Experience of the U.S. Collaborations at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

1

• Experience of the U.S. Collaborations at the CERN
  Large Hadron Collider
• Lessons I learned
• Bill Willis
• Columbia University and
• Brookhaven National Laboratory

2
CERN MEMBER STATES
3
LHC MACHINE
4
Agreement between CERN and NSF/DOE

• U.S./CERNInternational Agreement defines our
  capped contribution to construction as 531
  million (DOE-450M and NSF-81M).
• U.S. construction deliverables are defined in
  detail
• U.S. ATLAS ATLAS Memorandum of Understanding
• U.S. CMS CMS Memorandum of Understanding
• U.S. Machine U.S./CERN Implementing
  Arrangement
• Significant changes must be approved by DOE/NSF.

5
DOE NSF U.S. ATLAS Organization
6
U.S. Role

• NSF and DOE are partners and act as one in the
  international arena
• Contributions are deliverables
• U.S. is a minority partner in the international
  LHC project (Europe 82, DOE/NSF 5, others 8)
• Overriding control is the congressional cap of
  531M

7
The Three U.S. Projects

• U.S. LHC Accelerator - 200 million (DOE funding
  only)
• Fermilab/Brookhaven National Laboratory/Lawrence
  Berkeley National Laboratory Collaboration - 110
  M
• CERN Direct Purchase from U.S. Industry - 90 M
• U.S. ATLAS Detector Construction 163.75
  million
• U.S. CMS Detector Construction - 167.25 million
• Base program support for physicists and
  infrastructure at labs and universities, not on
  Project budget.

8
Agency Oversight

• DOE/NSF Joint Agency Approach
• DOE/NSF Joint Agency Approach
• DOE/NSF MOU addresses joint responsibilities
• DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (U.S. program
  coordination)
• U.S. LHC Project Execution Plan detailed
  Management Plans
• Project Reporting and Reviews
• Extensive formal reporting, quarterly meetings
  and site visits
• Regular Lehman reviews
• Host/Lead Laboratory Role and Advisory Committees
• U.S. ATLAS BNL A.D. w/ Project Advisory Panel
• U.S. CMS FNAL D.D. w/ Project Management
  Group
• U.S. LHC Accelerator FNAL A.D. w/ Project
  Advisory Group

9
International Participation in the LHC
Accelerator
Construction of LHC involves modest, but
significant contributions from outside the 20
CERN member countries CERN 90 United States
5 Japan Russia Canada 5 India This
is, however, clearly CERNs project, which the
US and other non-member states are helping to
build. It is not (yet) a truly global collaboratio
n.
10
A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS at CERN
11
USCMS
USCMS 387 members from 38 Institutions
12
ATLAS Now Past its Half-Way-Point!
13
Projected Scientific Effort by U.S. ATLAS
Based of survey of U.S. ATLAS Institutions
14
Status of ATLAS Today

• More than 90 of deliverables constructed
• So far so good!
• Original start-up in 2005 has shifted to 2007 in
  line with delays with the LHC machine
• ATLAS needs 68 MCHF over and above 470 MCHF to
  complete the initial detector (over costs in
  deliverables not included)
• ATLAS has (separate) tools for milestones
  tracking and financial reporting
• Question to what extent are the observed
  difficulties independent of the tools used?
• Worries
• Host Lab responsibilities not clearly defined
  (resources issues). But
• We hope external pressure will help to clarify
  the matter
• CERN intends to implement Earned Value Management
  in its budget planning and reporting systems. We
  hope this will help

15
Perceived Disadvantages of the ATLAS Approach

• ATLAS Management has limited direct power
  sometimes difficult to force people to follow
  (desired) decisions
• Slow in decision making at times too democratic?
• Duplication (and sometimes waste) of resources
  across the institutes
• Difficult to know total cost of the Project
• Vulnerable to changes in Host Lab services and
  functions

16
RESPONSIBILITY

• The CERN Model was that the Member States agree
  on a budget, and CERN executes the program, in
  collaboration with outside institutions
• The construction of HERA at DESY in Hamburg
  introduced a new level of scope and formality in
  international collaboration, but at a level that
  left DESY able to backstop problems.
• In the 1980s, CERN introduced a larger level of
  external collaboration in the four experiments at
  LEP, with CERN retaining about a third of the
  responsibility, but the accelerator was mostly
  CERN.
• The CERN resources in the LEP experiments were
  sufficient so that the control of decisions
  remained at CERN, in general.

17
Responsibility in the LHC Projects

• CERN has 90 of the responsibility for the LHC
  accelerator, makes all decisions essentially
  alone, with little regard for the effects on the
  collaborators, but the funding reserves available
  in their previous projects are smaller.
• The 10 or so of CERN contribution to the four
  experiments is not sufficient to control
  decisions or to fix the problems the inevitably
  arise. The good will of the FA and institutes is
  the remaining resource, and decision making is
  then slow and sometimes parochial.
• In my opinion, the correct model for an efficient
  international project is that which Europe was
  able to achieve in 1952, funds under the control
  of a strong central management. If present
  politics do not allow that solution, we make
  expect problems.
• Another Model is that the Host Country has a
  major responsibility and the concomitant
  resources, and welcomes outside collaboration
  international balance is achieved on a broad front