1. Welcome and Proposed Multi-laboratory Management Strategy for LCLS Jonathan Dorfan, Director April 23, 2002
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

2. An X-ray Laser — A Fantastic Research Prospect
The advent in the early 1970's of high brightness Synchrotron Light Sources revolutionized X-ray Science. Today ~ 40 such facilities produce cutting-edge science in disciplines including Materials Science, Chemistry, Physics, Medical Science, Structural Molecular Biology and Environmental Science
The Linac Coherent Light Source, an ultra-short pulse, laser producing coherent X-rays of unprecedented brightness, promises to create another revolution in X-ray science
All regions of the World aspire to build such a source — no region can realize this exceptional research tool as soon as the U.S.
By leveraging SLAC's existing technical and accelerator infrastructure, technical and management experience, the U.S. can provide the world's first X-ray Laser by 2007
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

3. SLAC — Committed to the Success of LCLS
We at SLAC are enormously excited by the scientific promise of LCLS
SLAC is fully committed to working as the lead laboratory, in close collaboration with our principal partners ANL and LLNL, to manage the construction of LCLS in a responsible manner to provide an on-time, on-budget research facility which fully meets the design specifications of LCLS
The history of SLAC has been one of innovation in accelerator- based facilities and their application as discovery-oriented scientific facilities. We believe the SLAC-ANL-LLNL consortium can continue that tradition with the LCLS
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

4. Innovation and Scientific Success
The Laboratory, working with its collaborating partners, has kept its programs at the research frontier with a series of innovative renewal projects. These projects were built on areas of competency — however each step has charted new territory, involving technical risk
The Laboratory has managed this technical risk well — all projects have been built on schedule and within budget
1962 Original SLAC $ 114M
1970 SPEAR $ M
1976 PEP (with LBL) $ 78M
1983 SLC $ 115M
1988 SPEAR Dedicated Injector $ 14M
1994 PEP-II (with LBNL, & LLNL) $ 177M
Scientific success has followed. The Laboratory has won 3 Nobel Prizes and countless other accolades for its scientific achievements
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

6. SPEAR
Synchrotron Radiation Light Source

7. PEP-II — A Model for LCLS Implementation
The B Factory was a $300M Project comprising a two-ring accelerator complex (called PEP-II) and a nine-nation particle physics detector (called BABAR)
PEP-II was accomplished as a collaboration of SLAC (as lead Lab), LBNL and LLNL. Two high performance storage rings (each 2.2km in circumference) and two dedicated injection lines (2km) were implemented in the PEP tunnel and the Linac housing
PEP-II was completed within budget and ahead of schedule (as was the total B Factory project) and it has performed beyond its design expectations
The project was the sole recipient of the Deputy Secretary's Project Management Award in 2000 — the highest level of Project Management recognition within the DOE
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

8. B Factory, showing the High Energy (below) and Low Energy Rings
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

9. PEPII/BABAR Performance
Records for recorded lumi
shift: pb-1
24 hrs:
Week:
Month:
Daily recorded lumi
Design
2 x Design
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

10. B Factory is Already Producing Outstanding Science
The BABAR Collaboration has already produced a large number of publications, most of them in the “best of” category
This includes the Summer 2001 paper demonstrating unequivocal evidence for a matter antimatter asymmetry in b quark decays
BABAR Publications to date:
14 papers published in Physical Review Letters
3 more submitted for publication in Physical Review Letters
6 papers published in Physical Review D
2 more papers submitted to Physical Review D
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

11. Laboratory Simultaneously Operates Multiple User Facilities
SLAC is host to 3000 researchers coming from nations
The Laboratory simultaneously operates multiple accelerator facilities at high efficiency
Currently running:
B Factory storage rings
120 Hz, fixed target experiment using the polarized electron beam
SPEAR synchrotron light source
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

12. Weekly MTTF, MTTR, and Availability (PEP Systems)
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

13. Weekly MTTF, MTTR, and Availability (All HEP Systems)
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

14. Operating Hours Delivered vs Planned
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2001
Fiscal Year
Planned
Delivered
Hours
77%
84%
89%
90%
93%
95%
96%
94%
97%
SPEAR
Note: Planned operating hours were reduced in FY2000 & FY2001 to support scheduled
conventional facilities work in support of the ongoing SPEAR 3 Upgrade Project.
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

15. PEP-II — A Model for LCLS Implementation
Like all projects, PEP-II had its share of major challenges and problems. The PEP-II management structure provided the control and flexibility to solve these problems
We propose that DOE endorse the PEP-II management structure for constructing the LCLS
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

16. LCLS Management Structure
Key elements of the proposed structure are:
Create LCLS Division at SLAC, with LCLS Project Director as a SLAC Associate Director. This ensures the project the appropriate authority and control of resources within SLAC
Entrust ultimate responsibility to the lead Lab, SLAC. But build strong and meaningful links to the collaborating Labs
Institutionalize experienced oversight
Machine Advisory Committee
"Lehman" Reviews
Weekly meeting with SLAC Director
Establish an active process for resource management within and between Labs
Monthly meeting of Inter-laboratory Collaboration Council
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

17. SLAC - Current Organization
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

18. SLAC - Organization During LCLS Construction
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

19. LCLS Project Oversight
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC

20. Proposed Language for the LCLS Project Management Plan
C. Management Organization and Responsibilities
DOE Organization and Responsibilities
Chapter “X” of this management plan presents a description of the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the DOE participants.
SLAC, ANL, LLNL Management, Project Management, and Advisory Committees
Figure “1” provides an organizational chart illustrating the relationships (for the purposes of this project) between ** the laboratory management of the three primary collaborating institutions SLAC, ANL, and LLNL; LCLS Project Management; and various advisory committees. An explanation of the responsibilities of key managers shown on this chart are provided below:
SLAC Director
The SLAC Director, currently Dr. Jonathan Dorfan, has the ultimate responsibility for designing and constructing the LCLS consistent with the requirements of the SLAC DOE contract DE-AC03-76SF00515 and with the role as the lead laboratory for the LCLS project. The Director has delegated the authority to manage the LCLS Project to Dr. John Galayda, the LCLS Project Director. ANL Director Dr. Herman Grunder and LLNL Director Dr. Bruce Tarter work with the SLAC Director to develop memoranda of understanding between the laboratories with respect to their laboratories’ participation in the project.

21. ANL/LLNL Directors
The ANL and LLNL Directors assure that the appropriate resources for their laboratories are applied to support the project in keeping with their DOE contracts. These Directors jointly review with the SLAC Director the findings of the Machine Advisory Committee, and initiate adjustments in program direction as needed.
Machine Advisory Committee
The Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) is a standing committee appointed by the SLAC Director, with concurrence from the ANL and LLNL Directors, to provide advice on the progress of LCLS construction. Members of this group will be selected from the international scientific community with expertise in the project areas of interest. The MAC not only advises the three laboratory Directors, but has a primary role in providing guidance and feedback to the LCLS Project Director and his management team. The MAC will meet twice yearly.
Interlaboratory Coordinating Council
The Interlaboratory Coordinating Council (ICC) is charged with solving interlaboratory issues and optimizing the resource management of the three laboratories involved in the project. Each laboratory Director appoints one member to the Council. The ICC meets monthly. LCLS Project Director will chair the ICC.
LCLS Management
The LCLS Management for the project is led by the LCLS Project Director, Dr. John Galayda. The LCLS Project Director leads all LCLS project design and construction activities, including coordination of SLAC, ANL, and LLNL personnel assigned to the project. Additional responsibilities of the LCLS Project Director and the details of the LCLS Project organization are provided in the following paragraphs.

22. LCLS Management
The LCLS Project Management organization is shown in Figure “2”. The responsibilities of each of the groups represented in this chart are given below.
LCLS Project Director
The LCLS Project Director is responsible for directing the construction activities of the LCLS machine and the research and development activities to support this effort. The Project Director coordinates the activities of the project including both work at SLAC and work at other laboratories. The LCLS Project Director is responsible for approving the selection of staff for the construction, commissioning, and initial operation of the LCLS facility. Specific responsibilities include:
·       Establishing centralized technical and administrative controls
·       Overseeing design, construction, installation, and commissioning
·       Directing and coordinating supporting R&D activities with construction activities
·       Directing long term planning for the project
·       Representing the project in interactions with the DOE and the other laboratories
·       Chairing the Configuration Control Board
·       Chairing the Interlaboratory Coordinating Council
·       Providing an interface to the beamline experiment development teams and their efforts

23. Conclusions We know what’s involved … We’ve done it before …
... And we are enthusiastic and prepared to do it again
LCLS DOE Review, April 23, 2002
Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC