[labnetwork] Staff Consulting

Fri Jan 3 09:54:50 EST 2014

All:

The University of Michigan's LNF has allowed consulting for many years with
very good success (and some issues).  It improves customer service, allows
staff to expand their horizons, allows for lab staffing after hours
(without cost to the lab), reduces the need for additional staff, and it
provides for increased characterization and development of processes that
would not have been otherwise possible (also at no cost to the lab).  In
addition, it has brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional
revenue, and allow us to retain and attract key staff who otherwise might
not have come to UM or even stayed here.  Staff retention is critical in MI
since we have a difficult time attracting high-quality semiconductor and
nanotechnology types.

That said, there is a considerable challenge with conflict of interest,
conflict of commitment, liability, workman's comp, and general perception
by both other staff and users.  To address this the LNF had an extensive
management program in place to assure that the university's interests came
first.  Unfortunately, a resent college of engineering review of the LNF
killed the program in its current form (that is another long story).
 However, we were instructed / allowed to create a replacement for it with
all the benefits and with none of the pitfalls.

The new program description is too long for this email so here are the
basics:

The UM LNF has a ticketing system that allows for all users to place
service requests (tools, process, inquiries) formally.  That is, if a tool
is down or a process is acting up a user places a ticket into our tracking
system.  The ticket is, claimed and the issue addressed.  The progress is
tracked to its completion.  To date we have completed more than 7800
tickets since 2011 with an average closure time of approximately 30 hours.
 The ticketing system is another story altogether but we decided to use it
as the basis of our "after hours remote runs".  That is, consulting
requests now come into our lab as any remote run (process requests run by
staff for users) would and is handled by management not the staff directly.
 Thus, consulting is now considered a remote run that is completed after
hours based on a ticket.  Management decides which runs we take and who
does them.  In addition LNF has an after hours on-call program that allows
staff to pick-up tickets that occur after hours for tool repairs and
process needs.  We use this system to address issues that come up that
cannot be addressed during normal hours.  For example, if a tool goes down
Christmas day, a user can create a ticket that can be picked up by a staff
member.  They are compensated for coming in to address the issue after
hours (the program is voluntary).  Another example is if a user comes to a
staff person on Friday night because a tool just went down and they have a
deadline on Monday.  The user can put in a ticket to have the staff member
come in over the weekend to fix the tool to meet the deadline.  The
ticketing system has been well received and has contributed to our
significant growth rate (more than a 250% growth rate in users since 2008).

By extending both these programs (ticketing and tool on-call) we are
fashioning a new "consulting" program, that we hope retains all the
advantages of the former program while eliminating the downside.  BTW we
have both exempt and non-exempt personnel participating.

One significant advantage is that they are now considered employees working
in the lab on lab issues (just after hours) so the issues of insurance,
worker compensation, and liability are as they are during normal work
hours.  The staff are paid from lab funds and the remote runs are paid
directly to the lab by the user.  Thus, no money moves from the user to the
staff member directly.

I hope this helps ...

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Bill Flounders <bill at eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:

>  All,
> In addition to the broader comments below,
> I would like to confirm that the Berkeley NanoLab
> does not allow staff to use laboratory equipment or
> any other university resources for any type of
> outside consulting or processing. The appearance of,
> as well as the potential for, genuine conflicts of interest associated
> with such activities are glaring and considered irreconcilable
> with well defined university policies and state law.
>
> Bill Flounders
> UC Berkeley
> Marvell NanoLab
>
>
>
> Bob Hamilton wrote:
>
> Re: the question of outside "consulting" using lab resources, I offer a
> broader reply:
>
>
>
> As a public organization, the University of California NanoLab staff is
> encouraged to share ideas and offer advice on a collegial, not-for-fee
> basis. We consider it our duty and mission to pass on information free of
> charge. This includes unique discoveries we’ve made in our lab which may
> have commercial value.
>
>
>
> Public universities are supported by tax dollars as well as corporate and
> private donations. Sharing our knowledge garners goodwill and offers
> benefit to both industry and society. The name of the organization the
> NanoLab umbrellas under is CITRIS, the Center for Information Technology
> Research in the Interest of Society, a University of California center
> funded through of efforts of California’s Governor Grey Davis.
>
>
>
> More broadly, there is a precedent at the University of California
> Berkeley Campus, set by professor and Nobel Prize winner Ernesto Orlando
> Lawrence. Lawrence invented the cyclotron, the first tool capable of making
> radionuclides thus opening up developments in all the branches of science.
>   He set this precedent by sharing his accelerators with other
> researchers and encouraging shared-research facilities. His efforts were
> the cornerstones of our National Labs and upset the self-interest often
> practiced in scientific research prior to his days. One could say he was
> noble and Nobel’d.
>
>
>
> On a pragmatic basis, the juggling of one’s duties for an operation like
> the NanoLab leaves scant time for outside consulting.
>
>
> Bob Hamilton
>
>
>  --
> Robert Hamilton
> University of California at Berkeley
> Marvell NanoLab
> Equipment Eng. Mgr.
> Room 520 Sutardja Dai Hall
> Berkeley, CA 94720-1754bob at eecs.berkeley.edu
> Phone: 510-809-8600
> Mobile: 510-325-7557
> e-mail preferred
>
>
>  On 12/31/2013 7:26 AM, Weaver, John R wrote:
>
>  I know that a number of facilities allow their staff to do outside
> “consulting” or “processing” using lab equipment. If you have such a
> program, could you tell me how it works? We do some of that, but it is not
> an organized program and we would like to put a little more structure to it.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> *John R. Weaver*
> *Facility Manager*
> *Birck Nanotechnology Center*
> *1205 West State Street*
> *West Lafayette IN 47907*
> *(765) 494-5494 <%28765%29%20494-5494>*
> *jrweaver at purdue.edu* <jrweaver at purdue.edu>
> *nano.purdue.edu <http://nano.purdue.edu>*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing listlabnetwork at mtl.mit.eduhttps://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing listlabnetwork at mtl.mit.eduhttps://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>
>

-- 
Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D
Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility

University of Michigan
1246D EECS Building
1301 Beal Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122
(734) 368-7172 (Cell)
(734) 647-1781 (Fax)
http://www.lnf.umich.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20140103/9d728350/attachment.html>