Coordinator’s Report

1. Coordinator’s 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) NOTDONE

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 (doesn’t 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 less…and 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 spend=1.096.534euro • 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 50:50 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 @ JBO Nov 17 – I have 7 minutes to present OPTICON… • Most of the work/travel in project scientist report

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?

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 JRA’s suggest??

29. I3 Coordinator’s 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 Coordinator’s Forum • The (now 17) I3s have similar challenges and difficulties, and so can benefit from a concerted view; • The I3’s ``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?form=330&lang=EN • 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 years…ERC 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: 50:50 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 ESFRI+EC 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?