Commissioning Rehearsals 1

Thursday 08/17
11:00am - 12:30pm
Grand Ballroom



Session 1: 11:00am - 12:30pm

Purpose of the session: processes and organizational structures

Introductions and identifying roles in commissioning: commissioning team and stakeholders

Process 1  - nominal comcam

Lunch: 12:30pm - 1:30pm

Session 2: 1:30pm - 3:00pm

Quick recap of session 1

Process 2 - early integration

Recap: What did we learn about commissioning? How worked well in this session? What could be improved next time?


 In room simulation of comissioning planning. Perhpas with two  scenarios. A typical day with everything nominal - same day with some event causing a replan. A second process for somethign earlier in comissioning.

The simulations whould investigate and highlight: Who makes which decisions in comissioning, which level deciisons can be made without escalation.  We start the day with a schedule how is that given to all sites ? (is there an agreed single locaiton with the cirrecnt scheule ?) - is there a 15 minute status telcon for all sites ? Who calls and chairs it ?  Is this all included in the As&Rs? How well is this documented in the comissioning plan.

Are commissionng events tied to procedures ? Are actors in the procedures aware of their roles? Where do we keep procedures ? Do we have status displays configured for speicif procedures (to highligh relevent parameters from EFD) ? How are specific tasks communicated, passed on for execution , and executed - who are the actors in each of the steps. How do we keep logs of what was done ..

All of this can be simulated with paper and postits in a few hours session where the main aim would be to understanand the primary roles and responsilbitites and the correcnt communicaiton channels for comissioning.

This may be held in a single room with tables representing the different physical locaitons invovled in LSST comissioning. Workflow may be done using laptops or using paper (the tactile paper may be useful).

We should also have an audience watching the interactions - the audience would be required to stay silent during the simulations but would be required to give feedback when the simulation was "paused" by the moderator. Feedback should note how situations were handled - perhaps suggesting better or more efficient ways of dealing with incidents.

Chuck Claver and William O'Mullane and Keith Bechtol
Suggested Audience: 
All availble actors from the comissioning plan.