OECD OECD OECD OECD

OECD OECD OECD OECD

International Research Infrastructures: an OECD Perspective

Presentation by Stefan Michalowski, OECDAFRICAN EUROPEAN RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE CO-OPERATIONBrussels, May 16, 2012

Two topics:

• What are research infrastructures, and why are they important from a science policy perspective?

• What are the principal issues and options for planning, establishing and operating international research infrastructures?

What isan Infrastructure?

INTERNET

It can serve many users and many uses.

It’s designed with the future in mind.

Research Infrastructures: a pragmatic OECD taxonomy

“Single Experiments” CERN LHC, ITER, JET, PIERRE AUGER

User facilities for a small number of users ALMA, SKA, Big telescopes

User facilities for a large number of users ESRF, ILL, XFEL, FAIR, ESS, LSST

Facilities

Distributed Infrastructures

e-Infrastructures Federation, storage, curation of large data sets GBIF. INCF, CESSDA, Lifewatch High performance computing and networking GÉANT, PRACE

Scientific measurement using multiple facilities

o Combining signals from a set of independent instruments EVN, LIGO/VIRGO

o Subdividing a large task among distinct institutions AGRP, ICGC

Coordination/integration of research based on a common scientific theme

o Coordination of a set of large infrastructures ELI, GEOSS, ELIXIR

o Coordination/integration of diverse projects/programmes SIOS, GEM

o Provision of resources/services CLARIN, EMMA

“… association or network of geographically-separated, distinct entities from more than one country that agree to jointly perform or sponsor basic research.”

Creation

Operation

Assessment

Planning (Roadmapping)

Internationalisation

Establishing

Operating costs

Access to resources and to data

Decommissioning

Scientific impact

Economic impact

Societal impact

Creation

Operation

Assessment

Planning (Roadmapping)

Internationalisation

Establishing

Operating costs

Access to resources and to data

Decommissioning

Scientific impact

Economic impact

Societal impact

Infrastructure Roadmaps

Interesting properties of roadmaps and of roadmapping:

Promotes innovation in a competitive environment

Illuminates important science policy issues:

Can mobilise an entire scientific community

Encourages multi- and inter-disciplinarity

May include non-scientific considerations

The role of existing infrastructures

Understanding the size of the overall effort

Balancing supply and demand of research resources

Comparing infrastructure costs

Access rules and policies

Workforce issues

• economic, regional development• industrial innovation• education and workforce issues• international political integration• national security

Caveats:

Large, expensive ISs can stress science budgets

Overly broad scope could lead to loss of focus

Potential neglect of small and medium projects

Not the best tool for deciding about existing ISs

Inflexibility of long-tem commitments

National/Regional/Global interference

Confusion from proliferation of diverse RMs

- Legal and Administrative

- Funding and Contributions

- Project Management

- Equipment

- Personnel

THE ISSUES

Inhibition of competition in fields where it has traditionally been vigorous and productive.

· Delays associated with international negotiations.

· Bringing non-scientific actors (lawyers, diplomats, etc.) into the process.

Exclusion/isolation of certain national scientific communities.

Sub-optimal technical solutions due to juste retour.

Creation of new/untried institutions/structures: administrative/bureaucratic/legal/political.

The downsides of internationalisation are not ignored

LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

• A basic taxonomy of possible legal/administrative structures, and their chief characteristics. Nature of foundation documents for each type of structure (including typical time period for negotiation)

• Creating a new organisation vs. using an existing one

• The elements of an administrative structure and their inter-relationships

• International negotiations

• Access issues (to the infrastructure itself, and to experimental data)

• Intellectual property

• Site and host selection

· International Organisation [archetype models: ITER, CERN]· Limited Liability Company (LLC) under national law

[archetype models: ESRF, XFEL]· Association of independent national or regional

infrastructures [archetype model: ALMA]· Ex-post-facto collaborating infrastructures

[archetype models: LIGO/VIRGO/GEO]· Foundation under national law [archetype model: JIVE] · European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC)· A digression: the HEP detector model

· Allocating the right tasks to the right negotiators· Scope and organisation of the negotiations· Bi-lateral or multi-lateral?· The role of “Science Cases”· The language issue

FUNDING AND CONTRIBUTIONS

• Host premium and host benefits.

• Cash vs. In-Kind: deciding the best proportion of each, the pros and cons.

• In-Kind: methods for assigning value, dividing up assignments among Partners.

• Juste retour: theory and practices.

• Operating costs and scientific access

• Risk Analysis. Contingencies and cost overruns. Quality control. Openness and accountability.

• Contracting by the Organisation (esp. in Partner countries).

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

• Relationship to Risk Analysis, and to generic issues of accountability, authority and communication between the chief actors (the Organisation and the Partners).

• Examples of scope of PM (e.g., purchasing, contracting, hiring). Use of commercial software and of external contractors. Role of experienced individuals.

• Data availability and quality issues, especially access to information held by Partners.

• Possibility of adopting agreed international standards.

• Special vulnerability issues in the start-up phases.

• Special challenges to international scientific communities, especially when transitioning to large infrastructures.

PERSONNEL

• Recruitment and contracts

• Organisation hires vs. secondees.

• Staff regulations (incl. issues of authority).

• Conflict of interest.

• Family issues.

EQUIPMENT

• Responsibility for testing, acceptance and transfer of ownership.

• Liability in case of malfunction.

• Disposition at decommissioning.

• IPR

Major Issues (personal view)

• Is internationalisation the best solution?

• Plan the negotiations: phases and people. Agree on language(s). Expect significant delays

• Agree on site selection procedure

• Use an existing legal/administrative entity?

• Weigh the pros and cons of cash vs. in-kind, and adapt the governance

• Address operating costs and links to access

• Choose a project management methodology

• Anticipate decommissioning

Creation

Operation

Assessment

Planning (Roadmapping)

Internationalisation

Establishing

Operating costs

Access to resources and to data

Decommissioning

Scientific impact

Economic impact

Societal impact

I. Purely scientific results, intended to advance fundamental knowledge.

II . The direct impact of spending for constructing and operating the laboratory.

III. Training scientists, engineers, technicians, administrators and others.

IV. Developing and perfecting modalities of international scientific cooperation.

V. Bringing nations together, strengthening capacity in developing countries.

VI. Non-HEP innovations that emerge during the main scientific mission.

VIa. Innovations needed for major component development / procurement.

VIb. Innovations that can become impacts with only minor modifications.

VIc. Innovations that can become impacts with major additional efforts.

VII. Education, and public outreach.

TAXONOMY OF IMPACTS

Relationship to the primary mission of the lab.

Involvement/role of the member countries and funding agencies. Role and responsibility of senior laboratory managers.

How non-HEP impact-generating projects begin.

Staff issues.

Finances.

Structure and functioning of a knowledge transfer office.

The innovation cycle (from idea to product).

Interactions with industry.

Intellectual property.

GENERIC (COMMON) ISSUES

Thank you

OECD OECD OECD OECD

OECD OECD OECD OECD