HiGrade WP2 & WP4 Coordination & Governance Brian Foster (Hamburg/DESY/Oxford & GDE) HiGrade Meeting LAL/Orsay 12/10/11

HiGrade WP2 & WP4 Coordination & Governance

Brian Foster (Hamburg/DESY/Oxford & GDE)

HiGrade MeetingLAL/Orsay 12/10/11

• Now we have some clarity on post-2012 plans, I am about to start visiting funding authorities to get their support for European involvement. Tomorrow I meet head of IN2P3, J. Martino and his team including E. Auge.

• I will make a presentation on ILC plans to plenary ECFA in November.

WP2 activity

B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 Global Design Effort 2

• Major European event of the year was joint ILC-CLIC ILCWS in Granada last month.

• Great success with 366 registrants (479 last year in CERN).

• Lots of evidence of collaboration between CLIC and ILC communities to produce a linear collider community.

• JF will report on this to the next ECFA meeting at CERN.

WP2 activity


• Work in the past year has been exclusively concentrated on the writing of the Project Implementation Planning (PIP) document.

• This contains the Governance work discussed at last year’s meeting and as presented at ICHEP Paris.

• In fact further work arising from the PIP has changed one of two aspects of the previous document, which I will comment on as they arise.

WP4 activity


• A complication in drawing up the PIP has been the existence of the Comprehensive Planning Guidance Document (CPDG).

• This is more comprehensive than the PIP, and certainly than the Paris governance report. However there is large overlap and since the CPDG was drawn up ~ independent of PIP and in parallel, there are potential contradictions and differences of emphasis that need to be addressed.

WP4 activity


• In fact, this reconciliation is currently in progress – I have a version which tries to combine the documents, but this hasn’t yet been through PIP Editorial Board (MH, BF, EP), so is very preliminary.

• Nevertheless, I outline here the current state of the joint document with health warning that this is certainly not yet agreed.

WP4 activity


Report to ICHEP Paris

B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 7Global Design Effort

PIP Document


ContentsExecutive SummaryGovernanceFunding ModelsProject ManagementHost ResponsibilitiesSiting IssuesIn-Kind Contribution ModelsIndustrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac ComponentsProject ScheduleFuture Technical Activities

PIP Document


ContentsExecutive SummaryGovernanceFunding ModelsProject ManagementHost ResponsibilitiesSiting IssuesIn-Kind Contribution ModelsIndustrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac ComponentsProject ScheduleFuture Technical Activities

(written by BB)(essentially the Paris document)

Governance


• One or two changes since Paris.

• Further work with ITER led us to understand that what ITER defined as Common Fund was much more limited than what we had assumed. Therefore our conclusion that we needed more was not really justifiable – so related statement in Paris document has been watered down and “ > 20%” omitted.

PIP Document


ContentsExecutive SummaryGovernanceFunding ModelsProject ManagementHost ResponsibilitiesSiting IssuesIn-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac ComponentsProject ScheduleFuture Technical Activities


(modified to emphasise benefits to host)

PIP Document




(written by NW; “juste retour” modified)


“In kind”


• Additional funding model, “in-kind” modified by “juste retour” inserted.

• More explanation of what was meant by “juste retour” added

“In kind”


• Better value for money for the project, as well as improved management oversight and control, could be achieved by modifying the in-kind scheme to introduce the flexibility of a total cash model driven by market forces while retaining the ability for countries to provide parts of the project as deliverables in-kind in a modified “juste retour”. Section 2.14 discussed the mechanism by which WBS items could be allocated to bidders. Member states should be strongly urged to make bids for all WBS packages for which they have the technical competence to deliver, totaling well beyond their intended financial contribution. The project management can then allocate packages so as to maximize the value for money, and minimize the risk, for the project, up to the maximum contribution offered by each member state. If a country is particularly keen to be allocated a given package, it may even be willing to bid less than the nominal value in the formal cost estimate, thereby reducing the cost of the project. This introduces an element of market competition into a substantially in-kind model. It may help to understand this proposal to note that, In the limit that all countries only bid for the minimum number of projects to saturate their agreed financial contribution, this model reduces to the standard in-kind procedure; in the limit that all member states bid for all parts of the project, it is essentially a cash model with complete “juste retour”.

PIP Document




(written by NW; “juste retour” modified)


CPDG Document


Table of Contents Preamble10.CPDG Principles (IL0)41.Top-level Management (IL-1, GD-0)81.1Assessment of possible model examples81.1.1Institutional models from legal and procurement perspectives81.1.2Representative models for the ILC111.1.3Model 3: ITER-like model131.1.4Model 4: Multinational Laboratory model141.2Desired process for establishing top-level management structure211.3Issues that require consensus by research community before formal intergovernmental level process starts.211.4Legal aspects211.5Possible timeline for organizational evolution212.Siting - Site Selection Process (IL-2)222.1Critical considerations222.2Possible scenario toward site selection233.Sharing Models (GD-1)344.Management Models on Accelerator and Facilities (GD-2)355.Siting - Technical (GD-3)366.Accelerator Construction Process - Design Preparation Stage (GD-4)377.Accelerator Construction Process - Construction Stage (GD-5)388.Accelerator Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (GD-6)399.Management Model on Detectors and Experiments (RD-1)4010.Siting - Living Environment (RD-2)4111.Detector Construction Process - Design and Preparation Stage (RD-3)4212.Detector Construction Process - Construction Stage (RD-4)4313.Detector Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (RD-5)44Appendix A: CPDG Outline45Appendix B: Comparison of Organizational Models49

PIP+CPDG


ContentsExecutive SummaryIntroduction & General PrinciplesGovernanceFunding ModelsProject ManagementHost ResponsibilitiesSiting IssuesIn-Kind Contribution ModelsIndustrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac ComponentsProject ScheduleFuture Technical Activities

(§0, §1 of CPDG)

PIP + CPDG


ContentsExecutive SummaryIntroduction & General PrinciplesGovernance Funding ModelsProject ManagementHost ResponsibilitiesSiting IssuesIn-Kind Contribution ModelsIndustrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac ComponentsProject ScheduleFuture Technical Activities

(§0, §1 of CPDG)(“MoU model” (appendix) + personnel policy added)

PIP + CPDG


• Appendix 1 – MoU model (model 4/5 of CPDG)

CPDG Document



Recent developments/future work• Sets out time-lines and work packages in

which to accomplish steps necessary to realise ILC.


Transition document


CPDG Document



Summary

• Paris document forms basis of PIP. Small changes

and additions from discussions throughout the year.

B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10

• Rather larger mods take account of desire of ILCSC

to have a single public document concerning project

planning. Still in middle of process, but general

acceptance from JB & AS hopeful sign.

24Global Design Effort

• European contribution continues to be coherent and strong – substantially through XFEL – costings,technical, etc.

• On target for final document ILC-HiGrade deliverable

end 2011.

Documents

HiGrade WP2 & WP4 Coordination & Governance Brian Foster (Hamburg/DESY/Oxford & GDE) HiGrade Meeting LAL/Orsay 12/10/11