National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL)
The NSCL is a world-leading national user facility for rare isotope research
and education in nuclear science, astro-nuclear physics, accelerator
physics, and societal applications
284 employees, including 44 undergraduate and 55 graduate students, 24
faculty (as of September 15, 2006)
User group of over 700 registered scientists
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 1
NSCL educational impact
• As a university-based national user facility the NSCL plays a
prominent role in the education of the next generation of scientists
through a close synergy of classroom education and hands-on
laboratory research
• US News and World Report ranks MSU Nuclear Physics Graduate
Program #2 in the nation (behind MIT)
– 55 graduate students at the NSCL have assistantships to support their thesis
research*
– MSU/NSCL is one of a few U.S. institutions with PhD programs in nuclear
chemistry and accelerator physics (in addition to nuclear physics and nuclear
astrophysics)
– 44 undergraduate students on NSCL payroll* – additional undergraduate
participation via REU, MoNA-collaboration, outside users, MSU Honors College
– 10% of the nation’s nuclear science PhDs are trained at NSCL
– Median time to PhD at NSCL is about 1.5 years below national average
* as of Sept. 15, 2006
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 2
Brief history
1961:
1965:
1975:
1978:
1982:
1988:
1990:
1990:
NSF approval to build K50 cyclotron with separated orbit extraction at MSU
Research begins with K50 cyclotron (E ≤ 50 MeV for protons)
NSF approval to build prototype superconducting cyclotron magnet
NSAC recommends construction of NSCL as a national user facility
Science begins with superconducting K500 cyclotron (E/A ≤ 70 MeV for Q/A = 0.5)
Science begins with K1200 cyclotron (E/A ≤ 200 MeV for Q/A = 0.5)
Superconducting cyclotron for oncology at Harper Hospital completed
NSCL Phase II complete -- rare isotope research with superconducting K1200 &
superconducting A1200 fragment separator
1993: NSF approval to construct superconducting “S800” spectrograph – now “workhorse” for
rare isotope program
1994: NSCL White Paper for Coupled Cyclotron Facility (CCF) – large (factors of 100-10,000)
intensity gains for rare isotope production
1995: NSAC recommends CCF construction
1996: NSF-approval of CCF
2000: NSCL White Paper on Scientific Opportunities with Fast Fragmentation Beams from RIA
2001: CCF completed within budget and schedule -- start research with CCF
2002: NSAC LRP priorities: NSCL operations, RIA construction
2004: Construction of south high bay for assembly and R&D (MSU funded)
2006: NSCL White Paper for next generation RI facility (in progress)
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 3
Funding history
25
NSCL External Funding (M$)
Other External
DOE Funding
NSF Funding
Projection
CCF
construction
20
15
NSCL
construction
10
5
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
2005
2010
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 4
What is needed…?
• Different styles can be equally successful – no unique formula for
success
• Outstanding faculty striving to improve quality and attract the best in
the world
– Willingness to make tough tenure decisions (not easy!)
– Retain the best – they will almost certainly be courted aggressively by others
– Willingness to change
• Team spirit: Culture of rational collegiality and fairness
– The success of the lab is of paramount importance
– Overarching theme: “I will benefit, if my colleague is successful; it is bad for me if my
colleague fails (and stays)”
– Trouble makers are rarely worth having around (unless they are extremely brilliant,
i.e., much smarter than the rest)
• Flexible resources
– Keep reserve funds separately to be able to make significant adjustments
… Keep individual budgets tight
… Allow for modest amount of over-budgeting
… Discourage “year-end spending spree”
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 5
The vagaries of federally funded research
• New trends of federally funded research are influenced by fashions,
hype, new paradigms – and emerging community consensus
– Different societies may have different value systems and different perspectives
– US approach is less steady, but very flexible
– “Mean, lean fighting machine…” means there will always be pressure and discomfort
– Be a “national player”
• There is no stable equilibrium in research
– …like sharks, you have to move in order to feed…
– Accept a reasonable amount of risk without being foolhardy…
– Important to excel now and plan for the future (inherent conflict: must be able to say
“no” in an acceptable way)
– Don’t start what you cannot expect to complete, and complete what you started –
know when to call it a victory…
– Need free resources, managed centrally (and wisely)
… Federal funding comes in ups and downs – need to be able to deal with swings in
funding
… Must be able to moving quickly into new areas – trim all fat and keep a significant
resource pool centrally
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 6
What else is needed…?
• Most people like to do a good job
– … but lack of clear understanding of the organization’s goals and priorities
(long and short term) can lead to ineffective decisions – or inefficient decision
process
• Important to communicate clearly and effectively
– Short and to the point – long, wordy planning documents are fairly useless
– OK to be incomplete –
– Make sure top priorities are understood
• Clear understanding where to go
– Otherwise one ends up some place different…
– Verify that you are on track
• Most important, this requires a “vision”
– Empower best faculty
… Thinking out of the box is OK, but then decide…
– Accept inequality
– Recognize different time scales (1year, 3-5years, >5 years) and have plans
and activities for each of them…
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 7
Common goals and ability to pursue them
• At NSCL, we issue each year an updated “goals document” that is
developed with lab leadership and then communicated to staff
– Terse language – primarily in bullet form
– Total length < 12 pages
• Key elements of this goals document
– NSCL long term objectives: 6 bullets typically – that evolve over the years
– NSCL priorities for the year: some 4-6 priorities that we want to get done – that
address specific long term objectives
– Departmental goals: for each department some dozen goals and/or responsibilities
stated in bullet form – some are nearly time-invariant, others are task-specific
– A summary statement that delineates expectations for professional behavior and
generic implementation guidelines for department heads how to set goals for their
supervisees (largely boilerplate language that is a useful reminder)
• Department head performance reviews are based on goals document
• Expectation: all department heads must understand the overarching
goals for the lab and do their best to promote them – top management
gets involved if conflicts on priorities cannot be resolved by
conversations between department heads
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 8
Define roles and responsibilities
• For small organizations, this can be done rather informally –
especially when everybody is motivated to make lab succeed
• For larger organizations this needs clarity, and is best written down
– Need to define boundaries to avoid the “not my responsibility syndrome”
– Culture of not looking the other way
– Rigorous culture of “trouble reports” and professional follow-up
… Mistakes can occur – but better not twice
… Analyze what went wrong, to learn from mistakes (avoid pointing fingers)
• Work-flow management
– Daily coordination meetings for technical staff
… The left hand must know what the right hand is doing
… Even good intentions can do damage (elsewhere) if there is no coordination
– Safety: lock-out, tag-out process
• Project teams
– Define project leaders and teams
… Often from different departments (reduce empire building)
… Empower project leaders (budget control)
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 9
Conflict resolution
• Avoid inflammatory email
• Avoid heated discussions in the corridors (as much as possible)
• Disciplinary actions/advice should be confidential
• Preferred fast track decision mode: get all involved at the table,
delineate the problem, and request constructive advice on how to
move forward
• Lead group to realize best path forward and get buy-in
• Arrive at path forward and ensure that it is followed, but be open
to change if there are compelling reasons to change
• If needed, follow up by action memo
– For the record, but also a rather formal tool
– Puts everybody on notice that s/he will be held accountable
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 10
Making sure that priorities happen
• Doing (new) things requires money and people-time – control of these
resources in a prudent way is essential
• Money
– Establish project or task specific sub-accounts
– Empower project and task leaders by giving them budget authority – up to a limit
– Efficient procurement system with real-time controls
– Ensure that money can only be spent for the purpose it was budgeted
– Allow monitored transfers between accounts
– Hold an appropriate reserve to stay flexible
• People (Time is more than money)
– Decide what not to do
– Track activities to monitor progress, avoid dilution of effort, and remain compliant and
auditable
… Hourly effort reporting for technical staff, submitted weekly against project accounts –
to be signed by supervisor
… Faculty, postdocs and students can report with less resolution (needed for compliance
issues)
– Make system useful for supervisors
– Reward performance at raise time
… Identify “fast risers” and develop appropriate raise mechanism
• Added benefit
– Compare real costs with estimates: improved idea what it takes to do certain jobs or tasks
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 11
Performance metrics
• Good metrics allow monitoring changes and making needed adjustments
–
–
–
–
–
Avoid games to make metric look good
Prefer “hard metrics”
Set ambitious goals, but make achieving them realistic (expectation management)
Analyze what keeps you from meeting your goals and what it takes to meet them
Make organizational or cultural changes if needed – identify a “driver” of change
• NSCL metrics
–
–
–
–
–
–
Publications in high-quality, high-impact refereed journals
Invited talks at conferences
Federal funding
Number of users
User satisfaction
Facility use and availability
… Availability: what fraction of previously scheduled time is equipment running?
… Major issue for NSCL a few years ago
… Rigorous elimination of weak systems via re-engineering and strict follow-up
– Safety metrics: injury related losses of workdays
… A culture change still in the making
… New goal: ISO-14001 compliance
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 12
Good citizenship
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 13
External reviews
• Some are part of the business cycle
– NSF initiated reviews to validate quality of program and money needs
– Program advisory committees
• High-level external advice is useful – even if you believe you know it all
– Get the best people possible and pay them to do a good job
– Don’t try to play games – get best advice possible even if it is uncomfortable
– Example: operations advisory committee led to significant changes in running the lab
… Staff needed to buy in (external competition with ANL helped)
… Better lab now than before
– Example: NSCL diversity review committee
… Report just in – will analyze suggestions and develop an action plan
• Perhaps the biggest benefit
– Look at yourself carefully
– Write down your perspectives and plans
– Refine your plans
– Analyze what you can do better (and whether the benefit justifies the cost)
• Hopeful outcome: external validation of excellence…
– If not, make corrections even if they are painful
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 14
Examples of transformational changes
• In the past, the Cyclotron Lab (as it was originally called) made
several major changes in research direction
– Transition from a strong K50 research program (precision spectroscopy) to heavyion reaction studies (“Klumpenphysik”) with K500
– Competition for building next intermediate-energy heavy ion user facility (ORNL,
BNL, MSU) – resulting in the establishment of the NSCL
– Re-establishment of strong nuclear structure effort by committing major resources
to build S800 spectrograph
– Construction of Coupled Cyclotron Facility (CCF): new focus on research with rare
isotope beams
– Decision to compete for RIA (while still completing CCF) – the “ultimate” rare
isotope research machine
… DOE had announced that it would build RIA
… Main competitor: ANL – a national lab owned by DOE
… DOE institutional bias was strongly in favor of ANL
… Significant catch-up in technological know-how (superconducting linacs)
– This year: decision to “break rank” and propose a lower-cost (but also lower
performance…!) rare isotope facility that could be funded by NSF
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 15
Staff motivation
• Work morale is critical
–
–
–
–
–
Lab improvement committee (marginal success)
Party fund (ask faculty to donate to lab BBQ-fund)
Salary
Lab-wide meetings: convey what is important and what is happening
Make sure that credit is given fairly
• Avoid bureaucratic drag as much as possible (and
reasonable)
– Director’s job/attitude: get out of the way when thing are moving in the
right direction
– Empower people to to their job well
– Resolve emerging conflicts fairly, firmly, and politely
– No favorites
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 16
Staff & faculty development
• An area where we want to improve (work in progress)
–
–
–
–
–
Support staff training – and cross training if feasible
Bring in, train, and retain new leaders to maintain continuity
Manage transition from current leadership generation to next one
More formal mentoring of students and postdocs
Women and minorities: how to improve the work-environment?
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 17
New Focus (2006)
• Develop gas stopping and reacceleration capability at NSCL
– First in the world: from 0.5c to thermal speed and back up to 0.06c – in less
than 1/50 sec…
– Theory looks good – but a technical first and therefore (very?) risky
– Demonstrate leadership over competitor…
• After demise of RIA – approach NSF with NSCL upgrade
request (the rest of the world is not waiting…)
– Step 1: White Paper describing the science and technical implementation
– Step 2: Write Planning proposal (before end of the year)
– Step 3: get endorsement of national community – as it develops a new Long
Range Plan for Nuclear Science
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 18
Desired outcome
ISF (Isotope Science Facility) – to replace CCF in ~10 years
C.K. Gelbke, October 10, 2006, Slide 19