19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 1 Status Report of the M&O Scrutiny Group  Evolution of M&O Estimates  Scrutiny Group Mandate  Scrutiny Group Timetable  Scrutiny Group Members  Strategy for the Scrutiny  Recommendations  Results  Conclusions

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 2 Evolution of M&O estimates 12/99Updated draft “General Conditions for Experiments performed at CERN” (GC) to ACCU for comments 12/99Working Group mandated H. Foeth (CMS), H. De Groot (ALICE), H.J. Hilke (LHCb), D. Jacobs (sec.), D. Plane, L. Robertson (IT), P. Schmid (ATLAS), A. Smith, R. Voss (chair) consults, agrees on headings, gathers estimates at the same time, ATLAS and CMS formed internal working groups that contributed greatly to the process concludes in time for the 10/00 RRB 4/00Presentation to RRB plenary session revised GC in force, the comments made having been taken into account progress of the Working Group

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 3 Evolution of M&O estimates 10/00 Presentation to RRB plenary session progress of the Working Group outline categorization of M&O preliminary cost profiles and levels 4/01Discussion in all RRB sessions plenary presentation of RRB-D with detailed categorization and estimates, and ideas on sharing. Announced drafting of M&O MoU and invited input on all aspects. Introduced idea of RRB Scrutiny Groups. discussion of these matters in all experiment sessions Since then: 5/01 - Collaborations check categorization in RRB-D /01 - Collaborations revise estimates to 2006 start-up 8/01 - Scrutiny Group starts operating

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 4 Scrutiny Group Mandate critically review the M&O cost estimates, especially for Categories A and C flag items (or time periods for items) that are more correctly linked to Construction or Commissioning & Integration than to Maintenance & Operation flag items for which cost estimates are intrinsically unreliable or likely to vary with time flag items for which a change of strategy might produce economies e.g. gas recycling versus consumption identify activities related to shutdown activities but occurring before full machine operation identify the cost drivers do not scrutinize the on-line computing items for now. These will be treated later, partially in the light of the estimates being made by the LHC Computing Grid project.

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 5 Scrutiny Group Timetable Most of the Scrutiny Group’s business was conducted remotely. The full Scrutiny Group met together at CERN on 23 August and 10 September.

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 6 Scrutiny Group Members Atul Gurtu, Tata Institute Bernard d’Almagne, CNRS, IN2P3 Brigitte Bloch-Deveaux, CEA, DAPNIA Franco Cervelli, Paolo Giubellino, INFN Guy Liujckx, NIKHEF, Jim Yeck, DoE Kai Koenigsmann, University of Freiburg Peter von Handel, DESY Peter Chochula, Comenius University, Bratislava Steinar Stapnes, University of Oslo Sven-Olof Holmgren, University of Stockholm T. Camporesi, D. Plane, T. Taylor, D.Schinzel (Chair) and E.M. Rimmer (Secretary), CERN

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 7 Strategy for the Scrutiny  Concentrate on A costs and on 2002/2007  Scrutinize thoroughly a limited number of cost entries (The list of 8 questions). Detector related costs (#) 1.Explain how the costs for magnet, magnet controls, magnet power supply, external and proximity cryogenics, and cryogenic fluids have been reached. Indicate the amount of manpower. 2.List and explain the manpower requirements for shutdown activities, detector (re-) integration & survey. Secretariat 3.Explain why costs (at least during the next 4-5 years) are considered as M&O. Communications 4.Give the assumptions used for charging; in the 2002/2007 totals there is a factor of >15 between the smallest and the largest estimates.

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 8 Strategy for the Scrutiny On-line computing 5.Give the the total number of boxes and the number of boxes per FTE of manpower assumed for system management. Test beams, calibration facilities 6.Explain why costs (at least during the coming 3-4 years) are considered to be M&O. Laboratory Operations 7.In the 2002/2007 totals for these activities, there is a factor of >20 between the smallest and the largest experiment. This discrepancy should be explained. General Services (#) 8.Explain how cooling & ventilation costs have been reached.  Separate out C&I costs from M&O costs: M&O consists of work in or close to the pit C&I consists of work in assembly and test areas

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 9 Strategy for the Scrutiny  M&O consists of two categories  I. From now on Running the collaboration that includes Outreach activities, administrative and secretarial assistance, stationery (economats), stationery office (print shop for collaboration documents, etc...) Maintaining test beam facilities, workshops, active and passive storage areas Maintaining installations (cryogenic compressors, vacuum, detectors, etc…)  II.From 2005 onwards Running the experiment Keeping detectors in running order, all shutdown activities, etc…

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 10 Strategy for the Scrutiny  Reasons for C&I costs:  Scale of experiments was not fully appreciated.  Unforeseeable circumstances (i.e. delays in civil engineering or necessary changes in integration strategy)  In the past, one part of C&I costs were paid from exploitation budget of the CERN group participating in the experiment  Only ATLAS and CMS have at present C&I costs

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 11 Strategy for the Scrutiny  ATLAS Cryogenics: M&O and C&I

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 12 Strategy for the Scrutiny  Example: Simultaneous separation of M&O and C&I, and Point1 and B180 ATLAS POINT 1 [kCHF] ATLAS B180 (West Hall) [kCHF]

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 13 Strategy for the Scrutiny  Example: Cooling and Ventilation (0.5% to 2.5% of capital investment, 50% Manpower and 50% Consumables)

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 14 Strategy for the Scrutiny  Example: ATLAS Magnet and Controls Cost reduction achieved by change of strategy

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 15 M&O SG Recommendations Video-conferencing should not be listed as an M&O item, since Collaborating Institutions operate their own video-conferencing facilities free of charge. Cooling & Ventilation as well as Power (in General Services) should not exhibit a step function behaviour starting in 2002, but rather a ramp-up reaching a plateau value in 2005/6. Reliable Power metering should be introduced. Transparent accounting for CERN services. The ventilation systems of experimental areas and auxiliary buildings are linked to personal safety. They should therefore appear under Safety (a C cost). Secretarial Assistance (in Secretariat) should show a reasonable ramp-up.

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 16 Results Visible cost reduction was achieved in the case of Magnet Controls by changing a foreseen service contract into a result- and multitask-oriented contract. C&I was separated out from both Category A and B M&O costs. The manpower requirements for Shutdown Activities, Detector (Re-) Integration and Survey, General Technical Support (General Services) have been determined. The transitions from C&I to M&O for these activities have been identified. Service contracts have been identified as cost drivers, but were difficult to scrutinize in the time available. The Cooling & Ventilation and Power costs have been re- assessed and now show a reasonable ramp-up. Shutdown activities now start in 2005

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 17 Results M&O costs in categories A and B now show a “plausible” shape:

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 18 Results C&I costs now show a “plausible” shape:

19/9/2001Plenary RRB October 22, 2001 DS 19 Conclusions  M&O and C&I costs as far as scrutinized are sound  Time profile of C&I costs indicates urgency to find means to cover these costs  Adequate subsystem oriented templates for category B costs to be prepared  Scrutiny of B costs and C costs still to be done  Collaborations are asked to find ‘novel’ ways to reduce manpower costs