# Presentation: 795557

## Manpower - Part 2

**Availability**
**Survey**
**Comparison of Needs and Availability**
**Caveats/to-do list**
**Some ideas on how to bridge gaps**
**Conclusions on 2005-2007**
**Conclusions on 2008-2009**

## Manpower survey

**Spreadsheet developed as first stage in DØ 2005-2007 MOU****(1.)**
**Request FTE****(2.)**** effort dedicated to DØ**
**Faculty, scientist, postdoc, student**
**Request details of institutional commitments **
**Notes:**
**2008-2009 “optional” - not part of MOU**
**FTE ******** fraction of **_**total**_** working week.   **
**NOT: fraction of research time; NOT fraction of 40 hour week!**
**Same spreadsheet used also by CDF**
**Responses so far from: **
**71/77 DØ institutes**
**50/57 CDF institutes**
**reasonable extrapolations made for missing institutes**

## Results of survey: 2005-2007

**- Fall off for both US and non-US roughly consistent with HEPAP survey**

| Expt. |                CDF |  |  |                DØ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Year | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
| non-US | 100% |  89% |  75% | 100% |  93% |  74% |
| US | 100% |  91% |  73% | 100% |  87% |  69% |
| all.expt | 100% |  90% |  74% | 100% |  90% |  72% |
| HEPAP | 100% |  88% |  69% | 100% |  84% |  66% |
| FTEs |  434 |   392 | 319 |  463 |  417 |  332 |

## Comparison of FTE availability and needs: 2007

|  |    CDF |    DØ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| “Service” |   126 |   165 |
| “Core” physics |     86 |     86 |
| Total needs 1:
    (service*2) |   252 |   330 |
| Total needs 2: 
 (service+“core”)  |   207 |   251     |
| Available FTE |   319 |   332 |
| Available-needs 1: |     67 |       2 |
| Available-needs 2: |   112 |     81 |

**Sufficient effort to operate experiments and **
**support a broad physics programme**

- Assumes people spend 50% of time on “service” and 50% doing “physics”

## Caveats/To-do list

**Availability is self reported whereas needs are bottoms-up estimate**
**Detailed analysis of “service” needs versus commitments not yet done**
**More careful checks needed to ensure “collaboration members” have been defined consistently in counting needs and availability**

## 2007 Comparison with HEPAP

|  | CDF | HEPAP CDF | DØ | HEPAP DØ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Online+offline | 91 | 93 | 110 | 168 |
| Algorithms | 35 | 38 | 55 | 70 |
| Physics 
1: “core”-only
2:  “service”
3: “available” from MOU | 
81
126
193
 | 232 | 
86
165
167 | 175 |
| Total
1:
2:
3: | 
207
252
319 | 363 | 
251
330
332 | 417 |

## Ideas to reduce needed effort and increase availability

**Experiment Operations:**
**More automation (control room and offline DQ)**
**Merge shifts**
**Professional shift crew**
**Continuity of experts for critical systems**
**Computing Operations**
**Increase (SAM-)Grid development and support for deployment**
**Common support of commonly used infrastructure by computing professionals**
**a good strategy, although we need Fermilab support also for experiment-specific facilities and applications **
**General:**
**Increased visitor budget**
**for all levels (students -> professors)**

## Special role of Fermilab staff

**Loss of Fermilab staff has been a problem for the experiments**
**In terms of lost FTEs and lost expertise**
**15-20 FTEs per experiment over past 3 years**
**CDF and DØ need to add Fermilab staff in carefully targeted areas**
**At least the**_** service contributions**_** of **_**current**_** Fermilab groups cannot be allowed to leak away as has happened in the past**

## Conclusions on 2005-2007 estimates

**Extrapolating manpower needs & availability from where we are now to 2007:**
**Subject to large uncertainties**
**refined understanding needed**
**in particular, detailed analysis of “service” needs versus commitments **
**But can form the basis for a plan**
**ideas to improve situation taking shape**
**Taking care of 2007 needs is the current main focus**

## Results for 2009

**       ****Calculated from 2007 MOU FTEs using HEPAP ratio for 2009/2007**

|  |  Expt. |    CDF |  DØ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Available FTEs | non-US |    75 |  101 |
|  | US |  116 |    99 |
|  | all.expt |  191 |  200 |
| Needed FTEs | 1: service*2 |  222 |  248 |
|  | 2: service+core |  175 |  190 |
| Available -needed FTEs | 1: |   -31 |   -48 |
|  | 2: |    16 |    10 |

**- Barely enough effort to deliver “core” physics programme**
**- Need to find more effort or greater efficiency to deliver a broader physics programe**

## Conclusions on 2008-2009 estimates

**Current extrapolations suggest a significant, but solvable, gap between needs and availability**
**Extrapolating from what we know now to 2008-2009 is largely guess work until:**
**Progress on pbar accumulation for Tevatron**
**Experiments demonstrate timely publication of 1-2 fb****-1**** dataset**
**achieving required physics performance**
**maybe interesting hints?**
**2007 manpower needs and availability demonstrated to be realistic**
**Believable schedule for LHC accelerator announced**
**We need the answers to these questions before deciding: **
**Whether or not to run the Tevatron in 2008-2009**
**Whether or not the experiments will have enough manpower to deliver the physics  **
**But what we **_**do**_** know now about 2008-2009 is:**
**Great physics potential**
**Hardware in great shape**
**By working together, the funding agencies, Fermilab and the collaborations can solve the effort gap**
**It would be crazy to do things now that would take the option of 2008-2009 away!**