Hi Susanna -
These are great points - thanks for sharing them. Great carrots to incentivize
change. One of the sentiments I often hear is that the cores managed outside
of the Office of Research would LOVE to have access to better funding programs
and practices that save them money. But they resist as they feel they will
have to give up "decision making autonomy". It's a matter of building trust,
which we all know takes time!
Have a great weekend,
Julie
On 2/19/21, 2:04 PM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Perkins,
Susanna" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
Hi Julie -
I'd say one of the more accountable benefits of our central organization is
that we hold a general fund for any repairs/replacements for all facilities.
Prior to Cores joining the central umbrella, the majority had either full
service contracts or a significant budget line item for repairs/maintenance.
Once they joined the central office, we reviewed the need for the contracts
based on past history and use and also eliminated the majority of the
individual Cores money for repairs leaving only a small amount. If there is
anything of significance, the central office's repair/replacement account
covers it. It's saved the overall Institution significant dollars. We also
leverage the consortium's ability to purchase and utilize one Core's trade-in
item for another's new purchase.
On a side note, too, we share a large number of external clients among
several facilities.
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
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of
Julie A Auger
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:46 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [core administrators network forum] Question about Core
Governance
All -
What strikes me in the responses Jon has received is that almost all who
responded with a favorable centralized structure were from academic medical
centers with the exception of Vanderbilt who now has a hybrid model that
differs for Med Ctr and non-med ctr cores. My experience with strong
centralized models at the University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division &
Med Ctr and UC San Francisco were also organizations with biomedical cultures.
Those cultures tend to be rather comfortable with a "top-down" organizational
structure with regard to institutional direction and decisions.
At UC Davis, with a broad research portfolio including not only biomedical
(human and veterinary schools) research but agricultural, engineering, physical
sciences and basic biological research, there are many "cultures" including one
where institutional direction and decisions are much more defined by the
grass-roots faculty. We are working toward centralization but our organization
remains largely decentralized with regard to where the actual transactional
support for cores lie - in departments in various colleges/schools - much like
Jon's experience at UT Knoxville. We continue to work towards centralization
but have some significant "cultural change" to work through. As part of
general benchmarking, can any of you define some very specific benefits to
centralized management that could be used as "carrots or sticks"?
All the best,
Julie
On 2/18/21, 8:19 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of
jphipps" <email obscured> on behalf of
<email obscured>> wrote:
Hi All,
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville is working on re-evaluating our
core facilities governance structure. We are looking to shift from a
semi-decentralized model (cores are "owned" by a department that provides
administrative support through their business office, and is ultimately
responsible for any budget shortfall; The Office of Research provides support
through funding opportunities and advises departments on business practices) to
a more centralized model (Office of Research has direct oversight and supports
operations directly, i.e., a central core facilities office that funds,
manages, and provides administrative services). This is in response to the
University's funding scheme switching to a Budget Allocation Model from a base
incremental budget, with our colleges being supportive of cores remaining
central.
Since this is a departure from how I've previously operated, I was
hoping to reach out to the group to see if anyone has experience with the
centralized model (as described above), and if so, if you might be willing to
chat about your experience.
――
View topic
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.abrf.org%2Fr%2Ftopic%2FLq45P9dj7Or7uuOcS2IhX&data=04%7C01%7Csusanna.perkins%40umassmed.edu%7C2b96b25929ad481945e608d8d506ad8b%7Cee9155fe2da34378a6c44405faf57b2e%7C0%7C0%7C637493571946595257%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ks2gCipQR7GDZYiqOmZjQX39jEzTtCbI43Ty0jZiOM0%3D&reserved=0
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
――
View topic
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.abrf.org%2Fr%2Ftopic%2F1m8uXyG64ZWsSyegttgjQS&data=04%7C01%7Csusanna.perkins%40umassmed.edu%7C2b96b25929ad481945e608d8d506ad8b%7Cee9155fe2da34378a6c44405faf57b2e%7C0%7C0%7C637493571946595257%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=QN4vCXGyPN%2FTQTup5EPoGZB69%2FWiUu4xLCao2X4aqio%3D&reserved=0
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
――
View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/1g8qhbUwWkZI8vGtXhnhad
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe