Lessons Learned from CDMS@ Soudan

Dan Bauer, Project ManagerFermilab, June 14, 2010

2

Overview of CDMS

3

CDMS II• First real project for the collaboration

– FNAL joined to manage the project.– I moved from UCSB to FNAL in 2002 to take over as project manager from Roger

Dixon. Before that, I was System Integration and Shielding Manager.• Proposed to DOE and NSF in 1998 and funded in 1999.

– This was prior to the Critical Design process at DOE, and NSF was the lead agency at first.

• Total project cost was $13M over 6 years, with another $5M from base funding.– Split roughly 50/50 between NSF and DOE

• Documentation was mainly the proposal– Quarterly reports to agencies and annual reviews– There were no oversight groups (PMG, JOG), but we did have an external

advisory board

4

CDMS II Experience• Difficult to get university groups aligned with project goals

– Strong tendency to continue R&D• Tendency towards scope creep

– Resistance to reporting and documentation• Always treated as less important than technical progress

– WBS was structured towards institutional needs, not deliverables• Agency issues

– Not always clear whether NSF or DOE was calling the shots– Neither agency provided sufficient operations funding; FNAL base budget ended up

carrying that load.• Technical difficulties

– Very challenging to mount such an experiment in a remote underground site– Detector problems forced a down-scope from 7 to 5 detector towers

Nevertheless, the experiment did succeed in reaching science goals within budget, albeit somewhat behind schedule.

5

Post-CDMS II

• Tortured history with the agencies– Proposed 25 kg experiment at SNOLAB in fall 2004

• No action taken by either NSF or DOE on that proposal during 2005

– To preserve our detector teams, with CDMS II project funds running out, proposed $2M Detector Development R&D project in 2006

– Followed with SuperCDMS Soudan project (TPC $2.5M) in 2007, to allow continued physics with CDMS II apparatus at Soudan

SuperCDMS Soudan Project

• Deploy ~15 kg of new 1” thick Ge detectors in 5 towers at the existing Soudan facility

• Two new detector technologies available from R&D (mZIP similar to CDMS II, and double-sided iZIP)

• Authorized from August 2009 review to proceed with 4 towers of mZIP and 1 tower of iZIP

• Requested March 2010 review to propose 5 towers of iZIP

6

Recommendations from the March 8 reviewBefore building more than 1 iZIP tower:

Provide results of mZIP tower at Soudan and a surface test of current production of iZip detectors.

Provide TDR for experiment with iZIP detectors.

Provide clear scope, budget & schedule and updated PEP for the proposed funding provided in the $2.5M MIE, including costing for what has already been built.

This should be done by mid-May. A phone conference with the panel should be held before going forward

mZIP analysis from Soudan runNearly complete and will have report by end of June

iZIP TDRReport expected by end of June

iZIP Fabrication and TestingFirst production iZIPs made and testedSome problems with these devices Transition temps too low, TES resistances too high

2nd round of production completed and 3rd round beginningBelieve we have fixed the problemsCryogenic tests next week to confirm

Phone review is now scheduled for July 12, 2pm Central

Progress towards these goals

9

Project Schedule

10

Project Budget

11

Requires continued effort from FNAL

• Scientists– Bauer, Yoo, Hall, Hsu

• Technical support to maintain Soudan– 0.25 FTE Eng (Schmitt), 0.25 FTE Tech (Ruschman, W. Johnson)

• Soudan operations– Support mine crew through FY2013 (minimum level = 5 FTEs)

Important to continued science and technical progress, but this is a major distraction for the FNAL group from SuperCDMS SNOLAB project

12

Summary of lessons learned

• Need to start with well-defined project scope and plan defined by PEP and PMP

• Develop a WBS that is focused on deliverables, not institutional priorities

• Need to use modern project scheduling and tracking tools

• Need professional project help!