 3D model and what is actually being built? • Answer: Would be YES if everyone was properly using the same data files in a shared EDMS –

Eventually there will be slight regional variations of the drawings (language, standards, common sizes) but still want to keep as much of the design consistent as possible.

Tom Markiewicz

19 / 21

Real Time EDMS Examples (cont’d)

•

Example 2: Tunnel Layout

–

There may be as many as three different tunnel layouts being worked on right now

• Question: Is everyone using consistent dimensions for components (cryomodule, klystrons, waveguides, etc.) and do these components reflect the latest information from the Technical and Area Groups?

• Answer: Would be YES if everyone was properly using the same data files in a shared EDMS. Could even assure that proposed changes in the tunnel layout could get “approved” by technical experts before they are accepted. Sharing 3D model files would save time, assure consistency and help eliminate errors.

Tom Markiewicz

Conclusion

20 / 21 • • •

The EDMS committee recommends the approach outlined in this talk A complete light-weight instance should be configured and implemented by an expanded team of interested parties and the result tested enough to approve/reject before 100% project approval Action by director, executive committee, rdr matrix leaders and users required if this is to go smoothly.

–

Good will and patience during learning period would be beneficial as well, even if “it wasn’t invented here”

Tom Markiewicz

CERN EDMS

• • •

Project LifeCycle Management

–

Design

• •

Configuration Documents (CAD, text) with versioning and access control

•

Documentation organized and linked in various structures. (PBS, WBS, ABS, etc.)

•

Approval process (Work Flow) Manufacturing Management

–

Manufacturing

– – –

Installation Operation Maintenance Other Data

–

Parameters

–

Test Data

21 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

design view

hierarchy of assemblies & parts

Team Center EDMS

manufacturing view

hierarchy of serialized parts

conditioning view

sequence of work packages 01 10

Product Lifecycle Mgmt 3D Interactive Visualization for Non-CAD-Users

reader reviewer author web interface with reduced functionality web interface

EDMS

core system lifecycles database srvr native user i/f admin i/f … 3D CAD interface CAD-1 (I-DEAS) CAD-2 (SolidEdge, others) web services my web my web Different EDMS clients for different target groups:eg. xfel.desy.de

22 / 21 engineer my web webmaster

Tom Markiewicz

Pros & Cons of Choices

• • •

InDiCo is industry standard for managing “talks”

–

May need some flexibility for tailoring output based on different ”keys”

–

If adopted, “Talks” would be in a separate DB than other files CERN EDMS is a tried & true system useful for document control and engineering applications. 630k documents, much experience, $nB decade long project with many of the “bugs” inherent in any out-of the-box system found & fixed by support team

–

What, if anything, would need to be changed for ILC?

– –

Mostly developed after the design phase of LHC Is the connection to 3D CAD tools adequate?

UGS TeamCenter EDMS adopted by DESY for ILC-sister XFEL project after much thought. 200k documents and many CAD files already in system. Industry powerhouse (GM, Nissan) with strong collaborative design web-based CAD tools and flexible DB driven structure for organizing content.

–

Currently being customized and extended to post-design phases of XFEL

–

Could be an advantage for ILC as it decides how it wants to organize

23 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

Cost Information

•

DESY TeamCenter

–

Licenses to the ILC community from its current stock without charge iff

1. Server is located at DESY – – 2. DESY is the contact for the vendor hotline

ILC support handled by present team with 2 additional support persons for ILC

• plus trained regional pool of regional experts

Hardware configuration not discussed, presumed in the noise

•

CERN EDMS

–

ZERO marginal cost to add ILC as a standard EDMS project hosted and supported at CERN

–

ILC support handled by the present support team with one system administrator specifically for ILC.

• Assuming good mapping of ILC needs onto existing system features –

Subject to database size, might require some investment in hardware

•

CERN Indico

–

No licensing costs

–

Installation and technical support from current team, with eventually, one ILC system administrator.

–

Duplicate existing CERN hardware of 6 servers @ ~$3000 each

24 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

Committee’s Current Consensus (NB: Not yet a recommendation)

Use InDiCo for Meeting Management

– –

Back fill CERN or TC EDMS with InDiCo pointers & files Begin an ILC specific instance of InDiCo

25 / 21

Decide among TeamCenter, CDS & CERN EDMS for document & engineering control by applying

Benchmark Functionality Tests

that are being written into the

Requirements Document

– –

Certain committee members already have an opinion Ideally we would construct a “light” ILC implementation of each product as part of selection process, but ….

• Requires more time and resources than committee has • “Light” exercise unlikely to have adequate breadth & depth to discriminate

Tom Markiewicz

26 / 21

Resources Required

• •

From NOW to “Decision Time”

– –

Begin InDiCo implementation Develop enough hands-on experience with other systems to judge their relative merits

• NB: while lab support might be offered for a “chosen” system, this kind of effort may not be

In Q1 of 2006 will need expert support to

– –

Begin to implement the chosen solution Back fill it with enough data/content/usefulness that users adopt it

–

Test & administer

Tom Markiewicz

Community Feedback

A danger to this endeavor is adopting a system that the targeted users do not like & refuse to use

– –

Best inoculation against this is user input and beta testing However, EDMS will always feel much more clumsy than ‘Google’ and EDMS value not appreciated until system is loaded with content

–

Asking for user opinions may open a can of worms unless scope of user suggestions is limited

–

Recommendation in any event will rest in hands of committee We are interested in GDE’s opinions on desirability and mechanisms for user input It is clear that analysis oriented individuals are in the community who can better implement and more fully test system than can this committee. Should a volunteer support staff be recruited?

27 / 21

Tom Markiewicz

Immediate Plans & Timeline Update

28 / 21 • • •

Feb.15, 2006

– – –

Finish specifying “Requirements” and “Functionality Tests” Develop as robust version of InDiCo as possible Develop “light” ILC implementation of CDS, CERN EDMS & TeamCenter for comparison March 1, 2006

–

Down Select for tools to handle documents and engineering data April 1, 2006

–

Begin to train pool of regional experts in the chosen system

–

Release to larger group (all ILC?) an InDiCo system backfilled with as much relevant data as possible

• Snowmass, Frascati, Bangalore • SLAC BDS meetings –

Release a Document management System that can handle the BCD and RDR

Tom Markiewicz

Anti-Charge to the Committee

The recommendation of other related virtual communication tools may be made if they enhance the functioning of the basic document management system. Such tools may include calendars, agendas, emailing lists, email notification, discussion forums, user-modifiable ("wiki") web pages for interactive working group documentation, etc. The recommendation or incorporation of these tools should be considered secondary to the selection of system that supports the core functions of storage, search and retrieval.

Project management tools (WBS, scheduling, resource planning) are outside the scope of current charge. 29 / 21

Tom Markiewicz