The HCAL project has a planning methodology embedded in the overall CMS planning. A summary of the CMS general planning is given in theTechnical Design Report for the Magnet Project []. A summary outline of CMS planning as regards HCAL, extracted from the general CMS planning, is shown in Fig. 15.1. This schedule refers to the experimental halls, the magnet, and the Muon, ECAL, and Tracking subsystems as well as HCAL. Since HB is supported off the cryostat vacuum tank, HE is supported off YE, and HB in turn supports ECAL and the Tracker, these subsystem milestones are also indicated in the summary.
The required schedule for HCAL which is needed to meet the level
1 schedule shown in Fig. 15.1 is given in Fig. 15.2 (a) and (b).
Note that these milestones summarise the planning for HB, HO,
HE and HF. The relevant level 1 schedule and the HB level 2 schedule
are shown in Fig. 15.2 (a), while the HO, HE, and HF level 2 schedules
appear in Fig. 15.2 (b). The HB, HO, HE, and HF activities are
linked to the level 1 summary schedule, as shown in the figure.
The planning which appears here must still be made consistent
with the funding profiles of all the contributing HCAL institutions
as they become known and understood. This task will begin with
execution of the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). The details
of the level 2 schedule will undoubtedly require adaptation as
more is understood about the funding profiles.
As is explained below, the cost estimates for HCAL are made in
great detail. A summary is shown in Table 15.1. The HCAL costs
are given using CERN accounting methods, and the full costing
for HCAL is available in the CMS Cost Estimate Version 8 [].
We reproduce here only a higher level rollup of the costing, suitable
for a single page summary.
A first attempt has been made to integrate the cost items shown
in Table 15.1 with the level 2 schedule for HCAL. The resulting
cost profile is shown in Fig. 15.3. This exercise has only begun.
The full realisation of this planning exercise requires a good
knowledge of the funding profile of the integrated total funds
available from each of the countries participating in HCAL and
the subsequent linking of the cost profile to the composite funding
profile. This is a work in progress, and has just begun at this
time.
There are several groups participating in the HCAL system. It is of paramount importance to first see if the resources thought to be available to these groups match the expected costs of the HCAL system. In Table 15.2 we give the HCAL "money matrix" showing the resources available to the groups participating in HCAL. Within the uncertainties attached to this table, there is a good match of costs and resources. Note that the design of HF has yet to be fully defined and that new groups may join that effort. Within the uncertainties and the flexibility allowed in the final definition of the scope, HCAL costs match the available funds. At this time it is premature to attempt to match the cost profile shown in Fig. 15.3 with the funding, even though the time integrated "money matrix" appears to be sufficient to cover the total HCAL costs, as estimated in Table 15.1.
There is the additional issue of the funding profile for the financial resources shown in Table 15.2. At present our knowledge of the funding profile is somewhat rudimentary. However, the US groups have been given a funding profile by their funding agencies. A first attempt to match costs and funds to schedule for the US groups in HCAL appears to indicate no major difficulties. This statement should be tempered by the fact that it is not yet clear if industrial firms involved in major purchases will require full payment at the start, or if a schedule of phased payments is possible, and if so the details of the obligation profile.
The HCAL project of CMS is headed by a project manager appointed by the CMS spokesperson with full consultation of the CMS collaboration. As explained in detail in the CMS Constitution [], the HCAL project manager represents the HCAL system to the full CMS management as a member of the CMS Management Board. The organization of the HCAL effort is summarised in Fig. 15.4.
The groups participating in the HCAL project form the Institution Board of HCAL. All decisions are ratified by that board. The project has a single project manager and resource manager, who carry overall responsibility for the project. The geographic sectors, HB, HE and HF each have a project manager or coordinator and a technical coordinator. They report to the HCAL project manager. The HE Project manager is also a member of the CMS Management Board. The HB, HO, HE, and HF geographic sectors also have persons responsible for the engineering aspects of those sectors who report to their respective project coordinators.
There are a variety of tasks which apply to all subsystems. Indeed, the structure of this TDR reflects that fact, as does Fig. 15.4. The commonality of HCAL, for example electronics, is built into the structure of the HCAL project. Leaders for efforts common to HCAL are indicated in Fig. 15.4.
The overall governance of CMS is explained in the CMS Constitution [3].
The HCAL subsystem of CMS is governed in the same general fashion
as are all CMS subsystems. In the HCAL case the three distinct
geographic sectors (HB, HE, HF) are recognised as such, while
the common efforts are also recognised and mirrored in the form
shown in the HCAL organisation chart, Fig. 15.4.
The tentative responsibilities of the countries involved in HCAL follow from the interests of the groups. Basically, the US groups are responsible for the HB mechanics and optics and for the electronics of all of HCAL. The RDMS groups are collectively working on the mechanics and optics of HE, while the combined Indian groups are responsible for the mechanics and optics of the samples made outside the solenoid in HB. A group of RDMS members, most notably ITEP, is responsible for the HF mechanical design and the absorber construction. The Hungarian and Turkish groups take the lead in the mechanical assembly of the HF quartz fibre active elements, while the US groups will supply transducers and front end electronics for HF. Of course, the exact elements of HCAL for which each group is ultimately responsible can only be defined when the MOUs are signed by the relevant funding agencies. At present, we simply indicate the broad outlines of the proposed responsibilities of the groups.
A single page summary of items rolled up from the version 8 Cost Book [2], together with the responsibility by country for that task, is given in Table 15.3. The cost for the task, at a very high level, is also indicated in the table.
Where available and agreed upon, the responsibilities of individual
groups for HCAL items are shown in Table 15.4. As events progress,
and as CMS negotiates the MOU with each collaborating institution,
these areas of responsibility will change, and are shown here
as indicative of the tentative assignment of tasks.
[1] The Magnet Project Technical Design Report, CERN/LHCC 97-10, May 2, 1997.
[2] CMS Cost Estimate Version 8, 1997-003, Feb. 3, 1997.
[3] The CMS Constitution, CMS/D-CB/1996-1, Sept. 13, 1996.