# Presentation: 511245

## .   Manpower: MOUs, Task Force   . DØ IFC Meeting20th Oct 2005Terry Wyatt.   Manchester University

## MOU

- Survey FTE(1.) effort dedicated to DØ
- For each year 2005-2009(2.)
- Named individuals in following categories
- Faculty, scientist, postdoc, student
- Request details of institutional commitments to “service”
- Notes:
- FTE  fraction of _total_ working week.
-          NOT: fraction of research time; NOT fraction of 40 hour week!
- 2.    2008-2009 “optional” - not part of MOU
- Detailed response received from all but two DØ institutions:
- Fresno:     no response
- Fermilab:  total effort, but not information by individual

## MOU

- Total FTE effort
- Currently:
- checking accuracy of draft MOUs with institutes
- Next step:
- look in detail at service commitments and iterate with institutes

| FTE totals | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| US | 240 | 210 | 170 |
| non-US | 228 | 214 | 175 |
| All | 468 | 424 | 345 |

## Fermilab Task Force

- Appointed by Pier Oddone
- Background
- Chip’s HEPAP survey suggested a big gap between needs and availability
- CDF and DØ Fermilab groups have lost 15-20 FTEs per experiment over past 3 years
- Charge
- analyze needed and available manpower
- recommend strategies to improve balance
- Sub-groups to analyze needed effort
- each had representation from CDF, DØ and Fermilab
- created lists of tasks and performed a detailed bottoms up estimate of the FTE’s required to operate

## Needed Effort   1) “Service”

- Significantly more effort needed by DØ than CDF in 2007
- DØ has very significant upgrades in 2006!
- Layer-0, L1 trigger, AFE-IIt
- By 2009 numbers for CDF and DØ very comparable

| In FTE’s... | 2007 |  | 2009 |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | CDF | DØ | CDF | DØ |
| Operations | 55 | 68 | 55 | 68 |
| Offline | 26 | 32 | 20 | 25 |
| Algorithms | 35 | 55 | 26 | 21 |
| Management | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Total “Service” | 126 | 165 | 111 | 124 |

## Needed Effort   2) Physics

- Much more difficult to define what is “needed”
- Three different measures considered:
- “Core” physics programme
- consisting of
- Searches
- SM and MSSM Higgs,  SUSY searches, Z’,  *B**s** * 
- Precision
- Top mass, Vtb, W mass, *B**s* mixing, *B**s* lifetime
- objections
- we wouldn’t want to restrict to such a narrow range!
- even if we wanted to, we couldn’t!
- Assume an average “service” fraction of 50%
- Just calculate what is available
- subtract “service” from MOU total FTE

## 2007 Comparison of needs and availability

|  | CDF | CDF HEPAP | DØ | DØ HEPAP |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 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
180 | 175 |
| Total
1:
2:
3: | 
207
252
319 | 363 | 
251
330
345 | 417 |

- Changes since HEPAP survey
- DØ: significantly less “service” effort now thought to be needed
- CDF: significantly less physics analysis effort available

## 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)
- Next step: discuss specifics with CD and PPD division heads (and directorate)

## Caveats, Conclusions on 2005-2007

- Extrapolating manpower needs & availability from where we are now to 2007:
- Subject to large uncertainties
- availability is self reported whereas needs are bottoms-up estimate
- just looking at total FTEs can hide many problems
- detailed analysis required of “service” needs versus commitments
- But provisional conclusion is that problem is solvable
- ideas to improve situation taking shape
- Taking care of 2007 needs is the current main focus
- 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
- But we are working towards ensuring 2008 and 2009 are a reality for DØ