# Presentation: 314956

**Management subcommittee closeout**
- Jay Marx (chair, LBNL), Joel Butler (Fermilab), Stan Wojcicki (Stanford)
_**Thanks to all for cooperation and openness!!**_

## Management aspects

- RSVP is embedded in an unusual management situation:
- An NSF project at DOE laboratory using a DOE accelerator facility
- Shared agency responsibility for funding the accelerator facility
- Brookhaven is “host” laboratory but is not a sponsor of project
- DOE is not a direct sponsor of the project
- The RSVP project itself is very complex with project offices at Columbia and BNL and 4 almost “stand-alone” subprojects to be integrated into a unified project

- After much negotiation a unique and complicated management structure has been developed to address this situation.
- The management structure is an “experiment” and should be given adequate time to see if it works. If not, changes should be made.

- RSVP success requires coherent and cooperative management and communications at many levels involving
- The project team
- The host lab (BNL)
- The collaborations
- The agencies (NSF and DOE)
- The foreign partners
- Scientific success is the overriding
- 	 consideration, not just a successful project
- Key challenge is integration into single project targeted to do the physics

## The project team—

- Project Director and Deputy bring important experience with large, complex projects
- Transition from semi-autonomous experiments to centrally managed single project is crucial and by no means complete
- Real structural changes must occur—e.g. KOPIO and MECO project managers fully accountable to central project office
- _	__	__A sociological challenge for integration to succeed:_
- Project leadership must be actively engaged in building confidence of all key participants; especially leaders of collaborations.
- Will require lots of goodwill, effort and open communication between all levels of project’s management and collaborations
- A key element for success is open and frequent communication between the central management team, the collaboration spokespersons and the laboratory management.
- Such meetings begin ASAP; occur at least monthly if not more frequently.

## Brookhaven

- BNL management seems engaged and committed to success of RSVP
- Director and AD for HENP working to find ways to enhance likelihood of success
- AGS management is actively engaged in providing for needs of RSVP
- BNL management must continue to be engaged and committed to success over life of RSVP

## Agencies

- Effective and continuing coordination is critical
- NSF must plan for realistic levels of support during and beyond construction-
- Increased and timely support for researchers for RSVP so collaborations can reach critical mass;
- Operating cost exposures (more costly operations, longer operations, more costly D&D, etc).
- DOE should
- Assure success of AGS project activities 	.
- Provide adequate support for BNL scientific involvement in RSVP (host lab collaborators bring great value to an experiment)

- _Collaborations_—
- challenge to adapt to integrated centrally managed project and less autonomy
- This is a time of real risk until RSVP gets formal OK; real concerns & anxiety
- Wary about centralized management.
- Concern whether all players are committed to the physics goals and not just a successful “project”
- Must approach change with good will, effort and open communications
- _Foreign partners_—Important to success and poised to contribute
- RSVP and agencies must activate International Finance Committee and other steps to enable foreign collaborators to obtain support.

- _Management costs_:
- About $20M including 11% contingency
- Support right size staff at Columbia and 		BNL project offices
- Contingency too low, should be about 20%
- _Overall Contingency_
- Management subcommittee fully supports 45% overall contingency.
-  Less is incommensurate with success.

## Overall cost concerns

- ~2.8% inflation assumed throughout project is too low.
-  4-5% more appropriate for labor part of estimate
- Little or no schedule float is a significant cost risk
- No contingency in estimate of operating costs.
-  Many unknowns (e.g. length of operations to do physics; DOE support of AGS ops; real cost of electricity after 2010, etc.).
- Significant cost exposure for NSF.
- D&D estimate for work in far future very uncertain (e.g environmental laws get stricter).
- At least 100% contingency suggested.

## Recommendations

- NSF-- immediately set up frequent stakeholders meetings to assure that all elements of RSVP are integrated, well coordinated and vectored towards success.
- Communications between the central management, the sub-project management, the collaboration spokespersons and the Brookhaven management should be significantly increased
- RSVP- develop a single integrated management plan

## Recommendations

- NSF & RSVP-- address overall costing issues
- RSVP- complete MOUs asap
- Enable foreign participation to move forward
- NSF & DOE- put in place interagency agreement to facilitate funding flow to BNL
- NSF & RSVP- define performance goals for completion of AGS part of project as part of project plan
- NSF, BNL RSVP agree on AGS beam delivery goals vs. time during operations phase