1. The EDR phase Discussion Session
Brian Foster (Oxford & GDE)
Beijing Meeting
04/02/07 Beijing
Global Design Effort

2. Introduction Structure Brief Contributions
Some brief words summarising input so far
Brief Contributions
Magnets & Cryo - M. Ross
Beam dynamics - D. Schulte
Survey & alignment - M. Scholesser?
Others?
Open discussion
04/02/07 Beijing
Global Design Effort

3. Input so far General acceptance of work packages as basis for EDR.
Some indications that increase in effort RDR -> EDR more like factor 3 than factor 2.
Uncertainty about level of detail required. “30% model” - “100% model”?
Concern about bidding process widespread. - Clarification: “bidding” always expected to be exception not rule. Expectation is that almost all WPs will be defined iteratively and that the consortia will be formed consensually and will have an obvious membership. PMT will catalyze this process with help from EC. Nevertheless, need process to deal with rare cases where there are competing and incompatible approaches.
04/02/07 Beijing
Global Design Effort

4. Input so far
Area system or Technical system work packages? - Some parts of the project consider strong case for some technical system work packages. This is fine in principle e.g. survey seems to be clearly a TS WP.
Need to take account of role of PMT in strengthening “horizontal” part of project matrix - some proposed TS WPs may be better in several AS WPs with strong coordination and standards from PMT. Key criterion level of uniformity for TS deliverables across the AS WPs. Magnets (see MR) interesting case study.
Need validation from governments that RDR “on right track” in terms of affordability - if not, then resources must urgently concentrate to investigate further cost reduction.
Make the point that doe is lowest common denominator but not that that is the only thing we need to worry about.
04/02/07 Beijing
Global Design Effort

5. Input so far
No point in reducing duplication of work by awarding WPs if the funding elsewhere is then lost - careful optimisation in award of WPs essential.
How do we deal with infrastructure that clearly cross boundaries of any likely WP - e.g. ATF2?
Some activities essential to regional aspirations to host ILC. WP structure needs to take account of this.
Essential to ensure that distributed funding sources such as major labs. have ability to influence direction of EDR & ILC in general.Overlap here with issues of oversight - in principle major labs have voice on ILCSC oversight - some options for future post EDR MoUs would have “”Council” of major stakeholders.
04/02/07 Beijing
Global Design Effort

6. Input so far
PM needs to have maximum possible ability to influence R&D strategic directions.
Scope of the EDR should be minimum possible to attain our goals - otherwise we run risk of setting ourselves an impossible task at the outset of EDR. Realistic calculation of likely effort available and the minimum EDR will define what the timescale has to be. Our plan for end 2009 may not match with the reality of available resources.
US not DoE approva - change l
04/02/07 Beijing
Global Design Effort