1. DOE/NSF Project Experience Key Ingredients to Success
Cosmology with CMB-S4 Workshop
DOE/NSF Project Experience Key Ingredients to Success
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
February 27, 2017
Jim Yeck

2. Outline
Personal Experience
DOE Office of Science (SC) Experience
Projects after the Superconducting Super Collider
DOE SC management perspectives
NSF Large Project Experience
IceCube
Large Hadron Collider Experiments
Satisfying Needs of Project Stakeholders
Next Steps

3. My projects Infrastructure Project Purpose Cost/Circa for CD-3 Funding
Role
Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT) at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Fusion Energy Science
$330M
1988
DOE
DOE Acting Project Manager
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven Lab (BNL)
Nuclear Physics
$600M
1991
DOE + NSF + Int
DOE Project Manager
US Large Hadron Collider (USLHC) In-kind delivered to CERN
High Energy Physics
$530M
1998
DOE & NSF
DOE/NSF Project Director
IceCube Neutrino Observatory at South Pole
Particle Astrophysics
$300M
2005
NSF + Int
U of Wisconsin -– Project Director
National Synchrotron Light Source II at BNL
Photon Source
$900M
2008
DOE + Other
BNL - Deputy Project Director
Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL)
Physics, Biology, and Engineering
$750M
2010
NSF + Private
U of Cal – Associate Project Director
European Spallation Source (ESS) in Sweden
Neutron Source
$2,500M
2014
European States
ESS ERIC – Director General & CEO
Time frame for each of the projects being presented.

4. Key Ingredients to success
Facility is a priority of the science community!
Strong funding agency commitments and host role
Project leaders viewed as enabling success of others
Establish realistic goals – “Experience over hope”
Credibility through openness and transparency
Collective ownership of problems and solutions
Populate organization with critical experience
Success requires energy and enthusiasm!
Font color to white (dependent on how lighting is in room)
Bullets in front of each
Project leaders who prioritize on schedule performance and exhibit behaviour that is consistent with a “project culture” are likely to be successful!

5. Projects evaluated against the ingredients#1
Priority of Science Community #2
Strong Agency Commitment & Host Role #3
Leaders Enable the Success of Others #4
Experience
Over
Hope #5
Openness
and Trans-parency #6
Collective Owner-ship
#7 & #8
Experience, Energy & Enthusiasm
Outcome
CIT ✖
RHIC ✔
USLHC
IceCube
NSLS II
DUSEL
✖ ?
ESS ?
-Build presentation with transition/animation row by row?
-Then go through projects one by one

6. DOE Office of Science Project Performance After SSC
Failure of SSC resulted in major changes
Current performance is excellent and SC has high credibility
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017

7. Some Unique Features of SC Projects
SC Laboratories are Not-for-Profit M&O contracts
Projects are typically ‘build to cost’ with a goal of maximizing science capability
Project designs consider future upgrades—programs and projects take a long view
Mostly non-nuclear projects
Laboratory’s viability/future is dependent of the success of new advanced facilities or projects to perform state-of-the-art R&D and to attract the best and brightest
Highly technical HQ Program personnel (with extensive laboratory experience) allows evaluation of feasibility and complexity of proposed technical approaches by the labs.
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017

8. Successful Projects – Dan Lehman (DOE retired)
Primary Factors for Successful Project Completion
Clear Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibilities
Effective Front-End Planning
Appropriate Project Contingencies
Sufficient and Stable Funding
Regular Independent Oversight
Jeff to give short bio of Dan
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017

9. Pat Dehmer, DOE PLI 01/17

10. DOE Office of Science – 2003 priorities vs 2013 status
Some priorities become projects later (and earlier) than originally planned
Project scope is often different than earliest proposals
Not all priorities are realized
Pat Dehmer, DOE PLI 01/17

11. NSF Large Project Experience
NSF is not a “mission” agency like DOE and NASA
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Program funds NSF large projects
Many successful MREFC projects but some problems
A few early off-ramps, e.g., RSVP, DUSEL
Increased expectations and requirements for projects
Stronger emphasis on front end planning
No cost overrun philosophy embraced
NSF experienced and successful in delivering projects that enable scientific collaborations

12. The IceCube Collaboration includes > 300 researchers from 47 institutes in 12 countries.
IceCube is one of the NSF’s large facilities (LIGO, LSST, … 2 dozen others).
The Operations and Management of the facility is handled by WIPAC at UW-Madison

14. Official birth of the ATLAS
The birth of ATLAS
March 1992 – Summer 1992
Merging of EAGLE and ASCOT
September 1992: Decision on the name
1st round 2nd round
ATLAS 31 ATLAS 40
ALICE 12 ALICE 13
ACE 5
ALEX 5
LHD 0
October 1992
ATLAS LoI submitted to the LHCC
Official birth of the ATLAS
Collaboration
ThyssenKrupp, Peter Jenni (CERN)
ATLAS Project at CERN's LHC

15. ATLAS Project at CERN's LHC
The ATLAS organization has been defined in
a lean document (less than 10 pages) in 1994,
approved by the Collaboration Board (CB) and
the RRB (Funding Agencies)
Some key elements:
- Each Institution has one vote (independent on the
the number of people and the resources) in the CB
- The CB meets 3-4 a year, and has an elected Chair
- The CB elects the Spokesperson (SP, the ‘CEO’) of the Collaboration, by ballot, renewable
with a 2/3 majority (initially renewable 3-year terms of office, now 2-year and only once
renewable)
- Based on explicit consultation, the SP proposes the other management positions, to be
endorsed by ballot by the CB
(CERN Director General has to agree on Technical and Resources Coordinators)
- Sub-system Project Leaders (PLs) elected by the Institutes forming a sub-system, the SP
has a right to ‘influence constructively’ this process
- The SP finally propose the PLs to the CB for endorsement (by ballot) to form the Executive
Board (EB)
- The composition of the EB evolves according to the ATLAS Project phases
ATLAS Management
ThyssenKrupp, Peter Jenni (CERN)
ATLAS Project at CERN's LHC

16. FH Wiener Neustadt, Wisconsin, Wuppertal, Würzburg, Yale, Yerevan
ATLAS Collaboration
(Status August 2010)
38 Countries
174 Institutions
3000 Scientific participants total
(1000 Students)
Albany, Alberta, NIKHEF Amsterdam, Ankara, LAPP Annecy, Argonne NL, Arizona, UT Arlington, Athens, NTU Athens, Baku,
IFAE Barcelona, Belgrade, Bergen, Berkeley LBL and UC, HU Berlin, Bern, Birmingham, UAN Bogota, Bologna, Bonn, Boston, Brandeis, Brasil Cluster, Bratislava/SAS Kosice, Brookhaven NL, Buenos Aires, Bucharest, Cambridge, Carleton, CERN,
Chinese Cluster, Chicago, Chile, Clermont-Ferrand, Columbia, NBI Copenhagen, Cosenza, AGH UST Cracow, IFJ PAN Cracow, SMU Dallas, UT Dallas, DESY, Dortmund, TU Dresden, JINR Dubna, Duke, Edinburgh, Frascati, Freiburg, Geneva, Genoa, Giessen, Glasgow, Göttingen, LPSC Grenoble, Technion Haifa, Hampton, Harvard, Heidelberg, Hiroshima IT, Indiana, Innsbruck, Iowa SU, Iowa, UC Irvine, Istanbul Bogazici, KEK, Kobe, Kyoto, Kyoto UE, Lancaster, UN La Plata, Lecce, Lisbon LIP, Liverpool, Ljubljana,
QMW London, RHBNC London, UC London, Lund, UA Madrid, Mainz, Manchester, CPPM Marseille, Massachusetts, MIT, Melbourne, Michigan, Michigan SU, Milano, Minsk NAS, Minsk NCPHEP, Montreal, McGill Montreal, RUPHE Morocco,
FIAN Moscow, ITEP Moscow, MEPhI Moscow, MSU Moscow, LMU Munich, MPI Munich, Nagasaki IAS, Nagoya, Naples,
New Mexico, New York, Nijmegen, Northern Illinois, BINP Novosibirsk, Ohio SU, Okayama, Oklahoma, Oklahoma SU, Olomouc, Oregon, LAL Orsay, Osaka, Oslo, Oxford, Paris VI and VII, Pavia, Pennsylvania, NPI Petersburg, Pisa, Pittsburgh, CAS Prague,
CU Prague, TU Prague, IHEP Protvino, Regina, Rome I, Rome II, Rome III, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, DAPNIA Saclay,
Santa Cruz UC, Sheffield, Shinshu, Siegen, Simon Fraser Burnaby, SLAC, South Africa, Stockholm, KTH Stockholm, Stony Brook, Sydney, Sussex, AS Taipei, Tbilisi, Tel Aviv, Thessaloniki, Tokyo ICEPP, Tokyo MU, Tokyo Tech, Toronto, TRIUMF, Tsukuba, Tufts, Udine/ICTP, Uppsala, UI Urbana, Valencia, UBC Vancouver, Victoria, Waseda, Washington, Weizmann Rehovot,
FH Wiener Neustadt, Wisconsin, Wuppertal, Würzburg, Yale, Yerevan

18. Project Management Technical Management Board - TMB
(Chaired by the Technical Coordinator)
Spokesperson
ATLAS Mgt.
Executive Board
TC TMB
technical activities
technical aspects
computing
physics aspects
political aspects
global ATLAS policy aspects (from CB)
resources aspects
TMB
systems, sub-systems, WGs, tasks, etc.
dedicated task
forces
CERN tech. services
Project Management
ThyssenKrupp, Peter Jenni (CERN)
ATLAS Project at CERN's LHC

20. DOE and NSF Joint Oversight Group Model
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group Established for LHC in 1998 – standard practice today for joint projects
Clear lines of institutional and individual accountability

21. DOE/NSF US LHC Funding Agreement – circa 1998
DOE/NSF Approved USLHC Project Execution Plan (DOE MIEs and NSF MREFC)
Partnering between DOE and NSF (plus DOE/NSF w/ CERN) resulted in unwavering commitment by the funding agencies

22. Satisfying Needs of Project Stakeholders
Funding Agency
Organized scientific collaboration w/ defined governance
Clear lines of project accountability and institutional authority, strong oversight and advisory bodies
Collaborating Institutions
Responsibilities (inst./people) understood and recognized
Firm commitment by funding agencies and collaborators
Collaborators
Strong role shaping science requirements
Formal roles and continuing influence in project planning and execution

23. Next Steps
Collaborators
Continue collaborative work to define scientific and technical requirements and to grow the collaboration
Smaller group to review collab models and to define preferred options for consideration the collaboration
Respect the need to eventually establish a strong project planning and delivery organization and collaborate on ways to influence and strengthen the project organization
Collaborating Institutions (Universities, Labs, …)
Start discussing possible project management schemes and ways to coordinate interfaces with funding agencies

24. Questions?
Thank You!

25. Backup Slides from Dan Lehman’s Presentation at the DOE Project Leadership Institute in Jan 2017

26. Clear Ownership, Accountability and Responsibility
The Owner:
Is usually the Acquisition Executive (Project Management Executive)
Is accountable and responsible for project success
Prioritizes projects and needs based on available funding
Requests, defends, and provides the project funding
Seeks advice and recommendations from Subject Matter Experts on project through project peer reviews, ESAAB processes, regular communication with the project team, etc.
Approves critical decisions, which allows a project to proceed to the next phase
Approves major changes to the project
Makes difficult and timely decisions
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017

27. Include facility or system users in the planning process
Front–End Planning
Ensure that scope and technical specifications are well defined and documented
Include facility or system users in the planning process
Design should be sufficiently mature prior to baselining
Ensure competent, proactive, experienced, and knowledgeable project team is assembled
Identify and plan for all applicable requirements
Identify, evaluate, and plan for internal and external risks
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017

28. Project Contingencies
Cost contingency is included in the TPC regardless of who owns the risk (external or internal)
Schedule contingency and the cost associated with potential schedule delays are included in the baseline
Scope contingency (the difference between the Threshold and Objective KPPs) is identified in the PEP
Contingency is based on project status, complexity, and risks. Analysis of contingency is performed continuously throughout the life of the project
Contingencies (cost, schedule, and scope) are held by the Federal Project Director and released to the project using a formal change control process identified in the PEP
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017

29. Project funding profile needs to be realistic
Project funding needs to be affordable in the context of the total Program
Project funding profile needs to be realistic
Funding must include adequate project contingency (regardless of who owns the risk)
Funding must be stable and should not be changed after CD-2 is approved
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017

30. Independent Oversight
Projects have a tendency to be too optimistic
Independent project or peer reviews are necessary to ensure there are check and balances
To be effective, the Independent Project Reviews need:
Implementation of review recommendations
To be performed regularly
Diverse and knowledgeable review committee with relevant expertise/experience
Communication of findings and issues with Senior Management
Senior Management support and backing
Develop and communicate policies, and ensure they are consistently and appropriately implemented
Dan Lehman, PLI Jan 2017