1 / 11

Manpower - Part 2

Manpower - Part 2. Availability Survey Comparison of Needs and Availability Caveats/to-do list Some ideas on how to bridge gaps Conclusions on 2005-2007 Conclusions on 2008-2009. Manpower survey. Spreadsheet developed as first stage in DØ 2005-2007 MOU (1.)

frey
Download Presentation

Manpower - Part 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Manpower - Part 2 • Availability • Survey • Comparison of Needs and Availability • Caveats/to-do list • Some ideas on how to bridge gaps • Conclusions on 2005-2007 • Conclusions on 2008-2009 Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  2. Manpower survey • Spreadsheet developed as first stage in DØ 2005-2007 MOU(1.) • Request FTE(2.) effort dedicated to DØ • Faculty, scientist, postdoc, student • Request details of institutional commitments • Notes: • 2008-2009 “optional” - not part of MOU • FTE  fraction of total working week. NOT: fraction of research time; NOT fraction of 40 hour week! • Same spreadsheet used also by CDF • Responses so far from: • 71/77 DØ institutes • 50/57 CDF institutes • reasonable extrapolations made for missing institutes Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  3. Results of survey: 2005-2007 - Fall off for both US and non-US roughly consistent with HEPAP survey Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  4. Comparison of FTE availability and needs: 2007 Assumes people spend 50% of time on “service” and 50% doing “physics” Sufficient effort to operate experiments and support a broad physics programme Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  5. Caveats/To-do list • Availability is self reported whereas needs are bottoms-up estimate • Detailed analysis of “service” needs versus commitments not yet done • More careful checks needed to ensure “collaboration members” have been defined consistently in counting needs and availability Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  6. 2007 Comparison with HEPAP Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  7. Ideas to reduce needed effort and increase availability • Experiment Operations: • More automation (control room and offline DQ) • Merge shifts • Professional shift crew • Continuity of experts for critical systems • Computing Operations • Increase (SAM-)Grid development and support for deployment • Common support of commonly used infrastructure by computing professionals • a good strategy, although we need Fermilab support also for experiment-specific facilities and applications • General: • Increased visitor budget • for all levels (students -> professors) Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  8. Special role of Fermilab staff • Loss of Fermilab staff has been a problem for the experiments • In terms of lost FTEs and lost expertise • 15-20 FTEs per experiment over past 3 years • CDF and DØ need to add Fermilab staff in carefully targeted areas • At least the service contributions of current Fermilab groups cannot be allowed to leak away as has happened in the past Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  9. Conclusions on 2005-2007 estimates • Extrapolating manpower needs & availability from where we are now to 2007: • Subject to large uncertainties • refined understanding needed • in particular, detailed analysis of “service” needs versus commitments • But can form the basis for a plan • ideas to improve situation taking shape • Taking care of 2007 needs is the current main focus Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  10. Results for 2009 Calculated from 2007 MOU FTEs using HEPAP ratio for 2009/2007 - Barely enough effort to deliver “core” physics programme - Need to find more effort or greater efficiency to deliver a broader physics programe Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

  11. Conclusions on 2008-2009 estimates • Current extrapolations suggest a significant, but solvable, gap between needs and availability • Extrapolating from what we know now to 2008-2009 is largely guess work until: • Progress on pbar accumulation for Tevatron • Experiments demonstrate timely publication of 1-2 fb-1 dataset • achieving required physics performance • maybe interesting hints? • 2007 manpower needs and availability demonstrated to be realistic • Believable schedule for LHC accelerator announced • We need the answers to these questions before deciding: • Whether or not to run the Tevatron in 2008-2009 • Whether or not the experiments will have enough manpower to deliver the physics • But what we do know now about 2008-2009 is: • Great physics potential • Hardware in great shape • By working together, the funding agencies, Fermilab and the collaborations can solve the effort gap • It would be crazy to do things now that would take the option of 2008-2009 away! Terry Wyatt, University of Manchester, UK

More Related