1. Section Meeting 20/1/2011 EM2

2. Content today CERN and PH news. Plans for 2011/2012 (from the DGs talk on 11/1. MARS (more info next week) –Questions? Please feel free to open your MARS and fill in the first parts (results 2010) Follow-up and comments on the results of the DT survey (section level) AOB?

3. Spectacular collisions … 3 2010

4. LHC 2011/12 LHC 2011/12 4 Higgs-Boson: to be or not be the question for 2011/2012 ? Physics 2011 and beyond

5. - Accelerator Chain performed very well in 2010 - Detectors performed very well in 2010 - Headroom in accelerator performance - Headroom in analysis performance - Excellent prospects for Higgs-Boson Discovery or Exclusion in 2011/2012 Higgs 2011/2012 Discussion during Chamonix Workshop 24 until 28 January on 7 TeV vs 8 TeV Luminosity prospects Decision on Running Scenario after Chamonix Exciting Prospects

6. 2011/2012 - LHC prospects will determine running scenario for the accelerator complex at CERN - Running in 2012 means also running the fixed target experiments in 2012 - Running in 2012 means long shutdown (for the whole accelerator chain) delayed to 2013 - 2012 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics  important for the planning of future projects (not only) at the energy frontier - October 2011 ICFA Seminar at CERN: “Science driving Facilities for Particle Physics” Decisive and Exciting Years for Particle Physics ahead of us

7. Need to be even more proactive in promoting CERN’s achievements/possibilities in all areas (research, technology, education, training,...) Use the fact that CERN is attractive and in the spotlight as an opportunity to promote basic science per se basic science as a driver for innovation  Increasing importance of KTT  Industry Advisor appointed  CERN is invited to participate in two sessions of this year’s meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos  recognition of the value of basic science to society ? We will see……but also act Budget 2012 and beyond

8. Science and Arts Although we are enjoying unprecedented levels of popular and political support around the world, the trend is still against basic science.  This means for us first of all to deliver on our scientific promises.  But we also have to show our relevance to society on other levels, and engagement with culture plays an important part. The growing attention and interest from artists, architects, writers, etc allows us to engage with culture in a broader sense.  We are engaged in a number of “arts” projects, to be realised only if external funding can be found

9. Survey discussion Discussion, outcome, conclusions….

10. Science – Techno Tea DT Survey 2010 C. Joram 2 Dec 2010 The process Overview of data Results by job categories Comments in free text fields Preliminary conclusions Possible improvements DT Science-Techno Tea

11. The process Survey to assess level of satisfaction of the DT staff and fellows with the way in which the group is organized, managed and run day by day. Find areas where changes and improvements are needed. Questionnaire with 51 statements to which you were asked to answer with 1 (full disagreement) to 4 (full agreement). ‘?’ for no opinion. Possibility to enter comments in 5 free text fields. No name, just job code and, as an option, the section. 88 forms distributed, about 2 weeks time to fill it (deadline 22 Oct)

12. Veronique gave the box with all forms to Cecile Granier (HRA). 25 Oct. Cecile read all forms and transferred all replies and the comments in an EXCEL sheet. The forms will be destroyed as soon as this process is finished. Only myself, Mar Capeans and Livio Mapelli had access to the EXCEL sheet. Mar and I analyzed the data, produced averages, correlations, diagrams. Those will be shown today. The process was designed to ensure a maximum of anonymity and confidentiality. No attempt was / will be made to correlate the replies and comments with a person. The data contains information which is section specific. This part will be discussed in dedicated section meetings (very early 2011).

13. A few slides to refresh the memory Global average 3.04 (1-4)

14. Number of questionnaires distributed and received, sorted by DT Sectiona. N.A. stands for ‘Not Announced’, this being a possible answer, and DTCM for members attending the DT Coordination meetings (GL, DPGLs, SLs, ECPs = 11 at the time of the questionnaire). Nb of Questionnaires Distributed and Received by Section/N.A./DTCM

15. No opinion (‘?’)

21. Some examples of comments "DT techno meeting is great. Communication between DTCM and me could be better. Eg more project leader meetings" The DT Techno-Tea events are useful to see an overview of the DT group activities, but I am missing a more frequent meeting/overview of the DT plans/events..." L'organisation matricielle est une structure efficace. Malheureusement, cette structure n'est pas toujours exploitée de façon optimale, pour réguler la charge de travail de chacun tout en répondant aux besoins des divers projets en cours. Structure matricielle : Les techniciens sont les intérimaires de la physique, deviennent des "moyens de" avec peu de considération humaine.. Ambiance : Un repas de Noel "synthétique" ne peut pas "arranger" le manque de convivialité ressenti tout au long de l'année ! Un peu plus de contact direct avec la hiérarchie serait appréciable !" "J'ai une bonne vue des activités travaillant sur le meme projet que moi, en revanche, je ne sais quasiment rien sur les autres personnes de ma section. Je vois juste ce qu'ils font lors des Techno- thé DT meetings. "Je relève de nombreux points positifs dans la fusion des groupes DT1 et DT2, notamment l'organisation matricielle qui est un plus à mon avis. There is a distinct lack of a group or team identity. Many people, exp. Service groups, are socially and professionally isolated from the "central" group. It may be that the group is too large or works in too many diverse areas to be coherent and integrated…. "Refaire ce type de questionnaire régulièrement car chaque réponse peut changer d'une année à l'autre. Je vais arreter la torture ici (si si j'écris mal) et vous souhaite une bone journée en espérant vous avoir aidé. "

22. First preliminary conclusions and foreseen changes The overall structure and organization of the group is appropriate. We consider this very important and satisfactory result since the fusion of DT1 and DT2 to a very large DT wasn’t a fully obvious step The group provides a good environment in which people like to work and where people like to work. The work in the project is generally going fine. The PLs do a good job. The impression of some people that their work is more appreciated outside the group is worrying. We have no concrete recipe against this phenomenon. It could be an indirect effect resulting from lack of overview and group identity and may be mitigated by some of the changes proposed below.

23. The flow of information is not very good on all levels. The information is available (webpages, annual report, minutes of DTCM, science-techno tea), but should be distributed more actively. The group is big, projects change, and it’s easy to lose overview and identity.  We consider the following changes: o Inform all staff once or twice per year of group structure, section activities, services, major activities in projects, foreseen changes and challenges o Hold at least 2 section meetings per year in every section. Inform about activities, foreseen changes, listen to people o Request SL and PL to distribute DTCM information as appropriate o Present annual report in F language in science techno tea meeting (spring) o Use science techno tea to report more about progress in projects

24. More section specific changes will be discussed in the section meetings. Some points are already quite clear: DI section is large and has many unconnected activities. There is room for improvement. On the time scale of a year, some activities may be regrouped to achieve better cooperation and exchange (= ‘synergy’). The role of the section leader needs to be sharpened and better explained. The possibilities for personal development in DT are not evaluated very high, particularly by TechEng. Personal development, (group-)internal mobility should be systematically addressed in MARS interviews or whenever needed (responsibility of section leader).

25. Not directly a result of this survey…  The geographical spread of the group is not helpful. B304/workshop 108 is too distant from the DT centre. We are not using the full potential of this large workshop and the technicians. More involvement in projects. If possible, assign an engineer to the workshop as technical reference.  Our buildings do not stimulate team building: No real coffee corners, where one can meet colleagues, long distances between buildings, general conditions bad to catastrophic.  The administrative tools of CERN (EDH, HRT) are not fully suited for a matrix structure. The role of a group internal project leader doesn’t exist officially. If the project leader is registered as supervisor in HRT, the section leader is no longer in the loop.

26. Spares