ebook img

Big science : public investment in large scientific facilities PDF

2007·6 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Big science : public investment in large scientific facilities

i SSNWS National Audit Office Big Science: Public investment In large scientific facilities RT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL |H C 153 Session 2006-2007 |2 4 Janue OE ET ET ; ee oO General Collections The National Audit Office serutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is an Officer of the House of Commons. He is the head of the National Audit Office, which employs some 850 staff. He, and the National Audit Office, are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources. Our work saves the taxpayer millions of pounds every year. At least £8 for every £1 spent running the Office. National Audit Office Big Science: Public investment in large scientific facilities fan seine # € Bo MSF Lak ae OReMT yty e Se BTr ar! gonlyy wee me f NA Louw ce. LOAGMEHYIAg OS EINE Ordered by the LONDON: The Stationery Office House of Commons tok. oU) to be printed on 22 January 2007 SUIT 22502929944 REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL | HC 153 Session 2006-2007 |2 4 January 2007 This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act. John Bourn Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 15 January 2007 The National Audit Office study team consisted of: David Howes, Tim Bryant, Daisy Hodgson, Thomas Mirfield, Santosh Gora, Sacha Bakhtiar and Anushiya Kugathas, under the direction of Peter Gray. This report can be found on the National Audit Office web site at www.nao.org.uk For further information about the National Audit Office please contact: National Audit Office Press Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria London SW1W 9SP Tel: 020 7798 7400 Email: [email protected] © National Audit Office 2007 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART TWO Delivering projects PART ONE Prioritising investments in large Using the Gateway review process scientific facilities Project management Responsibilities for investment in large 10 Defining target outcomes and outputs scientific facilities Delivering on budget - capital costs Processes for prioritising and funding 1] large scientific facilities Delivering on budget - costs in use Evaluating scientific benefits Delivering on time Evaluating economic benefits Procurement strategies Evaluating costs Planning for operations Handling international collaborations Managing the demand for funds APPENDICES 1 Study methods 26 2 Performance measurement case study 28 — the ISIS neutron source 3 Project summaries 30 ENDNOTES 48 Photographs courtesy of Diamond Light Source Ltd, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Medical Research Council and Natural Environment Research Council. 1. The Government invests in a range of large 2 The Department has earmarked £830 million ‘scientific facilities to support and develop the nation’s from the central fund to 15 prioritised projects as set science base. Since 2000 the Department of Trade out in Figure 1 on page 6. Once prioritised, these and Industry's (the Department) Office of Science projects progress by presenting science and business and Innovation has established new arrangements cases to secure project approval. To date 10 projects to co-ordinate planning for large facilities. The main have received Departmental approval. Part 1 of this components are a road map describing large facilities report evaluates the strength of current processes for the which UK scientists are likely to need in the next 10 to identification, appraisal and prioritisation of potential 15 years, and a central fund (the Large Facilities Capital investments in large scientific facilities. Part 2 evaluates Fund) of around £100 million per year to support performance in delivering those facilities prioritised for investments in such facilities by Research Councils. The support. Ten projects examined in detail in this report are Research Councils are the Arts and Humanities Research outlined in Figure 2 on pages 8 and 9. In total they have Council (AHRC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences a capital budget of £1 billion. The study methods are Research Council (BBSRC), Council for the Central summarised at Appendix 1. Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Medical Research Council (MRC), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC). BIG SCIENCE: PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN LARGE SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES SUMMARY 3 __U ltimately, the value for money to be obtained 6 Our detailed conclusions are as follows: from these facilities will depend on the scientific Current arrangements identify potential projects over discoveries they help make and the effective exploitation a sensible planning horizon, allow prioritisation of that science. Our study concludes that, though such across the science base, and are delivering a outcomes will always remain uncertain, the current significant programme of new or replacement large arrangements should deliver a significant contribution to scientific facilities. The road map approach was the development of the nation’s scientific infrastructure. pioneered by the United Kingdom and has been The arrangements include the development of a common widely commended and adopted by other countries. plan known as the road map. This is co-ordinated by Research Councils UK — a partnership of the research m Prioritisation and assessment strongly reflect the councils — which addresses priorities which cut across primary policy objective of advancing scientific scientific disciplines. The road map has allowed scientific knowledge, but economic potential and possible priorities to be considered in a more systematic way exploitation by industry are less fully analysed. across disciplines. Working within HM Treasury’s Green | Current arrangements concentrate attention on Book guidance on project appraisal and evaluation, ' availability of capital funding to build facilities but special attention now needs to be paid to strengthening there are significant weaknesses in assessing their the information available to support choices between large ongoing costs, and the impact (normally in future facility projects. spending review periods) of meeting those costs on the balance of Research Council funded activities. 4 __ The projects we examined had generally been established in accordance with good practice principles m Atprioritisation estimates of costs and assessments and standards as set out in methodology advocated by of benefits are preliminary, yet priorities are not the Office of Government Commerce for managing reviewed if costs or benefits are significantly revised projects, called PRINCE2.? More consistent application of as business cases are prepared. Opportunities to that Office’s Gateway reviews to the key stages of every maximise the overall science benefits of the portfolio project, would ensure all teams benefit from wider sources of projects may thus be missed. of advice on areas such as project management, project m Procurement strategies have been adapted to costing and funding and procurement options. the particular circumstances of each project. Future projects can benefit from better sharing of 5 It is still early to assess fully the portfolio of projects experience and lessons learned. against delivery to time and budget. To date, performance against the approved capital budgets suggests some good m= More attention needs to be given to specifying from budget management, for example on the James Cook the start how the success of individual projects will research ship, but also projects where forecast capital be assessed and measured, drawing on examples costs already exceed budget even though still at an from some current and existing projects. This should early stage. More significantly, some project teams have enable a fuller assessment of value for money to significantly underestimated the likely running costs of be made once facilities are operational and inform facilities once they are delivered. In addition, more work appraisal of future potential projects. is needed by Research Councils to examine the potential impact of these facilities on the future demand for research funding, their capacity to support any new demand, or the effect of doing so on other areas of activity. Full use of these facilities will depend on research ideas competing successfully for research funding, through peer review, against other calls on limited Research Council budgets. As the new facilities come on stream, the Research Councils will need to monitor the impact on the demand for research funding and ensure lessons are learned for the appraisal of similar facilities in the future. BIG SCIENCE: PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN LARGE SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 900Z UWINyND 4D sD sNyDIS JOJO] joyido> (uo 3) Buluolss!wwo> c €8E Buluolss!wwos Alaaljap {sod O'Or UOHONISUOS JepUury 9'STL UOONJJSUOD JapU/) Cle PEPJOMD $}D.1jUO> Z9Z% WIM suoyoHOBEU Uy OS9 peajesd seppiq UOHONSUOD JepU : Pun LU OrBeujoiAu oBgadwjapasiiygnj sd 0id Oj osLdop0i jaoojupui4dlj ou0ddd n eeeB uijoudAeeBwaiejigon .dyos0 id peulwipuaaljp seoidpoyos iw o lg 90' 0SB9u rppuenxyJ owine O'16Beu ippuanxyz owins Q'0=¢ Buipunpye yinwine 0'06 Buipun, pexiowipe OCS Buipuny pexinwioe 0'1 S°670'7 9 1 6 JBUIO joyido> (uonjiw 3) OS 00 OO Ze 00 00 ; O'el 00 02 00 yo4uo Au ny S8 lOaWs 00 00 00 €°7 p i u youpasay Joyidp> jIoun (uo 3) Ol? ee ct VEG 08 Z9 O€l : Gg 0°88 O'€Z Ll jpeu6Bpp ng 00 éZl Zi Z'89 CO} 90€9 o > sayiiop4 e610] += youpasey pdapuny joyido> jlounoy fe6png ,Buipun4 ,Buipun4 pUOUDIO]|V (uo 3) 9 80€ 2}: 1/8)8) OCC YIN GON Bhieo COL 1D 0'0Z YIN O'S OaSds : GL DuVdd yw0- 29 ySOargie /DDYYWD aDe yw YIDDc ic rea!) 877 OuSa arc 1DD er1z YIN fone 9°0€8 ] L jO 1D2), z}aloig uoypsyold y‘¢ (Il PUD | SesDYd) UO4osyoUAg puowDIg i sles OOD sawn diyg youpesay jpAoy fofoy dow SJUBWNASU! JO A}INs {SJ PUD UOHOIS JeHID] Puz Sjs| adAjojoig 2Du!] AlaAooday ABseu GUOHDIS YoiDesey SdsDjUY AB||OH] (Buyndwod pug y81H) YoLd3H aspyd) Juawiuedxy Buljoo> uoljpsiuo) uon dow p00! £00Z (| 284d) a euoc® | von AJsosO DAyBjDonIjDOoegljDgo] W eJ;ONJ}yOo yW{sIu/yUD Y9 H youxpeeBjsudalpwyani onjsjo oun!s yso4yu! [OaU1jO0NH44|O YDSNUOY[]I Y PoEsWD asay udAededy0-o1yiv4xon 41g89 8{90{1]1 34 4X) udyeBid}o4ei snu3nB wusgyo2ny2dilewMgoje > g C00?O O1 pjojyaeusdAnge onyi ng ee sjs| puz joBuD] U— OJ PUddaBsJI NJSO SJUSWINISU! a1ydoiBoyuonineasds9ie yyg J>40L :201N0g JOUONORJYI PNW adIYOC sISAJjOO UD YoIDasay [IOUNODDI DP 6 BIG SCIENCE: PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN LARGE SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendations 6 The Science and Technology Facilities Council, which will be established in April 2007, should: 1 The Office of Science and Innovation, Research m= =promote awareness of knowledge and lessons Councils UK and individual Research Councils should from planning, procurement and operation of large strengthen project appraisal by: scientific facilities by bringing project teams or m ensuring the production of more consistent estimates members together to share experiences and training; of costs and assessments of benefits at the initial point of prioritisation; and mw develop and promote a consistent means of applying the science performance management framework m ensuring that if a project’s expected costs or benefits developed by the Office of Science and Innovation in at business case are significantly different from those 2005 to large facilities planning and operation; and initially anticipated, its priority is reconsidered at the mw use its own skills base and partnerships with next available opportunity. external providers to improve other Research 2 The Office of Science and Innovation, Research Councils’ access to high-grade project management Councils UK and individual Research Councils should skills for large projects. give greater attention to the future financial sustainability 7 The Department ofT rade and Industry should work of projects. Project proposals should be based on realistic estimates of their ongoing costs, the sources of funding with Research Councils to ensure the Government-wide available to cover those costs and any implications for Gateway review process is applied to large facility projects consistently and with a level of independence appropriate other activities funded by Research Councils. to their assessment of risk. 3 Research Councils UK should ensure that the road 8 Large facility project teams should build on map differentiates projects where there is a choice of procurement lessons from previous projects to secure location from those where no such choice is practically improvements in value for money. Across the portfolio of available. Research Councils UK and the Office of Science projects there is scope: and Innovation should provide Research Councils with guidance to aid preparation of comparisons of different m to undertake a deeper analysis of risks so that locations where a choice is available. project teams can separate those which should be transferred to a contractor and those which should 4 _ To improve the transparency of investment decisions, be retained; and provide a better opportunity for scrutiny or challenge m to make greater use of incentives to encourage by scientific and industrial stakeholders, Research the timely delivery of key components or Councils UK should publish the outcomes of and rationale project milestones; behind the prioritisation of proposals as part of the large facilities road map. The rationale should include m to extend the use of pain/gain share conditions commentary on the implications for the overall research in contracts, thereby increasing the incentives for programme of supporting the construction and operation contractors to contain costs; of prioritised projects. m to improve the packaging of work by considering the separation of those elements where there is 5 The Office of Science and Innovation, Research a limited pool of potential suppliers from less Councils UK and individual Research Councils should: demanding elements; and m ~~ ensure an evaluation of the nature and scale of m= for more active promotion of the work on offer the economic impacts derived from building and to potential suppliers who might otherwise be operating large scientific facilities, once they have deterred from bidding by the scientific nature of been brought into service, is undertaken; and the overall project. m _ provide guidance to project teams on assessing and presenting anticipated economic impacts of large facility proposals. BIG SCIENCE: PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN LARGE SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES Fs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ea |T he National Audit Office looked at ten projects in detail’ Diamond Synchrotron Location: Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Oxfordshire. (Diamond Light Source Ltd) Budget and Funding: £145.6 million for the first phase, with Diamond is a 24 cell, £127.9 million from the Large Facilities Capital Fund. 3 giga electron volt, 3rd Delivery: The experimental programme is set to begin in generation synchrotron light October 2008. source producing intense x-rays and shorter wavelength emissions for research in the Energy Recovery Linac biological, physical, environmental and engineering sciences. Prototype (Council for the The synchrotron is being built by, and will be operated by, a joint Central Laboratory of the venture company Diamond Light Source Ltd, partly owned by the Research Councils) Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils and partly by the Wellcome Trust. The Prototype is phase one of the 4th Generation Light Location: Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Oxfordshire. Source (4GLS) project. The project will use free electron lasers and Budget and Funding: £383.2 million for Phases | and Il, with synchrotron radiation covering the terahertz to soft X-ray energy £308.6 million from the Large Facilities Capital Fund. regimes for ultra fast dynamic studies of matter. The first phase has been designed to address some of the principal technical Delivery: Phase |, including the first seven beamlines, is due to challenges that would be faced in a full 4GLS facility. begin operations in January 2007 and Phase Il, including the next 15 beamlines, is due to be‘completed in 2011. Location: Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, Cheshire. Budget and Funding: £21.3 million, with £10.1 million from the Royal Research Ship James Large Facilities Capital Fund. Cook (Natural Environment Research Council) Delivery: Full operational energy recovery by April 2007. The RRS James Cook is a Halley VI Antarctic Research replacement for the RRS Station (Natural Environment Charles Darwin and is Research Council) sponsored by the Natural Environment Research Council. Its users will be marine scientists based, for example, at UK universities The project involves the building and the Research Council’s National Oceanographic Centre of the Halley VI Antarctic in Southampton. research station and the Location: Worldwide but mainly Atlantic waters — built in Poland removal of the existing station, Halley V. Halley provides a unique and Norway. location for monitoring climate, ozone and space weather and forms a key part of the UK’s regional presence. The primary users Budget and Funding: £40 million, of which £25 million will come of Halley VI will come from within the British Antarctic Survey, an from the Large Facilities Capital Fund. institute of NERC. Delivery: The ship was delivered to the National Oceanographic Location: Antarctic Ice Shelf. Centre in August 2006. Budget and Funding: £34.7 million for both construction of Halley VI (26.2 million) and decommissioning of Halley V (8.5 million). ISIS Neutron Source, Second Target Station (Council for the The Large Facilities Capital Fund is providing £20 million Central Laboratory of the for construction. Research Councils) Delivery: Delivery of Halley VI and decommissioning of Halley V The ISIS Neutron and Muon by end of 2009-10 Antarctic summer. Scattering Facility is the most powerful neutron producer of its kind in the world. The first phase of the project involves supplementing the existing facilities with a second target station and the installation of a first suite of instruments. It will enable the ISIS science programme to attract new users from the key research areas of soft matter, advanced materials and bio-science. Source: National Audit Office NOTES 1 Project summaries set out the position as at autumn 2006. More detail on each of the ten pak is oreidetsi n ‘Apponalc3a. oe 2 £67 million for the redevelopment of the Institute for Animal Health is being provided by the Ree Ss Environment, er aa RuralA cs. 8 BIG SCIENCE: PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN LARGE SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.