LCLS User Research Administration Cathy Knotts Manager, User Research Administration May, 2009

User Research Administration User Research Administration Goals Centralized Management of User Research Administration at SLAC Lightsource User Facilities LCLS Proposal Review Process LCLS Users’ Organization LCLS User Outreach & Communications LCLS User Administration & User Safety User Administration Metrics

User Administration Goals Assist LCLS management in achieving a rapid and orderly transition to a general user program Establish administrative framework to support LCLS user research activities Promote unique capabilities of the LCLS and communicate user research opportunities to broad scientific community Attract a large number of diverse users Facilitate high-quality, high-impact early user science Increase visibility of important user experiments and user research achievements

Centralized User Administration Centralized management of user research administration for SLAC lightsource user facilities has numerous advantages Capitalizes on existing infrastructure, expertise, procedures and facilities for lightsource users Eliminates duplication of effort and facilities Standardizes basic safety procedures, training and badging Facilitates efficient and consistent communication and processes One-stop customer service model for user check-in is faster, more efficient and more convenient for users Ensures consistent high quality service to lightsource users

Centralized User Administration Henia Kamil, LCLS User Research Administration Manager hired March 2009 Formerly Manager of Academic Programs, University of Michigan College of Engineering Henia reports to Cathy Knotts, User Research Administration Manager Assimilated into existing SSRL User Research Administration group to facilitate rapid information exchange and implementation of LCLS user research administration responsibilities Functional responsibility to John Arthur and Jochen Schneider, LCLS Experimental Facilities Division

Proposal Review LCLS proposal template includes the scientific case, experiment team, procedures, and potential hazards Instrument scientists and safety officers review proposals for feasibility and potential safety concerns LCLS Proposal Review Panel (PRP) reviews proposals and advises on proposal review process PRP members external to facility Input from additional experts as needed Call for new proposals twice each year Due May 15, 2009

Peer Review Process PRP meets twice each year to review and assign rating for submitted proposals Peer review and ratings are the primary criteria in scheduling proposals The PRP reviews LCLS proposals, ranks each on a five-point scale from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest), and provides written statements explaining the ranking for applicants. 1 = Excellent. The proposal involves highly innovative research of great scientific importance. Proposed research will significantly advance knowledge in a specific field or scientific discipline. Considerable societal relevance is demonstrated. The characteristics and capabilities of the LCLS are highly desirable for the success of the proposed work. 2 = Very Good. The proposed research is of high quality and has potential for making an important contribution to a specific field or scientific discipline. The work is cutting edge and is likely to be published in a leading scientific journal. The characteristics and capabilities of the LCLS are important to the success of the proposed work. 3 = Good. The proposed research is near cutting-edge and likely to produce publishable results. Impact on a specific field or scientific discipline is likely. The proposed work will greatly benefit from access to the LCLS. 4 = Fair. Although the proposed research is interesting and appropriate for LCLS, it was not considered as compelling as others in similar areas. Publication may or may not result from this research. LCLS instruments could be useful, but experiments may be performed elsewhere as well. 5 = Poor. The proposed research is not well planned or is not feasible. Results would not make important contributions to fundamental or applied understanding, and work is not likely to result in publication. The need for LCLS instruments is not clear.

Proposal Review The LCLS Proposal Review Panel met in December 2008 Related proposals were encouraged to join forces and work together Proposals were rated and scheduled according to their ratings

LCLSUOEC charter available on-line Users’ Organization LCLSUOEC charter available on-line Linda Young elected Chair Richard Lee elected Vice Chair LCLSUOEC meetings October 2007, October 2008, December 2008, March 2009 Next meeting May 2009

User Outreach & Communication Next Joint LCLS/SSRL Users’ Meeting & Workshops October 19-21, 2009

User Outreach & Communications LCLS workshops Soft X-ray Instrument Experiment Preparation Workshop, October 2009 X-ray Pump Probe Proposal Planning Workshop, October 2009 Matter in Extreme Conditions Workshop, March 2009 AMO Experiment Preparation Workshop, February 2009 Application of Coherent X-rays at the LCLS, October 2008 Atomic, Molecular & Optical Physics, October 2008 Soft X-ray Beam Line for Material and Energy Science, October 2008 AMO and XPP Proposal Preparation Workshops, June 2008 Scientific Opportunities for Studying Laser Excited Dynamics at the Linac Coherent Light Source, October 2007

User Outreach & Communications Website updates in progress LCLS news updated frequently LCLS user newsletter created, distributed April 2009 LCLS articles in SLAC Today Ultrafast seminars and summer schools (2007, 2008, 2009)

Lightsources.org LCLS News, Proposal Deadlines, Workshops Communicated to International User Community through Lightsources.org consortium

User Administration Experiment schedule developed in close collaboration with LCLS instrument scientists, safety office, and experiment support staff to ensure optimal utilization of all available beam time Use agreements with user institutions – coordinating with Legal Counsel to develop one standard agreement for lightsource users at SLAC LCLS users will be tracked by proposal and will register on-line to collect demographics

Foreign Visits and Assignments User Administration User accounts will be established as a vehicle to invoice users for expenses incurred at LCLS Ordering specialty gases, shipping samples or equipment International shipments will be coordinated with SLAC/Stanford Export Control Officer Foreign Visits and Assignments Users from sensitive countries who will be on-site more than 30 days/year will be entered in FACTS Users from T4 countries will require additional review and DOE approval before working at LCLS

User Safety Consistent with ISEMS, LCLS Instrument Scientists will ‘supervise’ on-site users Review proposed experiment; consider potential hazards; ensure appropriate training, PPE, and other controls in place for user to safely conduct experiment; and obtain user feedback Complete training assessment (STA) Before beginning experiments, users will be given a safety overview by User Research Administration and a beam line specific safety talk by instrument staff Users will annually review access guidelines and complete an access agreement before receiving a dosimeter and SLAC ID badge for unescorted access to LCLS experiment areas

User Administration Metrics End-of-Run Survey created to encourage user feedback about user satisfaction, overall administrative and scientific experience at LCLS

User Administration Metrics Collect information on user demographics, scientific disciplines and funding Compile lists of LCLS related user publications and include on LCLS website We appreciate other suggestions of useful metrics to gauge user operations and administration, user satisfaction, and/or productivity

Cathy Knotts, Manager User Research Administration Contact Information Cathy Knotts, Manager User Research Administration knotts@slac.stanford.edu Tel. 650-926-3191 Henia Kamil, LCLS User Research Administration Manager hekamil@slac.stanford.edu Tel. 650-926-2073