2008/09 outturn Common Fund C&S Comments Issues

1. K. Long, Friday, 29thApril 2009 2008/09 outturn Common Fund C&S Comments Issues

2. Phase I financial summary: • Financial year 2008/09 outturn (first estimate) • Phase I now closed

3. Phase II financial summary: • Financial year 2008/09 outturn (first estimate): • As reported in previous meetings: • Significant overspend (total £601k) • Staff o/s: £444k; non-staff o/s: £288.32k • How did we get to here? • Through financial year 2008/09 we were: • Completing the Phase I project: • Following the advice of the OsC we were pushing hard so as not to delay the MICE project (see next slide); • Starting the Phase II project; and • Commissioning the beam line and taking data in the Step I configuration • Financial arrangements: • No agreed budgets for Phase II programme until December 2008 • Discussing/managing transition between Phase I and Phase II attributions between project/laboratory/SPO up to October 2008 • Caused lack of clarity on Phase II spend • Project (i.e. AN/KL) consistently predicted overspend because of the pressure of work (matching deadlines, juggling running with Phase I and Phase II construction): • We were caught out, and are embarrassed, by the scale of the overspend

4. Evolution of schedule in FY 2008/09: • Pressures on project work planning: • Pace of Phase I construction work dictated by spectrometer solenoid #1 arrival: • Start of FY June 2008 • Pace of Phase II construction work dictated by spectrometer solenoid #2 arrival: • Pace of beam-line maintenance dictated by running schedule • Comments: • OsC encouragement not to slow project down; • AN/KL expected slip in solenoid #1 delivery, but not to the extent that has now occurred • Not a ‘blame’ comment: best endeavours on all sides

6. Addressing to the overspend: first steps: • Guidelines given to sub-task leaders within STFC laboratory for Staff use: • Profiled reduction in staff use to 50% of December/January use • C&S activity initiated with iMICE and within MICE-UK to re-evaluate cost of programme and the degree of ‘fit’ with the schedule for the delivery of the major MICE sub-systems • Results on following slides From Jan08 OsCpresentation

7. Common Fund 2008/09: • From Common Fund agreement June 2008

8. Status: • Status of collection of 2008/09 levy: • Income and expenditure: Start of discussion: MICE CB yet to see and discuss expenditure What is the ‘host labpremium’ that STFCcan bear?

9. Common Fund 2009/10: • Next week (end of April) will initiate 2009 census: • Common Fund agreement defines census date as 1st April each year • The list of eligible members of the collaboration will then be agreed by the Collaboration Board at the next MICE collaboration meeting (31May—03Jun09) • The invoices will then be raised

10. Project Management arrangements: • Management of MICE project: • Decision making: • MICE Executive Board: • Meets monthly: addresses strategic issues; sets policy and schedule • Chaired by A.Blondel, MICE spokesman • MICE Technical Board: • Meets monthly: reviews progress against milestones; addresses technical/integratino issues; addresses safety issues • Chaired by A.Nichols, MICE Project Manager • Tracking: • MICO: • Meets weekly: tracks progress of sub-projects • Chaired by A.Nichols, MICE Project Manager • MSPM: • Meets weekly: coordination of work in the MICE Hall/on site • Chaired by W.Spensley, MICE Hall Manager and Principal Contractor • MICE-UK financial management: • UKNF-FC: • Meets monthly (since May09); • Chaired by K.Long, UK PI • Representation: • STFC: C.Gore, M.Highmore, C.Jamieson, A.Medland, A.Reynolds • Uni (to prepare Uni outturns): P.Dornan, C.Barlow • KL & AN • Has taken some time to become effective (transition of Phase I to Phase II; absense of Phase II budgets) • Now in place and functioning effectively

11. Financial control: • Initial budgets for 2008/09 set:

12. Financial control: • Initial budgets set: • Preparing revision following C&S review • Monitoring/control: • At the end of each month: • C.Gore will send STP and recurrent breakdown to each task leader; • Question staff/recurrent use above expected level; • Ask for line-by-line check of expenditure • Adjustments requested will be made • UKNF-FC meeting: • Will review STP/recurrent spend and responses from sub-task leaders • Identify appropriate action within MICE-UK or: • Discuss options/recommendations to: • MICE, PSAG, CMPB, UKNF-EB, … • Differences to start of financial year 2008/09: • Have budgets set: • At ‘STFC’ and at sub-task level; • Have closed Phase I • ‘Only’ doing Phase II progamme and running from September • Have financial reporting and control arrangements in place

13. Control/monitoring of schedule: • As reported to Jan09 OsC: • R.Gamet has agreed to prepare milestone tracking for UKNF (and MICE-UK) project • Sufficient for UKNF but not for future of MICE/MICE-UK project • Issues: • Tracking schedule for delivery of large overseas contributions to MICE: • Have basis now through C&S exercise, but, require to track so that UK project can be matched more closely to the schedule of the international deliverables • Detailed tracking of schedule for UK deliverables: • Example: target rebuild: • Weekly target w/g meetings augmented by less frequent target w/s (next one 08May @ IC); • Sub-task leaders update schedule for each meeting: • Example …

15. Control/monitoring of schedule: • As reported to Jan09 OsC: • R.Gamet has agreed to prepare milestone tracking for UKNF (and MICE-UK) project • Sufficient for UKNF but not for future of MICE/MICE-UK project • Issues: • Tracking schedule for delivery of large overseas contributions to MICE: • Have basis now through C&S exercise, but, require to track so that UK project can be matched more closely • Detailed tracking of schedule for UK deliverables: • Example: target rebuild: • Weekly target w/g meetings augmented by less frequent target w/s (next one 08May @ IC); • Sub-task leaders update schedule for each meeting: • Example … • Require to make this uniform across project to: • Provide information to AN/KL in management of UK project • Provide i/p to MICE PM, MICE TB, MICE EB, MICO meetings to guide global schedule priority/schedule discussions

16. Control/monitoring of schedule: • Project planner: • Support for AN/KL in PM/PI roles: • Job spec. written: • Tracking of project progress and spend; • Preparation of reports • Time commitment: • No point doing ‘half a job’ so that AN/KL need to backstop • Our estimate: • Full time task while learning the experiment, what’s required, meeting the people, etc. • Possibly 50—75% in steady state; depends on person • Steps taken to identify/recruit: • International collaboration: • Sought support from iMICE: • Ideal individual identified (S.Virostek at LBNL); • Some support for C&S exercise, but limited to the RFCC module for which LBNL has responsibility • Not a long term solution: • Does not have sufficient time due to other responsibilities; hard to spend time at RAL • MICE-UK: • Present complement overstretched and no direct match with skills required • Sought support from PPD, TBU: • Support from N.McCubbin, N.Snodgrass, R.Eccleston • Optimistic leads (also ideal people identified), but, in the end not possible to identify individual who could take on task • Our proposal: • Promising contact with individual at ATC • KL/AN will talk with him to see if the person matches the requirements and whether the time commitment matches his availability • Bottom line: • KL/AN believe the ‘project planner’ role must be filled for the good of the whole MICE project including (of course) the MICE-UK project

17. C&S exercise: headlines for paper:

18. Top level schedule: Critical!

22. Decay solenoid: • Quench detector repaired and magnet run: • At 870 A for one hour (nominal current) • At 900 A for 20 minutes • Preparing for more extensive tests this week when chiller (cools turbos) failed • Bottom line: • Repair to MLI has produced a functional magnet • DS team now preparing a new schedule: • Commissioning and routine work • Components on next slide • Must shift emphasis to LH2 prototype task

23. Decay solenoid: routine work:

29. Cost of the UK programme: • Cost of programme to meet schedule presented above: • Compared to allocation: • Implies an additional projected overspend of £861k • Integral and profile are ‘uncomfortable’ compared to present allocation

30. De-scope options considered: • RF-power distribution hardware provided from ‘elsewhere’: • Remove ~£1M capital cost from RF power w/p • Possibility as: • FNAL (Bross) has requested support as part of the ‘stimulus package’; • Proposal to NSF (Kaplan) for RF power h/w • Integral within allocation; • But in excess if account is taken with present o/s • Profile still uncomfortable compared with allocation; • Risk: • RF power h/w can not be provided from elsewhere • Also schedule risk as depends on bids from ‘elsewhere’

31. De-scope options, continued: • UK does not contribute to Physics analysis: • Integral within allocation; • But in excess if account is taken with present o/s • Profile still uncomfortable compared with allocation; • Logically possible while we’re thinking the unthinkable, but: • UK does not reap the scientific award; • UK University community significantly damaged

32. De-scope options continued: • Delay to schedule to reduce cost in the next three financial years: • Cost over three years, £7.1M • Including present o/s, brings spend over period 2008/09 to 2011/12 to within allocation; • Significant increase in integral cost of programme • Profile in 2009/10 still uncomfortable • Risks: • Break-up of collaboration due to long timescale; • Implies significant loss of reputation for UK with resultant loss of credibility in bid to host any future large facility

33. De-scope options continued: • Schedule slip with additional postponement of LH2 prototype/system #1 work to bring profile in line with allocation: • Cost over three years, £7.1M • Including present o/s, brings spend over period 2008/09 to 2011/12 to within allocation; • Significant increase in integral cost of programme • Profile in 2009/10 no-longer uncomfortable • Risks amplified: • Break-up of collaboration due to long timescale; • Implies significant loss of reputation for UK with resultant loss of credibility in bid to host any future large facility • Additional technical risk that issues in the LH2 delivery system lead to further delays

34. The ‘stakes’: • The Neutrino Factory with MICE as the ‘beating heart’ is a flag-ship programme: • For the UK, but also for the international community • International recognition (gaining in strength and influence) of: • The need for a high-sensitivity and high-precision programme of measurements of the properties of the neutrino; • The opportunity the Neutrino Factory offers as: • The best facility for the precision neutrino oscillation programme; • The relationship of the Neutrino Factory and the Muon Collider, possibly the best way to provide multi-TeV lepton/anti-lepton collisions • Neutrino Factory is on: • The RCUK roadmap, the European roadmap for particle physics • Opportunity for the UK: • Neutrino Factory, perhaps in combination with a high-power pulsed neutron spallation source, is the best opportunity in a generation for the UK to bid to host a world-beating facility for particle physics/basic science and innovation • MICE is the at the very centre of this programme: • If MICE fails, or is perceived to have failed, due to lack of will/support in the UK it is clear that: • The UK’s opportunity in the Neutrino Factory area will be squandered • UK reputation will be severely damaged in general

35. Step VI and international commitment: • Issue: • While experiment has scientific approval to Step VI, UK has not made funding commitment • The collaboration (including the UK collaboration) is committed to MICE to Step VI • The US and China were ready to commit resources to Step VI for the RFCC module but have not been able to due to UK funding uncertainties • Costs to US estimted to be at the $150k level already • [Costs to STFC are already at £20k (bobbin forging)] • Japan (KEK) is building enough absorber bodies to serve Step VI • Europe is committed to contribute up to Step VI • EMR (GVA, Italy, FNA); O&A; etc. • Significant pressure from: • US Muon Technical Advisory Panel • FAC representatives (especially DOE and NSF)

37. Step VI: • L.K. Len’s suggestion at FAC: • Can STFC find a way to indicate commitment to Step VI without committing all the money? • e.g. soliciting proposal for FC module #3 only • Cost (capital only) ~£350k • Larger costs in RF power and integration effort to be considered later

38. Issues: • Host laboratory costs: • Last discussion of host-lab costs was in September 2006 • Is it time to revisit the issue? • Presently ‘host lab costs’ are borne by the UK collaboration’s budgets or the Common Fund; • Common Fund will now come under scrutiny as there is a first accounting: • JW already indicated some discomfort at the FAC at the scale of the mis-match between Common Fund income and the attributed expenditure in the MICE Muon Beam maintenance and operations line • I am exposed as CB chair and CF ‘accountant’ • UK collaboration’s budget have been reviewed and set as though we were contributing to an experiment overseas • Not the same thing as hosting the experiment which implies responsibility for: • Integration; • Safety; • Maintenance etc.

39. Issues continued: • Control and review of schedule: • UK collaboration is in control of only a part of the schedule; • Necessarily the UK deliverables support the international community and must adjust to meet as far as possible the internationally agreed schedule; • UK has input to schedule discussions, but, collaboration, quite reasonably, seeks to push hard to keep the pace high • Implies pressures on UK budgets and personnel • Is it time to consider and ‘international version’ of the Oversight Committee? [in addition to the UK OsC] • Strongly expressed wish of the Spokesman and Deputy; • I believe it is the right thing to do, because: • Would bring to the international project the scrutiny and advice that the OsC gives to the UK project; • Schedule conflicts etc. could be identified much more clearly and independent advice brought to bear on: • Setting of priorities; • Finding solutions to conflicting requirements, budgetary or personnel issues etc.

40. In conclusion: • Despite the problems, the experiment is really making progress; • Grounds for optimism that the spectrometer solenoid repairs have borne fruit and that by the end of this year we shall have Step II underway … • We can still demonstrate ionisation cooling in time for the 2012 decision point