Coordinators Report

1
Coordinators Report

• OPTICON 2nd Board
• Grenoble, October 11-12 2004

2
Board meeting one actions

• 1 arrange next meeting (GG) DONE
• 2 correct mtg zero minutes (JKD) DONE
• 3 Clarify Conflicts in RfP (Sirey) DONE
• 4 invite RadioNet to next Board (GG) DONE
• 5 prepare an FP7 discussion for Board based on
  board input and EAS (GG) Partly done here,
  continuing action for future Board
• 6 send inputs for item 5 (All) NOT DONE

3
Board meeting one actions

• 7 Arrange a future Board plus workshop in central
  Europe, for FP7 discussion (GG) continuing
  action, awaits some more FP7 information
• 8 (doesnt exist!)
• 9 prepare discussion document on relation between
  OPTICON and Solar Physics community in FP7 (von
  der Luhe) continuing action
• 10 arrange a meeting with ApPEC / ILIAS to
  consider which I3 hosts cosmic ray astrophysics
  (GG) some discussions, rest at I3 Forum

4
Board meeting one actions

• 11 Approve JRA and Network leaders (Board)
  Completed
• 12 provide ESO-AURA ELT MOU (Monnet) Done
• 13 Clarify the legal meaning of scientific
  developments in the Consortium agreement (GG)
  Done
• 14 make Public Outreach and agenda item for
  next Board (GG) Done

5
Board meeting one actions

• 15 Provide WWW templates for JRA/Network use
  (JKD) Done
• 16 JRA and Networks to provide progress reports
  30days before Board meetings Done more or
  lessand continuing!!.
• 17 Nominate candidates for the Key Technologies
  WG (CRC to report fully)
• 18 establish network leads for N4 synergy see PS
  report

6
Executive Meeting, Leiden 210904minutes will go
on WWW when agreed

• Year one budget distribution as explained here
• Resulting current overspend 273Keuro
• ELT science case update next slide
• FP5 budget update further update below
• Network and JRA reports see PS report
• Access program see special agenda item
• FP7 I3 input special agenda item
• Next exec meeting January, Zurich, to review
  annual report progress

7
ELT Science case development

• OPTICON (part) funds the ELT Design Study PS
  Isobel Hook, based at Oxford
• Recent activity reported in JKD report here
• Glossy top-level science case summary also
  requested now in final draft form, for
  completion-printing soon. Circulated to ESO
  Council members for final comments
• Big meeting Florence, November 7-9.

8
OPTICON Contract Status

• Original proposal submitted April 11 2003
• Approval of 50 support July 31 2003
• (Zeroth executive 24-09-03, Crete)
• Contract negotiation August 03-Mar 04
• Consortium Agreement completed Jan 2004
• Contract start date January 1 2004
• First Board meeting April 1-2 2004 (Gent)
• First Executive meeting April 2 2004
• Contract formalities complete July 2004
• Funding received and distributed Sept 2004

9
OPTICON Contract Status

• MANY Continuing uncertainties
• Next funds after annual reports
• FP5 final outcome
• Lost Swiss funding
• Audit certificates
• Annual reporting
• Cash flow
• Contingency
• Good practise management
• Mid-term review process in year 4 so really at
  80

10
FP5 Final Status

• Fourth annual report and Final Report submitted
  11-May-2004 (several hundred pages of text and
  detailed tables)
• Outcome total spend1.096.534euro
• budget 1.000.000euro
• Repeated iterations, apparent agreement
• Now 942646euro delivered 10/04
• No explanation for reduction queries continue
• Very unsatisfactory communications with EC

11
Swiss funding

• Original proposal under rules that Switzerland
  provides the equivalent of EC support via
  national action ? zero request for EC support of
  Swiss labs
• System changed during the process Switzerland
  acceded to FP6, and paid the EC its expected
  share
• BUT, that money has been taken by the EC, and not
  allocated to top-up approved Swiss participants
  (where has it gone? Ask your MEP)

12
Swiss Funding

• OPTICON Swiss partners
• Univ Geneva modelling VLTI data scaled down by
  50
• SME CSEM, part of Key Tech JRA, funded
• SANW reduced to 10, for community networking
  only
• These funds have to be saved elsewhere

13
Year one funding what for

• Recall we have NO contingency!! And our total
  allocations exceed resources by 250K
• JRAs and Networks are fully funded for all
  associated expenses managers must live with (80
  of) their resources
• Overheads mean very different things to different
  organisations we need to use them productively
  wherever possible

14
OPTICON Finances

• Money received 80 of first 18months
• Money available in month 10 ? first allocation
  modified
• Sent first 18 months of subcontracts, plus 66 of
  other 18-month costs (6 partners bank account
  details still not provided)

15
OPTICON Finances

• Actual feasible spend profiles differ
  considerably between organisations ? complex
  effects on progress, given real-world matrix WP
  distributions
• Some partners have real problems hiring staff on
  multi-year contracts when only single-year
  funding is assured and provided
• High-quality academic postdocs are not available
  at short notice

16
OPTICON Finances

• We will not know real effects of actual EC
  resource delivery for some time yet, which
  impacts first annual report and next funding
  advance this may be late if major reworking of
  (annex I) work plans are forced by the delay
• Some costs still quite uncertain eg audit costs
• Some contract timescales probably completely
  unrealistic eg provision of final annual
  accounts and audit certificates in early February

17
OPTICON Finances

• Complexity the EC system operates with many
  internal rules, which seem to override the
  published contract and Finance rules
• Eg, a late demand that the contract be exactly
  5050 matched funding, in disagreement with the
  published rules beware here for the ELT Design
  Study
• Eg, an apparent requirement that all partners
  provide the same number of audit certificates,
  regardless of how much they spend (700K 7K)

18
OPTICON Finances

• More Complexity
• The impossibility of standard management in
  retaining central contingency
• We have to live with the many different national
  systems
• But the whole is arguably no more complex than
  the French system so we will manage!

19
Five-year spend profile

• Current plan
• Year one 30 cumulative 30
• Year two 26 56
• Year three 21 77
• Year four 14 89
• Year five 9 100
• BUT maximum advance 80 of unaudited
  resource ? we must have audit certificates (from
  everyone, not just big spenders) after year 3.
  And again at end.

20
Audit Certificates

• Definition remains unclear very different
  national systems apply
• They are required very (impossibly?) soon after
  year end
• What will they cost?
• We have requested a contract amendment to
  provide a full set after year 3, and another at
  year 5/ final report.

21
Same problems for all 17 I3s

• We are cooperating to try to rationalise the
  inconsistencies
• Meeting at EC Nov 12 2004
• It is difficult to iterate informally with the
  EC we would REALLY like to do better here
• Frankly, the next year will be a learning
  experience as much as a management process

22
Other activities

• The EC is now bigger
• There is a new commissioner an economist from
  Slovenia. He promises evolution, not revolution
• Mitsos /FP7 visit to UK interesting
• Pero to visit UK soon
• Swedish Research Council will apply to join
  OPTICON
• RadioNet Board _at_ JBO Nov 17 I have 7 minutes to
  present OPTICON
• Most of the work/travel in project scientist
  report

23
(No Transcript)
24
JRA Monitoring Process

• Light touch needed far too many layers of
  management already
• Most JRA have professional managers
• Rigorous annual reporting review required
• What else?

25
(No Transcript)
26
JRA Monitoring Process

• What else?
• Original Exec Suggestion one-two monitors per
  JRA to attend the normal JRA meetings, and
  monitor progress
• Who? Real Conflict of Interest challenge here

27
JRA Monitoring Process

• Light touch needed far too many layers of
  management already
• What does the Board suggest??
• What do the JRAs suggest??

28
(No Transcript)
29
I3 Coordinators Forum

• EC will host a management meeting for I3s, Nov
  2004
• We will meet informally as well
• Question should this I3 group be formalised?
• Plus more formal and stable
• Plus someone must represent europe-wide users to
  ESFRI, etc
• Minus yet another contract
• Minus yet another self-selected group ?
  openness under FP7 implied

30
I3 Coordinators Forum

• The (now 17) I3s have similar challenges and
  difficulties, and so can benefit from a concerted
  view
• The I3s represent most users of most
  European major Infrastructure at least as well as
  any other extant organisation does, so the EC
  needs our involvement
• Our combined opinion is significant input to FP7
  planning

31
Input to FP7

• Consultation deadline is Oct 15 (Friday)
• http//europa.eu.int/yourvoice/forms/dispatch.jsp?
  form330langEN
• Or http//www.cordis.lu/era/fp7.htm
• I3 draft paper circulated for comments

32
Input to FP7

• I3 draft paper circulated for comments
• Suggestions are changing daily ignore detail
  (eg, FP7 may last 7 yearsERC grants will be
  small)
• We do not set European policy just ask for what
  we think is best for OPTICON members

33
Input to FP7

• I3 continuation are we happy with the concept?
  What could be better?
• Access is seen as an essential requirement.
• Funding rule limits actually encourage
  fragmentation?
• Management I think we need more partnership, and
  more trust and MUCH less multiple review.
• Fix management costs ab initio?
• Longer reporting periods?

34
Input to FP7

• Auditing how to resolve timescale issues?
• How to keep a sense of proportion in OPTICON 26
  of 47 partners receive less than 100Keuro over
  the whole of FP6
• Other countries administer 100K euro on a single
  sheet of paper every 3 years

35
Input to FP7

• Access activities
• Who controls Access vouchers? ERC?
• Real cost models? User selection sociology?
• Long term stability ? contracts match facility
  lifetimes?
• EC cap on support fraction recognises that the EC
  is not making policy, just perturbations
• What else is needed to support access??
• Analysis money?
• Oort Fellowship model? PDRA resources?
• ? MC link????

36
Input to FP7

• Joint Research Activities
• Extremely important for astronomy
• Larger funding limits? Or fewer choices?
• Critical for fast changing technologies ? much
  more contract flexibility? How?
• Pre-specification of subcontracts?
• SMEs 5050 rule destructive? What is better? Are
  they really important?
• Other issues? Suggestions based on experience?

37
Input to FP7

• Networking
• How important is this? Examples?
• Integration is important for us?
• Are there better ways to do this?
• Scale of support relevant to large communities?
• Relationship to other bits of EC?

38
Input to FP7

• Training
• Interaction across DG borders very poor? Why?
• Can it be fixed? Or just duplicate?
• Relation to extant infrastructures?
• Relation to future infrastructures (eg
  forthcoming satellites, ALMA)
• Relation to specialist methodologies (VLTI?)
• relation to science exploitation of access?

39
Construction Design Studies

• Current numbers irrelevant to european-scale
  projects 3-5 does not determine anything.
• BUT the coordinating effect is non-linear
• early Design Study investment critical?
• Design /construction /JRA.. Compete?
• Selection process for infrastructures!!

40
Construction Design Studies

• This is getting real proposed ESFRIEC strategic
  priority new-facility list, for Council of
  Ministers political ranking
• This will be the basis of long-term strategic
  funding but still only seed-corn money
• ESFRI to set up 3 WGs to develop the road map
• Infrastructure user input is critical is that
  our role?? How?? I3 link to ESFRI-WG?