Here are my comments [in red] on Shane’s contribution. In general I was impressed by Shane’s summary.
Even though I’ve had the feeling that we have been rambling incoherently in most of the meetings, Shane has
managed a reasonable summary that hangs together fairly well. Here are Shane's recommendations. The Task
Group is not bound by them, and should edit based on the consensus it reaches. Feel free also to change the
priority/order of these various comments.
My changes in blue… Rick
General Recommendations
Overall, this Task Group sees the new Organization Chart to be, for the most part, an improvement over the
previous one. The chart tries, perhaps, to express too much: it is both hierarchical and functional; separate
paper tools should be used to capture these different aspects of running the laboratory. The organization chart
should capture the chain of command, as it is this which facilitates the expression of the laboratory's (and its
users) scientific priorities. The organization should avoid, wherever possible, generating "servant of two
masters" conflicts for the staff trying to enact those priorities.
An example of the distinction between a group leader and set of functions occurs under the Scientific Services
component of the Administration Division. Whereas other boxes may each be identified with a team leader
(e.g. HR, Clerical, Site Security), the Outreach, Library, Web Support boxes are essentially single persons
providing functionality rather than direction; the six subsidiary boxes below Scientific Services do not belong
on this diagram, and should be captured by other means.
Division Head Terms
This Task Group would support and welcome the restoration of the historical system whereby division heads
serve definite terms, rather than indefinitely continuing appointments. The knowledge that these positions are
not permanent will likely increase the pool of qualified applicants. The possibility for a variety of persons to
occupy these positions may widen staff skill sets, particularly in management. This group supports also the
solicitation of candidates for these jobs from the member universities as means of further strengthening the
relationships between TRIUMF and the member universities.
Science Division
Several of the responses to the Director's initial request for input made recommendations for changes to the
proposed Science Division organizational chart. Fortunately there was much commonality in these
suggestions.It is not clear that all aspects of Computing are best left in the Science division. For example, PC
Support is not restricted to the Science division and is purely technical. It more naturally belongs in the
division that contains all other Support Services. As well, software support is difficult for accelerator
physicists or Controls personnel to access if it is in the Science division rather than a division whose mandate
it is to service and support scientists and engineers across the site.
ISAC Beams Coordinator
Depending on what functions are ascribed to the ISAC coordinator mast head, this Task Group identifies an
important, high-level and possibly missing component: ISAC Beams Coordinator. The overall beams planning
and scheduling, and liaison with the EEC, should continue at the Division Head level. However, with the
much expanded number of beams to be delivered (i.e. no longer just protons), the scheduling task has
expanded commensurately. There is a need to divide this workload and to liaise with Targets/IonSources and
Beam Development who will provide those beams. This position (or function) is a technical coordinator who
convenes technical reviews to determine whether demanded beams can in principle be delivered. It can be a
joint appointment between the Science and Accelerator divisions.
In the ISAC era, developing new beams becomes a ubiquitous activity, but the development itself is rarely
routine. By a beam is meant a particular ion species, with current and emittance of particular quality, delivered
to a particular experiment. Developing a new beam requires the collaboration of many areas: target/ion-
sources, accelerators, beam lines, operations and experimenters. Diagnosing and commissioning of a new
beam may require interventions that override the directives of any one group. The Beams Coordinator would
oversee the link between Operations, Beam physicists and Experimenters. For example during target change
they would form a delivery plan that would facilitate the hand-off between the many experts in the beam
delivery chain. The coordinator would turn the experimenters beam quality request into a physics plan that
identifies tuning steps, diagnostics, and operator training, etc, required to deliver that beam. The position
would also involve monitoring the down-time data to form, proactively, both a short (weekly) and broad-
range (shutdown) plan of technical attention. In short the position is essentially a "beam quality assurance"
position. The proposed Accelerator Systems organization chart identifies this as Beam Coordination between
Experimental and Technical at a tier below the Beam Development coordinator; nevertheless the position
must command enough authority to perform this role effectively. ISAC presently has two maintenance
coordinators which accumulate down-time statistics and receive maintenance requests. These people would
provide the performance data and help facilitate the maintenance planned by the liaison.
Accelerator Systems Division
In a laboratory with two main accelerator complexes, cyclotron and ISAC, and with two types of function,
operations and development, it is a fundamental question whether to slice first based on accelerator and then
on function, or visa-versa. The Task Group agrees that the highest level slicing be first made on type of
service function provided and at the next level based on accelerator complex. For example, that Operations be
the organizational mast head above Cyclotron and ISAC. It is anticipated that administrative stream-lining will
be achieved throughout Operations and Systems Support by this reorganization. The duplication of the
Operations icon/box below the Operations mast head is redundant, and should be eliminated.
Sense of Ownership
The Task Group is opposed to a pure "pool of generic technicians/engineers" approach to the groups below
the Systems Support coordinator. The Cyclotron and ISAC accelerators are sufficiently different that
specializations are essential for their effective support. Moreover, specialization promotes a culture in which
technicians form a sense of ownership over particular equipments. This operational ownership needs to be
expressed whether the group built the equipment or receives it as legacy from another. Operations refers to
this by the phrase "own management of equipment X". An ownership culture needs promotion in ISAC
operations. However, the Task Group is also opposed to the other extreme: a rigid compartmentalization (i.e.
cyclotron or ISAC) within any of the groups below the Systems Support mast head. Day to day TRIUMF
functioning is based on internal collaboration and cooperation. TRIUMF has to be flexible enough to respond
as priorities change, and the substructure selected within groups should reflect that.
Where to place "Systems Support"?
Systems Support comprises a large number of technical groups and constitutes a large administrative load for
the senior manager. Thus, it was discussed whether the Systems Support under Accelerator Systems be moved
to the Engineering Division. A difficulty with the proposed organization chart is that it fails to distinguish
Support groups from Accelerator Subsystems. Support Groups would include Vacuum, RF, Power Supplies,
Magnets, Controls, Remote Handling, Services, Design, etc. and these can be placed in the Engineering &
Technology division. Accelerator Subsystems would include ISIS, Cyclotron, Linac, Beamlines, Targets, Ion
Sources, and perhaps External accelerator physics activities. These must stay within the Accelerator Systems
division. Some of these Subsystems would involve intensive R&D while others may require little, but in
general, they would be headed by physicists. They would also include technicians who would monitor
operation, schedule maintenance, organize documentation, etc.. Such a scheme would help promote the
ownership culture. The group leader should be responsible to divide the MRO and development work around
the group to maintain a dynamism.
More Effective Beam Development
The Task Group discussed extensively means to provide more efficient delivery of beams in ISAC. We agree
that there is a need for more beam physics input into the accelerator operation. The background education and
training of the operations staff is appropriate for 24/7 coverage where staffing with beam physicists would
bring a higher operating cost and probably a higher turn over. However the complexity of the cyclotron and
ISAC systems is such that beam physics input on a day to day basis is crucial for consistent, high quality
beam delivery. The cyclotron since the start of the ISAC project has received less than adequate attention.
This was deliberate in that accelerator expertise was desperately needed elsewhere and several key physicists
(Mackenzie, Milton, Craddock, Dutto, Lee) had left or retired and there has been only one recent hire (Rao).
On the ISAC side there are three distinct areas in the beam delivery chain; the target/ion source production
area, the mass separator/ low energy beam transport section and the accelerators. Each one has its own
required skill-set. The complexity is compounded by the fact that the beams change frequently. The
accelerator operation has benefited by a number of junior research associate positions (Pasini, Peng,
Marchetto) who over the last five years of operation were given the responsibility of setting up accelerator
tunes and interacting with Operations on a daily basis to maintain beam delivery. These positions have
reported to a senior physicist mentor (Laxdal). The structure gives a link between senior physicist advisor and
operations without the time requirement demanded by day to day interaction. ISAC accelerated beam tunes
may change several times a day so it is important to maintain a physics link to operations to maintain beam
quality. This need becomes even more important when ISAC-II acceleration begins. The RA’s have also been
responsible for some beam development tasks as projects. These include interacting with future experimenters
to work out in advance operator tuning procedures unique to the new experiment. They have also been
involved with design studies on long term developments.
There is a need to extend the accelerator beam delivery model downstairs as well. The mass selection and
beam matching in the mass separator room are crucial to produce beams that transport well. In addition target
aging may alter beam parameters that force retuning. Operators do not have the background to recognize and
react to all situations. They have to rely on procedures and when these break down there is frustration all
around. For example during yield measurements beams change frequently. Missteps in the procedures waste
time and yield measurements are pressured by the experimental program to end before completion. This slows
target development and in the end reduces the effectiveness of the ISAC experimental program. A stronger
physics presence in the control room could help identify weaknesses in the procedures or in the available
diagnostics and give the operator more tools to improve efficiency and accuracy. Presently only senior
physicists (Baartman, Bricault) are involved in advising on downstairs operation. These physicists are already
overburdened with other tasks and cannot maintain a day to day presence. It is recommended that a junior
physicist be assigned to the downstairs tuning team.
The recommended beam delivery model includes several senior beam physicists that maintain physics
ownership over sections of the beam delivery chain. A suggested break down of responsibility could be
(1)proton production, acceleration and delivery (2) RIB production and separation (3) RIB acceleration.
Other models can certainly be considered. For example the complexity of (2) may be better off separated into
a number of experts namely target expert, source expert (LIS) and mass separator/low energy beam transport
expert. At least two junior physicists would be required to link the senior physicists with day to day operation.
The technical support team would include technical owners of various sections or components on the beam
delivery chain to handle MRO. Because of the many owners both physicists and technicians it is
recommended that a physicist coordinator be also added to the team.
Amalgamation of Accelerator/Beam/Target Physics?
The Task group discussed whether there was synergy to be realized from the amalgamation of the Beam
Development and Accelerator Physics components of the proposed organizational chart. Present incumbents
of the Accelerator Physics group service (i) internal requests for cyclotron, ISAC, and beamlines support, or
(ii) accelerator areas of external collaborations with other laboratories (BNL, CERN, ILC, JPARC, etc). It was
noted that if all these areas became fully active, then they would become severely under-resourced.
Nevertheless, those involved with activity (ii) stated an interest in participating more in the internal
accelerator program. A way to achieve this is to assign physicists in these groups to have some service
responsibilities both in Operations, and in the various Accelerator Subsystem groups.
Whether to eliminate the "Systems Support" coordinator?
Some group leaders, particularly those providing site-wide services, have argued against the tier of
bureaucracy between them and the Accelerator Systems division head. For groups which have strong leaders
and internal coordination, it is hard to imagine what role the Systems Support coordinator would take on.
However, some groups are weaker or fragmented and could benefit from the kind of guidance and
intervention that a deputy division head should supply. Moreover, it is noted again that to place all of the
management function in the division head position would lead to a substantial administrative burden;
evidently, flexibility is required.
Present and Future Challenges
A recurring challenge to the Accelerator Physics and Beam Development groups has been, and will continue
to be, the hiring of adequately trained/qualified physicists. Much of this difficulty arises because there are no
Canadian universities producing graduates with accelerator specializations. UBC in particular is well placed to
provide a graduate program in accelerator physics. TRIUMF should do whatever possible to achieve this.
Merging of Control Rooms
The Task Group discussed at length the question of whether the Cyclotron and ISAC control rooms, and
control systems, should be merged. The group believes there is a strong case not to pursue this path in the
immediate future. What is needed is improved liaison between all parties: the cyclotron and ISAC operations
and the experimental users who perceive problems and who may, in frustration, bypass immediate chains of
command. The effort to combine the two control systems would withdraw substantial manpower for a lengthy
period from areas where it would be better employed. Moreover, even if the two systems were combined,
there is no guarantee that a generic operations group could run both machines - because of the complexity and
unique features of each; and so manpower savings might not be realised.
At the present time, controls personnel should not be withdrawn from more effective activity (see immediately
below) for a reworking of the cyclotron controls in EPICS. Long term, of course, there may be a problem with
alpha-VMS based controls for the cyclotron: though an open-standard, there may come a time when there is
no hardware upon which to run this operating system - but this time is still far off.
Engineering Division
In the scheme suggested above, the “Engineering & Technology” division would include all activities that are
not accelerator-subsystem-specific. Besides those mentioned on the proposed org chart (Magnet engineering,
Alignment, Design Office, Electronics), there would be Vacuum, RF, Remote Handling, Controls, and Probes.
Another possible candidate is Software Support, as presently, the controls group can barely keep pace with the
simple task of adding devices and set points to the ISAC controls system. But if the system is to be used in a
more efficient manner by Operations and Beam Development, then what is needed are more tools and
functionality; this is where the priority should be placed. Simple, basic tools such as those for mass scanning
and identification are not available. Tools, standard at other labs, for accelerator-physics beam line modeling
are not available in the control room. Historically, at TRIUMF, this kind of applications software was written
by computing services (Chuma, Jones, Kost). The new structure, with Computing entirely within the Science
division, does not seem to encourage and facilitate this kind of activity.
The pure engineering and technology focus given in the new structure gives a crisp boundary between the
responsibilities of the new divisions. In the new structure, Engineering delivers either products or services (or
both) to the Science and Accelerator divisions. The Engineering division concerns itself with the design,
construction and procurement of devices for clients outside the division. This Task Group agrees with that
model. It also provides services such as project management and machine-shop schedule juggling, and from a
logical standpoint these should be provided under the mechanical engineering mast head. This is a division
which impacts particularly strongly on the laboratory's ability to comply with internal and external users'
priorities. This is also a division where engineers may be exposed to "servant of two masters" conflicts of
priority, and it is important that priorities be communicated clearly. It is not clear what organizational
structure best facilitates this.
Technology Transfer Division
The Task Group agrees that the Technology Transfer Division proceeds essentially without change.
Accelerator physics consultancy to this division will continue to be provided on an ad hoc basis from the
relevant group within Accelerator Systems; no amalgamation is foreseen.