sTGC production and QA/QC

database: first thoughtsDaniel

Lessons from TGC experience

• One should use standard and widely spread tools

• One should have one unique d/base for– Stock management – Production (the same one for all centers!)– Quality Control– Certification– Installation

Why is sTGC different from TGC?

• Part management is a real issue– For TGC, parts were produced at WIS only. As a result, the part

management section of the database turned out to be useless– For sTGC, part production is spread over the labs: shipment,

QA, etc… needs serious tracking– Canadian colleagues need detailed statements for their Tax

Authority.– However, not the tool for finances…

• QC can influence production in a tricky way – For TGC, only accept/reject – sTGC is more subtle; example : thickness pairing

• We can’t afford different systems across labs– Compatibility sTGC-MM is desirable

Technology

• To be decided by experts.– New great tools on the (free) market– See David’s slides

• However, do non-experts agree on the following ?– Data base running at CERN only– Human interface thru the WEB– Automated reports, etc… run at CERN.– No local copy, i.e. we rely on today’s network speed and

reliability• Speed more than OK for human interface• >1 hour network disruptions are very infrequent. When one occurs,

stop manual input to the data-base and resume when the network resumes

– Some level of access authorization hierarchy (i.e. Weizmann regular people can’t enter data on behalf of Santiago, etc…)