OECD Stefan Michalowski

Report
International Research Infrastructures:
an OECD Perspective
Presentation by Stefan Michalowski, OECD
AFRICAN EUROPEAN RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE CO-OPERATION
Brussels, May 16, 2012
Two topics:
• What are research infrastructures, and why are they
important from a science policy perspective?
• What are the principal issues and options for
planning, establishing and operating international
research infrastructures?
What is
an Infrastructure?
It can serve many users and many uses.
It’s designed with the future in mind.
Research Infrastructures: a pragmatic OECD taxonomy
 Facilities
 “Single Experiments”
CERN LHC, ITER, JET, PIERRE AUGER
 User facilities for a small number of users
 User facilities for a large number of users
ALMA, SKA, Big telescopes
ESRF, ILL, XFEL, FAIR, ESS, LSST
 Distributed Infrastructures
 Scientific measurement using multiple facilities
“… association or network of geographicallyEVN, LIGO/VIRGO
distinct
entities
from more
oseparated,
Subdividing a large
task among
distinct institutions
AGRP,than
ICGC one
that agree
to jointly
or sponsor
 country
Coordination/integration
of research
based onperform
a common scientific
theme
research.”
obasic
Coordination
of a set of large infrastructures ELI, GEOSS, ELIXIR
o Combining signals from a set of independent instruments
o Coordination/integration of diverse projects/programmes
SIOS, GEM
o Provision of resources/services CLARIN, EMMA
 e-Infrastructures
 Federation, storage, curation of large data sets GBIF. INCF, CESSDA, Lifewatch
 High performance computing and networking GÉANT, PRACE
 Planning (Roadmapping)
Creation
 Internationalisation
 Establishing
 Operating costs
Operation
 Access to resources and to data
 Decommissioning
 Scientific impact
Assessment
 Economic impact
 Societal impact
 Planning (Roadmapping)
Creation
 Internationalisation
 Establishing
 Operating costs
Operation
 Access to resources and to data
 Decommissioning
 Scientific impact
Assessment
 Economic impact
 Societal impact
Infrastructure Roadmaps
Interesting properties of roadmaps and of roadmapping:
May include non-scientific considerations
• economic, regional development
Can mobilise an entire scientific community
• industrial innovation
Promotes
innovation
a competitive
environment
• education
and inworkforce
issues
Encourages
multi- and
inter-disciplinarity
• international
political
integration
• national
security
Illuminates
important
science policy issues:
The role of existing infrastructures
Balancing supply and demand of research resources
Understanding the size of the overall effort
Comparing infrastructure costs
Access rules and policies
Workforce issues
Caveats:
Not the best tool for deciding about existing ISs
Large, expensive ISs can stress science budgets
Potential neglect of small and medium projects
Inflexibility of long-tem commitments
Overly broad scope could lead to loss of focus
National/Regional/Global interference
Confusion from proliferation of diverse RMs
THE ISSUES
- Legal and Administrative
- Funding and Contributions
- Project Management
- Equipment
- Personnel
The downsides of internationalisation are not ignored
 Inhibition of competition in fields where it has traditionally been
vigorous and productive.
 Delays associated with international negotiations.
 Bringing non-scientific actors (lawyers, diplomats, etc.) into the
process.
 Exclusion/isolation of certain national scientific communities.
 Sub-optimal technical solutions due to juste retour.
 Creation of new/untried institutions/structures:
administrative/bureaucratic/legal/political.
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
 International Organisation
[archetype
models: of
ITER,
CERN]
• A basic taxonomy
possible
legal/administrative
structures,
and
their chief (LLC)
characteristics.
Nature of law
 Limited
Liability
Company
under national
documents
for
eachtotype
structure
 foundation
Allocating
the right
tasks
negotiators
[archetype
models:
ESRF,
XFEL]theofright
(including typical time period for negotiation)

Scope and
organisationnational
of the negotiations
 Association
of independent
or regional
• Creating a new organisation vs. using an existing

Bi-lateral or[archetype
multi-lateral?
infrastructures
model: ALMA]
one
 The role collaborating
of “Science Cases”
 Ex-post-facto
infrastructures
• The elements of an administrative structure and
[archetype
models:issue
LIGO/VIRGO/GEO]
 their
Theinter-relationships
language
 Foundation
under
national law [archetype model: JIVE]
• International
negotiations
 European
Infrastructure
• AccessResearch
issues (to the
infrastructure Consortium
itself, and to (ERIC)
experimental
 A digression:
thedata)
HEP detector model
• Intellectual property
• Site and host selection
FUNDING AND CONTRIBUTIONS
• Host premium and host benefits.
• Cash vs. In-Kind: deciding the best proportion of
each, the pros and cons.
• In-Kind: methods for assigning value, dividing up
assignments among Partners.
• Juste retour: theory and practices.
• Operating costs and scientific access
• Risk Analysis. Contingencies and cost overruns.
Quality control. Openness and accountability.
• Contracting by the Organisation (esp. in Partner
countries).
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
• Relationship to Risk Analysis, and to generic issues
of accountability, authority and communication
between the chief actors (the Organisation and the
Partners).
• Examples of scope of PM (e.g., purchasing,
contracting, hiring). Use of commercial software
and of external contractors. Role of experienced
individuals.
• Data availability and quality issues, especially
access to information held by Partners.
• Possibility of adopting agreed international
standards.
• Special vulnerability issues in the start-up phases.
• Special challenges to international scientific
communities, especially when transitioning to large
infrastructures.
PERSONNEL
• Recruitment and contracts
• Organisation hires vs. secondees.
• Staff regulations (incl. issues of authority).
• Conflict of interest.
• Family issues.
EQUIPMENT
• Responsibility for testing, acceptance and transfer
of ownership.
• Liability in case of malfunction.
• Disposition at decommissioning.
• IPR
Major Issues (personal view)
• Is internationalisation the best solution?
• Plan the negotiations: phases and people. Agree on
language(s). Expect significant delays
• Agree on site selection procedure
• Use an existing legal/administrative entity?
• Weigh the pros and cons of cash vs. in-kind, and adapt the
governance
• Address operating costs and links to access
• Choose a project management methodology
• Anticipate decommissioning
 Planning (Roadmapping)
Creation
 Internationalisation
 Establishing
 Operating costs
Operation
 Access to resources and to data
 Decommissioning
 Scientific impact
Assessment
 Economic impact
 Societal impact
TAXONOMY OF IMPACTS
I.
Purely scientific results, intended to advance fundamental knowledge.
II .
The direct impact of spending for constructing and operating the laboratory.
III.
Training scientists, engineers, technicians, administrators and others.
IV.
Developing and perfecting modalities of international scientific cooperation.
V.
Bringing nations together, strengthening capacity in developing countries.
VI.
Non-HEP innovations that emerge during the main scientific mission.
VIa. Innovations needed for major component development /
procurement.
VIb. Innovations that can become impacts with only minor modifications.
VIc. Innovations that can become impacts with major additional efforts.
VII. Education, and public outreach.
GENERIC (COMMON) ISSUES
 Relationship to the primary mission of the lab.
 Involvement/role of the member countries and funding agencies.
 Role and responsibility of senior laboratory managers.
 How non-HEP impact-generating projects begin.
 Staff issues.
 Finances.
 Intellectual property.
 Interactions with industry.
 The innovation cycle (from idea to product).
 Structure and functioning of a knowledge transfer office.

Thank you 

similar documents