CMB-S4 Workshop SLAC Feb 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cosmology with CMB-S4 Workshop DOE/NSF Project Experience Key Ingredients to Success SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory February 27, 2017 Jim Yeck Outline • Personal Experience • DOE Office of Science (SC) Experience - Projects after the Superconducting Super Collider - DOE SC management perspectives • NSF Large Project Experience - IceCube - Large Hadron Collider Experiments • Satisfying Needs of Project Stakeholders • Next Steps 2 My projects Cost/Circa Infrastructure Project Purpose for CD-3 Funding Role Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT) at Fusion Energy $330M DOE Acting Project Princeton Plasma Physics Lab Science 1988 DOE Manager Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider $600M DOE Project (RHIC) at Brookhaven Lab (BNL) Nuclear Physics 1991 DOE + NSF + Int Manager US Large Hadron Collider (USLHC) High Energy $530M DOE/NSF Project In-kind delivered to CERN Physics 1998 DOE & NSF Director IceCube Neutrino Observatory at Particle $300M U of Wisconsin -– South Pole Astrophysics 2005 NSF + Int Project Director National Synchrotron Light $900M BNL - Deputy Source II at BNL Photon Source 2008 DOE + Other Project Director Deep Underground Science and Physics, Biology, $750M U of Cal – Associate Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) and Engineering 2010 NSF + Private Project Director European Spallation Source (ESS) $2,500M ESS ERIC – Director in Sweden Neutron Source 2014 European States General & CEO 3 Key Ingredients to success Facility is a priority of the science community! Strong funding agency commitments and host role Project leaders viewed as enabling success of others Establish realistic goals – “Experience over hope” Credibility through openness and transparency Collective ownership of problems and solutions Populate organization with critical experience Success requires energy and enthusiasm! Project leaders who prioritize on schedule performance and exhibit behaviour that is consistent with a “project culture” are likely to be successful! 4 Projects evaluated against the ingredients #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 & #8 Leaders Priority of Strong Agency Enable the Experience Openness Collective Experience, Science Commitment Success of Over and Trans- Owner- Energy & Project Community & Host Role Others Hope parency ship Enthusiasm Outcome CIT ✖ RHIC ✔ USLHC ✔ IceCube ✔ NSLS II ✔ DUSEL ✖ ? ESS ? 5 DOE Office of Science Project Performance After SSC # of Initial Completed # Cost % Success # Schedule % Success Baseline Final TPC % Cost SITE Projects Success by Cost Success by Schedule TPC ($M) ($M) Increase Argonne National Laboratory 5 5 100% 3 60% $59.5 $59.5 0% Brookhaven National Laboratory 14 14 100% 14 100% $1,223.8 $1,221.3 0% Fermi National Laboratory 11 10 91% 10 91% $1,069.2 $1,095.7 2% Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 2 2 100% 2 100% $84.1 $84.1 0% Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 15 14 93% 13 87% $460.2 $462.8 1% Oak Ridge National Laboratory* 13 13 100% 13 100% $1,702.3 $1,772.8 4% Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 3 3 100% 3 100% $15,241.5 $15,241.5 0% Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory** 4 3 75% 3 75% $235.7 $236.1 0% Sandia National Laboratory (NNSA 1 1 100% 1 100% $75.8 $75.8 0% Operated) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 9 7 78% 8 89% $692.8 $735.6 6% TOTAL SC PROJECTS* 77 72 94% 70 91% $20,844.9 $20,985.0 1% • Failure of SSC resulted in major changes • Current performance is excellent and SC has high credibility Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017 6 Some Unique Features of SC Projects • SC Laboratories are Not-for-Profit M&O contracts • Projects are typically ‘build to cost’ with a goal of maximizing science capability • Project designs consider future upgrades—programs and projects take a long view • Mostly non-nuclear projects • Laboratory’s viability/future is dependent of the success of new advanced facilities or projects to perform state-of-the-art R&D and to attract the best and brightest • Highly technical HQ Program personnel (with extensive laboratory experience) allows evaluation of feasibility and complexity of proposed technical approaches by the labs. Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017 7 Successful Projects – Dan Lehman (DOE retired) Primary Factors for Successful Project Completion • Clear Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibilities • Effective Front-End Planning • Appropriate Project Contingencies • Sufficient and Stable Funding • Regular Independent Oversight Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017 8 Pat Dehmer, DOE PLI 01/17 9 DOE Office of Science – 2003 priorities vs 2013 status • Some priorities become projects later (and earlier) than originally planned • Project scope is often different than earliest proposals • Not all priorities are realized Pat Dehmer, DOE PLI 01/1710 NSF Large Project Experience • NSF is not a “mission” agency like DOE and NASA • Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Program funds NSF large projects - Many successful MREFC projects but some problems - A few early off-ramps, e.g., RSVP, DUSEL • Increased expectations and requirements for projects - Stronger emphasis on front end planning - No cost overrun philosophy embraced • NSF experienced and successful in delivering projects that enable scientific collaborations 11 The IceCube Collaboration includes > 300 researchers from 47 institutes in 12 countries. IceCube is one of the NSF’s large facilities (LIGO, LSST, … 2 dozen others). The Operations and Management of the facility is handled by WIPAC at UW- Madison University of Wisconsin – Madison International Oversight and Finance Group R. Blank, Chancellor National Science M. Mailick, Vice Chancellor for Research and Foundation Science Advisory Committee Graduate Education (VCRGE) B. Barish, Caltech, Chair Software & Computing Advisory Panel WIPAC Education & Outreach Advisory Panel M. Ernst, Brookhaven, Chair Wisconsin IceCube Particle IceCube Neutrino Observatory Collaboration Board Astrophysics Center (WIPAC) Spokesperson & Executive Committee Chair, K. Hanson, Executive Director F. Halzen, Principal Investigator O. Botner (Uppsala) K. Gislason, HR, Busnss&Admin K. Hanson, Director of Operations Deputy Spokesperson, T. DeYoung (MSU) S. Bravo Gallart / M. Madsen, A. Karle, Associate Director for Science & Instrumentation Publication Com. Chair, D. Grant (Alberta) Speakers Com. Chair, E. Resconi (Munich) Communications J. Madsen, Associate Director for Education & Outreach N. Irland, Business IT Support Beyond Deep Core Upgrades Coordinators, D. Grant (Alberta) & D. Cowen (Penn State) Maintenance & Operations Coordination Committee Chair, P. Desiati Resource Coordinator, C. Vakhnina Research & Physics Software Coordination, A. Olivas Analysis Detector M&O – J. Kelley, UW Manager South Pole Logistics/R&D Support – J. Haugen (UW) Analysis Coordinator – Run Coordination, M. Kauer (UW) E. Blaufuss (Maryland) DAQ, D. Glowacki (UW) Computing & Data Management – G. Merino,UW Manager Supernova DAQ, V. Baum / B. Eberhardt (Mainz) Operations Coord. & Cybersecurity, S. Barnet (UW) Working Groups: Processing & Filtering, E. Blaufuss (Maryland) South Pole System & Test System, R. Auer (UW) Muons IceTop Operations, S. Tilav (Delaware) Data Transfer Systems, P. Meade (UW) Cascades & Taus IceCube Live, M. Frère (UW) Data Storage Systems, I. Saunders (UW) Cosmic-Ray Calibration, D. Williams (Alabama) / K. Mase (Chiba) Data Management, J. Bellinger (UW) Point Source High Throughput Computing, V. Brik (UW) EHE and Diffuse Neutrinos TFT Coordination – A. Hallgren (Uppsala) Networking and Facilities, P. Wisniewski (UW) Gamma-ray Burst Data Archive at DESY, K. Leffhalm (DESY) Beyond the Standard Model Data Processing Coordination Supernova P. Desiati, UW Manager Data Processing, J. Oertlin (UW) Simulation Production – Low-Energy / Neutrino Osc. Offline Processing Software (2013), C. Kopper (Alberta) & Production Coordinator, J.C. Diaz-Velez (UW) N. Wandkowsky (UW) Simulation Programs, A. Olivas (Maryland) IceTray Framework/Development, D. LaDieu (Maryland) Collaboration Simulation Production Centers: Database Development Systems, G. Kohnen (Mons) Belgium: IIHE-Brussels, UGent-Ghent; Canada: WestGrid(Alberta) Germany: DESY, Aachen, Dortmund, Wuppertal, Mainz, Bochum Sweden: SWEGRID; US: UW (npx3, GLOW, CHTC, GZK), UMD, UDEL, LBNL/NERSC, UCI, PSU, SUBR(LONI) April 11, 2016 The birth of ATLAS March 1992 – Summer 1992 Merging of EAGLE and ASCOT September 1992: Decision on the name 1st round 2nd round ATLAS 31 ATLAS 40 ALICE 12 ALICE 13 ACE 5 ALEX 5 LHD 0 October 1992 ATLAS LoI submitted to the LHCC Official birth of the ATLAS Collaboration ThyssenKrupp, 8-11-2010 ATLAS Project at CERN's LHC 14 Peter Jenni (CERN) The ATLAS organization has been defined in a lean document (less than 10 pages) in 1994, approved by the Collaboration Board (CB) and the RRB (Funding Agencies) Some key elements: - Each Institution has one vote (independent on the the number of people and the resources) in the CB - The CB meets 3-4 a year, and has an elected Chair ATLAS Management 2004-2009 - The CB elects the Spokesperson (SP, the ‘CEO’) of the Collaboration, by ballot, renewable with a 2/3 majority (initially renewable 3-year terms of office, now 2-year and only once renewable) - Based on explicit consultation, the SP proposes the other management positions, to be endorsed by ballot by the CB (CERN Director General has to agree on Technical and Resources Coordinators) - Sub-system Project Leaders (PLs) elected by the Institutes forming a sub-system, the SP has a right to ‘influence constructively’ this process - The SP finally propose the PLs to the CB for endorsement (by ballot) to form the Executive Board (EB)