19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 1

Status Report of the Status Report of the M&O Scrutiny GroupM&O Scrutiny Group

Evolution of M&O Estimates Scrutiny Group Mandate Scrutiny Group Timetable Scrutiny Group Members Strategy for the Scrutiny Recommendations Results Conclusions

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 2

Evolution of M&O Evolution of M&O estimatesestimates

12/99 Updated draft “General Conditions for Experiments performed at CERN” (GC) to ACCU for comments12/99 Working Group mandated

H. Foeth (CMS), H. De Groot (ALICE), H.J. Hilke (LHCb),

D. Jacobs (sec.), D. Plane, L. Robertson (IT), P. Schmid (ATLAS), A. Smith, R. Voss (chair)

consults, agrees on headings, gathers estimatesat the same time, ATLAS and CMS formed internal

working groups that contributed greatly to the process

concludes in time for the 10/00 RRB

4/00Presentation to RRB plenary session revised GC in force, the comments made having been

taken into accountprogress of the Working Group

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 3

Evolution of M&O Evolution of M&O estimatesestimates

10/00 Presentation to RRB plenary session progress of the Working Groupoutline categorization of M&Opreliminary cost profiles and levels

4/01Discussion in all RRB sessions plenary presentation of RRB-D 2001-4 with detailed

categorization and estimates, and ideas on sharing. Announced drafting of M&O MoU and invited input on all aspects. Introduced idea of RRB Scrutiny Groups.

discussion of these matters in all experiment sessions

Since then:5/01 - Collaborations check categorization in RRB-D 2001-45-6/01 - Collaborations revise estimates to 2006 start-

up8/01 - Scrutiny Group starts operating

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 4

Scrutiny Group MandateScrutiny Group Mandate critically review the M&O cost estimates, especially

for Categories A and C flag items (or time periods for items) that are more

correctly linked to Construction or Commissioning & Integration than to Maintenance & Operation

flag items for which cost estimates are intrinsically unreliable or likely to vary with time

flag items for which a change of strategy might produce economies e.g. gas recycling versus consumption

identify activities related to shutdown activities but occurring before full machine operation

identify the cost drivers do not scrutinize the on-line computing items for now.

These will be treated later, partially in the light of the estimates being made by the LHC Computing Grid project.

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 5

Scrutiny Group TimetableScrutiny Group Timetable

Most of the Scrutiny Group’s business was conducted remotely. The full Scrutiny Group met together at CERN on 23 August and 10 September.

Monday, 18th J une e-mail Collabs re: preparing estimates Friday 20th J uly Deadline I for estimates 1 week 23rd - 27th J uly Rimmer & J acobs check/ change estimates Monday 30th J uly RC inspects estimates 1 week 30th J uly - 3rd Aug Rimmer, J acobs & CERN SG (2) members

check/ change estimates Friday 3rd Aug Deadline I I for estimates Friday 10th Aug Estimates mailed to scrutiny groups Thursday 23th August Monday 10th September

1st f ull scrutiny group meeting at CERN , etc 2 nd full scrutiny group meeting at CERN

Wednesday 12th Sept Deadline I I I for estimates < Friday 14th September Estimates mailed to RRBs Mon/ Wed 24th/ 26th Sept Pre-RRB meetings at CERN

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 6

Scrutiny Group MembersScrutiny Group Members

Atul Gurtu, Tata InstituteBernard d’Almagne, CNRS, IN2P3Brigitte Bloch-Deveaux, CEA, DAPNIAFranco Cervelli, Paolo Giubellino, INFNGuy Liujckx, NIKHEF, Jim Yeck, DoEKai Koenigsmann, University of FreiburgPeter von Handel, DESYPeter Chochula, Comenius University, BratislavaSteinar Stapnes, University of OsloSven-Olof Holmgren, University of StockholmT. Camporesi, D. Plane, T. Taylor, D.Schinzel (Chair)

andE.M. Rimmer (Secretary), CERN

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 7

Strategy for the ScrutinyStrategy for the Scrutiny

Concentrate on A costs and on 2002/2007

Scrutinize thoroughly a limited number of cost entries (The list of 8 questions).

Detector related costs (#)1. Explain how the costs for magnet, magnet controls,

magnet power supply, external and proximity cryogenics, and cryogenic fluids have been reached. Indicate the amount of manpower.

2. List and explain the manpower requirements for shutdown activities, detector (re-) integration & survey.

Secretariat3. Explain why costs (at least during the next 4-5 years)

are considered as M&O. Communications

4. Give the assumptions used for charging; in the 2002/2007 totals there is a factor of >15 between the smallest and the largest estimates.

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 8

Strategy for the ScrutinyStrategy for the Scrutiny On-line computing

5. Give the the total number of boxes and the number of boxes per FTE of manpower assumed for system management.

Test beams, calibration facilities6. Explain why costs (at least during the coming 3-4

years) are considered to be M&O. Laboratory Operations

7. In the 2002/2007 totals for these activities, there is a factor of >20 between the smallest and the largest experiment. This discrepancy should be explained.

General Services (#)8. Explain how cooling & ventilation costs have been

reached.

Separate out C&I costs from M&O costs: M&O consists of work in or close to the pit C&I consists of work in assembly and test areas

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 9

Strategy for the ScrutinyStrategy for the Scrutiny

M&O consists of two categories I. From now on

Running the collaboration that includes Outreach activities, administrative and secretarial

assistance, stationery (economats), stationery office (print shop for collaboration documents, etc...)

Maintaining test beam facilities, workshops, active and passive storage areas

Maintaining installations (cryogenic compressors, vacuum, detectors, etc…)

II.From 2005 onwards Running the experiment

Keeping detectors in running order, all shutdown activities, etc…

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 10

Strategy for the Scrutiny Strategy for the Scrutiny

Reasons for C&I costs:

Scale of experiments was not fully appreciated.

Unforeseeable circumstances (i.e. delays in civil engineering or necessary changes in integration strategy)

In the past, one part of C&I costs were paid from exploitation budget of the CERN group participating in the experiment

Only ATLAS and CMS have at present C&I costs

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 11

Strategy for the Scrutiny Strategy for the Scrutiny

ATLAS Cryogenics: M&O and C&I

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

YEAR

[ kC

HF ]

TOTAL C&I + M&O Total C&I Total M&O

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 12

Strategy for the Scrutiny Strategy for the Scrutiny

Example: Simultaneous separation of M&O and C&I, and Point1 and B180

ATLAS POINT 1 [kCHF] ATLAS B180 (West Hall) [kCHF]

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

M&O

Cryogenics O 0 0 0 700 1040 1040 260 260 340 0 0 0

C 0 0 0 180 240 240 25 55 50 0 0 0

Cryogenic Fluids O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C 0 0 0 140 190 190 0 0 0 0 0 0

C&I

Cryogenics O 0 640 1060 400 0 0 0 265 100 0 0 0

C 0 40 170 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cryogenic Fluids O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C 0 310 325 50 0 0 50 220 150 0 0 0

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 13

Strategy for the ScrutinyStrategy for the Scrutiny

Example: Cooling and Ventilation (0.5% to

2.5% of capital investment, 50% Manpower and 50% Consumables)2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ATLAS

Cooling and Ventilation O 52 104 156 208 260 260

C 52 104 156 208 260 260

CMS

Cooling and Ventilation O 48 96 144 192 240 240

C 48 96 144 192 240 240

ALI CE

Cooling and Ventilation O 36 72 108 144 180 180

C 36 72 108 144 180 180

LHCb

Cooling and Ventilation O 28 56 84 112 140 140

C 28 56 84 112 140 140

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 14

Strategy for the ScrutinyStrategy for the Scrutiny

Example: ATLAS Magnet and Controls Cost reduction achieved by change of strategy

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

kCH

F (M

anp.

+Mat

.)

M&O

C&I

TOTAL

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 15

M&O SG M&O SG RecommendationsRecommendations

Video-conferencing should not be listed as an M&O item, since Collaborating Institutions operate their own video-conferencing facilities free of charge.

Cooling & Ventilation as well as Power (in General Services) should not exhibit a step function behaviour starting in 2002, but rather a ramp-up reaching a plateau value in 2005/6.

Reliable Power metering should be introduced.

Transparent accounting for CERN services.

The ventilation systems of experimental areas and auxiliary buildings are linked to personal safety. They should therefore appear under Safety (a C cost).

Secretarial Assistance (in Secretariat) should show a reasonable ramp-up.

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 16

ResultsResults Visible cost reduction was achieved in the case of

Magnet Controls by changing a foreseen service contract into a result- and multitask-oriented contract.

C&I was separated out from both Category A and B M&O costs.

The manpower requirements for Shutdown Activities, Detector (Re-) Integration and Survey, General Technical Support (General Services) have been determined. The transitions from C&I to M&O for these activities have been identified.

Service contracts have been identified as cost drivers, but were difficult to scrutinize in the time available.

The Cooling & Ventilation and Power costs have been re-assessed and now show a reasonable ramp-up.

Shutdown activities now start in 2005

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 17

ResultsResults M&O costs in categories A and B now show a

“plausible” shape:

Cat A M&O totals in kCHF

0

2'000

4'000

6'000

8'000

10'000

12'000

14'000

16'000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ALICE ATLAS

CMS LHCb

Cat B M&O totals in kCHF

0

1'000

2'000

3'000

4'000

5'000

6'000

7'000

8'000

9'000

10'000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ALICE ATLAS CMS LHCb

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 18

ResultsResults C&I costs now show a “plausible” shape:

Commissioning & Integration CostsEstimates in MCHF

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ATLAS CMS Total

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001

DS 19

ConclusionsConclusions

M&O and C&I costs as far as scrutinized are sound

Time profile of C&I costs indicates urgency to find means to cover these costs

Adequate subsystem oriented templates for category B costs to be prepared

Scrutiny of B costs and C costs still to be done

Collaborations are asked to find ‘novel’ ways to reduce manpower costs