Illinois Accelerator Research Center (IARC)

Bob Kephart

IARC Usage

• Everything I say in this talk is my thoughts, not endorsed or approved by DOE HQ, FSO, FRA, or the lab management

Nevertheless we have talked quite a bit about how IARC might work… and looked at examples from elsewhere in DOE

Disclaimer:

2SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20122

• Our vision is that IARC is highly accessible providing maximum leverage of FNAL capability and infrastructure

• Promotes new accelerator technology, applications, and products and fills gaps in our present system

• Available to any U.S. company, institution, or credible entrepreneur

• Access to Non-US companies, foreign entities, etc is a subject of discussion negative = concerns about competition with existing U.S. companies

positive = increased likelihood that these companies open new businesses in the U.S.

Access to IARC

3SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20123

3 modes:• Proprietary… all IP and rights reserved by the

company. Full cost recovery for incremental costs. (WFO)

• Non-proprietary… no IP rights reserved… users agreements

• Cooperative Research and Development (CRADA) with shared costs, effort, and IPNote that there is an effort by DOE to streamline CRADA’s

We are discussing with DOE if IARC should be a “Users Facility”. It does not match the criterion established by the office of science but seems to be very similar in concept to a new user facility (ESIF) at NREL

Working at IARC

4SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20124

Creating the IARC Business model

Approach used by very successful high

tech company FNAL works with

SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20125

Value Propositions

What value to we offer?

What is the ROI ?

Why should companies want

to work at IARC?

Customer

Relationships

ChannelsHow do we reach

customers/stakeholders

Key

Partners

Companies

Universities

entrepreneurs

intrapreneurs

other labs

Customer

Segments

Who are our

key customers?

Key

Activities

Key ResourcesLab Staff

Infrastructure

Cost Structure Revenue Streams

• Access to:→ a world-leading accelerator engineering and scientific staff

→ core capabilities and infrastructure that are unique and expensive to reproduce elsewhere (literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stuff)

→ the IARC staff to make these assets more accessible

→ Accelerator stewardship funds to support initiatives

→ a DOE lab with motivation to make this all happen and the support of OHEP and the Fermi Site Office

The Value we can offer

6SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20126

• Leverage:→ DOE funds: SBIR/STTR, Accelerator stewardship funds

→ Non-DOE Federal funds: DTRA, DHS, ARPA-E, EPA

→ Private Funds: company funds, venture capital

• IARC can allow industry to leverage FNAL assets to make a development possible that otherwise would not be….. leading to a new product line, sales, and ultimately profits

Return on Investment:Why industries should want work at IARC

7SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20127

• We know this matters… and we are working on this…• Concerns from Industry

Gov’t red tape & rules vs more flexible and agile small businesses working environment

DOE ES&H safety culture is more restrictive vs e.g. OSHA High lab overheads vs those at a small businesses (esp labor) unpredictable funding and schedules due to Congress, SC, OMB, etc

• Positives OHEP establishing a new funding source (stewardship funds) DOE policy towards industry partnerships is becoming more friendly FSO is very supportive and influential in changing DOE policies

Great champions in Mike Weiss and Mark Bollinger Labs will have IP and tech transfer activities become part of their

performance measures attention of lab management to issues

• Please help us understand what are the most important issues to industry so we can focus on them

SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 2012

Policies and Procedures

8