Latest revision as of 23:52, 27 November 2010

WARNING!!!! ...no official policy here yet.... just LMF thinking about stuff.... after the LMF advisory board meeting of Feb 2010 and subsequent one to one discussions.

Note: There will be more details lower in this page in section 2, once we put them there... That's where we will keep all the ideas and suggestions as we get them.

[edit] Summary of LMF advisory board meeting Feb 2010

Here is a list of major points brought up in that meeting, and afterwards by individual stakeholders. Detailed meeting minutes are here MPI-CBG_advisory_board_meeting_minutes_Feb_2010

[edit] Problems Identified

1. Stakeholders agreed that LMF staff will be over stretched due to:
   • too high equipment / staff ratio coming in 2010
   • basic teaching burden being too high
2. Directors point out that increasing staff is not an option currently, after SAB report recommended against increase in facilities staff numbers.

[edit] Solutions floated during the LMF advisory board meeting and afterwards in one to one discussions

These ideas for solutions to the above problems should be in agreement with the aims/mission of the MPI-CBG services and facilities and of the LMF mission itself.

[edit] Reduction of equipment maintenance burden

Some of the following solutions to this point are contradictory, so we need to find compromise/agreement/direction in which ones to emphasise/keep/lose.

[edit] Non "Cutting Edge" Equipment could/should/must be retired from LMF

1. Old / Non "State of the Art" (SOTA) systems could be released to labs/homebases or junked.
   1. Still Bookable? Rechargeable? LMF Booking Credit Generating?
   2. Decisions on where to relocate/transfer non SOTA equipment could be made according to which lab/homebase uses them the most.

[edit] No basic microscopy in LMF - LMF Partners

1. Basic microscopy could/should/must be done on homebase equipment (existing, new or transfered from LMF)
   1. Basic microscopy systems would be maintained by homebase tech/staff who are LMF partners.
   2. RGLs would need to partly retask existing staff and/or hire techs to pick up this workload.
   3. LMF partners:
      1. must be in regular contact with and supported/trained by LMF in a partnership agreement on a per lab or homebase basis.
      2. should be techs (or other staff as appropriate to the particular lab) who are motivated to do the job as a priority in order to support the research in their lab/homebase.
      3. should not be distracted from this job by changes in their research or other goals (eg. not using the system anymore so not interested in maintaining it.)
   4. This LMF partner workload might generate LMF booking credits for RGLs who contribute manpower to maintenance of their open / bookable microscope systems.
   5. The LMF partners would be responsible for some or all of the following:
      1. Maintenance of the homebase/lab basic microscope system
      2. Training of new users on that system and dealing with day to day user queries.
      3. Advanced questions could/would/should/must be diverted to LMF team.

[edit] LMF SOTA systems could/should/must remain somewhat distributed over the building

1. Having some key SOTA systems close to users labs has benefits for users (if not for LMF staff)
2. There is not enough space for all the user required/demanded LMF SOTA equipment within the LMF area.
   1. Indeed, several SOTA systems are located on homebases (eg. SPIM, TIRF)
   2. Already some lower end systems have been placed in or moved to homebases/labs/basement

[edit] LMF could/should/must consist only of that equipment SOTA which is located in LMF area

1. This would remove several SOTA (and lower end) systems from LMF maintenance - eg. those which are in the basement and 3rd floor
   1. At lease some of those systems should?must? remain part of LMF, so space in LMF would have to be found for them (see above)
   2. But LMF is currently totally full. The last remaining free space (used for demos) has been eaten up by new equipment this year.
2. Further, this might leave cutting edge microscopy outside of the LMF less well supported by making LMF/lab collaboration links harder to establish and maintain.
3. In any case, LMF would be called in to help on non LMF equipment from time to time.

[edit] LMF could/should/must hire more HiWi students, since these do not appear as part of services and facilities full/half time staff numbers?

1. HiWi students already do very basic system maintenance, but more man power could also pick up more maintenance burden from full/half time LMF staff, eg difficult cleaning jobs/advanced system performance checks/Wiki updating for system info/data management infrastructure/...

[edit] Reduce Microscope System Training Burden

1. Homebase/lab LMF partners take care of training users on basic microscope systems in their lab area.
2. LMF could/should/must not be responsible for training users on basic microscope systems
3. LMF partners could/should give basic user training to their lab/homebase users on LMF advanced systems for which they have been trained specifically by LMF.

[edit] Reduction of Classroom Teaching Burden

[edit] Basic skills/knowledge teaching workload must be reduced:

1. Microscopy Basics teaching could be covered by the graduate school(s) and outsourced teaching would be brought in.
   1. External teachers and/or teaching equipment could be sourced for Microscopy Basics teaching by the Graduate School(s) instead of by LMF
2. LMF could concentrate on advanced technology courses and one to one advanced training on advanced LMF microscope systems.
3. LMF could provide a new user training procedure (as done by Safety and Library) to provide the bare essentials for subsequent introduction to LMF advanced imaging systems and homebase systems.
   1. Half day sessions every 2 weeks, covering:
      1. "What you need to know about light microscopy - but never knew to ask": Koehler illumination/Fluorescence/objective lenses/Numerical Aperture/spatial sampling/light sources/Detectors/etc.
      2. How to use the LMF (booking database / local rules etc)
      3. Laser and Biological Safety.

[edit] More points and details additional to the above

[edit] Facility Aims - clarified after LMF advisory board meeting Feb 2010

1. Enable better quality and higher output of science from advanced microscopic imaging technology than if the facility did not exist.
2. Only cutting edge tech - well trained knowledgeable staff - extract max potential from high tech
3. A facility not a service - scientific involvement and cooperation in projects.
4. Equal access to all

[edit] Status Quo - Recharge Mechanism

• Shows where demand is.
• Resources should follow demand
• Resources are limited and must be allocated according to demand and other criteria (eg?)

[edit] Problem - Coming Situation - Conundrum

• Increasing equipment/staff ratio = decreased user response time and inequality of service
• SAB says Services and Facilities should not increase in size (staff and/or equipment?)

SAB says no more staff in services and facilities - but recharge mechanism and equipment/staff ratio indicate requirement for more staff.

Food queue analogy: Equipment/Users = those in queue. Staff = Cooks. Even with more fancy ovens, cooks only push out food so fast. If more queuing items -> queue gets longer -> slower response time = user frustration and service inequality

[edit] Possible Solutions - some more realistic and well though out than others

1. Use staff resources more efficiently

• Wiki to share/retain info for staff and users
• Share user project information within the team (UP: emails to lmf and ipf)
• Internal training to increase "bus number"
• Small group teaching in advanced tech only (no basics - that must be outsourced)
• Retain trained staff - don't lose skill and knowhow - turnover in few years isn't good for the facility aims - training new staff eats time = longer response time.

1. Retire older - less used - LMF equipment

• Reduces equipment/staff ratio
• Some well used but lower tech systems are moved to homebases under their maintenance.
• How to choose what systems to retire?

1. Number of users/groups using it (threshold less than 2-5?)
2. Is it old, or no longer SOTA / cutting edge / sexy enough for lmf to bother with.

1. Reallocate staff burden from old systems to homebases.

• SAB report suggests against Facilities getting more staff
• But research groups could allocate (LMF trained?) staff resources to homebase low end microscopy system maintenance.

1. Redefine LMF Aims/Responsibilities

• Prioritise involvement in user projects at the experimental design / equipment choice level
• Research / Demo of new technology is a priority.
• Only support SOTA / new technology - other equipment -> homebases.
• Teaching and training:

1. Advanced training / skills / knowledge ARE with in LMF remit, and encouraged.
2. Basic skills/knowledge teaching/training is not within in LMF scope/remit
3. Basics teaching must be outsourced (teachers and equipment setup for 44 predocs and 12 postdocs / techs per year or according to demand.)
4. Basics training/teaching could (should?) be part of PhD programme / graduate schools. (perhaps even separate from the 4 week PhD course?)
5. Some advanced system introductions could be given by power users, or trained imaging technicians from the user's lab, following established LMF protocols for that job
6. Users would still need the 30 min LMF admin intro before their first Intro to an LMF system.

1. Out source LMF to an external body - as Scionics is to the Computer Dept.