Timeline for Is there any guide or organisation solution for increasing utilization of laboratory and lab equipment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 12:37 | answer | added | G. Hayes | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Jan 18, 2016 at 5:36 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jan 18, 2016 at 5:36 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 17, 2016 at 4:45 | vote | accept | SSimon | ||
| Apr 8, 2020 at 15:09 | |||||
| Jan 15, 2016 at 2:08 | comment | added | SSimon | you never heard about capacity utilization @DanielR.Collins ? It can be positive ( yield with success ) and negative, where no results are obtained | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | It's strange because it can be "used" 100% but "utilized" 0% at the same time; but those words mean the same thing in everyday English usage. Perhaps it would be helpful if you put an exact formula for this calculation, or link to same, in your question. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 13:19 | comment | added | SSimon | yes @chipbuster | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 13:18 | comment | added | SSimon | @DanielR.Collins yes!" if there wasn't any educational activities, and if no paper is published than in that scenario it would be 0%, why is that strange? | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 7:22 | comment | added | chipbuster | Are you using the term "capacity utilization" in the sense that's defined on Wikipedia? | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 20:05 | answer | added | Wetlab Walter | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 17:56 | comment | added | Sathyam | @SSimon Could you please add a link to A shocking revelation... 37%? | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 13:02 | answer | added | Captain Emacs | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 8:38 | answer | added | Anonymous Physicist | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 7:39 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | It's extremely hard to understand what you're saying. There seems to be some calculation where if the equipment is used constantly around-the-clock, but no papers are being published, then this would count as 0% "utilization"? | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 6:59 | comment | added | SSimon | so percent of utilisation decreases if you have low number of publication and high number of employees. @DanielR.Collins if surface area ( prescribed by accreditation institution is 8 square m per student and employee) and utilization of this area is not utilised in timely and proper organisation timeframe, percent increase, this is also utilised for other categories-utilisation of machines, materials, equipment, dishes. and average of each individual value is made..and you get finale score.cumulative average of each individual features important for productivity of institution | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 5:37 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | I thought I understood what the 37% represented, until I read the part about "versus number of publications and number of employees (students, professors, researchers)." Perhaps you could better clarify how "number of publications and number of employees" was used in this calculation? | |
| S Jan 10, 2016 at 4:30 | history | bounty started | SSimon | ||
| S Jan 10, 2016 at 4:30 | history | notice added | SSimon | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 20:17 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/682294457753059329 | ||
| Dec 30, 2015 at 14:49 | answer | added | jakebeal | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 12:21 | comment | added | vonbrand | A work week is somewhere around 40 hours, a full week (24/7) is $7 \cdot 24 = 168$ hours. This would make 23%. I'd say 37% is stellar... | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 10:41 | comment | added | SSimon | I think my reasons are not factual, @xLeitix rather feeling that faculty is poorly managed and capacities are not used enough. I acknowledge that everyone have their own right to plan and design research as they want, although I think it is strange to design in a way that dont correspond with available methods, (b) allocation policies are pretty simple, except if some machines are in personal ownership of professors, they will usually ask for co-authorship (c) both (d) good question, I dont know, | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 10:19 | comment | added | xLeitix | I agree with @ff524 that this question would be much easier and better to answer if you gave more evidence about why you think 37% "utilization" is too low. 37% is just a number - it can be great, terrible, or just usual utilization. Equipment usage depends on many things including (a) whether the machines you have are sufficient for the planned research, (b) how allocation policies etc. currently work, (c) whether the equipment is general-purpose or extremely specific, (d) to what extend your institution is even allowed to use hardware bought with a specific grant in other contexts, etc. | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 9:29 | history | edited | Cape Code | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling, tags
|
| Dec 30, 2015 at 9:23 | comment | added | Cape Code | Your question is fine. I'm also interested in strategies to increase lab efficiency. | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 9:06 | comment | added | SSimon | I think it would be outside of scope of my question? I was referring to known management and organisational methods for scientific or/and educational institutions. I think 37 is not satisfactory, do you think that I am creating a problem by raising this question? | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 8:15 | comment | added | ff524 | If you have data showing that the costs of keeping the equipment in-house (at its current level of utilization) are higher than sending samples out, I assume you must have showed that data to those who find the status quo acceptable. What was their response? You should edit all this information (including the last sentence of your comment) into your question, as it's likely to be highly relevant to any answer you might get. | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 8:11 | comment | added | SSimon | no, @ff524 I asked if there is any organisational design to improve utilisation of faculty research resources. This recourses are equipment, lab materials and instruments, machines and area in whole. I think it is a problem, if you have something that you don't use frequently, costs of repair and maintenance are higher than sending sample outside of institution, (example, sequencer, running cost more than sending sample to specialized company ) | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 7:37 | comment | added | ff524 | I don't understand this question at all. Your complaint is that some equipment is not utilized as much as you think it should be, and nobody but you thinks this is a problem? Why do you think it's a problem? | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 7:35 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags; edited tags; edited title
|
| Dec 30, 2015 at 6:36 | history | asked | SSimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |