Management and Governance of LIGO

1
Management and Governance ofLIGO

• Mark Coles
• Deputy Director, Large Facility Projects
• Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
• National Science Foundation

Thanks to Barry Barish and Gary Sanders for many
of these materials
2
Well managed projects are more likely to be
technically successful

• Putting an effective project management structure
  in place at the very beginning of a project
  undertaking is the most important task
• Early project stumbles lead to trouble,
  reorganization, delay, poor reputation of
  scientific projects

3
Big science approach

• Create a planned project
• Convince yourself that you can do the project
  this way
• Own the plan
• Use the plan
• Perfect/adapt/repair the plan in a highly
  disciplined manner
• Develop confidence of sponsor
• Planned project approach is not just a defensive
  shield against sponsor intrusion
• Sponsor is an ongoing partner

4

• Lessons learned from LIGO

5
LIGO Scope and Costs

• The Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave
  Observatory (LIGO) is
• a joint project of Caltech and MIT
• construct and operate two observatories with 4 km
  interferometers
• detect gravitational waves
• initiate ground-based gravitational wave
  astronomy
• LIGO has been supported through the NSF Division
  of Physics/Gravity Program
• Construction cost 292 million (Major Research
  Equipment RD)
• Commissioning, early operations and RD cost 79
  million
• This funding covered 1994 - 2001

6
LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave
Observatory

• LIGO consists of three laser interferometers
  located at two sites separated by 3000 km.
• In eastern Washington, on the Department of
  Energys Hanford Nuclear Reservation,
• Near New Orleans, Louisiana
• LIGO is operated by Caltech in partnership with
  MIT through a cooperative agreement with the
  National Science Foundation.
• Caltech is the fiduciary agent, MIT is a
  sub-award
• LIGO Science Collaboration is the scientific body
  of LIGO which defines science goals and supports
  their achievement.

7
LIGO Scientific Collaboration Member Institutions
LSC Membership 35 institutions gt 350
collaborators
International India, Russia, Germany, U.K,
Japan and Australia.

• University of Adelaide ACIGA
• Australian National University ACIGA
• California State Dominquez Hills
• Caltech LIGO
• Caltech Experimental Gravitation CEGG
• Caltech Theory CART
• University of Cardiff GEO
• Carleton College
• Cornell University
• University of Florida _at_ Gainesville
• Glasgow University GEO
• University of Hannover GEO
• Harvard-Smithsonian
• India-IUCAA
• IAP Nizhny Novgorod
• Iowa State University
• Joint Institute of Laboratory Astrophysics

• LIGO Livingston LIGOLA
• LIGO Hanford LIGOWA
• Louisiana State University
• Louisiana Tech University
• Loyola Univ of New Orleans
• MIT LIGO
• Max Planck (Garching) GEO
• Max Planck (Potsdam) GEO
• University of Michigan
• Moscow State University
• NAOJ - TAMA
• University of Oregon
• Pennsylvania State University Exp
• Pennsylvania State University Theory
• Southern University
• Stanford University
• University of Texas_at_Brownsville
• University of Western Australia ACIGA
• University of Wisconsin_at_Milwaukee

The international partners are involved in all
aspects of the LIGO research program.
GWIC Gravitational Wave International Committee
8
LIGO Organization Support
9
Empowering the research community

• LIGO Science Collaboration (LSC) with independent
  leadership defines and carries out the scientific
  objectives of LIGO
• MOUs with LIGO Laboratory define framework for
  broad collaboration with community
• semi-annually updated attachments
• NSF support of community to utilize LIGO
  facilities
• NSF coordinates with LIGO Laboratory management
  and LSC leadership in evaluation of proposals
  from the research community

10
LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave
Observatory
Hanford Observatory
MIT
Caltech
Livingston Observatory
11
LIGO Observatories
LIGO (Washington)
LIGO (Louisiana)
12
Features of the LIGO Construction Project

• University (CaltechMIT) managed, no national
  laboratory
• Two green field sites
• Carried out as two major sub-projects
• 2/3 of the project constructs buildings, clean
  labs, vacuum system designed for ultimate
  terrestrial detectors
• 1/3 of project constructs initial detectors
• NSF funding provided when scheduled, leading to a
  technically (not financially) limited project

13
Features of the LIGO Construction Project

• Organized and executed like a bridge building
  project
• Product oriented Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
• Scope and technical configuration defined and
  controlled
• Cost and schedule integrated into a performance
  measurement baseline with earned value analysis
• Contingency funds managed centrally through a
  Change Control Board
• Organization matches WBS
• Subsystem managers responsible to deliver
  products
• Subcontractors managed rigorously
• Scientists fully integrated into the construction
  phase and aware of Voltaires maxim le mieux est
  l'ennemi du bien
• Scientists did not destabilize project but were
  also the source for project repair and workaround

14
LIGO organization philosophy

• Organization has only three levels
• Tasks - execute specific tasks
• Groups - coordinate related work (subsystem)
• Project Office - integrate and insure progress
  and control
• Product Oriented
• Middle managers under pressure to deliver a
  product
• Integration
• Project Management at top level provides
  integration and system engineering

15
Project Managements roles

• Responsible to deliver the Project
• Manage system engineering and Project
  cost/schedule/technical progress
• Assure scientific success
• Chair Technical Board/Change Control Board
• Chair weekly Project Control Meeting
• Chair monthly Performance Meeting
• Responsible for interactions with sponsor
• PM should have no individual tasks

16
LIGO Organization
17
Vacuum Chambers
18
Change Control/Configuration Management

• Baseline must be documented
• Baseline is fixed and respected
• Changed only by a disciplined process
• Changes proposed formally and reviewed
• Adopted changes must be documented and
  communicated
• Change history must be traceable

19
Technical/Change Control Board

• Members are leaders of subsystems and PM,
  subcontracts, project controls, QA
• Review of all requests for
• cost changes gt50K
• major milestone changes gt 1 month
• technical interface or performance changes
• Recommendation to Project Management
• Reviews all major technical choices

20
Project Controls Group

• Responsible to provide detailed visibility of
  Project performance in cost and schedule
• Manage review of technical configuration changes
• Manage cost estimating and revisions
• Manage schedule development and routine and
  urgent revisions
• Manage performance measurement
• Manage formal reporting to sponsor
• Manage procurements, industrial contracting and
  payment actions
• Manage all documentation

21
What NSF Has Done

• Through the Gravity Program, NSF has created an
  oversight function for LIGO
• Cooperative Agreement and Project Management Plan
  created the formal framework
• A dedicated program officer led the oversight and
  structured NSF review
• Semiannual project reviews during construction
  used a standing committee with slowly varying
  membership to provide review of progress
• Program officer employed an internal
  multidisciplinary team to coordinate NSF reviews
  and approvals with periodic meetings
• Gravity Program, grants and agreements, legal,
  public affairs, government affairs, property
  management, budget,

22
Recap Advantages of organizational approach

• Aligns organizational structure with work to be
  accomplished
• Design, development, construction, operation
• Facilitates definition and configuration control
  of interfaces
• Instrumentation, data formats, data distribution
• Allows contingency resources to be held at top
  level of project
• Facilitates empowerment of research community