| 9 | | 2. Budget discussion: KL/CW/All \\ |
| | 9 | - Brief summary of proposal: |
| | 10 | - Document complete and out for final comments. |
| | 11 | - Agreement with STFC on budget: from £2M anticipated from Infrastructure Fund, ~£1.5M has been allocated to ITRF WP1 (LhARA) and ~£0.33M allocated to DL/TD contributions to LhARA conventional facilities and costing. |
| | 12 | - Working methods document is being finalised. Now need to work on allocations to LhARA WPs so that we can write a codicil to the "Working Methods" document that defines what will be delivered for the resource coming through the ITRF line. |
| | 13 | |
| | 14 | 2. Budget discussion: KL/CW/All |
| | 15 | |
| | 16 | - CW presented a summary of discussion of how to distribute the £1.5M allocated ti ITRF WP1. A broad agreement on how the money should allocated was arrived at: |
| | 17 | - Allocate resource to address key risks in the project. We reviewed the risk register and noted the critical risks in the various WPs. |
| | 18 | - We noted that: |
| | 19 | - The ion-acoustic dose-profile measurement is critical to the programme, i.e. there is risk to the LhARA programme if it is not made to work; and |
| | 20 | - That the application of the ion-acoustic technique is sufficiently broad that there is opportunity to raise resource for this activity from sources outside the ITRF envelope. |
| | 21 | - We also noted that the present request for WP2 amounts to half the available resource. |
| | 22 | |
| | 23 | * We agreed that KL and CW proceed on the following basis: |
| | 24 | - Allocations must be in line with the project risk register; |
| | 25 | - Resources must be retained to ensure LhARA Project Manager has sufficient time to carry out his role; |
| | 26 | - The opportunity for additional resource to be raised to support WP4 from outside the programme be factored into the WP4 allocation. |
| | 27 | |
| | 28 | * KL and CW will work to develop the details of the allocations with the work-package managers. |
