Login

MoC / PM initiative #4

→ Europe/Zurich
36/S-014 (CERN)

36/S-014

CERN

20
Show room on map
Description

Agenda:

Prepare an inventory and Pros and Cons (1 slide per section):

  • OP Rocco and Lauren
  • CL Tiziano and Natalia
  • IC Caroline and Michel
  • ME Aleksandra, Emmanuel and Fabio
  • ML Remi, Rob and Boyan

 

Points to address in the slide:

  • Usage of Tools
  • Project management
    • Workflow
    • Guidelines / Framework
    • Budget
    • Supervision / Ownership / Reporting
    • Resources and Time management
  • Documentation management
  • Meetings structure
    • Types of meetings: purpose of meeting
    • Format: agenda? Minutes?
  • Team building activities

MoC / PM initiative #4
Zoom Meeting ID
66268675447
Host
Boyan Naydenov
Useful links
Join via phone
Zoom URL
Hide

Meeting Minutes – Project Management & Tools Harmonization Discussion

AI generated minutes from meeting transcript. Not proofread. Needs to be checked.


Time: ~09:40 – 11:03
Participants: TB, BN, CF, MC, LD, FM, NK 

1. Objective of the Meeting

  • Review current project management practices across sections (OP, IC, ML, detectors, R&D).
  • Identify tools used, limitations, and gaps.
  • Collect inputs for harmonization and improvement of workflows, documentation, and reporting.

2. Tools Overview

2.1 Commonly Used Tools

  • EDMS – Central document repository (mandatory for official documentation).
  • Infor EAM – Configuration management and maintenance tracking.
  • Confluence – Collaboration hub (meeting planning, links, shared info).
  • Indico – Meeting organization and minutes.
  • Sandbox / DFS – Working storage and collaboration.
  • Excel – Lists, tracking, budget follow-up.
  • Jira / GitLab / Octoplant – Mainly used in IC (software, tracking, PLC code).

2.2 Observations

  • Tools are widely used but:
    • Lack of integration (EDMS ↔ EAM).
    • Inconsistent usage across sections.
    • Dependence on tools is risky due to licensing/policy changes.
  • Confluence is recognized as a useful “hub”, but adoption is inconsistent.

3. Key Issues Identified

3.1 Lack of Standardized Project Management Framework

  • Existing frameworks (e.g., OpenSE/OpenPM) are not applied in practice.
  • Projects are often managed ad hoc (“à la tête du client”).
  • Responsibilities are often:
    • Shared and unclear
    • Spread across group leaders, project leaders, and sections

3.2 Fragmented Documentation & Traceability

  • No unified structure across:
    • EDMS
    • Sandbox
    • EAM logbooks
  • Issues:
    • Difficult to trace history of modifications
    • Lack of link between work orders, logbook events, and documents
  • EDMS:
    • Strong for versioning and approval
    • Underused as a working tool

3.3 Inconsistent Workflows

  • Workflows vary significantly:
    • Detector projects → externally driven and structured
    • R&D projects → informal and flexible
    • Operations/Maintenance → partly structured (work orders), partly informal
  • Some workflows are executed in reverse order (e.g., implementation before requirements finalized).

3.4 Budget Management Weaknesses

  • No standardized:
    • Budget tracking
    • Reporting structure
    • Review process
  • Observations:
    • Budget ownership unclear
    • Project leaders lack visibility or guidance
    • Minimal use of tools (Power BI not widely adopted)
  • Risk:
    • Projects exceeding budgets without early warning
    • Inefficient resource allocation

3.5 Lack of Quality Assurance Structure

  • No centralized quality assurance (QA) function at group level
  • Consequences:
    • Different projects follow different rules
    • Documentation inconsistent across projects (e.g., FCC vs HL-LHC)
  • Need for:
    • Common guidelines
    • Validation/control mechanisms

3.6 Coordination & Visibility Gaps

  • Limited visibility across:
    • Sections (OP, IC, ML, etc.)
    • Projects and ongoing work
  • Lack of:
    • Central overview of projects
    • Standardized reporting format
  • ML (Methods) role not clearly visible or fully integrated.

3.7 Meeting & Reporting Practices

  • Practices vary:
    • Some projects have structured meetings with minutes
    • Others rely on informal updates
  • Limited:
    • Project review meetings
    • Post-project reviews / lessons learned

4. Suggestions & Proposals

4.1 Establish Central Coordination

  • Create a centralized function (e.g., QA / Project Office) to:
    • Define guidelines
    • Ensure consistency across projects
    • Support project leaders

4.2 Define a Lightweight Project Framework

  • Develop a flexible methodology:
    • Adapted to project size
    • Avoid excessive bureaucracy
  • Include:
    • Standard phases (requirements → design → execution → validation)
    • Minimum deliverables

4.3 Introduce Project “Profile Cards”

  • One-page summary per project:
    • Objectives
    • Scope
    • Timeline
    • Key links to documentation
  • Benefits:
    • Improved visibility
    • Easier access to information
    • Avoid duplication of work

4.4 Improve Documentation Practices

  • Clarify:
    • When to use EDMS vs Sandbox vs other tools
  • Promote:
    • EDMS for traceability
    • Standard folder structures
  • Consider:
    • Simplified workflows for document creation

4.5 Budget Governance Improvements

  • Introduce:
    • Basic budget tracking templates
    • Expenditure profiles at project start
    • Periodic reviews
  • Clarify:
    • Roles (budget owner vs project leader)
    • Reporting expectations

4.6 Enhance Traceability

  • Improve link between:
    • Logbook events
    • Work orders
    • Documentation
  • Aim for:
    • Full lifecycle visibility of systems and modifications

4.7 Knowledge Sharing & Recognition

  • Reintroduce:
    • Project presentations (e.g., at CRG meetings)
    • End-of-project “lessons learned”
  • Encourage:
    • Visibility of contributions
    • Sharing of best practices

4.8 Regular Coordination Meetings

  • Proposal:
    • Organize biannual “working group summits”
  • Purpose:
    • Align practices
    • Share feedback
    • Monitor improvements

5. Section-Specific Highlights

Operations (OP)

  • Heavy use of:
    • EAM, logbook, work orders
  • Consolidations:
    • Often informal (emails, calls)
  • Needs:
    • Better structure for MoCs and documentation

IC Section

  • Strong technical toolset:
    • GitLab, Octoplant, Jira
  • Challenges:
    • Lack of unified project framework
    • Missing formal validation steps
  • Good practices:
    • Internal discipline for software and safety reviews

Detectors / R&D

  • Highly variable workflows
  • Budget and reporting largely informal
  • External constraints sometimes provide structure

6. Next Steps

  • Continue presentations (IC, ME) in future meetings.
  • Launch brainstorming phase:
    • Identify most critical improvements
  • Organize next meetings via Doodle due to limited availability (summer period).
  • Consolidate existing material for analysis and proposals.

7. Conclusion

  • Current practices are fragmented and inconsistent across sections.
  • Strong need for:
    • Central coordination
    • Harmonized methodologies
    • Improved visibility and traceability
  • Any improvement must remain:
    • Flexible
    • Non-burdensome
    • Adapted to project scale
There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.