In order to make our ILC design as realistic as possible, we have considered many of the issues that will need good solutions when the ILC is built. As a result, we have developed and submitted a draft document to the International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC) as a starting point towards an actual ILC implementation plan. In the process, we have reviewed other very large projects and gained insight from both their experience and ‘lessons learned.’ The draft summarises our suggestions regarding ILC implementation planning. In our opinion, it is important for the group developing the design to transmit their views on implementation issues, alongside the technical design. We will include a shortened version as a chapter in our Technical Design Report.
Below is the Executive Summary from the Draft Project Implementation Planning document.
Following the International Committee for Future Accelerators’ (ICFA) decision to base the design of a global linear collider on superconducting RF technology, the Global Design Effort was created and has carried out the mandate of coordinating the worldwide R&D program and developing a technical design for a 0.5-TeV linear collider. As a result of physics studies, ICFA gave the GDE guidance for the accelerator performance to be achieved. In carrying out the design presented in this report and in order to make it the design as realistic as possible, close attention has been also been paid to how best to implement such a global project. This has been important for two reasons: 1) it has helped to make sure that the design effort adequately took into account the practical aspects of implementing such a global project; and 2) by paying attention to these aspects of the future ILC project, we have developed knowledge and insight into how to implement the ILC and we document some of what we have learned and concluded in this chapter, in order to help guide future implementation planning.
The governance of a large international science project is a very complex endeavor and one having little precedence for a truly global project, without a strong host laboratory. It is crucially important in implementing such a project, to determine how decisions are made on design and technical issues, who appoints key staff, and the responsibilities of the host laboratory.
For background, we did a study of other recent major projects, including ALMA, ITER and the LHC. Lessons learned from these projects have helped inform what we believe to be key considerations in forming an effective governance for the ILC. In developing the ILC TDR, we came to understand the importance of defining the responsibilities of the host, having a well-established and agreed to scheme for in-kind contributions, an adequate common fund, etc. We have presented our understanding and conclusions regarding governance and our key recommendations to FALC, ILCSC and publicly at ICHEP-2010. The key points are discussed in the following section on governance.
We have considered various funding models for a globally supported ILC, which was necessary for us to understand how it could be built, the responsibilities of the host, etc. Earlier models for the ILC have been based on equal sharing among the three regions of the world, Europe, Asia and the Americas. Although that may be possible, there is no natural way to organize such a sharing, and instead, we consider and favor a funding model similar to that used in both XFEL and ITER, namely a ‘share’ system, where the “major” countries or regions should contribute a minimum, perhaps 10%, and other countries would join as members of regional consortia or by making particular contributions. Running and decommissioning costs need to also be considered and agreed to at the time the project is funded.
The responsibilities and the authority of the project management and project team need to be determined in advance and must be sufficient to enable the project management to effectively implement the project. This central management team will be responsible for finalizing this design, carrying configuration management, a formal change-control process, making technical decisions, maintaining schedule and other responsibilities of the project management.
Certain host responsibilities are crucial to the success of a global project. The host will need to provide a variety of services similar to what is provided by CERN, a successful example of a multi-country large collaborative laboratory. In addition to the necessary contributions to the infrastructure, construction and operations the host will be expected to prepare for the legal condition as an international organization.
Siting is a major issue, from selecting the site to dealing with the configuration and site-dependent aspects of the design and implementation. Technical issues, like seismic conditions, will need to be considered and a ‘site-dependent’ design, taking the conditions of a particular site, will need to be developed, as true to the original non site-specific design as is practical. The multiple issues, like access, providing infrastructure, safety, etc. will need to be considered issue by issue in developing the site depended design to be implemented. We envision the design will evolve from the configuration-controlled ILC design produced by the global design team and the site dependent changes will be done through a formal change control process.
We assume that the major contributions from countries to the ILC will be in the form of in-kind contributions. This has the substantial advantage that most resources for the construction can be made within the collaborating countries. This is important for political reasons, as well as to build technical capacity within the collaborating countries. However, this scheme comes with major challenges in terms of managing the different deliverables, integrating them, maintaining schedule, dealing with unforeseen cost increases for specific items, etc.
We have carefully considered this issue, and have studied the various ways to treat such contributions. We suggest that a flexible form of in-kind contribution, for example one employing a form of “juste retour”, is preferable (i.e. each member state receives a guaranteed fraction of the industrial contracts). This enables the central management to place the work where it will be the most effective, while spreading the work and resources equitably. A very important additional point we learned from other projects is that sufficient central resources must be made available, in order to effectively coordinate and integrate the project through the central management.
The central technology for the ILC, superconducting RF systems, has many other applications and therefore a world-wide plan for distributing this work is necessary.
A special implementation topic for the ILC is the industrialization and mass production of the SCRF linac components. We have developed a model for this production, which involves multiple vendors worldwide and a globally distributed model based on the “hub laboratory” concept. Basically, the cost-effective scheme we propose will use industry for what they do best, large-scale manufacturing, and the participating high energy laboratories for what they do best, integration and assuming technical risk for performance.
We have considered the overall project schedule for ILC construction and commissioning and have found that they are dominated by the time to construct the conventional facilities and by the time required to construct, install and commission long lead time technical components, like the SCRF system. An 8-year construction, installation and commissioning schedule appears feasible.
Finally, we have considered and discuss in this chapter the future technical activities that will help continue to move the ILC forward toward construction. Overall, we have used project implementation planning as an integrated element in developing a technical design for the ILC that we believe can be smoothly evolved into a final design and implementation plan to the ILC project, once approved and funded.