1. HiGrade WP2 & WP4 Coordination & Governance Brian Foster (Hamburg/DESY/Oxford & GDE) HiGrade Meeting LAL/Orsay 12/10/11

2. Now we have some clarity on post-2012 plans, I am about to start visiting funding authorities to get their support for European involvement. Tomorrow I meet head of IN2P3, J. Martino and his team including E. Auge. I will make a presentation on ILC plans to plenary ECFA in November. WP2 activity B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 Global Design Effort 2

3. Major European event of the year was joint ILC-CLIC ILCWS in Granada last month. Great success with 366 registrants (479 last year in CERN). Lots of evidence of collaboration between CLIC and ILC communities to produce a linear collider community. JF will report on this to the next ECFA meeting at CERN. WP2 activity B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 Global Design Effort 3

4. Work in the past year has been exclusively concentrated on the writing of the Project Implementation Planning (PIP) document. This contains the Governance work discussed at last year’s meeting and as presented at ICHEP Paris. In fact further work arising from the PIP has changed one of two aspects of the previous document, which I will comment on as they arise. WP4 activity B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 Global Design Effort 4

5. A complication in drawing up the PIP has been the existence of the Comprehensive Planning Guidance Document (CPDG). This is more comprehensive than the PIP, and certainly than the Paris governance report. However there is large overlap and since the CPDG was drawn up ~ independent of PIP and in parallel, there are potential contradictions and differences of emphasis that need to be addressed. WP4 activity B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 Global Design Effort 5

6. In fact, this reconciliation is currently in progress – I have a version which tries to combine the documents, but this hasn’t yet been through PIP Editorial Board (MH, BF, EP), so is very preliminary. Nevertheless, I outline here the current state of the joint document with health warning that this is certainly not yet agreed. WP4 activity B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 Global Design Effort 6

7. Report to ICHEP Paris B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 7 Global Design Effort

8. PIP Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 8 Global Design Effort Contents Executive Summary Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities

9. PIP Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 9 Global Design Effort Contents Executive Summary Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities (written by BB) (essentially the Paris document)

10. Governance B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 10 Global Design Effort One or two changes since Paris. Further work with ITER led us to understand that what ITER defined as Common Fund was much more limited than what we had assumed. Therefore our conclusion that we needed more was not really justifiable – so related statement in Paris document has been watered down and “ > 20%” omitted.

11. PIP Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 11 Global Design Effort Contents Executive Summary Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities (written by BB) (essentially the Paris document) (modified to emphasise benefits to host)

12. PIP Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 12 Global Design Effort Contents Executive Summary Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities (written by BB) (essentially the Paris document) (written by NW; “juste retour” modified) (modified to emphasise benefits to host)

13. “In kind” B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 13 Global Design Effort Additional funding model, “in-kind” modified by “juste retour” inserted. More explanation of what was meant by “juste retour” added

14. “In kind” B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 14 Global Design Effort Better value for money for the project, as well as improved management oversight and control, could be achieved by modifying the in-kind scheme to introduce the flexibility of a total cash model driven by market forces while retaining the ability for countries to provide parts of the project as deliverables in-kind in a modified “juste retour”. Section 2.14 discussed the mechanism by which WBS items could be allocated to bidders. Member states should be strongly urged to make bids for all WBS packages for which they have the technical competence to deliver, totaling well beyond their intended financial contribution. The project management can then allocate packages so as to maximize the value for money, and minimize the risk, for the project, up to the maximum contribution offered by each member state. If a country is particularly keen to be allocated a given package, it may even be willing to bid less than the nominal value in the formal cost estimate, thereby reducing the cost of the project. This introduces an element of market competition into a substantially in-kind model. It may help to understand this proposal to note that, In the limit that all countries only bid for the minimum number of projects to saturate their agreed financial contribution, this model reduces to the standard in-kind procedure; in the limit that all member states bid for all parts of the project, it is essentially a cash model with complete “juste retour”.

15. PIP Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 15 Global Design Effort Contents Executive Summary Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities (written by BB) (essentially the Paris document) (written by NW; “juste retour” modified) (modified to emphasise benefits to host)

16. CPDG Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 16 Global Design Effort Table of Contents Preamble1 0.CPDG Principles (IL0)4 1.Top-level Management (IL-1, GD-0)8 1.1Assessment of possible model examples8 1.1.1Institutional models from legal and procurement perspectives8 1.1.2Representative models for the ILC11 1.1.3Model 3: ITER-like model13 1.1.4Model 4: Multinational Laboratory model14 1.2Desired process for establishing top-level management structure21 1.3Issues that require consensus by research community before formal intergovernmental level process starts.21 1.4Legal aspects21 1.5Possible timeline for organizational evolution21 2.Siting - Site Selection Process (IL-2)22 2.1Critical considerations22 2.2Possible scenario toward site selection23 3.Sharing Models (GD-1)34 4.Management Models on Accelerator and Facilities (GD-2)35 5.Siting - Technical (GD-3)36 6.Accelerator Construction Process - Design Preparation Stage (GD-4)37 7.Accelerator Construction Process - Construction Stage (GD-5)38 8.Accelerator Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (GD-6)39 9.Management Model on Detectors and Experiments (RD-1)40 10.Siting - Living Environment (RD-2)41 11.Detector Construction Process - Design and Preparation Stage (RD-3)42 12.Detector Construction Process - Construction Stage (RD-4)43 13.Detector Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (RD-5)44 Appendix A: CPDG Outline45 Appendix B: Comparison of Organizational Models49

17. PIP+CPDG B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 17 Global Design Effort Contents Executive Summary Introduction & General Principles Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities (§0, §1 of CPDG)

18. PIP + CPDG B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 18 Global Design Effort Contents Executive Summary Introduction & General Principles Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities (§0, §1 of CPDG) (“MoU model” (appendix) + personnel policy added)

19. PIP + CPDG B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 19 Global Design Effort Appendix 1 – MoU model (model 4/5 of CPDG)

20. CPDG Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 20 Global Design Effort Table of Contents Preamble1 0.CPDG Principles (IL0)4 1.Top-level Management (IL-1, GD-0)8 1.1Assessment of possible model examples8 1.1.1Institutional models from legal and procurement perspectives8 1.1.2Representative models for the ILC11 1.1.3Model 3: ITER-like model13 1.1.4Model 4: Multinational Laboratory model14 1.2Desired process for establishing top-level management structure21 1.3Issues that require consensus by research community before formal intergovernmental level process starts.21 1.4Legal aspects21 1.5Possible timeline for organizational evolution21 2.Siting - Site Selection Process (IL-2)22 2.1Critical considerations22 2.2Possible scenario toward site selection23 3.Sharing Models (GD-1)34 4.Management Models on Accelerator and Facilities (GD-2)35 5.Siting - Technical (GD-3)36 6.Accelerator Construction Process - Design Preparation Stage (GD-4)37 7.Accelerator Construction Process - Construction Stage (GD-5)38 8.Accelerator Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (GD-6)39 9.Management Model on Detectors and Experiments (RD-1)40 10.Siting - Living Environment (RD-2)41 11.Detector Construction Process - Design and Preparation Stage (RD-3)42 12.Detector Construction Process - Construction Stage (RD-4)43 13.Detector Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (RD-5)44 Appendix A: CPDG Outline45 Appendix B: Comparison of Organizational Models49

21. Recent developments/future work Sets out time-lines and work packages in which to accomplish steps necessary to realise ILC. B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 21 Global Design Effort

22. Transition document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 22 Global Design Effort

23. CPDG Document B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 23 Global Design Effort Table of Contents Preamble1 0.CPDG Principles (IL0)4 1.Top-level Management (IL-1, GD-0)8 1.1Assessment of possible model examples8 1.1.1Institutional models from legal and procurement perspectives8 1.1.2Representative models for the ILC11 1.1.3Model 3: ITER-like model13 1.1.4Model 4: Multinational Laboratory model14 1.2Desired process for establishing top-level management structure21 1.3Issues that require consensus by research community before formal intergovernmental level process starts.21 1.4Legal aspects21 1.5Possible timeline for organizational evolution21 2.Siting - Site Selection Process (IL-2)22 2.1Critical considerations22 2.2Possible scenario toward site selection23 3.Sharing Models (GD-1)34 4.Management Models on Accelerator and Facilities (GD-2)35 5.Siting - Technical (GD-3)36 6.Accelerator Construction Process - Design Preparation Stage (GD-4)37 7.Accelerator Construction Process - Construction Stage (GD-5)38 8.Accelerator Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (GD-6)39 9.Management Model on Detectors and Experiments (RD-1)40 10.Siting - Living Environment (RD-2)41 11.Detector Construction Process - Design and Preparation Stage (RD-3)42 12.Detector Construction Process - Construction Stage (RD-4)43 13.Detector Construction Process - Conventional Facilities (RD-5)44 Appendix A: CPDG Outline45 Appendix B: Comparison of Organizational Models49

24. Summary Paris document forms basis of PIP. Small changes and additions from discussions throughout the year. B. Foster - ILC-HiGrade - 11/10 Rather larger mods take account of desire of ILCSC to have a single public document concerning project planning. Still in middle of process, but general acceptance from JB & AS hopeful sign. 24 Global Design Effort European contribution continues to be coherent and strong – substantially through XFEL – costings, technical, etc. On target for final document ILC-HiGrade deliverable end 2011.