MPI-CBG LMF short strategy points
From BioDIP
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
#Stakeholders agreed that LMF will be over stretched in manpower due to | #Stakeholders agreed that LMF will be over stretched in manpower due to | ||
* too high equipment / staff ratio coming in 2010 | * too high equipment / staff ratio coming in 2010 | ||
| − | * basic teaching burden | + | * basic teaching burden being too high |
#Directors point out that increasing staff is not an option currently, after SAB report said no. | #Directors point out that increasing staff is not an option currently, after SAB report said no. | ||
| − | #Thus equipment must be | + | #Thus, equipment must be retired from LMF = Old/non "State of the Art" (SOTA) systems are to be released to homebases (basic microscopy on homebase equipment, to be maintained by homebase tech/staff trained by LMF?) or junked. |
| − | #Thus teaching burden must be reduced | + | #Thus, basic skills/knowledge teaching burden must be reduced = basics teaching must be covered by the graduate school(s) and outsourced teaching must be brought in (teachers and equipment organisation/setup. LMF should do advanced technology courses only. |
| − | ==Facility Aims== | + | ==Facility Aims - clarified after LMF advisory board meeting Feb 2010== |
| − | #Enable better quality and higher output of science than if facility did not exist | + | #Enable better quality and higher output of science from advanced microscopic imaging technology than if the facility did not exist. |
| − | # | + | #Only cutting edge tech - well trained knowledgeable staff - extract max potential from high tech |
| − | #A facility not a service | + | #A facility not a service - scientific involvement and cooperation in projects. |
#Equal access to all | #Equal access to all | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
* More small group teaching | * More small group teaching | ||
* 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. | * 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. | ||
| + | |||
#Retire older - less used - LMF equipment | #Retire older - less used - LMF equipment | ||
* Reduces equipment/staff ratio | * 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? | + | * How to choose what systems to retire? |
| + | #Number of users/groups using it (threshold less than 2-5?) | ||
| + | #Is it old, or no longer SOTA / cutting edge / sexy enough for lmf to bother with. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | #Reallocate staff burden on 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. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
# Redefine LMF Aims/Responsibilities | # Redefine LMF Aims/Responsibilities | ||
| − | * teaching and training | + | * teaching and training: |
| + | # Basic skills/knowledge teaching/training is not within in LMF scope/remit | ||
| + | # Advanced training / skill / knowledge are with in LMF remit and encouraged. | ||
| + | # Basics teaching must be outsourced (teachers and equipment setup for 44 predocs and 12 postdocs / techs per year or according to demand.) | ||
| + | # Basics training/teaching could (should?) be part of PhD programme / graduate schools. (perhaps even separate from the 4 week PhD course?) | ||
| + | |||
* research of new technology. | * research of new technology. | ||
* only or also support new or old technology | * only or also support new or old technology | ||
* Do or Don't get involved in user projects at the experimental design / equipment choice level (we believe not getting involved does not pay off) | * Do or Don't get involved in user projects at the experimental design / equipment choice level (we believe not getting involved does not pay off) | ||
Revision as of 19:14, 11 February 2010
WARNING!!!! ...no official policy here yet.... just LMF thinking about stuff....
Contents |
Summary of LMF advisory board meeting Feb 2010=
Here is a list of major points brough up in that meeting, and afterwards by individual stakeholders.
There will be more details than this short list lower in this page, once we put them there... That's where we will keep all the small and large suggestions as we get them.
- Stakeholders agreed that LMF will be over stretched in manpower due to
- too high equipment / staff ratio coming in 2010
- basic teaching burden being too high
- Directors point out that increasing staff is not an option currently, after SAB report said no.
- Thus, equipment must be retired from LMF = Old/non "State of the Art" (SOTA) systems are to be released to homebases (basic microscopy on homebase equipment, to be maintained by homebase tech/staff trained by LMF?) or junked.
- Thus, basic skills/knowledge teaching burden must be reduced = basics teaching must be covered by the graduate school(s) and outsourced teaching must be brought in (teachers and equipment organisation/setup. LMF should do advanced technology courses only.
Facility Aims - clarified after LMF advisory board meeting Feb 2010
- Enable better quality and higher output of science from advanced microscopic imaging technology than if the facility did not exist.
- Only cutting edge tech - well trained knowledgeable staff - extract max potential from high tech
- A facility not a service - scientific involvement and cooperation in projects.
- Equal access to all
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?)
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
Solutions
- 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
- More small group teaching
- 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.
- 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?
- Number of users/groups using it (threshold less than 2-5?)
- Is it old, or no longer SOTA / cutting edge / sexy enough for lmf to bother with.
- Reallocate staff burden on 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.
- Redefine LMF Aims/Responsibilities
- teaching and training:
- Basic skills/knowledge teaching/training is not within in LMF scope/remit
- Advanced training / skill / knowledge are with in LMF remit and encouraged.
- Basics teaching must be outsourced (teachers and equipment setup for 44 predocs and 12 postdocs / techs per year or according to demand.)
- Basics training/teaching could (should?) be part of PhD programme / graduate schools. (perhaps even separate from the 4 week PhD course?)
- research of new technology.
- only or also support new or old technology
- Do or Don't get involved in user projects at the experimental design / equipment choice level (we believe not getting involved does not pay off)
