WP 1 Introduction Tasks Deliverables Milestones Progress so

WP 1 • Introduction • Tasks • Deliverables • Milestones • Progress so far……. . first thoughts on comparison

Introduction • WP 1: Management and Knowledge Dissemination • Both required by EC and important for that reason • Participants: Work package number 1 Start date or starting event: 1 Work package title Management and Knowledge Dissemination Activity Type MGT Participant number 1 3 7 Person-months per participant: 68 12 12 • In practice, includes activities of MB, CB, DB

Tasks • Coordination - CB § day to day admin § delivery of final report (Design Reports for SG) • Oversight - MB § day to day scientific monitoring § delivery of milestones and deliverables • Knowledge management - DB • Comparison: § definition of comparison criteria: physics performance, cost, safety, risk § comparison for final report

Deliverables Number Deliverable Date D 2 Report of 1 st year activities, summarizing the work done by all the WPs and comparing progress against milestones and deliverables 12 D 7 List of the criteria to be used in the facility comparison 18 D 9 Interim report 24 D 14 Project review documentation 36 D 21 Comparison between facilities, taking into account the relative costs and physics reach comparison of the three facilities 46 D 22 Final report, describing the achievements of the Design Study, including design reports for the facilities, all deliverables and the comparison made between the facilities and giving the final financial report of the project 48

Milestones Milestone no. Milestone name WPs no's. Lead beneficiary Delivery date from Annex I 1. 1 Review of 1 st year milestones, deliverables & costs All 1 12 Reviewed by Governing Board 1. 2 Initial facility comparison 1 1 20 Reviewed by external expert 1. 3 Review on interim milestones, deliverables & costs All 1 24 Reviewed by Governing Board 1. 4 Review of 3 rd year milestones, deliverables & costs All 1 36 Reviewed by Governing Board 46 Reviewed by Governing Board, International Advisory Panel, Coordination Board and external experts 1 1. 5 [1] Comments Final comparison of facilities 1 Month in which the milestone will be achieved. Month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all delivery dates being relative to this start date.

First Thoughts on Facility Comparison • Main EUROnu objectives (in proposal and GA): § Design reports for each facility § Performance and “relative” cost comparison § Report results to CERN Council via SG • Originally, make recommendation • Now, leave it to appropriate bodies • We must provide information to make possible • Resources limited, but important make good job! • Use any external resources possible • Link into ESFRI and further FP 7/8 proposals

“Criteria” • Performance Ken Long § Technical: WPs 2 -5 § Physics reach: WP 6 • Cost Mats Lindroos § Use set rules § See next talk • Safety Marcos Dracos § Identify and quantify main facility H&S aspects § Will need to be addressed before construction • Risk § Technical § Confidence in information provided Rob Edgecock

What to Assess • “Baseline” facilities – pretty much as in proposal • Changes following work obviously possible • Can also do up/down-grades § But performance, cost, H&S, risk for >1 facility – a lot of work! • Combinations are complicated, e. g. § same proton driver for SB and NF § same detector for SB and BB • Needs to be discussed • Important that everything done in consistent manner

Performance • Information required from each WP should be specified as soon as possible – KL & WP 6 • Physics measurements clear, presentation needs thought • Handling of systematics needs special attention • “Quantification” in terms of e. g. limits on models from parameter sensitivity helpful (if possible) Cost • Do best job we can • Consistency most important • See next talk

Safety • Focus on most important issues only: § potential show-stoppers, e. g. targets § could bring substantial increases in costs • Quantification of risk again important Risk • Technical, e. g. something won’t work (as expected) • Confidence in results presented • Only assess gross structures • Consistency of analysis important