LEIF	Summarising Report	Date : 22.3.2002
		Author : B. Huber
		Identifier :

Summarising report about the NMB-meeting in Paris

Diffusion: Meeting-participants

Members of the NMB

Report:

The meeting of the network management board (NMB) of LEIF took place at the Siège of CEA in Paris during the 15^th of March from 8h30 to 17h00. Three topics have been discussed, the LEIF-activities in 2002, the quality referential for the LEIF-network as well as possible strategies concerning the 6^th framework programme of the European Commission.

Participants:

F. Aumayr, TU-Wien (repl. HP. Winter)

H. Cederquist, Stockholm University

B. Huber, CIRIL Caen

P. Hvelplund, Aarhus University

H. Lebius, CIRIL Caen

T. Märk, LFU Innsbruck

R. McCullough, QUB Belfast

R. Morgenstern, KVI Groningen

Ö. Skeppstedt, MSL Stockholm

N. Stolterfoht, HMI Berlin

R. Trassl, JLU Giessen (repl. E. Salzborn)

T. Zouros, FORTH Heraklion

Invited experts:

R. Duc, DSM/Dir-CEA (quality)

C. Giry, DSE-CEA (6. PCRD)

C. Borel, DSE-CEA (6. PCRD)

A) Activities 2002

- Updating of the LEIF-homepage

It has been reminded that several groups still have to construct or improve their individual LEIF-page (CIRIL, ERI, MSL, HMI). In the case of FRT this page is not always accessible.

The standard procedure for measuring ion beam intensities should be documented on the page ‘protocols’ (CEA).

The cone-trap should be documented on the page ‘apparatus’ (MSL).

The maps of the different infrastructures, which are partly available on the individual homepages, should become accessible on the page ‘facilities’ (Information has to be supplied by the infrastructures to the Web administrator).

The rules for the production of the LEIF-Newsletter should be defined more clearly in relation with the quality referential (FRT).

Further topics have been suggested to be included on the webpage, like a list of ongoing seminars, or the presentation of talks on the individual homepages.

- Money transfer

The distribution of the second money transfer, which arrived in Grenoble at the 16^th of December 2001, has been retarded due to Christmas vacation and the fact that the administration of CEA-Grenoble was not operational in January and partly February due a change of the administration computer system. In the meanwhile the problem should be fixed.

- 2^nd Annual report

It has been reminded that the 2^nd annual report is due to the end of March. Those groups who have not yet sent the relevant information as well as the form E1 of the cost statement are asked to react urgently.

- 3^rd Annual meeting in Igls

The proposed meeting dates (29^th of June to 2^nd of July) have been confirmed. In addition to the original planning, the Saturday morning will be reserved for the quality club (8h30 to 12h30), discussing the details of the quality referential (see further below). Persons who are participating in this activity are required to arrive on Friday evening, the 28^th of June. The afternoon of Saturday is reserved for social events (hiking, opera) or the general arrival of participants. The prices for one day/night will be of the order of 100 Euro. Early registration is recommended.

- ECR-control by LABVIEW

N. Stolterfoht proposed to organise a 2-day meeting in Berlin concerning the controlling of ECR ion sources by the Labview programme and the hardware developed at the HMI Berlin by J. Bundesmann. The aim of the meeting is to spread out the knowledge on this subject between different groups. The developed system will be explained and possible modifications will be discussed. The number of participants should be limited to 1 person/group. The proposed dates are 3./4. or 10./11 of May. The interested persons should communicate their preference to N. Stolterfoht by the 1^st of April.

- Emittance measurements

The use of a common emittance measuring device, originally developed at the Giessen University, which could be used by several groups on an alternative basis, has been discussed. In order to test the feasibility and to locate possible problems with might be due to the transport and the co-ordination it has been agreed that Giessen and Belfast will make an exchange and give a report afterwards.

- Prioritised list of developments

The initiated list has been recognised as an efficient tool to clarify our future efforts. It might be useful to distinguish more clearly between the pure interest in a given development and the concrete plans to invest money and manpower in specific subjects (classification in A and B). Furthermore, it seems to be necessary to include also ‘outside users’ in these developments.

B) Quality

The discussion about the preparation of a quality referential has been preceded by 2 contributions: i) H. Lebius recalled the actual status of the quality project and mentioned several examples where the application of quality has led to an improved efficiency (for example in the field of communication). ii) R Duc gave an overview on the basic principles of quality to be applied in an European network and basic research in general. He made clear that the creation of a quality referential does not mean more work and more administration as not all activities require the definition of rules, but only those which we feel are important to us and our network. Therefore, it is up to us to identify those fields where we think that quality is important and might improve our work.

The following discussion started with a ‘tour de table’, where all groups agreed on the importance of quality and its implementation in our network. With the aid of different examples, we discussed the fundamental questions of how to apply quality and how to control its efficiency. It was clearly stated that a quality referential will enable us to be successful in negotiations with our own hierarchy as well as with the European Commission concerning the next framework programme.

In a preceding meeting (13.3.2002; R. Duc, A. Muret, H. Lebius, B. Huber) an improved list of quality subjects, characteristic for our network, has been established, which is given in the annex of this report. This proposed list, which should serve as a basis for the LEIF-quality referential, has been discussed very briefly in the meeting, and we agreed that all groups and participants should comment on this list. They should identify those fields which seem to be less important to them and define other fields where they see some need for improvement. The corresponding comments to the quality list are expected to be sent to the co-ordinator by the 8^th of April 2002.

As a first step in applying quality to the 6 defined LEIF-projects a specific form has been developed which will be sent to you by H. Lebius. The persons in charge for the different projects are asked to specify or to redefine the activities in their field and to give a timely schedule for the different actions. The filled-out forms are expected by the co-ordinator at the 8^th of April 2002.

Different participants have agreed to define specific rules for certain quality subjects. The names of the ‘volunteers’ are given in the annex 1 behind the different subjects. It has been agreed that each of them will develop some ideas in this field and will supply a written proposal by the 1^st of June 2002. This will allow as to prepare a first version of a quality referential which will be discussed in detail on Saturday 29^th of June during the annual meeting. A definitive list of the contributing persons will be established and sent out after the comments concerning the quality list have been received by the co-ordinator (8^th of April).

C) 6^th frame work programme of the European Commission

The discussion concerning future strategies has been initiated by three contributions:

- a brief definition of the actual network LEIF (co-ordinator)

- an overview and characterisation of the 6^th framework programme (C. Giry)

- a comparative description of the network Lasernet (co-ordinator)

During the discussion it became clear that our activities are not strongly covered by the different priority fields, defined in the 6^th framework programme:

Genomics and biotechnology for health

Information Society technologies

Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences

Aeronautics and Space

Food quality and Safety

Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems

Citizens and Governance in a knowledge-based society.

On the other hand, possibilities exist in the co-ordination of activities on a European scale. In particular the so-called Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives (I³) which are close to our actual funding. The I³ can be defined as an ensemble of infrastructures or laboratories that self-organises into a unified body to propose services on a European scale and RTD-projects. The average funding will be of the order of 2 to 3 MegaEuro, over a period of 5 years. The I³ funding has the aim to strengthen and to develop the research infrastructures, to combine networking with the supporting of research activities. In particular the knowledge should be spread out towards users, industry and small SMEs.

Possible activities within the I³ are the following:

Access to the infrastructure

Networking

Administrating

RTD-projects

Exchange of persons

Training

Vulgarisation of science

.......

The long term objectives have to defined in the first proposal, as well as the budget. However, a detailed planing of the activities is required for the first 2-years period only. The proposed scheme will be much more flexible than the actual one. In particular, it seems that the I³ has to

demonstrate its capability to self-organise itself in an efficient and convincing manner (-> professional management), to be open to outside groups in the corresponding field, which could be integrated in the network during the running period, and to fulfil high standards in the level of research controlled by an competent referee committee. Altogether this requires a high quality standard in the I³ activities.

Some specific htmlects have been discussed:

Possibility of Marie Curie fellowships,

Possible contacts with biology-RTDs,

Training for postdocs and PhD-students,

Links to industry (reactive scattering, ions in low charge states),

Characterisation of different infrastructures.

Concerning the infrastructures it has been pointed out that the complementarity of different sites might be a good argument in a future proposal, rather than the idea of a pool of similar infrastructures. Therefore, we decided that all infrastructures should supply a ‘marketing form’, where the strong points of the infrastructures, its characteristic features or unique instrumentation is specified. This marketing-page should be sent to the co-ordinator by 8^th of April.

Finally, we agreed that we should form a small working group (4 to 5 persons) with the aim to prepare our demand for the next framework programme (to be formed during the 3^rd annual meeting).

D) Divers

In order to further increase the flux of information and the exchange of news between the different partners, it has been proposed to include in the programme of our meetings a session ‘News-exchange’, where the different groups present recent events, activities or developments on an informal basis.

E) Summary of deadlines:

Persons interested in the Labview control meeting in Berlin should communicate their preferred date to N. Stolterfoht by the 1^st of April.

(potential participants)

Comments to the quality list are expected to be sent to the co-ordinator by the 8^th of April 2002.

(meeting participants and volunteers)

The filled-out forms concerning the LEIF-projects are expected by the co-ordinator at the 8^th of April 2002.

(project leaders)

Proposal for quality rules in different fields by the 1^st of June 2002.

(persons identified in Annex 1)

The ‘marketing-page’ should be sent to the co-ordinator by 8^th of April.

(infrastructures)

Annex 1:

Structure of the Quality Referential:

1. management of the network LEIF

1.0 general project management

(financial procedures, personal involvement, reporting) Huber

1.1 general communication rules Huber

1.2 procedures for updating the LEIF homepage Zouros

1.3 procedures for the preparation of the newsletter Zouros

1.4 organisation of meetings Huber

1.5 preparation of reports Huber

1.6 procedures for beam time distribution Lebius, Muret, Duc

1.7 co-ordination with local committees Lebius

1.8 list of prioritised developments Lebius

1.9 documentation methods Huber

2.0 evaluation of methods and feedback scenarios Huber

2.1 follow-up of defined actions Huber

2. Organisation of the different LEIF-projects

(1 page with aims, milestones, dates in particular for 2002/2003, perspectives, quality criteria as for example availability of results,..., see Annex 2)

2.1 information policy Zouros

2.2 on-line access Winter

2.3 multi-coincidence detectors and common tools Lutz

2.4 ion beam production Hvelplund

2.5 beam deceleration and diagnostics Morgenstern

3. quality rules for infrastructures

3.1 ion beam characteristics (beam intensities, ...) Salzborn/ Trassl

3.2 response to user needs (user committee) Stolterfoht/McCullough

3.3 procedure for updating facility-webpages Zouros

3.4 facility-provided systems (standardisation of hardware,...) Skeppstedt

3.5 RAMS (reliability, availability, maintenance, security) Aumayr

3.6 service for users Stolterfoht

4 organisation of the research in the laboratory

4.1 definition of experiments as projects Skeppstedt, Muret, Duc

(aims, time schedule, main power, costs, risks, quality

animator _,...)

4.2 clear and transparent documentation Morgenstern

(laboratory books, traceability, data security...)