1.  2008/09 outturn  Common Fund  C&S  Comments  Issues K. Long, Friday, 29 th April 2009

2. Phase I financial summary: Financial year 2008/09 outturn (first estimate) Phase I now closed

3. Phase II financial summary: Financial year 2008/09 outturn (first estimate): As reported in previous meetings: Significant overspend (total £601k) Staff o/s: £444k; non-staff o/s: £288.32k How did we get to here? Through financial year 2008/09 we were: Completing the Phase I project: Following the advice of the OsC we were pushing hard so as not to delay the MICE project (see next slide); Starting the Phase II project; and Commissioning the beam line and taking data in the Step I configuration Financial arrangements: No agreed budgets for Phase II programme until December 2008 Discussing/managing transition between Phase I and Phase II attributions between project/laboratory/SPO up to October 2008 Caused lack of clarity on Phase II spend Project (i.e. AN/KL) consistently predicted overspend because of the pressure of work (matching deadlines, juggling running with Phase I and Phase II construction): We were caught out, and are embarrassed, by the scale of the overspend

4. Evolution of schedule in FY 2008/09: Pressures on project work planning: Pace of Phase I construction work dictated by spectrometer solenoid #1 arrival: Start of FY June 2008 Pace of Phase II construction work dictated by spectrometer solenoid #2 arrival: Pace of beam-line maintenance dictated by running schedule Comments: OsC encouragement not to slow project down; AN/KL expected slip in solenoid #1 delivery, but not to the extent that has now occurred Not a ‘blame’ comment: best endeavours on all sides

6. Addressing to the overspend: first steps: Guidelines given to sub-task leaders within STFC laboratory for Staff use: Profiled reduction in staff use to 50% of December/January use C&S activity initiated with iMICE and within MICE-UK to re- evaluate cost of programme and the degree of ‘fit’ with the schedule for the delivery of the major MICE sub-systems Results on following slides From Jan08 OsC presentation

7. Common Fund 2008/09: From Common Fund agreement June 2008

8. Status: Status of collection of 2008/09 levy: Income and expenditure: Start of discussion: MICE CB yet to see and discuss expenditure What is the ‘host lab premium’ that STFC can bear?

9. Common Fund 2009/10: Next week (end of April) will initiate 2009 census: Common Fund agreement defines census date as 1 st April each year The list of eligible members of the collaboration will then be agreed by the Collaboration Board at the next MICE collaboration meeting (31May—03Jun09) The invoices will then be raised

10. Project Management arrangements: Management of MICE project: Decision making: MICE Executive Board: Meets monthly: addresses strategic issues; sets policy and schedule Chaired by A.Blondel, MICE spokesman MICE Technical Board: Meets monthly: reviews progress against milestones; addresses technical/integratino issues; addresses safety issues Chaired by A.Nichols, MICE Project Manager Tracking: MICO: Meets weekly: tracks progress of sub-projects Chaired by A.Nichols, MICE Project Manager MSPM: Meets weekly: coordination of work in the MICE Hall/on site Chaired by W.Spensley, MICE Hall Manager and Principal Contractor MICE-UK financial management: UKNF-FC: Meets monthly (since May09); Chaired by K.Long, UK PI Representation: STFC: C.Gore, M.Highmore, C.Jamieson, A.Medland, A.Reynolds Uni (to prepare Uni outturns): P.Dornan, C.Barlow KL & AN Has taken some time to become effective (transition of Phase I to Phase II; absense of Phase II budgets) Now in place and functioning effectively

11. Financial control: Initial budgets for 2008/09 set:

12. Financial control: Initial budgets set: Preparing revision following C&S review Monitoring/control: At the end of each month: C.Gore will send STP and recurrent breakdown to each task leader; Question staff/recurrent use above expected level; Ask for line-by-line check of expenditure Adjustments requested will be made UKNF-FC meeting: Will review STP/recurrent spend and responses from sub-task leaders Identify appropriate action within MICE-UK or: Discuss options/recommendations to: MICE, PSAG, CMPB, UKNF-EB, … Differences to start of financial year 2008/09: Have budgets set: At ‘STFC’ and at sub-task level; Have closed Phase I ‘Only’ doing Phase II progamme and running from September Have financial reporting and control arrangements in place

13. Control/monitoring of schedule: As reported to Jan09 OsC: R.Gamet has agreed to prepare milestone tracking for UKNF (and MICE-UK) project Sufficient for UKNF but not for future of MICE/MICE-UK project Issues: Tracking schedule for delivery of large overseas contributions to MICE: Have basis now through C&S exercise, but, require to track so that UK project can be matched more closely to the schedule of the international deliverables Detailed tracking of schedule for UK deliverables: Example: target rebuild: Weekly target w/g meetings augmented by less frequent target w/s (next one 08May @ IC); Sub-task leaders update schedule for each meeting: Example …

15. Control/monitoring of schedule: As reported to Jan09 OsC: R.Gamet has agreed to prepare milestone tracking for UKNF (and MICE-UK) project Sufficient for UKNF but not for future of MICE/MICE-UK project Issues: Tracking schedule for delivery of large overseas contributions to MICE: Have basis now through C&S exercise, but, require to track so that UK project can be matched more closely Detailed tracking of schedule for UK deliverables: Example: target rebuild: Weekly target w/g meetings augmented by less frequent target w/s (next one 08May @ IC); Sub-task leaders update schedule for each meeting: Example … Require to make this uniform across project to: Provide information to AN/KL in management of UK project Provide i/p to MICE PM, MICE TB, MICE EB, MICO meetings to guide global schedule priority/schedule discussions

16. Control/monitoring of schedule: Project planner: Support for AN/KL in PM/PI roles: Job spec. written: Tracking of project progress and spend; Preparation of reports Time commitment: No point doing ‘half a job’ so that AN/KL need to backstop Our estimate: Full time task while learning the experiment, what’s required, meeting the people, etc. Possibly 50—75% in steady state; depends on person Steps taken to identify/recruit: International collaboration: Sought support from iMICE: Ideal individual identified (S.Virostek at LBNL); Some support for C&S exercise, but limited to the RFCC module for which LBNL has responsibility Not a long term solution: Does not have sufficient time due to other responsibilities; hard to spend time at RAL MICE-UK: Present complement overstretched and no direct match with skills required Sought support from PPD, TBU: Support from N.McCubbin, N.Snodgrass, R.Eccleston Optimistic leads (also ideal people identified), but, in the end not possible to identify individual who could take on task Our proposal: Promising contact with individual at ATC KL/AN will talk with him to see if the person matches the requirements and whether the time commitment matches his availability Bottom line: KL/AN believe the ‘project planner’ role must be filled for the good of the whole MICE project including (of course) the MICE-UK project

17. C&S exercise: headlines for paper:

18. Top level schedule: Critical!

22. Decay solenoid: Quench detector repaired and magnet run: At 870 A for one hour (nominal current) At 900 A for 20 minutes Preparing for more extensive tests this week when chiller (cools turbos) failed Bottom line: Repair to MLI has produced a functional magnet DS team now preparing a new schedule: Commissioning and routine work Components on next slide Must shift emphasis to LH2 prototype task

23. Decay solenoid: routine work:

29. Cost of the UK programme: Cost of programme to meet schedule presented above: Compared to allocation: Implies an additional projected overspend of £861k Integral and profile are ‘uncomfortable’ compared to present allocation

30. De-scope options considered: RF-power distribution hardware provided from ‘elsewhere’: Remove ~£1M capital cost from RF power w/p Possibility as: FNAL (Bross) has requested support as part of the ‘stimulus package’; Proposal to NSF (Kaplan) for RF power h/w Integral within allocation; But in excess if account is taken with present o/s Profile still uncomfortable compared with allocation; Risk: RF power h/w can not be provided from elsewhere Also schedule risk as depends on bids from ‘elsewhere’

31. De-scope options, continued: UK does not contribute to Physics analysis: Integral within allocation; But in excess if account is taken with present o/s Profile still uncomfortable compared with allocation; Logically possible while we’re thinking the unthinkable, but: UK does not reap the scientific award; UK University community significantly damaged

32. De-scope options continued: Delay to schedule to reduce cost in the next three financial years: Cost over three years, £7.1M Including present o/s, brings spend over period 2008/09 to 2011/12 to within allocation; Significant increase in integral cost of programme Profile in 2009/10 still uncomfortable Risks: Break-up of collaboration due to long timescale; Implies significant loss of reputation for UK with resultant loss of credibility in bid to host any future large facility

33. De-scope options continued: Schedule slip with additional postponement of LH2 prototype/system #1 work to bring profile in line with allocation: Cost over three years, £7.1M Including present o/s, brings spend over period 2008/09 to 2011/12 to within allocation; Significant increase in integral cost of programme Profile in 2009/10 no-longer uncomfortable Risks amplified: Break-up of collaboration due to long timescale; Implies significant loss of reputation for UK with resultant loss of credibility in bid to host any future large facility Additional technical risk that issues in the LH2 delivery system lead to further delays

34. The ‘stakes’: The Neutrino Factory with MICE as the ‘beating heart’ is a flag- ship programme: For the UK, but also for the international community International recognition (gaining in strength and influence) of: The need for a high-sensitivity and high-precision programme of measurements of the properties of the neutrino; The opportunity the Neutrino Factory offers as: The best facility for the precision neutrino oscillation programme; The relationship of the Neutrino Factory and the Muon Collider, possibly the best way to provide multi-TeV lepton/anti-lepton collisions Neutrino Factory is on: The RCUK roadmap, the European roadmap for particle physics Opportunity for the UK: Neutrino Factory, perhaps in combination with a high-power pulsed neutron spallation source, is the best opportunity in a generation for the UK to bid to host a world-beating facility for particle physics/basic science and innovation MICE is the at the very centre of this programme: If MICE fails, or is perceived to have failed, due to lack of will/support in the UK it is clear that: The UK’s opportunity in the Neutrino Factory area will be squandered UK reputation will be severely damaged in general

35. Step VI and international commitment: Issue: While experiment has scientific approval to Step VI, UK has not made funding commitment The collaboration (including the UK collaboration) is committed to MICE to Step VI The US and China were ready to commit resources to Step VI for the RFCC module but have not been able to due to UK funding uncertainties Costs to US estimted to be at the $150k level already [Costs to STFC are already at £20k (bobbin forging)] Japan (KEK) is building enough absorber bodies to serve Step VI Europe is committed to contribute up to Step VI EMR (GVA, Italy, FNA); O&A; etc. Significant pressure from: US Muon Technical Advisory Panel FAC representatives (especially DOE and NSF)

37. Step VI: L.K. Len’s suggestion at FAC: Can STFC find a way to indicate commitment to Step VI without committing all the money? e.g. soliciting proposal for FC module #3 only Cost (capital only) ~£350k Larger costs in RF power and integration effort to be considered later

38. Issues: Host laboratory costs: Last discussion of host-lab costs was in September 2006 Is it time to revisit the issue? Presently ‘host lab costs’ are borne by the UK collaboration’s budgets or the Common Fund; Common Fund will now come under scrutiny as there is a first accounting: JW already indicated some discomfort at the FAC at the scale of the mis-match between Common Fund income and the attributed expenditure in the MICE Muon Beam maintenance and operations line I am exposed as CB chair and CF ‘accountant’ UK collaboration’s budget have been reviewed and set as though we were contributing to an experiment overseas Not the same thing as hosting the experiment which implies responsibility for: Integration; Safety; Maintenance etc.

39. Issues continued: Control and review of schedule: UK collaboration is in control of only a part of the schedule; Necessarily the UK deliverables support the international community and must adjust to meet as far as possible the internationally agreed schedule; UK has input to schedule discussions, but, collaboration, quite reasonably, seeks to push hard to keep the pace high Implies pressures on UK budgets and personnel Is it time to consider and ‘international version’ of the Oversight Committee? [in addition to the UK OsC] Strongly expressed wish of the Spokesman and Deputy; I believe it is the right thing to do, because: Would bring to the international project the scrutiny and advice that the OsC gives to the UK project; Schedule conflicts etc. could be identified much more clearly and independent advice brought to bear on: Setting of priorities; Finding solutions to conflicting requirements, budgetary or personnel issues etc.

40. In conclusion: Despite the problems, the experiment is really making progress; Grounds for optimism that the spectrometer solenoid repairs have borne fruit and that by the end of this year we shall have Step II underway … We can still demonstrate ionisation cooling in time for the 2012 decision point