EDR Planning

1. EDR Planning • Marc Ross heads Task Force on recommendations for the EDR • Documents • “The ILC Engineering Design Phase…”, GDE Executive Committee, 070402 (from link in the ILC website’s “Director’s Corner” 12 April 2007) • “Draft Charge”, (undated) sent 070502 • “Engineering Design Phase”, dated May 2, 2007 • Marc wants “input from GDE managers and boards”: “The task force plan is to work in parallel to 1) define the EDR effort and goals, 2) collect input from institutions, RDR teams, GDE boards and the community at large; and, 3) begin to define work packages, their inter connection and an organizational plan.” J. Tompkins - Overview

2. EDR Planning, cont. • The ILC Engineering Design Phase (Reference 1) – is an ILC Executive Committee document • Apparently begun before Beijing but (IMHO) needs a lot of work… • It assumes that “an ILC engineering design with sufficient technical detail to be submitted to governments for approval in 2010” and that it will “produce the technical information required and agreed by the contracting governments as necessary to proceed to approval of the project” (italics mine) • Not really consistent with most of what we’ve heard since Beijing… • Does anyone know what: “as necessary to proceed to approval” means? It seems to me that it could be quite a bit different from “as necessary for approval”… J. Tompkins - Overview

3. Comments on “Reference 1”, cont. • “The RDR Management Board will be replaced by a Project Manager (PM) and a Project Management Team (PMT)” • Everything will proceed through the Project Manager and PMT – but this is not yet a project and can’t be run as one until there is detailed design ready for construction… • There is no indication of an independent scientific review committee or other technical review to balance a “project oriented” organization • “it will be the responsibility of the PMT to ensure that the necessary project-wide R&D is being carried out and held to milestones”– the ‘project’ should be to construct the accelerator; R&D should not be on the critical path at this point… J. Tompkins - Overview

4. More comments, cont. • “Workpackages” – are clearly a panacea for all that ails us, but they are nowhere defined • we can’t say what they are but we’ll know one when we see it… • we don’t say how they are funded • but they will be decided at the highest levels… • The management plan assumes a structure which aligns along Area System boundaries • Exceptions for some Technical Systems • None of our considerations/comments/complaints appear to have been heard… J. Tompkins - Overview

5. And on we go... • Schedule • Approval by governments in 2010…? • Funding required vs. funding available? • Staffing: “a factor of approximately two in the global ILC effort is required to complete the EDR on the required timescale” (relative to the RDR staffing level). • Note: this statement does not address the mix of skills required, nor what portion of the machine (or detectors) the present contingent works on; the EDR phase needs a large increase in engineers and designers • The factor of 2 cannot be distributed as at present… • For magnets, the number of designers needed would be a roughly a factor of 10, and a factor of ~4x the number of engineers J. Tompkins - Overview

6. Engineering Design Phase (Reference 2) • “In ~2010, an Engineering Design Report (EDR) will be produced: the EDR will explain the capabilities of the technology at that time, will detail the design of the machine and the construction plans, and will present an updated value estimate.” • Not an engineering design ? • “Explain the capabilities of the technology” • “Detail the design of the machine” (is not a detailed design of the machine for those watching the semantics…) • Not a project cost estimate ? • Wait to see what follows… J. Tompkins - Overview

7. Engineering Design Phase (Ref.2), cont. • Section B states:“The primary technical output from the activity in the Engineering Design Phase will be an integrated engineering design of the accelerator.“; and,“An overall design must be produced, with sufficient completeness and detail to allow machine construction to start within 3 years, given project approval and funding.” • And goes on:“…A comprehensive value-engineering exercise must be conducted, aimed at reducing cost and achieving design consistency”; and,“…A complete value cost estimate for the machine must be provided, including a funding profile consistent with the project schedule.” J. Tompkins - Overview

8. EDR, view 2 cont. • And it concludes with: “Any organizational structure implemented for the GDE during the Engineering Design phase must have the flexibility to accommodate this diverse range of activities, while providing effective mechanisms for communication and coordination. Activities that are research-oriented or more technical in nature will have a very different character from those that are more directed towards planning and costing, and may benefit from different organization. However, all activities will be related to all other activities in some way, with many complicated dependencies. Ultimately, everything has to come together in the EDR.” • This is motherhood and apple pie, but… • It seems to me that no one has a definite plan which admits to any realities of schedule and funding • All are compelled to require that “everything” gets done • And we end up with the same situation as the RDR cost estimate… J. Tompkins - Overview

9. EDR – last comments • The EDR is in desperate need of realistic boundary conditions • Scope • Resources • Time scale • It is now entwined with a new management structure • These should be separate discussions • It is tied to yet to be defined (and funded) “workpackages” • No guarantee for consistency of effort, use of scarce resources • Distribution could (will?) be weighted toward local self interest… • No defined mechanism for uniformity or consistency across Area System boundaries • (these are not new comments…) J. Tompkins - Overview