Revision as of 17:31, 15 February 2010

WARNING!!!! ...no official policy here yet.... just LMF thinking about stuff....

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.

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

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.

Solutions floated during the LMF advisory board meeting and afterwards in one to one diuscussions

1. Non "Cutting Edge" Equipment must be retired from LMF.
   • Old / Non "State of the Art" (SOTA) systems could be released to labs/homebases or junked.
   • Basic microscopy could/should be done on homebase equipment, maintained by homebase tech/staff who are close LMF partners.
   • These LMF partners must be closely associated with and supported/trained by LMF in a partnership agreement on a per lab or homebase basis. They 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. RGLs would need to partly retask existing staff (techs) and/or hire staff/techs to pick up this workload.
   • The LMF partners would be responsible for some or all of the following:
     • maintenance of the homebase/lab basic microscope system
     • training of new users on that system and dealing with day to day user queries. Advanced questions would be diverted to LMF team.
     • LMF partners could gice system intro training to new users from their lab/homebase on LMF advanced systems.

1. 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. Basics teaching and pedagogical equipment organisation/setup must be outsourced. LMF should only do advanced technology courses and one to one advanced training on advanced LMF microscope systems.
2. LMF might consist only of that equipment and staff which is located in LMF area.
   • This might leave cutting edge microscopy outside of the LMF less well supported by making LMF/lab collaboration links harder to establish and maintain.
   • In any case, LMF would be called in to help on non LMF equipment from time to time.

Details of points above

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

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

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 (but users would still need the 30 min LMF admin intro before any Intro to an LMF system.

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