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 2016Fiscal 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

8

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

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Cosmic Frontier

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

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

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Intensity 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.

16

fragmentationhow to diagnose health of an activity?

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

19

20

21

same “Top 9”

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-yrAddendum 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

Actu

al 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