ECFA EUROPEAN LINEAR COLLIDER STEERING GROUP

1
ECFAEUROPEAN LINEAR COLLIDER STEERING GROUP
ECFA/03/224

• REPORT OF THE SUB-GROUP ON ORGANISATIONAL MATTERS
• (SGOM)
• (http//committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/CER
  N03KalmusReport.pdf)

2
SGOMTERMS OF REFERENCE

• From a European perspective, work out a possible
  model or models for the design, construction and
  operation of a linear collider as a truly
  international project.
• Develop a road map towards setting up the project
• The linear collider being considered is a 0.5
  to 1.0 TeV electron-positron machine with latest
  completion date of about 2014, i.e being
  complementary to and having a large temporal
  overlap with the LHC

3
SGOM Terms of Reference (cont.)

• The following aspects should be considered
• Possible collaborative arrangements for the
  design, construction and operation of a Linear
  Collider
• Administrative structures needed to realise the
  above, including chains of responsibility
• Obligations and responsibilities of partners,
  including models for stable funding of the
  construction and operation
• Mechanisms for ensuring proper project and
  budgetary control
• Formal aspects of the collaborative arrangements,
  including, but not limited to, questions of free
  access, intellectual property etc.

4
Membership of SGOM

• Torsten Åkesson
• Ian Corbett
• Umberto Doselli
• Jos Engelen
• Joel Feltesse
• Lorenzo Foa
• Eva-Maria Gröniger-Voss
• Peter von Handel Secretary
• Kurt Hübner
• George Kalmus Chairman
• Helmut Krech
• Chris Llewellyn Smith
• Norman McCubbin
• Guy Wormser

5
SGOM. Meetings and Invited Contributors

• Meeting 1 RAL 5/6 Nov. 2002
• M. Cox UKAEA Culham JET and ITER
• R. Wade PPARC UK Perspective of the LC
• Meeting 2 CERN 6/7 Dec. 2002
• S. Bertolucci INFN Frascati INFN and the LC
• L. Maiani CERN Organisation of LC Project
• M. Bourquin CERN Council Status of CERN
• Meeting 3 CNRS, Paris 24/25 Feb. 2003
• J. Jaquinot Euratom/CEA Organisation of ITER
• J. Credland ESA, Paris Large Co-operative
  Projects in ESA
• Meeting 4 DESY 10/11 April 2003
• S. Michalowski OECD, Paris The OECDs Role
• A Wagner DESY The DESY view point
• H. Schunck BMBF, Bonn German Perspective of the
  LC
• Meeting 5 NIKHEF 14-17 May 2003

6
Recommendations (1)

• Nature of the Organisation
• a) The LC should be an international legal entity
  established through intergovernmental agreement
  as a time limited Project located at or near an
  established laboratory. (Global Linear Collider
  Project, (GLCP))
• The Project should be fully international from
  the outset, with a well-defined relationship with
  the nearby Host Laboratory which should provide
  services and infrastructure.
• All personnel employed by the GLCP, or seconded
  to it and originating from the GLCP Member States
  must have right of access and accompanying family
  members must be granted visas. For personnel
  employed by the GLCP or on long-term secondment
  to the Project, work permits from the Host State
  should be available to spouses/partners.

7
Recommendations (2)

• The management has to be lean, effective and
  transparent. The number of staff employed
  directly by the GLCP should kept to a minimum.
  Wherever possible staff should be seconded from
  member states.
• e) Governance of the GLCP should be organised on
  a regional basis, namely three regions,
  Americas, Asia and Europe, each with its
  own Regional Board.
• States should participate in the governance of
  the GLCP through their Regional Board.
• g) The GLCP should be governed by a Council
  composed initially of fifteen voting members,
  five appointed by each Regional Board.
• h) In addition to the voting members, the Council
  should have, in attendance, a representative from
  the Host State, the Project Leader and the chairs
  of its advisory committees.

8
State 1
State 2
State 3
State 4
State 5
State 6
State 7
State 8
State 9
Regional Board AMERICAS
Regional Board EUROPE
Regional Board ASIA
GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex
officio Host State representative Project
Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC,
POC and FC
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC)
Finance Committee (FC)
Project Oversight Committee (POC)
LINEAR COLLIDER PROJECT DIRECTORATE Chairman
Project Leader Members Deputy Project Leader,
Directors Extended form Add directors from Lead
Labs
HOST LAB.
GLCP- HOST LAB Coordinating Cttee
Machine Advisory Committee (MAC)
Central Team/ Project Office
TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT BOARD Chairman Technical
Director Members Project Leader, Deputy PL, Head
of Integration, Leaders of all Major Work
Packages (from lead labs/industry)
Central Team W/P Package Board 1
Major W/P 2 Package Board 2
Major W/P 3 Package Board 3
Major W/P 4 Package Board 4
Major W/P 5 Package Board 5
Fig. 1c Governance (GLCP Council and above),
Management (Light blue boxes below GLPC Council)
and Monitoring (Bi-coloured boxes) structure of
the GLCP
9
Recommendations (3)

• i) The Project Leader has the overview and
  overall responsibility for the execution and
  delivery of the GLCP, and is the interface
  between the project and the Council.
• j) All votes within the GLCP Council should have
  the same weight, but for some issues safeguards
  may need to be introduced.
• k) An appropriate structure should be devised for
  the GLCP giving the Project Leader the
  responsibility and resources to bring the Project
  to a successful conclusion. The structure should
  include an oversight and monitoring system which
  will ensure that the status of the GLCP is
  transparent to the Member States at all times.
• l) The composition and voting procedures in each
  Regional Board is a matter for the states in that
  region.

10
Recommendations (6)

• GLCP Contributions
• o) The fairest and most justified financial model
  would involve the Host State paying a premium of
  about 25 of the construction cost (herein after
  referred to as the Host State Premium), and the
  balance being divided according to the GDP of the
  Member States including the Host State.
• p) The contributions of the Member States should
  be organised on a regional basis under the
  control of the Regional Boards, which would
  monitor and adjust the contributions within the
  region as necessary. In-kind contributions should
  be by value according to a common costing model.
• q) The minimum contribution of each member should
  be proportional to its GDP. Contributions above
  the GDP share by interested states that wish to
  enhance the role of their institutes or industry
  should be encouraged.

11
Recommendations (7)

• r) Members should make cash and in-kind
  contributions. They may choose to make their
  contributions wholly in cash.
• s) The majority of the components should be
  provided as in-kind contributions valued
  according to a common costing model
• t) A significant cash element will be required to
  allow the Project Leader the flexibility needed
  to bring the project to a successful and timely
  conclusion.
• u) These in-kind contributions cover the design,
  manufacture and long-term technical
  responsibility for major components of the
  project. Competent institutes,(Lead Laboratories)
  of the Member States should take the
  responsibility for these contributions. These
  Lead Laboratories would be the key players in the
  realisation of the GLCP. This distribution of
  responsibility for major components is one of the
  basic concepts of the Global Accelerator Network
  (GAN)

12
Recommendations (8)

• Next Steps
• v) A political and financial group at high level
  drawn from all regions should be formed as soon
  as possible to take forward the important
  questions of site choice, funding of the detailed
  design, cost sharing and form of the global
  project including governance. We recommend that
  Europe take the initiative to form this group.
• w) The CERN Council should as soon as possible
  organise a meeting to assess interest in the GLCP
  among European states, inviting representatives
  of potentially interest non-CERN-Member States.
• x) Funding agencies from interested state should
  establish a pre-GLCP Council. This body should be
  dissolved when the GLCP is approved.
• y) Once the technology and site have been chosen
  a group should be set up to prepare the detailed
  technical design and cost. This design group
  would most likely contain many of the same people
  as the ILCSC international design team which
  would then be dissolved.

13
Governance Organigram
State 1
State 2
State 3
State 4
State 5
State 6
State 7
State 8
State 9
Regional Board AMERICAS
Regional Board EUROPE
Regional Board ASIA
GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex
officio Host State representative Project
Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC,
POC and FC
Fig. 1a Governance
14
State 1
State 2
State 3
State 4
State 5
State 6
State 7
State 8
State 9
Regional Board AMERICAS
Regional Board EUROPE
Regional Board ASIA
GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex
officio Host State representative Project
Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC,
POC and FC
LINEAR COLLIDER PROJECT DIRECTORATE Chairman
Project Leader Members Deputy Project Leader,
Directors Extended form Add directors from Lead
Labs
HOST LAB.
GLCP- HOST LAB Coordinating Cttee
Central Team/ Project Office
TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT BOARD Chairman Technical
Director Members Project Leader, Deputy PL, Head
of Integration, Leaders of all Major Work
Packages (from lead labs/industry)
Central Team W/P Package Board 1
Major W/P 2 Package Board 2
Major W/P 3 Package Board 3
Major W/P 4 Package Board 4
Major W/P 5 Package Board 5
Fig. 1b Governance (GLCP Council and above),
Management (Light blue boxes below GLPC Council)
15
State 1
State 2
State 3
State 4
State 5
State 6
State 7
State 8
State 9
Regional Board AMERICAS
Regional Board EUROPE
Regional Board ASIA
GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex
officio Host State representative Project
Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC,
POC and FC
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC)
Finance Committee (FC)
Project Oversight Committee (POC)
LINEAR COLLIDER PROJECT DIRECTORATE Chairman
Project Leader Members Deputy Project Leader,
Directors Extended form Add directors from Lead
Labs
HOST LAB.
GLCP- HOST LAB Coordinating Cttee
Machine Advisory Committee (MAC)
Central Team/ Project Office
TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT BOARD Chairman Technical
Director Members Project Leader, Deputy PL, Head
of Integration, Leaders of all Major Work
Packages (from lead labs/industry)
Central Team W/P Package Board 1
Major W/P 2 Package Board 2
Major W/P 3 Package Board 3
Major W/P 4 Package Board 4
Major W/P 5 Package Board 5
Fig. 1c Governance (GLCP Council and above),
Management (Light blue boxes below GLPC Council)
and Monitoring (Bi-coloured boxes) structure of
the GLCP
16
Comparison of ALMA, ITER and GLCP
ALMA ITER GLCP
Intergovernmental agreement Yes Yes Yes
Separate legal entity No Yes Yes
Time limited project Yes Yes? Yes
Regional structure Yes No Yes
Single Council appointed by Regions Yes No Yes
Common costing-value model Yes Yes? Yes
In-kind deliverables by value Yes Yes Yes
Cash as well Yes Yes Yes
Host State No Yes Yes
Host Lab. No No? Yes
Single central management Yes Yes Yes
Central contingency Yes ? Yes
17
Recommendations (4)

• European Regional Board
• m) All European Member States should be
  represented on the European Regional Board, but
  voting on this Board should be by a form of
  qualified majority where each states vote is
  proportional to its fractional GDP (or its
  fractional contribution if the Board so decides).

18
Recommendations (5)

• n) For Europe we consider there are two
  options
• Either
• All CERN member states participate in the GLCP as
  part of the basic programme of CERN, with
  association/cooperation agreements to allow
  non-CERN European states to participate. In
  this case the European Regional Board would be
  the CERN Council. This role for the CERN Council
  will require it to take a strategic overview of
  European particle physics and modify its working
  practices. We note that such a role is fully
  consistent with the mandate of CERN as given in
  the CERN convention.
• or
• European contributions are made outside the
  CERN programme. In this case consideration should
  be given to using a super- or sub-set of the CERN
  Council reconstituted as the European Regional
  Board.
• We have not reached a conclusion on a choice,
  and we recommend wider consultation to explore
  them further.

19
Recommendations (9)

• CERNs interaction with the GLCP
• z) We have considered carefully the relationship
  between CERNLab and the GLCP.
• CERNLab is and should remain Europes accelerator
  laboratory.
• CERNLab should remain the hub of a European
  accelerator research network for future machines
  beyond the GLCP. This network consists of
  institutes in European nations with accelerator
  RD expertise.
• CERNLabs flagship facility the LHC will be
  operating in parallel with the Linear Collider
  (if it is constructed on the timetable envisaged)
  for a substantial period and the LHC must be
  fully supported, including possible upgrading.
• The GLCP has to be seen as an integral part of
  the European particle physics programme. Given
  the likely cost of the GLCP and the high priority
  given to the completion of the LHC, it is clear
  that the total European particle physics budget
  must be maintained, in real terms.
• However, some additional resources will be
  required before the end of the decade if the
  completion date of about 2014 is to be met.
• The CERNLab could be a Lead Laboratory.

20
Photograph of SGOM Members at NIKHEF Meeting, May
2003 (Missing Helmut Krech and Guy Wormser)