All -
I'm looking for various metrics - beyond the obvious
revenue/expense/subsidy/customer base - info on how other Institutions review
Core Facilities. Are there metrics that are being used that will allow
comparisons across many different types of Cores such as Flow vs an MRI Core?
Thank you!
Susanna Perkins
Director, Research Cores & Operations
Research Core Administration, S2-106
Tel: (508) 856-8255
Fax: (508) 856-2303
E-Mail: <email obscured><email obscured>>
Connect with us!
[TWITTER]<https://twitter.com/RcaUmass> [FACEBOOK]
<https://www.facebook.com/rcaumassmed/>
[OOR Logo - Cores Small]
Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original
message.
Hi Susanna,
It's a good topic. I've always kind of felt the "standard" metrics are just the
cost of running a core and are not a good actual metric of the core. To me, the
real metrics are: How many new faculty recruits choose to come to our
university because of the core / go to another because our cores are not good
enough; how many grants get funded due to preliminary data the cores help
generate / not funded because there was not enough good preliminary data;
manuscripts in a high profile journal because the core helped push the science
robustly and in a timely manner / projects scooped due to long queues, cores
not helping overcome difficulties. We need the metrics you listed to exist/not
exist, but it is the second metrics that I think are really important -- and
really hard to quantify.
Totally agree - I'm not sure if it's impossible to find something that will
measure all kinds of Cores - they are so very different in what they offer.
Susanna Perkins
Director, Research Cores & Operations
Research Core Administration, S2-106
Tel: (508) 856-8255
Fax: (508) 856-2303
E-Mail: <email obscured>
Connect with us!
Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intendedย recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original
message.
Rest of post
-----Original Message-----
From: ABRF Discussion Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of slevine
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:10 AM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [ABRF Discussion Forum] Core Review Metrics
Hi Susanna,
It's a good topic. I've always kind of felt the "standard" metrics are just the
cost of running a core and are not a good actual metric of the core. To me, the
real metrics are: How many new faculty recruits choose to come to our
university because of the core / go to another because our cores are not good
enough; how many grants get funded due to preliminary data the cores help
generate / not funded because there was not enough good preliminary data;
manuscripts in a high profile journal because the core helped push the science
robustly and in a timely manner / projects scooped due to long queues, cores
not helping overcome difficulties. We need the metrics you listed to exist/not
exist, but it is the second metrics that I think are really important -- and
really hard to quantify.
-Stuart
โโ
View topic
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.abrf.org_r_topic_3M4KfzxlfEPl54nWNNIERT&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=kGmC8Y-DPMs-8zQyfdP7sDzvCno4Bgua6y8e7K43bg8&m=JShg8apvp_cCdBUmq9Qp7oZCy__3RGFiTwkIknJHivw&s=HDeZ29vgiFs24JiW3--JMpbnrj4aj75F7dM-uVUG6SI&e=
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
Hi Susanna,
In a non-profit environment, which due to federal regulations in the states we
all operate within, the standard measures you describe are going to fall short.
Those accounting metrics are geared towards measuring shareholder value,
whereas in the non-profit environment they simply tell you how many resources
were consumed. My advice would be to determine some key output measurements,
such as the ones Stuart mentions, that indicate successful pursuit of your
institutions goals and mission. The real difficulties that I have found is
getting common consensus on which non-financial measures are most meaningful to
track, and then actually collecting that data in a manner that relates them to
the core(s).
Once you have these set, and have collected the data, if you want to compare
between cores you should try common-size analysis. This is simply a ratio
analysis of outputs per input (e.g. publications per dollar subsidy). This
will put the disparate activities of the different cores into a common base
unit that you can compare.
Best of luck!
Noah
https://study.com/academy/lesson/common-size-analysis-definition-examples.html
Hi Susanna,
Core review metrics that can allow comparisons across many different types of
cores, in addition to (what should be) the low hanging fruits of usage and
finances, include: operations (e.g., turnaround time); technologies (e.g.,
quality of results; implementing new technologies); human resources (e.g.,
staffing, staff performance, and staff professional development); education
activities (e.g., consultations, training, workshops, and seminars);
communications/marketing (including results of core user surveys);
institutional impact (e.g., involvement in grant funding efforts; involvement
in faculty recruitment and retention efforts); and scientific impact (e.g.,
methods development and technology testing/optimization; enabling major
research collaborations; and enabling patents and publications).
As you likely know, Phil Hockberger published a detailed and very useful
article on core review metrics last year:
Hockberger P, Weiss J, Rosen A, Ott A. Building a Sustainable Portfolio of
Core Facilities: a Case Study. J Biomol Tech. 2018 Sep;29(3):79-92. PMID:
30140172.
Other useful publications related to core review metrics include:
Haley R. A framework for managing core facilities within the research
enterprise. J Biomol Tech. 2009 Sep;20(4):226-30. PMID: 19721824.
Turpen PB, Hockberger PE, Meyn SM, Nicklin C, Tabarini D, Auger JA. Metrics
for success: strategies for enabling core facility performance and assessing
outcomes. J Biomol Tech. 2016 Apr;27(1):25-39. PMID: 26848284.
Lippens S, D'Enfert C, Farkas L, Kehres A, Korn B, Morales M, Pepperkok R,
Premvardhan L, Schlapbach R, Tiran A, Meder D, Van Minnebruggen G. One step
ahead: innovation in core facilities. EMBO Rep. 2019 Apr;20(4). PMID:
30872318.
Hope this helps.
Rest of post
Best,
George
-------------------------
All -
I'm looking for various metrics - beyond the obvious
revenue/expense/subsidy/customer base - info on how other Institutions review
Core Facilities. Are there metrics that are being used that will allow
comparisons across many different types of Cores such as Flow vs an MRI Core?
Thank you!
Susanna Perkins
