All Members Community

Hi all - I am hoping some folks can share how they work with colleges/departments to obtain their "wish list" items in order for the core to prioritize instrument acquisitions that will support a larger number of faculty (and therefore be more sustainable to maintain in the core). Is it through advisory committees, or an annual survey? Just word of mouth? Thanks! 

We are a small research institute with just 20 some PIs. The instruments we bring in are based on the research that is conducted and anticipated usage. 
For instance, many years ago, we had a lab that was doing lot of plate based single cell work. When instruments started coming to the market, we did our own evaluations and invested in 10x genomics chromium. More and more labs started using our single cell services. Spatial was a similar situation.

There are other cases where we would look in to something more cost effective/time saving than an existing thing. For instance, we added a mid throughput sequencer that was much cheaper to run than the one we had in the lab. 

I also talk to PIs and attend seminars presented by internal staff to understand the work that is done and how my group can assist. 

Does that answer your question?

Hi Mary,

  We work through annual user surveys, where we always ask about services/instruments that the users would like to see, but primary input comes from the advisory committees, who act as our liaisons to the departments and colleges. We structure our advisory committees so they have both horizontal (across colleges) as well as vertical (faculty ranks) representation, so we have a good  mix of people to provide input on the state of the field and which instrumentation or new methods the core should be prioritizing. Each core committee meets at least annually, and there is always an agenda item about strategic direction and instrumentation needs.

Andy you make a very good point. Wish lists are cheap; buying and maintaining an instrument is less so. We have learned the hard way to gather more detailed information as we start more seriously evaluating new capabilities and instruments. We usually have vendor presentations and/or demos if possible, and track who shows up. We ask the users about current active projects that would use the technology, or if they are already using it but going elsewhere. We also ask for specific information about pending grant proposals that would be strengthened by having this particular capability. More than once the potential user base has been rather dramatically winnowed once we get into the specifics. 

Hi,

We are one of nine core facilities originally established within a university department that have gradually expanded to serve the entire university, as well as external academic and non-academic users.

Currently, our user base is roughly split equally between internal and external users, and we also support a substantial amount of diagnostic activity for our university hospital.

When building our instrument acquisition wish list, we primarily focus on the critical mass of potential users within the university and on the needs of diagnostic services. Rather than relying solely on surveys or advisory committees, we try to assess the real demand and long-term sustainability of a technology before making a major investment.

A strategy that has worked well for us is to initially access emerging technologies through outsourcing. This allows us to evaluate actual usage patterns, gain hands-on experience with the technology, and better understand how many PIs will have both the scientific interest and the financial resources to use the platform on a regular basis. This approach helps us make more informed decisions and reduces the risk of acquiring instruments that may ultimately be underutilized.

Hi all - This is extremely helpful! I am definitely trying to steer away from the "we build it and they will come" culture, as it also usually ends in tears here. I will start incorporating these questions and practices in our outreach to faculty so that we can more strategically source equipment that will be sustainable long term. 

We typically hold advisory group meetings before budgeting, during which capital needs for the upcoming fiscal year are discussed. These discussions generally include the need for new technologies (or not), the replacement of aging equipment (or not), and the need for redundancy (or not). We will then compile all capital needs across all cores and submit the entire list as part of our budget package. If the entire list cannot be accommodated within the budget, we discuss the list as a whole to prioritize and determine what to delay or seek other funding for. During the budgeting process, I also work with each core director to update a 5-year capital forecast. 

To note, our advisory groups include not only faculty but also non-faculty users and experts, as well as individuals from finance and procurement. We include finance and procurement, so they get a sense of the attention and intention that goes into the discussions.