Update on Project Implementation Plan

Brian Foster (Oxford & GDE)Brian Foster (Oxford & GDE)

PAC MeetingPAC MeetingVancouver 9-10/5/09 Vancouver 9-10/5/09

Project Implementation Plan (PIP)Project Implementation Plan (PIP)

Slide 2

IntroductionIntroduction

Slide 3

• Only report on selected aspects of PIP where most Only report on selected aspects of PIP where most progress has been made:progress has been made:– plug compatibility and governance;plug compatibility and governance;– some other aspects – such as common tools – covered some other aspects – such as common tools – covered

elsewhere (PG)elsewhere (PG)• Governance:Governance:

– summarise what we have learnt by studying “cognate summarise what we have learnt by studying “cognate projects” – ITER, ALMA, SKA, XFEL (FAIR) projects” – ITER, ALMA, SKA, XFEL (FAIR)

– from these studies, draw some general inferences for from these studies, draw some general inferences for the ILC project governancethe ILC project governance

– give timetable we expect to follow to produce interim give timetable we expect to follow to produce interim report on Governance at end of TDP1 in summer 2009report on Governance at end of TDP1 in summer 2009

Plug compatibility for PIP (Kerby, AAP Plug compatibility for PIP (Kerby, AAP 4/09)4/09)

Slide 4

• Very extensive studies carried out for the R&D Phase. Very extensive studies carried out for the R&D Phase. Evident benefits include:Evident benefits include:– Encourage creative work and innovation for Encourage creative work and innovation for

performance improvement from a common baselineperformance improvement from a common baseline– Global transfer of informationGlobal transfer of information– Sharing of components to continue progress world-Sharing of components to continue progress world-

wide despite outside uncertaintieswide despite outside uncertainties– Development of the RDR design for system tests and Development of the RDR design for system tests and

in preparation for construction phasein preparation for construction phase• Production/Construction PhaseProduction/Construction Phase

– Keep competitive condition with free market/multiple-Keep competitive condition with free market/multiple-suppliers, and effort for cost-reduction suppliers, and effort for cost-reduction

– Keep flexibility to accept industrial effort, with Keep flexibility to accept industrial effort, with features and constraints, to reduce the costfeatures and constraints, to reduce the cost

– Maintain intellectual regional expertise baseMaintain intellectual regional expertise base

Plug compatibility for PIPPlug compatibility for PIP

General agreement that plug compatibility very useful for R&D phase. Differences General agreement that plug compatibility very useful for R&D phase. Differences of opinion remain for the procurement phase.of opinion remain for the procurement phase.

Some of the issues we will need to study in deciding this are:Some of the issues we will need to study in deciding this are:

1) Costs – enforcing common designs may result in price differences in different 1) Costs – enforcing common designs may result in price differences in different regions, and a general price increase since the best and cheapest regions, and a general price increase since the best and cheapest manufacturing technique may not be available in a standardised design. This manufacturing technique may not be available in a standardised design. This will need to be estimated for the recosting in 2012;will need to be estimated for the recosting in 2012;

2) Installation & commissioning – plug compatibility guarantees compatible 2) Installation & commissioning – plug compatibility guarantees compatible interfaces, but there will be technical differences in other parts of the system interfaces, but there will be technical differences in other parts of the system that will have implications for the commissioning, assembly and operation of that will have implications for the commissioning, assembly and operation of the ILC. To what extent is it desirable, and if desirable, practical, to impose the ILC. To what extent is it desirable, and if desirable, practical, to impose uniform designs across the regions; uniform designs across the regions;

Slide 5

Plug compatibility for PIPPlug compatibility for PIP

3) Spares – to what extent will we need to keep different sets of spares for each 3) Spares – to what extent will we need to keep different sets of spares for each regional design and what are the cost implications;regional design and what are the cost implications;

4) Operations – do we need to confine the separate regional components to 4) Operations – do we need to confine the separate regional components to separate areas of the machine, or can they be mixed together and if so to separate areas of the machine, or can they be mixed together and if so to what extent? How do we cope if the performance of the components of one what extent? How do we cope if the performance of the components of one manufacturer is markedly different to the others? Do we have to have manufacturer is markedly different to the others? Do we have to have operators trained in how to optimise the performance of each of the variants;operators trained in how to optimise the performance of each of the variants;

5) Does existence of different plug-compatible design variants introduce 5) Does existence of different plug-compatible design variants introduce unacceptable operations and maintenance complications and the possibility of unacceptable operations and maintenance complications and the possibility of increasing number of design problems that have to be diagnosed and solved;increasing number of design problems that have to be diagnosed and solved;

6) How do we deal with the IP implications of different companies working on a 6) How do we deal with the IP implications of different companies working on a common design with their own commercially sensitive processes? common design with their own commercially sensitive processes?

We will study the implications of these questions in drawing up a PIP which We will study the implications of these questions in drawing up a PIP which proposes the best balance between uniform and regional variations in design. proposes the best balance between uniform and regional variations in design.

Slide 6

GovernanceGovernance

Slide 7

FALC

American Governance

Asian Governance

GDE Governance

ILC-HiGrade Governance

CERN Council (Strategy group)

EU Legal Framework

ILCSC Siting

ILCSC

Communication

Cross-members

The ITER ProjectThe ITER Project

ITER agreement includes 29 articles + annexes, quite detailedITER agreement includes 29 articles + annexes, quite detailed

Agreement for 35 years, members can leave after 10 years.Agreement for 35 years, members can leave after 10 years.

Host (EU) + 6 member states (US, Ind, Rus, Kor, Jap, Chi)Host (EU) + 6 member states (US, Ind, Rus, Kor, Jap, Chi)

In-kind contributions + small (12%) common fund in cashIn-kind contributions + small (12%) common fund in cash

Host ~ 45% contribution + ~ 9% each member state. Costs in IUA’s.Host ~ 45% contribution + ~ 9% each member state. Costs in IUA’s.

Project reports to the ITER Council which meets twice per yearProject reports to the ITER Council which meets twice per year

IssuesIssues– All disagreements end up at the Council for resolution, insufficient Project All disagreements end up at the Council for resolution, insufficient Project

authority: very inefficientauthority: very inefficient– In-kind contributions do not always follow rational technical interfaces, In-kind contributions do not always follow rational technical interfaces,

thus project integration is more complicated than necessarythus project integration is more complicated than necessary– Normal construction project design changes are difficult to implement due Normal construction project design changes are difficult to implement due

to agreements on in-kind contributions of components which are difficult to agreements on in-kind contributions of components which are difficult to changeto change

– Relative cost changes in the different systems effectively change member Relative cost changes in the different systems effectively change member contributionscontributions

– Value engineering & associated cost control difficult with IUA’s & in-kindValue engineering & associated cost control difficult with IUA’s & in-kind– No accepted project-wide management tools yetNo accepted project-wide management tools yet

Slide 8

The ALMA ProjectThe ALMA Project

Complex agreement – ALMA is not a legal entity. Overall budget ~450 Meuro.Complex agreement – ALMA is not a legal entity. Overall budget ~450 Meuro.

Host (Chile – special position) + regional membership (Americas (=US/Canada), Host (Chile – special position) + regional membership (Americas (=US/Canada), Europe (=ESO), Asia (=Japan – with link with Taiwan). No clear leading region; Europe (=ESO), Asia (=Japan – with link with Taiwan). No clear leading region; Japan joined late, leading to “de-descoping”.Japan joined late, leading to “de-descoping”.

Each region carried out separate procurement for WBS items for which it took Each region carried out separate procurement for WBS items for which it took responsibility; there is ~ no common fund (which has caused enormous responsibility; there is ~ no common fund (which has caused enormous problems)problems)

Host provides site only; present in Board but does not vote on many things. EU Host provides site only; present in Board but does not vote on many things. EU +Americas 50:50 before Asia. Asia now 1/4 of enlarged project, US&EU 3/8.+Americas 50:50 before Asia. Asia now 1/4 of enlarged project, US&EU 3/8.

Project reports to ALMA Board which meets 3 times per year with extra telecons.Project reports to ALMA Board which meets 3 times per year with extra telecons.

IssuesIssues– ALMA’s lack of legal standing is problem; staff employed by two different ALMA’s lack of legal standing is problem; staff employed by two different

bodies;bodies;– Procurement led to 3 different designs of antennae – although there are Procurement led to 3 different designs of antennae – although there are

positive aspects of this (risk reduction) it is a problem;positive aspects of this (risk reduction) it is a problem;– Partners joining (and leaving) not properly catered for;Partners joining (and leaving) not properly catered for;– Management control weak – multiple paths of reporting to regional funding Management control weak – multiple paths of reporting to regional funding

agencies; agencies; – Council subordinate to regional interests and did not become robust;Council subordinate to regional interests and did not become robust;– Ownership of assets, pensions fund etc. needed earlier clarification.Ownership of assets, pensions fund etc. needed earlier clarification.

Slide 9

The ALMA Project – 1The ALMA Project – 1stst results on May 4 results on May 4thth

Slide 10

Slide 11

The Square Kilometer Array (SKA)The Square Kilometer Array (SKA)

Proposed project – Similar maturity to ILCProposed project – Similar maturity to ILCMOU: MOU to Establish the International Square Kilometre Array Steering MOU: MOU to Establish the International Square Kilometre Array Steering

Committee (ISSC) -- eleven countries (Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Committee (ISSC) -- eleven countries (Australia, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the India, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) (analogous to ILCSC)United States) (analogous to ILCSC)

No parent organizations like ICFA, FALC or CERN, instead OECD Working group on No parent organizations like ICFA, FALC or CERN, instead OECD Working group on Radio AstronomyRadio Astronomy

Design: PreSKA: now to 2012 define the project; earliest construction start 2012Design: PreSKA: now to 2012 define the project; earliest construction start 2012 Site selection: Two potential sites have been chosen: Australia and South Africa Site selection: Two potential sites have been chosen: Australia and South Africa IssuesIssues

– Design specification not yet agreed; mechanism to decide?Design specification not yet agreed; mechanism to decide?– Cost €300 M (2007 Value) for Phase 1 and €1,200 M (2007 Value) for Phase Cost €300 M (2007 Value) for Phase 1 and €1,200 M (2007 Value) for Phase

2, i.e. €1,500 M (2007 Value) for array frequencies ~70 MHz to 10 GHz. 2, i.e. €1,500 M (2007 Value) for array frequencies ~70 MHz to 10 GHz. [goals, not design parameters or cost estimates]. Advantage that excellent [goals, not design parameters or cost estimates]. Advantage that excellent physics possible from small subsection of project.physics possible from small subsection of project.

– Phase 3 extension to at least 25 GHz, is not yet defined (like 1 TeV for ILC)Phase 3 extension to at least 25 GHz, is not yet defined (like 1 TeV for ILC) – 5 site proposals Argentina, Australia, China, South Africa, and the USA. 5 site proposals Argentina, Australia, China, South Africa, and the USA.

USA withdrew and ISSC picked Australia & South Africa finalists. USA withdrew and ISSC picked Australia & South Africa finalists. Decision ???Decision ???

– New Science & Eng Committee of 22 members: US Consortium (7), New Science & Eng Committee of 22 members: US Consortium (7), European Consortium (7) and the Rest of the World Consortium (8), European Consortium (7) and the Rest of the World Consortium (8), provides scientific and technical guidance but no fiscal authorityprovides scientific and technical guidance but no fiscal authority

– New SKA Program Development Office (SPDO) Common Fund / financesNew SKA Program Development Office (SPDO) Common Fund / finances– No project governance model at this time -- after site selection?No project governance model at this time -- after site selection?

Slide 11

Slide 12

The XFEL ProjectThe XFEL Project

The XFEL Company, a Limited Liability Company or GmbH under German Law, and DESY will The XFEL Company, a Limited Liability Company or GmbH under German Law, and DESY will collaborate on the construction, commissioning and operation of the XFEL on the basis of a long collaborate on the construction, commissioning and operation of the XFEL on the basis of a long term agreement. The convention, agreed upon in September 2008, and expected to be formally term agreement. The convention, agreed upon in September 2008, and expected to be formally signed in 2009, has 17 articles + 6 annexes.signed in 2009, has 17 articles + 6 annexes.

The construction cost in Annex 1 is to not exceed 1082 M euros in 2005 prices. This is to be reviewed The construction cost in Annex 1 is to not exceed 1082 M euros in 2005 prices. This is to be reviewed annually by the Council (see below) who annually by the Council (see below) who acting unanimouslyacting unanimously may approve a modification of the may approve a modification of the construction costs including commissioning.construction costs including commissioning.

The organs of the Company shall be the “Shareholders Assembly”, referred to as the “Council”, and The organs of the Company shall be the “Shareholders Assembly”, referred to as the “Council”, and the Management Board. A change in the total cost (see above) appears to be the sole action the Management Board. A change in the total cost (see above) appears to be the sole action requiring unanimous approval.requiring unanimous approval.

The shareholders represent 14 countries with the host, and majority shareholder, Germany The shareholders represent 14 countries with the host, and majority shareholder, Germany contributing 55%, Russia 24% and for the remaining 12 the contributions range from 1% to 4%.. contributing 55%, Russia 24% and for the remaining 12 the contributions range from 1% to 4%.. This applies in cash or in kind to construction, commissioning and future operating costs, through This applies in cash or in kind to construction, commissioning and future operating costs, through an initial period ending in December 2026.an initial period ending in December 2026.

The timeline to date hasThe timeline to date has -XFEL TDR 7/2006-XFEL TDR 7/2006 -- Foundation of XFEL GmbH sometime in early 2009-- Foundation of XFEL GmbH sometime in early 2009(Also monitoring FAIR but issues ~ identical and somewhat behind XFEL)(Also monitoring FAIR but issues ~ identical and somewhat behind XFEL)

IssuesIssues - The formation of the “Company” has taken longer than expected and has caused some delay - The formation of the “Company” has taken longer than expected and has caused some delay

in the project start. The German Government has minimized this delay by authorizing the in the project start. The German Government has minimized this delay by authorizing the beginning of civil construction in 2008.beginning of civil construction in 2008.

- This delay appears to be because the “Articles of Incorporation” or “ Convention” establishing - This delay appears to be because the “Articles of Incorporation” or “ Convention” establishing the Company have tried to address, in detail, many lessons learned from past and ongoing the Company have tried to address, in detail, many lessons learned from past and ongoing multinational large science projects regarding project management and cost control throughout multinational large science projects regarding project management and cost control throughout construction. commissioning and operation.construction. commissioning and operation.

Slide 12

The European XFEL GmbH exclusively and directly pursues not-for-profit objectives in the field of science and research.

The European XFEL GmbH will in particular be in charge ofthe coordination and monitoring of the construction activities,

the scientific policy and strategy, the construction of five beamlines with ten experiment stations and the

associated infrastructure, the operation of the beamlines and the implementation of a user programme,

the further development of the facility based on a vigorous research and development programme,

and, related to the aforementioned tasks: the management, supervision and controlling of all financial and other resources made available by the

shareholders or through collaboration contracts. The European XFEL GmbH will be supported by various advisory committees

(Science, Machine, Administration and Finance).

Slide 13

Inferences from these studiesInferences from these studies

1) Achieving a consensus and implementing a method of governance is a 1) Achieving a consensus and implementing a method of governance is a long-drawn-out and complex process. It needs strong involvement and long-drawn-out and complex process. It needs strong involvement and buy-in from funding authorities and governments at all stages. The buy-in from funding authorities and governments at all stages. The statement of the OECD science ministers in 2004: statement of the OECD science ministers in 2004: “.. They agreed that “.. They agreed that the planning and implementation of such a large, multi-year project the planning and implementation of such a large, multi-year project should be carried out on a global basis, and should involve consultations should be carried out on a global basis, and should involve consultations among not just scientists, but also representatives of science funding among not just scientists, but also representatives of science funding agencies from interested countries. Accordingly, Ministers endorsed the agencies from interested countries. Accordingly, Ministers endorsed the statement prepared by the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative statement prepared by the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics…” Group on High-Energy Physics…” is important in this regard. (See later is important in this regard. (See later for more on OECD)for more on OECD)

2) All schemes explored by monitored projects seem viable, including 2) All schemes explored by monitored projects seem viable, including negotiation of an international treaty (ITER) and foundation of a negotiation of an international treaty (ITER) and foundation of a company with limited liability (XFEL, FAIR). There does not seem to be company with limited liability (XFEL, FAIR). There does not seem to be much difference in the complexity of time taken between the various much difference in the complexity of time taken between the various options : n.b. DoE has signed the ITER treaty. options : n.b. DoE has signed the ITER treaty.

3) The ILC laboratory has to have its own legal standing as a legal entity 3) The ILC laboratory has to have its own legal standing as a legal entity and the ability to hire staff directly. Questions such as pension rights, tax and the ability to hire staff directly. Questions such as pension rights, tax status need to be solved well in advance of setting up the organisation. status need to be solved well in advance of setting up the organisation.

Slide 14

Inferences from these studiesInferences from these studies

4) Strong management structure essential, with clear responsibles and 4) Strong management structure essential, with clear responsibles and delegation down to appropriate level for decision making. Clear delegation down to appropriate level for decision making. Clear reporting paths to single bodies.reporting paths to single bodies.

5) In-kind contributions will have important role in project. Essential to 5) In-kind contributions will have important role in project. Essential to have large enough common fund to be able to react to overruns and have large enough common fund to be able to react to overruns and have enough management flexibility to be able to optimise resources. have enough management flexibility to be able to optimise resources. Need agreement on how to deal with cost overruns on particular items.Need agreement on how to deal with cost overruns on particular items.

6) Need common project management tools and well defined procedure to 6) Need common project management tools and well defined procedure to make changes in projects specification if necessary as development make changes in projects specification if necessary as development progresses. progresses.

7) Need early agreement on site selection procedure and call for site 7) Need early agreement on site selection procedure and call for site proposals with an agreed timetable.proposals with an agreed timetable.

8) Do not under-estimate the length of time taken e.g. to agree on official 8) Do not under-estimate the length of time taken e.g. to agree on official translations of documents to by signed by partners across the world!translations of documents to by signed by partners across the world!

Slide 15

OECD GSF DevelopmentsOECD GSF Developments

NB – OECD GSF has very recently authorised study on NB – OECD GSF has very recently authorised study on options for options for establishing large international research infrastructures. Led by S. establishing large international research infrastructures. Led by S. Michalowski who will do most of work with oversight from experts Michalowski who will do most of work with oversight from experts nominated by member states.nominated by member states.

He and I are in contact and will meet probably next month. He and I are in contact and will meet probably next month.

Slide 16

Timescales leading to interim Governance Timescales leading to interim Governance reportreport

1) GDE EC meeting – June 11/12 @ CERN – agree presentation for FALC1) GDE EC meeting – June 11/12 @ CERN – agree presentation for FALC

2) Albuquerque Sep 29 – Oct 3 – tentative conclusion on funding model – 2) Albuquerque Sep 29 – Oct 3 – tentative conclusion on funding model – fractions per partner, size of common fund etc. fractions per partner, size of common fund etc.

3) EC face-to-face: Jan. 6-8 Oxford – conclusion on funding model, 3) EC face-to-face: Jan. 6-8 Oxford – conclusion on funding model, preliminary conclusion on governance model options preliminary conclusion on governance model options

4) Beijing March/April 2010? – conclusion on governance model options4) Beijing March/April 2010? – conclusion on governance model options

5) Write preliminary governance report and iterate May – June 20105) Write preliminary governance report and iterate May – June 2010

6) Present to and get comments from ICFA, ILCSC, PAC & FALC – June-6) Present to and get comments from ICFA, ILCSC, PAC & FALC – June-July 2010?July 2010?

7) Present at Paris ICHEP July 2010 – N.B. this is not a final report and 7) Present at Paris ICHEP July 2010 – N.B. this is not a final report and no funding authority/government will be expected to sign off on it. no funding authority/government will be expected to sign off on it. Comments etc however would be very welcome. Comments etc however would be very welcome.

Slide 17