User Program Models Worldwide

1. User Program Models Worldwide Lessons Learned Gopal Shenoy

2. Outline of Presentation • DOE /BES Synchrotron Radiation Facility Models • SNS Model • ESRF Model • CCLRC Model • ILL Model • An Assessment: Lessons Learned

3. User Access and Demographics at DOE/BES Facilities Who are the users of the synchrotron radiation facilities? The users come from academic institutions, industry, and federal laboratories. What is the definition of a user? A majority of users visit the DOE/BES facility at least once in a year to do an experiment. They are determined by counting the badges issued by the facility. Less than 0.1% are “remote” users.

4. What is the distribution of synchrotron facility users during 2002?

5. Facility Access How does a user gain access to the facilities? There are two principal modes of access: • As a member of a Participating Research Team (PRT) • at ALS, NSLS, SRC and SSRL, or As a member of a Collaborative Access Team (CAT) at APS 2. As a General User at ALS, APS, SSRL, and NSLS (The term “Independent Investigator” at ALS and APS has been dropped)

6. Who owns the beamlines and instruments? • Facility Owned-and-Operated Beamlines: All facilities • PRT or CAT Owned-and-Operated Beamlines: ALS, APS, NSLS, and SSRL. PS: DOE/BES has converted many PRT or CAT Owned-and-Operated Beamlines (used for Materials/Chemical Sciences research) to Facility Owned-and-Operated Beamlines, and this change will continue.

7. Who paid/pays for the PRT and CAT beamlines? The capital costs of the PRT and CAT beamlines is provided by DOE (BES, OBER), private industry, NIH, NSF, DOD, DOC, state agencies, private foundations, foreign countries, etc. The operational costs were also provided by the same sources. In recent years, DOE/BES has reduced its total operational support of PRTs and CATs, and transferred the operational responsibilities for PRT and CAT beamlines to the facilities.

8. What is the ratio of PRT /CAT members to General users?

9. What mechanisms exist for users to participate in the facility operation?

10. Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) • Model: Facility owned-and operated instruments: Instrument Advisory Team (IAT): • Contributes intellectually to the instrument development • Instruments are designed, built and operated by SNS with SNS funds • 100% of the instrument time is available to general users through a review process • Model: IDT Instrument Development Team (IDT): • Generates external funding to design, build and operate the instrument • In proportion to the share of construction and operating funds contributed by the IDT, a maximum of 60% instrument time will be given to the IDT.

11. ESRF Model: Facility Owned-and-Operated Beamlines Number of Beamlines (2002) 30 Proposal Type: (a) Standard, (b) Long Term Project, (c) Block Allocation Group for PX (BAG) Percentage of beam time to general users 100 Proposal review (including CRG General Users) Central Member country user support provided 2-3 people/experiment Model: Collaborating Research Group (CRG) Beamlines Number of Beamlines (2002) – all bending magnet sources 8 Percentage of beam time to CRG 66.6 CRG proposal review CRG Committee CRG user support provided By CRG CRG Publications (2001) 30% of total

12. Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC): • ISIS, SRS, and Central Laser Facility (CLF) • Access Model Developed by CCLRC Quiquennial Review Project Team (November 2002) • All proposals reviewed by Facility Access Panels (FAPs) – one per facility • Model: Facility Owned-and-operated Access Modes: • Direct Access: 6-month allocation period • Program Access: Long term allocation (3 years) Renewal: Review at the end of the 3 year period • Rapid Access: Continuous application Review: By a FAP member by e-mail - Service Access: at Daresbury Analytical Research and Technology Service (DARTS)

13. CCLRC (continued) • Assessment Criteria: • Scientific excellence an timeliness • Technical feasibility and safety • Balance of beam time between various access modes • Charge to FAPs • Recommend to CCLTC Directors a science program • Assess beam time request for each proposal • Relevance of overall beam time requirements • Future instrument development program • Identify facility development issues • Suggest scientific areas better served by program access mode • Annual evaluation (Facility usage, scientific output, access modes, emerging scientific themes, etc.)

14. Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) Model: Facility Owned-and Operated Instruments Instruments: • Most have been built and operated by ILL with funds given by the partner countries. • The ILL Millennium Program (5 years) for instrument renewal has received scientific proposals from member country institutions, evaluated by the Instrument Committee and Scientific Council. • Instrument time is allocated by a review process involving subcommittees of the Scientific Council which are part of the “Colleges”.

15. ILL User Access Modes • Standard Research Proposal (2 cycles per year) All proposals requesting beam time, which have been submitted in a cycle will be reviewed by the Subcommittees of the Scientific Council. Subcommittee members are specialists in relevant areas of each “college” and they evaluate the proposals for scientific merit, assigning priorities and beam time to accepted proposals. Before the meeting, the subcommittee receives a report on the technical feasibility of a proposed experiment from the appropriate college at the ILL. In the case of a rejection only brief general reasons are given as the ILL declines entering into correspondence concerning decisions made by the scientific subcommittees. • Submission of a proposal to the Director’s Discretion Time (DDT) - This option allows beam time decision without going through the peer-review procedure. DDT is normally used for hot topics, new ideas, tests, new users.

16. ILL Colleges

17. College 9: STRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS OF SOFT CONDENSED MATTER College Sections: 9-10: Colloidal systems: micelles, microemulsions, latex dispersions 9-11: Polymeric systems: solutions, melts, polyelectrolytes, blends, co-polymers, elastomers, gels, ... Main Instruments: • Small angle neutron scattering diffractometers: D11 and D22 • Reflectometers: D17 and ADAM • Small momentum transfer diffractometer: D16 • Diffuse scattering polarization analysis spectrometer: D7 • Thermal neutron four-circle diffractometer for large unit cell: D19 • High-intensity two-axis diffractometer with variable resolution: D20 • Time of Flight spectrometers: IN5 and IN6 • Spin echo spectrometers: IN11 and IN15 • Cold neutron backscattering spectrometer: IN10 and IN16 • Thermal neutron backscattering spectrometer: IN13

18. College 9: Subcommittee Members External: David BUCKNALL , Chairperson, Department of Materials, Oxford Stephan EGELHAAF, The University of Edinburgh Tiberio EZQUERRA, Instituto de Estructura de la Materia CSIC, Madrid Stephan FORSTER, Universität Hamburg Erick GEISSLER, Université Joseph Fourier de Grenoble Isabelle GRILLO, College Secretary, Institut Laue-Langevin ILL: Tapan Chatterji, Pierrette Chenavas, Bruno Demé, Bela Farago, Giovanna Fragneto, Bernhardt Frick, Ron Ghosh, Miguel Angel Gonzalez, Isabelle Grillo, Wolfgang Haeussler, Hans Lauter, Valeria Lauter-Passiouk, Peter Lindner, Roland May, Ralf Schweins, Peter Timmins

19. PRT/CAT/IDT/CRG Model – Strengths? – Leveraging of funds from various agencies and sources – Broad long term partnership between facility and outside institutions – Opportunity for the facility to develop strong intellectual and material bond with universities and industry – Diversity of creative ideas, designs, and science - Training of students and posdocs on technique and instrument development who could lead efforts at future beamlines and new facilities

20. PRT/CAT Model – Weaknesses? – Beamline construction by the PRT/CAT members requires good knowledge of facility infrastructure, construction policies, and procedures (safety, etc.) - Potential duplication of instruments and techniques at more than one beamline at a facility - Generally, beamlines are configured for many capabilities which introduces operational inefficiency – Uncertainties of long term operational funding - Lack of rejuvenation of PRT/CAT staff - Diversity of hardware and software makes the facility less user friendly to general users

21. Facility Owned-and-Operated Model – Strengths? • Beamline construction performed by the facility staff is more efficient and cost effective • Potential duplication of instruments and techniques at more than one beamline at a facility can be managed - Full understanding of the beamline is with the facility staff, and can lead to excellent operational efficiency – Construction funds can be centrally provided by the facility and may be included in the construction budget - Central management of beamline software development and implementation can provide better and uniform GUI - Planning can provide spares for the beamlines reducing the downtime

22. Facility Owned-and-Operated Model – Weaknesses? • All beamline/instrument funds have to be included in the construction budget with little ability to seek funds from other sources • Facility will have only a weak partnership with the academic institutions and industry. General users have only a ‘distant-cousin relationship’ with the facility. • Beamlines will be limited in creative and risky ideas; design improvements have limited path; tendency towards mediocre science • Training of students and posdocs are limited to data collection and analysis with little contact with instrument and technique optimization to enhance science • Limited opportunity to develop future instrument scientists • Limited career paths for the beamline/instrument scientists

23. Summary • Selection of a model should be done at an early planning stage and should never be changed • Both models have strengths and weaknesses • Both ESRF and ILL models are effectively super PRT Models: Beam time is allocated based on financial share of partner countries • A smaller facility with less than 15-20 beamlines/ instruments might be more suited for a ‘facility owned-and-operated’ model with some improvements, a la ILL, viz. including outside users in the design, construction, and operation process through the formation of ‘colleges’

24. Summary (continued) • The ‘facility owned-and-operated’ model also has some advantages for ‘complex’ facilities in which the accelerator and beamlines/instruments are highly integrated in the execution of the experiment • All beamline/instrument costs should be included in the TPC, preferably not planning a future phase 2 construction! • Facility be open to all international users • Only “program proposal “ be solicited, with their performance success measured only by the quality of science

25. Summary (continued) • Reduce operational bureaucracy. Provide more research/academic environment and operational flexibility in the user programs • Seriously consider making the facility a “Not-for-Profit Private Corporation”. ESRF and BESSY are such entities. A proposal made by CCLRC is pending in UK parliament