results of the fy2012 scientist survey compiled november 2011 presented by peter h. garbincius...
TRANSCRIPT
Results of the FY2012 Scientist Survey
compiled November 2011
presented by Peter H. GarbinciusFebruary 6, 2012
for the rest of the team:Dean Hoffer, Bridgette Fricks, Randy Herber,Panagiaotis Spentzouris, Jim Kowalkowski,
Gennadiy Lukhanin, Marc Paterno, et al.
2
5 year Scientist Surveys
Include: not-Include:Applications Physicists Research AssociatesApplied Scientists Guest ScientistsJoint Appointees VisitorsAssociate Scientists Engineering PhysicistsScientistsDivision Heads/DeputiesMembers of Directorate
3
Thank you for 100% participation!• Corrections for– Headcount => FTE-yrs– Missing Data, Missing People (VSP, resignations)– Start/Ending Dates– Name Differences between FYs– Specify popular “other” categories– WDRS defines “scientists” by a List-Serv!
• Projected assignments were self-proposed by individual scientists
– instructed to get agreement with supervisor before submitting – was this done? – show of hands, please!
4
• This is the third 5 year Survey
– FY 2009 historical data is incomplete and not checkable– FY2011 survey delayed to decision on Tevatron operations
• This report & EXCEL summary (without names) @http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OIP/OHAP/SciS/index.htm
• D/S/C Heads can request information with names
5
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fiscal Year
Total Scientists FTE-yrs
Doesn’t include anticipated new hires for FY 2012-2016
6
Numbers are nice, but…
• Maybe we should also look back at the names of the individuals who took the FY 2010 survey but who are no longer with us.
• What can we learn from the reasons that they left Fermilab?
7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Full
Tim
e Eq
uiva
lent
s FT
E-y
rs
Fiscal Year
FY 2012 Scientist Survey - Nov 2011
Intensity Frontier Exps
Energy Frontier Exps
Cosmic Frontier
Accelerators
Generic R&D
Theory
Lab Management
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Intensity Frontier Exps
Energy Frontier Exps
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Intensity Frontier Exps
Energy Frontier Exps
Intensity Frontier Accel *
Energy Frontier Accel *
Migration Energy Frontier => Intensity Frontier
10
0102030405060708090
100
all activities
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Experim
ents
Experim
ents
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CMS CDF DZero ATLAS Lepton Colliders
CD Common Computing
Energy Frontier Experiments
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Accelerators
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
* Proton Source and Main Injector/Recycler Split between Energy & Intensity Frontiers for FY 2010 & FY 2011
Includes
PIP
15
So how can we use this to plan…?• What about those scientists working on 5 or more activities?
Are they overly fragmented? Do their activities get a fair share?• Health of activities: FTE Sum, # Participants, average FTE per
participant, σ (FTE/participant) look at top 10• Both Accel + Exp for NOvA, Mu2e, g-2, and LBNE also CD
Common Computing has: Cosmic, Energy, Intensity Frontiers sections
• Is our scientist deployment appropriate? Effective?• …• Need “Lessons Learned” from executing this survey. Was it
cost-effective? Does the usefulness of the information offset the cost of performing the survey? -Also applies to OHAP survey.
17
What is optimal? 1@100% - 2@50% - 3@33% … 10@10%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
# Ac
tiviti
es
<FTE/scientist> - bin upper limit
FY 2012
DES & CMS
Energy Frontier Theory, Lattice QCD, and CDMS
NTF – 1 scientist
18
Example of a “top-10” scientist effort for FY2012 with a middlin’ <fte/scientist>
Are these low FTEs effective? maybe… depends on individuals & tasks
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
140.
05 0.1
0.15 0.
2
0.25 0.
3
0.35 0.
4
0.45 0.
5
0.55 0.
6
0.65 0.
7
0.75 0.
8
0.85 0.
9
0.95 1
# sc
ienti
sts
FTE contribution per scientist - bin UL
Mu2e - FY 2012avg = 0.36
22
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Intensity Frontier
Project X
Accelerator Ops
Calorimetry
Liquid Argon TPC
Public Outreach
Lattice Gauge Theory
D/S/C Administration
MINIBooNE
Accelerator Modeling
NASA NRA Grant
Other Astro Surveys
Main Injector
LHC
Pierre Auger
MINOS
Mu2e
COUPP
CDMS
NOvA
MINERvA
Dark Energy Survey
Particle Astro Theory
DZero
CDF
Theory
CMS
FTE-yrs
Research Associates - FY 2011 - FTLbased on 1768 hrs = 1 FTE-yr
Addendum after presentation:At my talk, it was noted that
Research Associates augment Fermilab Scientists on experiments. As a sample, here is a quick study, based on actual labor charges for only one year, FY 2011, of activities on which RAs worked.
In FY 2011 there were 57 RAs (headcount) corresponding to 55.8 FTE-yrs distributed as shown =>
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Act
ual F
Y201
1 FT
E-yr
s fr
om F
Y201
2 Sc
ienti
st S
urve
y
Projected FY2011 FTE-yrs from FY2011 Scientist Survey (Feb 2011 - 5 months into FY)
28feb2012: How well do projections compare to actuals? Look at FY2011 (use only scientists on staff for entire FY)
CMS
NOvA, DECam, LBNE, Project X, MAP, Energy Frontier Theory
Mu2eCDF
LAB Mgmt
DZero
SCRF