Illinois Accelerator Research Center (IARC) Bob Kephart IARC Usage

Everything I say in this talk is my thoughts, not endorsed or approved by DOE HQ, FSO, FRA, or the lab management Nevertheless we have talked quite a bit about how IARC might work… and looked at examples from elsewhere in DOE Disclaimer: 2 SPAFOA, RDK, Nov

Our vision is that IARC is highly accessible providing maximum leverage of FNAL capability and infrastructure Promotes new accelerator technology, applications, and products and fills gaps in our present system Available to any U.S. company, institution, or credible entrepreneur Access to Non-US companies, foreign entities, etc is a subject of discussion negative = concerns about competition with existing U.S. companies positive = increased likelihood that these companies open new businesses in the U.S. Access to IARC 3 SPAFOA, RDK, Nov

3 modes: Proprietary… all IP and rights reserved by the company. Full cost recovery for incremental costs. (WFO) Non-proprietary… no IP rights reserved… users agreements Cooperative Research and Development (CRADA) with shared costs, effort, and IP Note that there is an effort by DOE to streamline CRADA’s We are discussing with DOE if IARC should be a “Users Facility”. It does not match the criterion established by the office of science but seems to be very similar in concept to a new user facility (ESIF) at NREL Working at IARC 4 SPAFOA, RDK, Nov

Creating the IARC Business model Approach used by very successful high tech company FNAL works with SPAFOA, RDK, Nov Value Propositions What value to we offer? What is the ROI ? Why should companies want to work at IARC? Customer Relationships Channels How do we reach customers/stakeholders Key Partners Companies Universities entrepreneurs intrapreneurs other labs Customer Segments Who are our key customers? Key Activities Key Resources Lab Staff Infrastructure Cost StructureRevenue Streams

Access to: → a world-leading accelerator engineering and scientific staff → core capabilities and infrastructure that are unique and expensive to reproduce elsewhere (literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stuff) → the IARC staff to make these assets more accessible → Accelerator stewardship funds to support initiatives → a DOE lab with motivation to make this all happen and the support of OHEP and the Fermi Site Office The Value we can offer 6 SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20126

Leverage: → DOE funds: SBIR/STTR, Accelerator stewardship funds → Non-DOE Federal funds: DTRA, DHS, ARPA-E, EPA → Private Funds: company funds, venture capital IARC can allow industry to leverage FNAL assets to make a development possible that otherwise would not be….. leading to a new product line, sales, and ultimately profits Return on Investment: Why industries should want work at IARC 7 SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 20127

We know this matters… and we are working on this… Concerns from Industry  Gov’t red tape & rules vs more flexible and agile small businesses working environment  DOE ES&H safety culture is more restrictive vs e.g. OSHA  High lab overheads vs those at a small businesses (esp labor)  unpredictable funding and schedules due to Congress, SC, OMB, etc Positives  OHEP establishing a new funding source (stewardship funds)  DOE policy towards industry partnerships is becoming more friendly  FSO is very supportive and influential in changing DOE policies  Great champions in Mike Weiss and Mark Bollinger  Labs will have IP and tech transfer activities become part of their performance measures  attention of lab management to issues Please help us understand what are the most important issues to industry so we can focus on them SPAFOA, RDK, Nov 2012 Policies and Procedures 8