Core lab services vs assay development

[leoncio vergara]

This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
recover some of the costs...  

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio

[Romin, Yevgeniy/Sloan Kettering Institute]

Dear Leoncio

Right now we are working to resolve the same exact issue in our facility and are considering the same issues of fairness.  From my experience it seems that even if an algorithm or a protocol has already been written, it has to be at least slightly modified for each new user's specific project.  While it does seem somewhat unfair to the first user that brings a new project to charge him for the development, the truth is it is their project that initiated the development and made you and your staff put in the extra hours and resources.  We usually just keep track of how much time is spent on the development of image analysis for each user, and charge them for that.  And while the rest of the users benefit from that, very rarely does the exact same algorithm wind up being used for all the consecutive users, so they would get charged for further R&D of the algorithm.

I apologize if I could not be of more help - this issue is a difficult one to resolve, some compromise has to be reached.  If you are looking to standardize your charges for R&D, doing it on a case-by-case basis would be difficult.



---------------------------------------------------
Yevgeniy Romin

Digital Microscopist
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Molecular Cytology Core Facility
1275 York Ave. Box 333
New York, NY 10065
Tel.[phone]
Fax. [phone]
---------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Leoncio Vergara
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:42 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Core lab services vs assay development

This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
recover some of the costs...

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio


 
     =====================================================================
     
     Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be
     privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under
     applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
     recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
     message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
     reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this
     communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited.  If
     you have received this communication in error, please notify the
     sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this
     message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your
     computer.

[Phillips, Thomas E.]

Our core routinely charges for scope time and any assisted use in which we are simply modifying an existing protocol to fit the specific needs of the client. These would be relatively minor optimizations that would have a high probability of success with minimum development. But if we are developing a technique from scratch, especially one that will need the type of experience that can only come from hands on efforts and we think it will be of use to other clients in the future, we don't charge for all of our time until we are collecting actual data. We even sometimes identify projects we want greater expertise in and search out a client to develop/fund the tissues and reagents so that we can have real tissues and subsidized supplies to work out a protocol. When we are running a "slow clock" on client charges due to development, the project doesn't get highest priority and needs to be done at whatever time and pace fits our regular workload. Once usable images are being collected, we start charging the full rate (which is still subsidized at the moment but there are storm clouds on the horizon). This seems like something that will always need to be considered on a case by case basis.

Thomas E. Phillips, Ph.D
Professor of Biological Sciences
Director, Molecular Cytology Core
2 Tucker Hall
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211-7400
573-882-4712 (office)
573-882-0123 (fax)
[hidden email]

http://www.biology.missouri.edu/faculty/phillips.html
http://www.biotech.missouri.edu/mcc/


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Yevgeniy Romin
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:54 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

Dear Leoncio

Right now we are working to resolve the same exact issue in our facility and are considering the same issues of fairness.  From my experience it seems that even if an algorithm or a protocol has already been written, it has to be at least slightly modified for each new user's specific project.  While it does seem somewhat unfair to the first user that brings a new project to charge him for the development, the truth is it is their project that initiated the development and made you and your staff put in the extra hours and resources.  We usually just keep track of how much time is spent on the development of image analysis for each user, and charge them for that.  And while the rest of the users benefit from that, very rarely does the exact same algorithm wind up being used for all the consecutive users, so they would get charged for further R&D of the algorithm.

I apologize if I could not be of more help - this issue is a difficult one to resolve, some compromise has to be reached.  If you are looking to standardize your charges for R&D, doing it on a case-by-case basis would be difficult.



---------------------------------------------------
Yevgeniy Romin

Digital Microscopist
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Molecular Cytology Core Facility
1275 York Ave. Box 333
New York, NY 10065
Tel.[phone]
Fax. [phone]
---------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Leoncio Vergara
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:42 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Core lab services vs assay development

This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
recover some of the costs...

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio


 
     =====================================================================
     
     Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be
     privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under
     applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
     recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
     message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
     reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this
     communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited.  If
     you have received this communication in error, please notify the
     sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this
     message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your
     computer.

[rjpalmer]

I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.  You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson that must be frequently re-learned.

This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
recover some of the costs... 

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio

-- 

Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
Bldg 30, Room 310
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]

[Armstrong, Brian]

We get around this by simply not charging for any development time. We only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr Phillips’ suggestion).

There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time you help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.

 

Cheers,

 

Brian D Armstrong PhD

Light Microscopy Core Manager

Beckman Research Institute

City of Hope

Dept of Neuroscience

1450 E Duarte Rd

Duarte, CA 91010

626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx

---

From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

 

I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.  You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson that must be frequently re-learned.

 

 

This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
recover some of the costs... 

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio

 

 

-- 

Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
Bldg 30, Room 310
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Boswell, Carl A - (cboswell)]

If it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data (as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no charge.  If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session at no charge to make sure everything is optimized.  After that, full charge.  My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost of running it needs to be recovered.  If someone is trying to develop either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.

 

A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where the system is on day and night and no one is tending it.  How does one justify a $3000 charge for one experiment?  Even at half the charge, it is still $1500.  I guess the experiment had better work.  Anybody have procedures for this?

 

C

 

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM

Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

We get around this by simply not charging for any development time. We only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr Phillips’ suggestion).

There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time you help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.

 

Cheers,

 

Brian D Armstrong PhD

Light Microscopy Core Manager

Beckman Research Institute

City of Hope

Dept of Neuroscience

1450 E Duarte Rd

Duarte, CA 91010

626-256-4673 x62872

http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx

---

From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

 

I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.  You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson that must be frequently re-learned.

 

 

This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
recover some of the costs... 

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio

 

 

-- 

Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
Bldg 30, Room 310
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Judy Trogadis-2]

For time-lapse studies, I charge a pre-established fixed rate per time-lapse, regardless of how long it is - I don't have any user running experiments for longer than 48 hours. From my point of view, even though we can use the money, the primary aim of the Facility is to help researchers get good results so I don't want to place a user in a position of cutting short an important experiment because their funding is low. Good data, good papers, more funding, more usage.

I hope my boss is not reading this.
Judy



Judy Trogadis
Bio-Imaging Coordinator
St. Michael's Hospital, 7Queen
30 Bond St.
Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada
ph:  416-864-6060  x6337
pager: 416-685-9219
fax: [phone]
[hidden email]


>>> Carl Boswell <[hidden email]> 7/27/2010 4:37 PM >>>
Re: Core lab services vs assay developmentIf it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data (as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no charge.  If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session at no charge to make sure everything is optimized.  After that, full charge.  My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost of running it needs to be recovered.  If someone is trying to develop either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.

A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where the system is on day and night and no one is tending it.  How does one justify a $3000 charge for one experiment?  Even at half the charge, it is still $1500.  I guess the experiment had better work.  Anybody have procedures for this?

C

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Armstrong, Brian
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM
  Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development


  We get around this by simply not charging for any development time. We only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr Phillips' suggestion).

  There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time you help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.

   

  Cheers,

   

  Brian D Armstrong PhD

  Light Microscopy Core Manager

  Beckman Research Institute

  City of Hope

  Dept of Neuroscience

  1450 E Duarte Rd

  Duarte, CA 91010

  626-256-4673 x62872

  http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
  Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
  To: [hidden email]
  Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

   

  I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.  You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson that must be frequently re-learned.

   

   

    This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
    microscopy service cores.

    In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
    the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
    already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
    additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
    straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
    techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
    as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
    unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
    learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
    service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
    have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
    recover some of the costs...

    I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
    handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
    according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
    about the subjectivity...

    I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

    Thanks in advance..

    Leoncio

   

   

-- Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
  Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
  Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
  Bldg 30, Room 310
  30 Convent Drive
  Bethesda MD 20892
  ph 301-594-0025
  fax [phone]


  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
  This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alison J. North]

Hi Carl,

The way we handle long timelapses is to have the charging software set
up so that after 4 hours of continuous login, the charges automatically
drop to 25% of their normal rate for the remainder of the session.  (It
used to be 20% but now I am being told to recover more money!).  I think
the researchers are still getting a real bargain with that, but at least
it means they can do long timelapses without it being prohibitively
expensive.  We ask them to set them up over a weekend if possible, or in
the afternoon if it's just an overnight session, so that we can try to
get users doing full-charge work on during most of the week, but
obviously it's dependent on the microscope and the types of experiments.

Best,
Alison



Carl Boswell wrote:

> If it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data
> (as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no
> charge.  If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session
> at no charge to make sure everything is optimized.  After that, full
> charge.  My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost
> of running it needs to be recovered.  If someone is trying to develop
> either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone
> with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.
>  
> A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where
> the system is on day and night and no one is tending it.  How does one
> justify a $3000 charge for one experiment?  Even at half the charge,
> it is still $1500.  I guess the experiment had better work.  Anybody
> have procedures for this?
>  
> C
>  
> Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
> Molecular and Cellular Biology
> University of Arizona
> 520-954-7053
> FAX [phone]
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Armstrong, Brian <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     *To:* [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
>     We get around this by simply not charging for any development
>     time. We only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr
>     Phillips’ suggestion).
>
>     There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time
>     you help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.
>
>      
>
>     Cheers,
>
>      
>
>     Brian D Armstrong PhD
>
>     Light Microscopy Core Manager
>
>     Beckman Research Institute
>
>     City of Hope
>
>     Dept of Neuroscience
>
>     1450 E Duarte Rd
>
>     Duarte, CA 91010
>
>     626-256-4673 x62872
>
>     http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:* Confocal Microscopy List
>     [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Robert J.
>     Palmer Jr.
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
>     *To:* [hidden email]
>     *Subject:* Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
>      
>
>     I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the
>     problem.  You are charging simply for hours of scope time,
>     personnel time, and expendables.  Do you have sets of users who
>     lurk around waiting for you to optimize certain protocols before
>     asking you to do identical protocols with their samples?  If so,
>     you could charge them on a sliding scale starting at the same cost
>     to the original user.  Do you have lab chiefs saying "you charged
>     me $X to process five slides but you only charged my colleague
>     half that for five of his (because it took half the
>     time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was
>     theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was
>     glad s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he
>     might be happy with a credit (over and above the reduced
>     time/resources from having optimized things) on the next batch of
>     slides processed_ identically_.  However, unless you have already
>     experienced serious cases of the above forms of nit-picking
>     behavior, it seems like an awful lot of bean-counting.......
>     Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson that must be
>     frequently re-learned.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>>     This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
>>     microscopy service cores.
>>
>>     In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and
>>     cost recovery,
>>     the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for
>>     services that are
>>     already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment
>>     and we add
>>     additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training.
>>     This is usually
>>     straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project
>>     that involves
>>     techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves
>>     development time such
>>     as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one
>>     hand I think it is
>>     unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and
>>     development,
>>     learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may
>>     result in a new
>>     service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other
>>     hand, unless we
>>     have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a
>>     mechanism to
>>     recover some of the costs...
>>
>>     I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I
>>     always have
>>     handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never
>>     charged strictly
>>     according to the established fees for services, however I am
>>     always worried
>>     about the subjectivity...
>>
>>     I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.
>>
>>     Thanks in advance..
>>
>>     Leoncio
>>
>      
>
>      
>
>     --
>
>     Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
>     Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
>     Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
>     Bldg 30, Room 310
>     30 Convent Drive
>     Bethesda MD 20892
>     ph 301-594-0025
>     fax [phone]
>
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
>     This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
>     individual or entity to which they are addressed. This
>     communication may contain information that is privileged,
>     confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law
>     (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial
>     information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
>     encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be
>     able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with
>     the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If
>     you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person
>     responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
>     any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is
>     strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error,
>     please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message
>     and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your
>     system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive
>     further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message
>     and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further
>     e-mail from the sender.
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--
Alison J. North, Ph.D.,
Research Assistant Professor and
Director of the Bio-Imaging Resource Center,
The Rockefeller University,
1230 York Avenue,
New York,
NY 10065.
Tel: office ++ 212 327 7488
Tel: lab     ++ 212 327 7486
Fax:         ++ 212 327 7489

[leoncio vergara]

That's another interesting issue. At some point we have discussed having a special rate for the long term time lapse experiments... for example eliminating charges for the late late night time (midnight to 5-6AM??)... we do implement discounted rates for "after hrs time" (5Pm-midnight), for the business hrs I think we have to charge full rates, have to consider a loss of income issue because the microscope is taken over...

________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl Boswell [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

If it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data (as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no charge.  If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session at no charge to make sure everything is optimized.  After that, full charge.  My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost of running it needs to be recovered.  If someone is trying to develop either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.

A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where the system is on day and night and no one is tending it.  How does one justify a $3000 charge for one experiment?  Even at half the charge, it is still $1500.  I guess the experiment had better work.  Anybody have procedures for this?

C

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]
----- Original Message -----
From: Armstrong, Brian<mailto:[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

We get around this by simply not charging for any development time. We only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr Phillips’ suggestion).
There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time you help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.

Cheers,

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core Manager
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx
________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.  You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson that must be frequently re-learned.


This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand, unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism to
recover some of the costs...

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio



--
Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
Bldg 30, Room 310
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Armstrong, Brian]

My two cents: I do not want our users to favor working at night in order
to save money because it seems they always have trouble with the
instruments when they are alone at night.
We have been using a sliding scale so that the longer you use the scope
the less it costs per hour. However, there is some question as to
whether this is in line with NIH guidelines with regards to using NIH
funds for research. Anyone have input on this?

I second Judy's notion that the first priority is to help the researcher
publish and obtain grants.

Cheers,    

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core Manager
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
ing/Pages/default.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Vergara, Leoncio A.
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:21 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

That's another interesting issue. At some point we have discussed having
a special rate for the long term time lapse experiments... for example
eliminating charges for the late late night time (midnight to
5-6AM??)... we do implement discounted rates for "after hrs time"
(5Pm-midnight), for the business hrs I think we have to charge full
rates, have to consider a loss of income issue because the microscope is
taken over...

________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Carl Boswell [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

If it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data
(as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no
charge.  If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session
at no charge to make sure everything is optimized.  After that, full
charge.  My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost of
running it needs to be recovered.  If someone is trying to develop
either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone
with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.

A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where the
system is on day and night and no one is tending it.  How does one
justify a $3000 charge for one experiment?  Even at half the charge, it
is still $1500.  I guess the experiment had better work.  Anybody have
procedures for this?

C

Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona
520-954-7053
FAX [phone]
----- Original Message -----
From: Armstrong, Brian<mailto:[hidden email]>
To:
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]
>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

We get around this by simply not charging for any development time. We
only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr Phillips'
suggestion).
There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time you
help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.

Cheers,

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Light Microscopy Core Manager
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872
http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
ing/Pages/default.aspx
________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.
You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and
expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you
to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical
protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding
scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab
chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only
charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the
time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was
theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad
s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be
happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from
having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed
identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases
of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot
of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson
that must be frequently re-learned.


This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
microscopy service cores.

In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost
recovery,
the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services
that are
already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we
add
additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is
usually
straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that
involves
techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time
such
as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I
think it is
unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and
development,
learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a
new
service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand,
unless we
have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism
to
recover some of the costs...

I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always
have
handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged
strictly
according to the established fees for services, however I am always
worried
about the subjectivity...

I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.

Thanks in advance..

Leoncio



--
Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
Bldg 30, Room 310
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
further e-mail from the sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Craig Brideau]

It's been my experience that the temperature and humidity changes that
occur in the evening and night can sometimes wreak havoc on the
equipment.  I'm always cautious when I'm working any time there could
be temperature or humidity swings.  Even if you are in a properly
climate-controlled room, somehow the equipment seems to act up.

Craig

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Armstrong, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My two cents: I do not want our users to favor working at night in order
> to save money because it seems they always have trouble with the
> instruments when they are alone at night.
> We have been using a sliding scale so that the longer you use the scope
> the less it costs per hour. However, there is some question as to
> whether this is in line with NIH guidelines with regards to using NIH
> funds for research. Anyone have input on this?
>
> I second Judy's notion that the first priority is to help the researcher
> publish and obtain grants.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Light Microscopy Core Manager
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
> http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
> ing/Pages/default.aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Vergara, Leoncio A.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:21 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> That's another interesting issue. At some point we have discussed having
> a special rate for the long term time lapse experiments... for example
> eliminating charges for the late late night time (midnight to
> 5-6AM??)... we do implement discounted rates for "after hrs time"
> (5Pm-midnight), for the business hrs I think we have to charge full
> rates, have to consider a loss of income issue because the microscope is
> taken over...
>
> ________________________________
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Carl Boswell [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:37 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> If it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data
> (as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no
> charge.  If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session
> at no charge to make sure everything is optimized.  After that, full
> charge.  My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost of
> running it needs to be recovered.  If someone is trying to develop
> either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone
> with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.
>
> A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where the
> system is on day and night and no one is tending it.  How does one
> justify a $3000 charge for one experiment?  Even at half the charge, it
> is still $1500.  I guess the experiment had better work.  Anybody have
> procedures for this?
>
> C
>
> Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
> Molecular and Cellular Biology
> University of Arizona
> 520-954-7053
> FAX [phone]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Armstrong, Brian<mailto:[hidden email]>
> To:
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]
>>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> We get around this by simply not charging for any development time. We
> only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr Phillips'
> suggestion).
> There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time you
> help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Light Microscopy Core Manager
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
> http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
> ing/Pages/default.aspx
> ________________________________
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.
> You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and
> expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you
> to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical
> protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding
> scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab
> chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only
> charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the
> time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was
> theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad
> s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be
> happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from
> having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed
> identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases
> of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot
> of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson
> that must be frequently re-learned.
>
>
> This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
> microscopy service cores.
>
> In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost
> recovery,
> the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services
> that are
> already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we
> add
> additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is
> usually
> straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that
> involves
> techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time
> such
> as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I
> think it is
> unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and
> development,
> learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a
> new
> service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand,
> unless we
> have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism
> to
> recover some of the costs...
>
> I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always
> have
> handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged
> strictly
> according to the established fees for services, however I am always
> worried
> about the subjectivity...
>
> I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.
>
> Thanks in advance..
>
> Leoncio
>
>
>
> --
> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
> Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
> Bldg 30, Room 310
> 30 Convent Drive
> Bethesda MD 20892
> ph 301-594-0025
> fax [phone]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
> or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
> financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
> encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
> view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
> information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
> not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
> you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
> accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
> do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
> to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
> further e-mail from the sender.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Cameron Nowell]

HI Guys,

Thought I would chip in on this discussion too. Firstly to the charging for development time. It is going to depend on what sort of cost recovery model you are working on. I don't think anyone out there works on a 100% cost recovery (this is including recoup costs for hardware - the lot) otherwise the charges would be several hundred dollars an hour. So mostly you work on recovering staff salaries and consumables (maybe only at a 50% rate) with the home institute offsetting (rebating) the other costs. So if you find yourself in one of these "spongy" charging environments I can see no harm in doing the development work for free.

The policy we work on here is that if a large amount of development (i.e more than tweaking an existing or well established protocol/algorithm etc) then charges are reduced or removed entirely with the centre staff member who contributes the work being an author on the resulting publication. This goes along with Judy's idea of get the data published, get more grants, get more money. Now this is really only going to be an option if 1. You can be flexible on your charging and 2. If you have the capacity in staff time to be able to accommodate this.


As to the live imaging we work on a twostep sliding scale at the moment. All shorter time lapse (<6 hours) is charged at our standard hourly rate. Anything longer is charged at a reduced (currently 50%) rate for all hours over the 6. I am thinking on changing this though as we are getting quite a few users now doing 2 and 3 day experiments, even with the reduced rate this becomes a quite expensive microscope session. Maybe putting an extra reduction to 25% base rate after 24 hours, or just capping the charge as a flat rate per live run. I would be very interested to hear how other people are handling this

I don't think the charge for running a live experiment should be that expensive as there really isn't a lot going on that is costing money. Some lamp time, some gas and some power are not a big hourly cost.


Cheers

Cam



Cameron J. Nowell
Microscopy Manager
Centre for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008
Royal Melbourne Hospital
Victoria, 3050
AUSTRALIA
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Facility Website




-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 2010 8:47 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

It's been my experience that the temperature and humidity changes that
occur in the evening and night can sometimes wreak havoc on the
equipment.  I'm always cautious when I'm working any time there could
be temperature or humidity swings.  Even if you are in a properly
climate-controlled room, somehow the equipment seems to act up.

Craig

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Armstrong, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My two cents: I do not want our users to favor working at night in order
> to save money because it seems they always have trouble with the
> instruments when they are alone at night.
> We have been using a sliding scale so that the longer you use the scope
> the less it costs per hour. However, there is some question as to
> whether this is in line with NIH guidelines with regards to using NIH
> funds for research. Anyone have input on this?
>
> I second Judy's notion that the first priority is to help the researcher
> publish and obtain grants.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Light Microscopy Core Manager
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
> http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
> ing/Pages/default.aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Vergara, Leoncio A.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:21 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> That's another interesting issue. At some point we have discussed having
> a special rate for the long term time lapse experiments... for example
> eliminating charges for the late late night time (midnight to
> 5-6AM??)... we do implement discounted rates for "after hrs time"
> (5Pm-midnight), for the business hrs I think we have to charge full
> rates, have to consider a loss of income issue because the microscope is
> taken over...
>
> ________________________________
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Carl Boswell [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:37 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> If it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data
> (as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no
> charge.  If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session
> at no charge to make sure everything is optimized.  After that, full
> charge.  My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost of
> running it needs to be recovered.  If someone is trying to develop
> either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone
> with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.
>
> A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where the
> system is on day and night and no one is tending it.  How does one
> justify a $3000 charge for one experiment?  Even at half the charge, it
> is still $1500.  I guess the experiment had better work.  Anybody have
> procedures for this?
>
> C
>
> Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
> Molecular and Cellular Biology
> University of Arizona
> 520-954-7053
> FAX [phone]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Armstrong, Brian<mailto:[hidden email]>
> To:
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]
>>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> We get around this by simply not charging for any development time. We
> only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr Phillips'
> suggestion).
> There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time you
> help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Light Microscopy Core Manager
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
> http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imag
> ing/Pages/default.aspx
> ________________________________
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the problem.
> You are charging simply for hours of scope time, personnel time, and
> expendables.  Do you have sets of users who lurk around waiting for you
> to optimize certain protocols before asking you to do identical
> protocols with their samples?  If so, you could charge them on a sliding
> scale starting at the same cost to the original user.  Do you have lab
> chiefs saying "you charged me $X to process five slides but you only
> charged my colleague half that for five of his (because it took half the
> time/expendables)?"  If so, you should ask the person who was
> theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was glad
> s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he might be
> happy with a credit (over and above the reduced time/resources from
> having optimized things) on the next batch of slides processed
> identically.  However, unless you have already experienced serious cases
> of the above forms of nit-picking behavior, it seems like an awful lot
> of bean-counting.......  Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson
> that must be frequently re-learned.
>
>
> This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
> microscopy service cores.
>
> In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and cost
> recovery,
> the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for services
> that are
> already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment and we
> add
> additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training. This is
> usually
> straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project that
> involves
> techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves development time
> such
> as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one hand I
> think it is
> unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and
> development,
> learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may result in a
> new
> service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other hand,
> unless we
> have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a mechanism
> to
> recover some of the costs...
>
> I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I always
> have
> handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never charged
> strictly
> according to the established fees for services, however I am always
> worried
> about the subjectivity...
>
> I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.
>
> Thanks in advance..
>
> Leoncio
>
>
>
> --
> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
> Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
> Bldg 30, Room 310
> 30 Convent Drive
> Bethesda MD 20892
> ph 301-594-0025
> fax [phone]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
> or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
> financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
> encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to
> view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
> information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are
> not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If
> you received the communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any
> accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you
> do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
> to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive
> further e-mail from the sender.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[phil laissue]

Hiya,

just wanted to add that to me, it's also important to see that people wanting the development put in work of their own (or via PhD/PostDoc) - e.g. sample optimisation, literature search, an email clearly stating the goal... Doesn't have to be masses, but it's surprising how many people lose interest in something the moment they're asked to contribute. But if they're happy to work with you towards a specific aim, it's so much more fun - and much easier to be laid back (or forget) about charging.

Best regards,

Philippe

_____________________________________
Philippe Laissue, PhD - Bioimaging Manager
Dept. of Biological Sciences, Room 4.17
University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK
(0044) 01206 872246 / [phone] 2464
[hidden email]

[Daniel James White]

Hi All,

we try and give our users a head start in thinking about their quantitative imaging experiment
from the very start, in order to help them choose when microscope to use, and if its a screening job or not

We use some standard "new user project questions"
(see the link below)
as ask them to try to answer them in as much detail as they can
and email their thoughts back to use,
before we sit down and discuss when they are trying to achieve.

Also, all our team members get that email,
so we all have some idea what that user is doing,
even if we didn't interact directly with them yet,
but can still  help them better later.

https://ifn.mpi-cbg.de/wiki/ifn/index.php/New_user_project_questions

Dan

On Jul 29, 2010, at 7:02 AM, CONFOCALMICROSCOPY automatic digest system wrote:

>
> Date:    Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:51:29 +0100
> From:    phil laissue <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> --0016367faeeb55ec44048c7a75df
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hiya,
>
> just wanted to add that to me, it's also important to see that people
> wanting the development put in work of their own (or via PhD/PostDoc) - e.g.
> sample optimisation, literature search, an email clearly stating the goal...
> Doesn't have to be masses, but it's surprising how many people lose interest
> in something the moment they're asked to contribute. But if they're happy to
> work with you towards a specific aim, it's so much more fun - and much
> easier to be laid back (or forget) about charging.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philippe

Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
Senior Microscopist / Image Visualisation, Processing and Analysis
Light Microscopy and Image Processing Facilities
Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
01307 DRESDEN
Germany

[phone] (German Mobile)
[phone] (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
[phone] (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)

http://www.bioimagexd.net  BioImageXD
http://pacific.mpi-cbg.de                Fiji -  is just ImageJ (Batteries Included)
http://www.chalkie.org.uk                Dan's Homepages
https://ifn.mpi-cbg.de  Dresden Imaging Facility Network
dan (at) chalkie.org.uk
( white (at) mpi-cbg.de )

[Rietdorf, Jens]

Hi all,

we have linked our resource reservation with a project management system
and do review projects periodically (e.g. every 3 month), which has
enhanced the quality of the data generated remarkably. If you are
interested in the concept, take a look at
http://www.imaging-git.com/science/protocols/enhancing-efficiency-resour
ce-use

Cheers, jens

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Daniel James White
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:52 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development

Hi All,

we try and give our users a head start in thinking about their
quantitative imaging experiment
from the very start, in order to help them choose when microscope to
use, and if its a screening job or not

We use some standard "new user project questions"
(see the link below)
as ask them to try to answer them in as much detail as they can
and email their thoughts back to use,
before we sit down and discuss when they are trying to achieve.

Also, all our team members get that email,
so we all have some idea what that user is doing,
even if we didn't interact directly with them yet,
but can still  help them better later.

https://ifn.mpi-cbg.de/wiki/ifn/index.php/New_user_project_questions

Dan

On Jul 29, 2010, at 7:02 AM, CONFOCALMICROSCOPY automatic digest system
wrote:

>
> Date:    Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:51:29 +0100
> From:    phil laissue <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> --0016367faeeb55ec44048c7a75df
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hiya,
>
> just wanted to add that to me, it's also important to see that people
> wanting the development put in work of their own (or via PhD/PostDoc)

- e.g.
> sample optimisation, literature search, an email clearly stating the
goal...
> Doesn't have to be masses, but it's surprising how many people lose
interest
> in something the moment they're asked to contribute. But if they're
happy to
> work with you towards a specific aim, it's so much more fun - and much
> easier to be laid back (or forget) about charging.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philippe

Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
Senior Microscopist / Image Visualisation, Processing and Analysis
Light Microscopy and Image Processing Facilities
Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
01307 DRESDEN
Germany

[phone] (German Mobile)
[phone] (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
[phone] (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)

http://www.bioimagexd.net  BioImageXD
http://pacific.mpi-cbg.de                Fiji -  is just ImageJ
(Batteries Included)
http://www.chalkie.org.uk                Dan's Homepages
https://ifn.mpi-cbg.de  Dresden Imaging Facility Network
dan (at) chalkie.org.uk
( white (at) mpi-cbg.de )