Report on the Research Shops
Research Committee of the Graduate Council

Part I: Introduction

The Committee has reviewed the following facilities:

1. Center for Electron Microscopy (CEM)
2. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Facility (NMR)
3. Research Photography and Illustration Facility (RPIF)
4. Glassblowing
5. Central Research Shop (CRS)
6. Fine Instruments Shop (FI)

1. The functions performed
2. The effectiveness with which these functions are performed
3. Need for these services on campus
4. User satisfaction
5. Administrative support
6. Cost-effectiveness
7. Status of available equipment and space
8. Suggest means to improve the entire enterprise

In our review, we have made the following assumptions. In order to be justified, the facility in question:

1. should provide an essential and unique service
2. that service must be difficult or impossible to obtain from other sources
3. simply offering a service at a lower rate than might be obtained elsewhere is not sufficient justification for a facility.

Centrality of research shops to university mission

Seeking to meet educational, vocational, social, and personal needs of its diverse population of students and helping them fully realize their potential is a central purpose of the University. Emphasis on accessibility and regional service which creates distinctive instructional, research, and public service programs also gives SIUC its special character among the nation's research universities, and underlies other academic developments, such as its extensive doctoral programs and the schools of medicine and law.

Committed to the concept that research and creative activity are inherently valuable, the University supports intellectual exploration at advanced levels in traditional disciplines and in numerous specialized research undertakings, some of which are related directly to the southern Illinois region. Research directions are evolved from staff and facility strengths, and mature in keeping with long-term preparation and planning. [SIUC Mission Statement, emphasis added.]

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale offers a full range of baccalaureate programs, is committed to graduate education through the doctoral degree, and gives high priority to research. It receives substantial federal support for research and development and annually awards a significant number of doctoral degrees balanced among selected liberal arts and sciences disciplines and professional programs [SIUC Focus Statement; emphasis added; this focus statement defines Carnegie II status].

Enhance programs having existing areas of strength, a high student demand, and the potential for technology transfer not duplicated by other programs in the state. ... This initiative is designed to maintain the quality of the graduate program inventory.

Cultivate new initiatives with potential revenue streams that cross disciplinary boundaries and focus on the interrelatedness of strong doctoral programs to increase productivity in graduate education. The objectives of this on-going initiative are to leverage strengths in existing graduate programs to increase teaching, research and grant productivity. [SIUC Priorities Statement]

One indicator of the centrality of these shops is the amount of grant funding which has relied on these shops. Between 1990 and 1995, nearly eighty-seven million dollars in grants have been associated with these shops: Central Research Shops, $7.3 Million; Electron Microscopy, $11.7 Million; Fine Instruments, $7 Million; Glassblowing, $13.9 Million; NMR, $7.1 Million; and Research Photography and Illustration, $40 Million. In FY95, these shops cost, in Ledger 2 (State of Illinois) funds, the University expended only $262,419, and in Ledger 4 funds, $99,070 (Academic Affairs; does not include Medical School portion, excludes Vivarium). Shop users stressed repeatedly that without these shops, their grant applications would not be competitive, nor would their research be possible.

As stated in the University Mission, Focus, and Priorities statement, a primary University priority is to maintain its status as a doctoral institution with Carnegie II status with a strong record of success in grantsmanship and research productivity. We wish to be clear: Any downgrading of the research support facilities will, without any doubt, work directly against this priority. It is for this reason that this Committee voices strong support for the research support facilities and believes that support for them should be enhanced. Elimination or downgrading should not be considered. These facilities should be treated as central to university research, and in some cases graduate and undergraduate education, as is Morris Library. Nobody questions the need to fund the library at the highest level possible since it is essential to undergraduate and graduate programs at any university. The research support facilities are just as important if SIUC wishes to maintain a graduate program and to retain high caliber undergraduates.

We found these facilities to be cost-effective. They pay for themselves many times over in terms of externally funded research grants and overhead, which would not be possible without their presence, and recover virtually all of their normal upkeep and maintenance through user fees. It is clear that if some of these facilities are eliminated, entire research groups would be shut down, as it would no longer be possible for the researchers to carry out their research. This includes projects that are currently supported by substantial external grants. The loss of overhead to this University would be in the millions of dollars. Given the large number of grants that would not have been obtained without these facilities, they are one of the best investments that this University makes in its present and future.

The presence of these facilities has been instrumental in the recruiting of new faculty who have established extensive, self-supporting research programs. Elimination of these facilities would make it extremely difficult to recruit high quality faculty in the future, and thereby reduce future grant and overhead revenues. Moreover, current faculty whose research depends upon these facilities would be forced to leave SIUC to maintain their research programs. This would lead to an immediate reduction in research productivity and overhead generation, threatening SIUC's Carnegie II status.

The loss of these facilities would endanger attempts to recruit high quality U.S. graduate and undergraduate students. One of the first questions asked by prospective graduate students invariably concerns the type and quality of research support facilities. Several of these shops also contribute substantially to undergraduate education, and therefore play an important role in retaining high quality undergraduate students, particularly in the sciences.

There are a number of highly regarded initiatives being instituted around campus that would be endangered by a reduction in facility support. The center for friction studies, for example, which appears on the verge of receiving NSF support, requires the services of a number of these facilities. New efforts to move into the area of modern materials research would be severely damaged as well.

The University has been criticized at the state level for its failure to prioritize programs. Most agree that strategic elimination of weak or more peripheral programs is preferable to budgetary reductions achieved through across-the-board cuts which bleed strong programs as well as weak. The research shops support some of the highest-quality programs in the University and are central to the University's research and education mission. They must be maintained. The inadequate institutional support under which these facilities have suffered in past years is tantamount to a continuation of the failure to prioritize programs. In short, any reduction in support for these facilities is the equivalent of the University devouring its own seed corn.

Limitations of the report

User's evaluations

Possible duplication of services

Funding

All the research shops recover most of their day-to-day expenses through service and materials charges, and some have been able to purchase equipment through revenues they generate. In addition to fees paid by university researchers, some shops have successfully solicited work from outside the university. Most shops have dual rate schedules, one for university users and one for non-university users. The Graduate School provides little support or encouragement toward soliciting outside work. This policy is consistent with lack of strategic planning. The fee structure of each facility does not appear to reflect a coherent cost recovery policy.

The committee found that the Dean and Associate Dean of the Graduate School lacked adequate knowledge other facilities around campus that duplicate the functions of the Research Shops. This is consistent with the neglect by the Graduate School of several of the research facilities over the past decade: equipment has become obsolete, and no plans exist for either modernization of equipment or repair of equipment in the event of major breakdowns. The Dean of the Graduate School has been successful in retaining the Central Research Shop when its previous director retired, and in upgrading the EM facility.

Staff and administration

Four shops are one-person operations, having lost support staff to earlier budget reductions. Several of the directors indicated they needed additional staff to maintain high rates of productivity, and users noted some delays in completing their work after staffing levels declined.

The shops are administered by ORDA, which oversees personnel, sets budgets and fee schedules, and bills users. Administrative lines between the directors of the shops and ORDA, with exceptions as noted in the reviews of specific shops, in general appear to work smoothly. The Graduate School has had only limited success in securing additional resources from the higher administration for shop needs. ORDA serves mainly as an administrative body for units that, except for director's salaries and billing, requires few of ORDA's resources, while the Dean has sought, with limited success, additional resources and allocation of space for the shops. Reviews of the shops are carried out infrequently. The last review was conducted seven years ago and was conceived, initiated, and monitored, not by the Graduate School, but by the Research Committee of the Graduate Council.

Summary

Part II: Review of Research Shops

Glassblowing Shop:

1. Personnel and Administration. Curtis is well-qualified and users uniformly praise his abilities. He has a twenty-five percent student worker (paid out of a ledger-four account) who serves as an apprentice, learning the trade of scientific glassblowing. Curtis spends approximately fifteen percent of his time in instructional activities, fifty percent in fabricating customized glassware unavailable in the marketplace, and the remainder of his time in repair of glassware, maintenance of equipment, and routine paperwork. Curtis is not the fiscal officer of his unit, though he does do any required billing.

   It has been suggested that Curtis could offer a class in scientific glassblowing for both undergraduate and graduate students to familiarize them with the fabrication of specialized research glassware. A number of faculty found such a course helpful to their professional development while training for their profession.

2. Equipment. The glassblowing shop, like virtually all of the research shops supported by the Office of Research Development and Administration in the Graduate School, has suffered from neglect for at least a decade. The most pressing need of the shop is for a new, larger annealing oven. It is impossible to find parts for the present annealing oven and the manufacturer has long since gone out of business. If this oven goes down, it will have a significant impact on the shop's ability to carry out its duties. There are other equipment needs as well, but none so pressing as the annealing oven.

3. Facilities. The space allocated to the glassblowing shop is grossly inadequate and possibly hazardous to the staff. Inadequate space causes inefficiencies because space has to be cleared and recleared to lay out even routine jobs. The lack of a hood also means that certain glassblowing techniques cannot be carried out in the shop. If Curtis is to perform his job in a timely and safe manner, there is no question that the highest priority needs to be given to relocating the shop in a better environment.

4. Users. As noted earlier, users uniformly praised Curtis for the high quality and timely manner of his work. Several suggested that they could not carry on with their current research without his services. Curtis is able to design and fabricate scientific glassware unique to a particular research design. This glassware is often unavailable through glassware catalogues. "In the short time since I have been a faculty member at SIUC, I have received three external and three internal grants," writes a researcher. "I have also submitted several manuscripts for publication. I believe that one of the reasons for rapid progress in my research program has been because of the help I had in setting up my lab that was provided by Bill Curtis...." A Plant Biologist noted that Curtis provides essential support for two large undergraduate courses per semester. He repairs and fabricates laboratory glassware that is not available elsewhere. All of the users agreed that the loss of the services provided by Curtis would dramatically increase their research costs, and, in some cases, have a significant impact on the competitiveness of their grant proposals. They also assert that elimination of the glassblowing shop would force detrimental modifications in laboratory offerings to undergraduate students.

5. Costs and Fee Structure. The OTS budget is $280 per year and there is little likelihood of any increase. At present, the Glassblowing Shop does not charge a user fee beyond a $10 per job minimum. The cost of materials is billed to users with a fifty percent markup. This increase allows for the accumulation of a modest fund for maintenance and replacement of some low cost pieces of equipment, and also pays for the student worker. Users are apprehensive that a fee might make it difficult for them to operate within the cost parameters of present grants, but all agreed that a phased-in users's fee over a two-year period of $5 to as much as $10 per hour might be workable. Curtis is concerned that too high a fee might drive users away.

   Curtis does do some work for outside customers, charging $25 per hour plus materials. Some users suggested that Curtis might attempt to generate more business from area high schools, community colleges, and colleges. It is not clear if this is practical, but it is certainly worth pursuing as a source of additional income.

6. Conclusion. It is clear that the Glassblowing Shop plays a central role in underwriting university-wide research programs, and, to a lesser extent, supporting selected undergraduate programs. Users believe that the loss of these services would have a severe impact on their ability to bring in grant dollars and to provide quality laboratory instruction to their students. Curtis's ability to fabricate unique research equipment and also to repair existing glassware at modest cost is an essential service to a wide variety of departments and researchers.

   The Glassblowing Shop needs adequate space, meeting proper safety conditions. And the shop needs a new annealing oven as well as updating of other equipment. Perhaps some of these costs could be recovered by implementing a modest user fee of $5 per hour plus the marked up cost of materials in FY97, raising the fee to $7.50 in FY98 and to $10 in FY99.

The Central Research Shop:

1. Personnel and Administration. Gregory Moroz appears to be a well qualified and highly capable young man. He has all the skills needed for a general machine shop and is able to perform a wide range of jobs. Users praise Moroz's resourcefulness and the timeliness with which he performs tasks. He has a good working relationship with ORDA and believes that he is receiving adequate administrative support. He no longer has the services of an RA and needs additional help, especially in handling account billing to free up his time. Moroz spends about one third of his time on billable hours, one third on maintenance of equipment and work space, and one third on administration (which includes billing accounts and also discussing future projects with customers).

   There appears to be little prospect of shifting any of the costs of this shop to the instructional side of the ledger.

2. Equipment. The equipment is adequate for a general machine shop. The milling machine and lathe, for example, are older mode ls able to perform general machine tool work that does not require close tolerances. Moroz has been able to secure dilapidated equipment from State surplus property and rebuild it for his shop. Moroz is to be commended for bringing order to chaos (according to users); every tool in his shop has a clearly identified place. The shop is arranged logically, and enhances productivity. Moroz needs a working computer. He was given an inoperable 286 (upgraded to a 386) to attempt to repair but this has not worked out. Surely, with all of the new computer labs going into operation across campus, a working 386 (or even 486) order could be procured at little or no cost.

3. Facilities. Terrible! The house in which the shop is located should be condemned. The roof is in poor condition with a large hole. There is no insulation and the house is in general disrepair. Moroz had to shore up the house's central beam to prevent the structure from falling down. It is possible that the shop could be moved to one of the houses being vacated by Human Resources. And there is another possibility that will be examined in the section on the Fine Instrument Shop.

4. Users. The users of the Central Research Shop admire Moroz's ability to meet their needs with relatively limited resources. A Medical School physiologist stated that Moroz's adaptations to an infant measuring board saved him thousands of dollars. A zoologist writes that he would not have been able to carry out a funded research project "without his services." "Our research efforts would have been impossible if the services provided by these research shops [Fine Instrument and Central Research] were not available," write two members of the Department of Plant and Soil Science. Another member of the same department calls the Central Research Shop's services "extremely essential!" The users fear that the functions performed by Moroz's shop will be turned over to the Physical Plant, resulting in greatly increased costs and virtually no services. All users agreed that Moroz is a university treasure who performs his job in an expeditious and friendly manner.

5. Costs and Fee Structure. The two-account OTS budget has been cut in half since FY93 to $1,000 in FY95. Moroz has been able to endure this cut with his ability to scavenge. A user fee of $15 per hour plus materials has been in place for the past three years. Approximately 60 percent of billable hours come from machine tool work, 20 percent from sheet metal work, and the remainder from the other tasks performed by the shop. No one likes to pay these fees, but the present rate seemed to be acceptable to great majority of the users.

   Moroz charges $25 per hour for work outside the university. This happens infrequently because there are other general machine shops in the area. Their shop rates ($40-50 per hour) would be prohibitive to campus users; due to legal restrictions of University competition with local suppliers, the Central Research Shop has to be careful not to undercut outside shops.

6. Conclusions. The Central Research Shop plays a key role in supporting a wide range of university researchers. The primary problem facing the facility is adequate space. There is also a real question about duplication of services. There is another general machine shop on campus operated by the Department of Mechanical Engineering that performs similar services, and there is the Fine Instrument Shop. There is a strong argument for combining these services into one shop, especially the Central Machine Shop and the Fine Instrument Shop. For more on this point, see the review of Fine Instrument Shop. There is no question that Moroz is an outstanding young man and it is strongly recommended that the University retain his considerable abilities.

The Fine Instrument Shop:

1. Personnel and Administration. There is no question that Hans Bank is a highly skilled designer and master machinist who produces world-class designs and unique research instruments. Bank also repairs expensive optical instruments (microscopes, etc.) that would be extremely costly to fix if sent to outside vendors. It is unlikely that the university will be able to replace him with someone possessing his level of skills and experience. Bank spends approximately one third of his time maintaining equipment and the remainder of his time on projects, some of which take hundreds of hours to complete. Bank noted that design work can occupy up to fifty percent of a particular project.

   There are serious administrative problems that need to be addressed. Bank has been working on a series of six-month term contracts since the beginning of FY94, and ORDA has apparently been using these contracts as a "management tool." This seems grossly unfair to someone with his skills and length of service at the university. The biggest problem appears to be his unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to process paperwork properly to ensure that customers are properly billed. "I am not a clerk," Bank informed the Committee, "I am a machinist." Some of these problems may have developed with the retirement of his assistant machinist at the very time that ORDA instructed Bank to institute a user fee. Bank clearly needs assistance because he currently has more work than he can do by himself.

   There is also some concern about the scheduling and timeliness of Bank's work. This, in part, results from the very nature of the work he performs and the length of time some of the projects require. On occasion, he interrupts work on lengthy projects to tend to something involving only several hours work. There is also some question if hours spent on various projects are properly logged for billing purposes. How much of the time involved in design, for example, is actually billed (or in fact can be billed) to the customer. In the conclusion of this section, suggestions will be made as to how these problems might be solved to the satisfaction of all.

   There appears to be little possibility of shifting any of the shop's costs to instructional activities. The shop might benefit from seeking out advanced undergraduate and graduate students in technical programs to serve as interns. In this way, the shop could gain assistance while the students acquire valuable experience.

2. Equipment. Bank keeps his equipment in good condition, though the shop appears to be in considerable disorder. He needs an additional milling machine to do rough cuts, freeing up the milling machine with which he does work that requires close tolerances. This is a common practice in machine shops and there is a readily available solution. He could also use a new lathe, but this has a much lower priority.

3. Facilities. The Fine Instrument Shop's facilities are adequate and certainly in much better condition than those of the Central Research Shop. It would be easy to increase productive space by putting a large door through the wall to connect with the adjacent Mechanical Engineering Shop. With the new Engineering facility on line, it is also possible that the hall outside the two shops could be inexpensively converted into shop space.

4. Users. The users all agree that Bank is an extraordinary craftsman who provides high quality services that cannot be obtained in this area. Researchers in Materials Technology indicated that they will make extensive use of Bank's services in the next several years. A chemist noted that all of his research--involving more than a million dollars in grants -- has been based on instruments constructed by Bank. The Dragline Productivity Center in the Coal Research Center depends on Bank to keep its machinery in operation and has no other viable option to obtain such services. "Without a Hans Bank," another researcher opined, "no faculty could be hired who need fine instruments for their research."

   Users did express some concern about the timeliness of Bank's work. There have been scheduling problems and sometimes it has taken far longer to complete a project than originally expected. One user suggested that what Bank really needed was assistance in project management. More will be said about this in the conclusions.

5. Costs and Fee Structure. OTS from the ledger-two account has remained constant at $813 over the past three years. ORDA imposed a user fee of $20 per hour at the beginning of FY95, something that caused consternation among both researchers and the Director of the Fine Instrument Shop. Before FY95, Bank recovered the cost of materials plus a 40 percent markup and used this money to maintain and acquire equipment. Users are now adjusting to the current fee structure and recognize that under contemporary financial restraints this fee will continue.

   Users did raise another important issue. What about unfunded researchers who need Bank's services (or the services of other shops as well)? Bank does not believe that he can turn them away. "When I came to this university, I had no funded research," one researcher writes. "I had to build up laboratory facilities with the help of people like Hans Bank." He goes on to note that Bank helped him "fabricate a carbon-carbon brake test dynamometer that has resulted in externally funded research coming to the university of $350,000 through the Materials Technology Center." ORDA does have a mechanism to provide seed money through special grants awarded in a semi-annual competition, but there is not enough money to fund all of these requests and the process does not adequately take into account small projects that might only involve fifteen or twenty hours work. Can this problem be resolved? Perhaps ORDA could set up a small special fund to meet these needs so that Bank does not have to turn these people away and the university does not lose the possibility of obtaining additional outside funding.

6. Conclusions. If the University is to maintain its Carnegie II status, it is essential to retain the services of Hans Bank as long as possible (he is nearing retirement). Many of the problems discussed earlier can be resolved by combining the Central Research Shop with the Fine Instrument Shop. There are many advantages to the University in such a combination and virtually no drawbacks.

   Moroz has a wide range of skills useful in a general machine shop, but though a master machinist, he has not had training in the design of fine research instruments. In the combined shop, Moroz would continue to provide the services that he now provides. In addition, he has good "people" and administrative skills, and could serve as project manager in the combined shop to ensure timely completion of projects, proper billing, and keep paperwork current. His shop has the additional milling machine needed by Bank's shop, and Moroz can serve as an assistant machinist when necessary. The real plus here is that Moroz could receive training in skills that the SIUC will find difficult to replace upon Bank's retirement. Bank would certainly benefit from this combination because he does not have project management skills and has no interest in acquiring them. Both men believe that they could work well together and everyone would benefit from the combination. Indeed, it is probable that this arrangement would substantially increase the productivity of both shops.

   It is strongly recommended that this combined shop be located in the Engineering building and combined again with the machine shop operated by the Department of Mechanical Engineering. If the Dean of Engineering is unwilling to cooperate in this endeavor, the matter should be pursued at higher levels, including, if necessary, going to the president.

Center for Electron Microscopy (CEM):

1. Personnel and Administration. The Director, Dr. Bozzola, is a highly qualified professional who has participated in a number of funded research projects and published numerous articles. His salary is paid from a four-account generated from research overhead recovery funds. Bozzola spends forty percent of his time assisting researchers, twenty percent instructing faculty and students, twenty percent in general administration, fifteen percent in professional development, and five percent in publicizing activities of the center. Bozzola oversees the work of three staff members, two Electron Microscope Technologists I (one on a fifty percent appointment) and one Electron Technologist III. The salary of the EMT III is paid from two four-accounts while the salary of the others are paid from a two-account. The highly-qualified staff hold M.A. or M.S. degrees, one has some advanced doctoral training, and another is a doctoral candidate. All three spend approximately twenty percent of their time training faculty and staff in the use of equipment with the remainder of their time devoted to various other tasks.

2. Equipment. The Center's equipment is in excellent condition with the recent acquisition of three state-of-the-art instruments. Some older equipment will need to be replaced in four or five years and the light microscopes will also need to be upgraded. Three of the four major instruments are currently under service contract. Maintenance costs, including $40,000/year for service contracts, are a problem. The Director estimates that these costs will increase an additional $20,000/year in the near future. Currently all monies generated from user fees go to machine maintenance. The Director has established a reserve fund for catastrophic equipment failure in two separate six-accounts with funds generated from a modest amount of outside work.

3. Facilities. CEM is slated to move into the new Life Sciences III Annex to be built with monies recovered from savings on the construction of the new Life Sciences building. The Committee notes our recommendation that the Research Photography and Illustration Facility be included in this space (see Recommendation 6).

4. Users. Users highly praised Professor Bozzola and his staff, agreeing that the facility is well run and the equipment first-rate. They believe that it is impractical and not cost effective for researchers to go outside the university for electron microscopy because specimens have to be examined and re-examined several times and making several trips for one experiment is impossible without an on-campus facility. "Over the years," one user writes, "I have had to deal with similar Electron Microscopy facilities at several prestigious institutions, and am in a very good position to assess the one here at SIU.... John Bozzola and his staff cannot be bettered."

   Users pointed out that the CEM at Washington U is closing and that the CEM at U of I is having problems. This could result in added revenue for the Center. They also noted that CEM is an attractive facility for recruitment of faculty, graduate students and undergraduate students. The training opportunities for students in CEM give them extraordinary professional advantages.

   CEM is heavily used by a wide variety of researchers who have obtained substantial grants based on the existence of CEM. All agreed that cutting back the center would have a serious impact on future research activity at SIU.

5. Costs and Fee Structure. OTS support for the center from the two-account has been reduced from $11,046 in FY93 to $9,500 in FY95. This reduction has caused some problems but the Director has been able to manage. CEM has put together a pamphlet that clearly explains its user fee structure. Rates for SIUC researchers are based on whether or not they can use the equipment independently (electron microscopes are billed at $15.00/hour for independent users; $25.00/hour with a staff operator). Various fees are also charged for specimen preparation. Outside users are charged a substantially higher fee ($150/hour with an operator for an electron microscope) and specimen preparation fees are proportionately higher. The fees generated are applied to service contracts for the equipment. The Director believes raising user fees in the near term will have a serious impact on ongoing research projects at SIU.

   Medical School faculty currently make up approximately twenty-five percent of the users. The Medical School does not contribute to maintenance of equipment, though the Medical School has donated some obsolete equipment to the center. Given the growing cost of equipment maintenance, the Medical School should meet a portion of these costs. The Director of ORDA should pursue this possibility.

   Some of the direct costs of CEM should be shifted to the instructional ledger at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Perhaps part of the Director's salary could be shifted to the Department of Plant Biology.

6. Conclusions. The Center for Electron Microscopy is a key facility for the Medical School, the Colleges of Science and Engineering, and a surprising number of users in the College of Liberal Arts. The existence of the center has enabled numerous researchers to acquire millions of dollars in research grants. These researchers all agree that continued operation of the center at its present level is absolutely essential to maintain SIU's Carnegie II status.

Research Photography and Illustration Facility (RPIF):

1. Personnel and Administration. The Director has a well-trained staff, including a Graphic Designer II (paid by ORDA) and two Scientific Photographer IIs (one paid by ORDA and one paid by the Medical School). Professor Richardson left unfilled a Graphic Designer II position vacated in March 1995 to ease financial problems. An Instructional Communications Technical Operator II, paid by the Medical School in Biomedical Communication, reports to Richardson but is not a part of RPIF. The vacant position caused some temporary delays because of the need for staff retraining.

   Richardson has no place for graduate assistants or student workers because it is not cost effective to train short-term personnel to perform quality work on the facilities' equipment. Staff do train users in the most efficient way to present graphical information. Individual researchers are expected to know the proper form required by professional journals or university presses in their discipline.

   The staff divides its time equally between photography and computer graphics. Richardson does not believe that it is cost effective to train researchers in how to use hardware or software for advanced computer graphics. He asserts that most researchers are better served by bringing their work to the facility rather than attempting to learn sophisticated graphics software that is rapidly evolving.

   Richardson offers formal courses in photographic methods and scientific illustration in the Department of Plant Biology (PB 490), though, in recent years, he has not had the time to teach these courses. When they are offered, however, costs should be apportioned to the educational side of the ledger.

2. Equipment. ORDA has not allocated any funds to RPIF for new equipment in fifteen years, though the Director has been able to update equipment from funds generated by fees. There is a constant need for upgraded computer hardware and software because of rapid technological advances in computer graphics. There have also been significant improvements in photographic technologies in recent years. Professional journals and university presses are taking advantage of these new technologies and changing their submission requirements for scholars. RPIF has been able to keep abreast of these changing circumstances.

3. Facilities. RPIF defines the very nature of "cramped quarters." It is amazing that staffers are able to perform as efficiently and productively as they do under current working conditions. When the Life Sciences III Annex was originally planned, the facility, in conjunction with CEM, was scheduled to move into in it. This would resolve space problems and provide opportunities for other cost savings. The Committee understands these plans have changed, but strongly urges that the administration reconsider (see Recommendation 6).

4. Users. Researchers give RPIF staffers high marks for their efficiency and willingness to assist them in various projects. "It seems that no matter how much upgrading I do on computers and graphics programs," one researcher writes (echoing Richardson's argument that it is not cost effective for most faculty to do their own graphics), "I and my students are rarely able to generate publishable quality graphics of the complexity that are usually needed." Another scholar argues that "shifting the burden of these services onto departments or individual faculty would be a waste of resources." A few users stated that given time and equipment (software and hardware), they can learn to produce images for their own publication submissions. Yet, even these users believe the service is necessary given the demands of the professional journals.

   Researchers called attention to needless duplication of services across campus. University Electronic Communications produces public relations videos for the University; Radio & Television produces commercials and materials for Industrial Public Relations; CTC Photographic Services duplicates services provided by RPIF; and Morris Library has Geographic Information Systems and is producing videos and slides and other services through Instructional Support Services. Researchers were highly critical of this growing duplication and indicated that the library and photographic services produced work vastly inferior to that of RPIF.

5. Costs and Fee Structure. The OTS budget of $4,218 (plus an additional $5,000 used for the Medical School classroom support) has been constant over the past three years. This is supplemented by substantial income generated from fees of at least $35,000/year. These funds, combined with funds from the vacant position, have allowed Richardson to upgrade the capabilities of the facility. The Director states that he needs roughly $40,000/year to upgrade equipment and software. Richardson also believes that current charges to researchers are about all that the market can bear and he is reluctant to increase user fees.

   The Medical School makes a substantial contribution to RPIF in the form of salaries and OTS. There is no reason to believe that this will not continue in the future.

   There is the possibility in the near term of achieving significant cost savings through combining the administration of CEM and RPIF. This can be accomplished by moving the two units move into the Life Sciences III Annex. It is assumed that the functions of both units would be fully maintained after the merger of the units.

6. Conclusions. Research Photography and Illustration Facility offers services and high quality work unavailable to researchers through other vendors or on campus facilities. It is important to maintain these services at a high level. There is clearly some duplication of services across campus and this should be investigated at the University level. It does not make sense, for example, for Morris Library to provide similar services at an inferior level.

   There is a strong possibility of future cost savings through merging the administrative structures of CEM and RPIF.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance facility (NMR):

1. Personnel and Administration. Dr. Stevens, as the director of a one-person unit, does everything, including sweeping the floors because janitorial staff cannot be allowed into the facility. He has extensive postdoctoral training in the use of NMR instruments and ten years of experience. Stevens schedules use of the instruments, bills users, keeps accounts, trains researchers and students in use of the equipment, advises researchers on methods, and maintains and repairs the instruments. Some users suggest that the Director needs to update his skills in recent advances in NMR techniques through attending national workshops. Stevens is not trained in electronics, though he is responsible for complex electronic equipment, and has taught himself how to make minor repairs to electronic instruments. Stevens's efforts in this vein are commendable, but he is not able to make major repairs and here is one example of where the University would benefit from having an expert in modern electronics, and free up Stevens's time for other matters.

   The Director is sometimes frustrated by his lack of access to repair funds and believes that the Graduate School views his facility as a liability to the University rather than an asset when those funds are needed. He found little administrative support when a faculty member insisted on being billed at the lower internal University rate even though the researcher was doing outside work for a profit-making company. Such weak administrative support undermines Stevens's efforts to support his shop financially.

   Stevens needs additional staff. Some years ago he had the services of an RA. If funds could be found to restore this position, Stevens could allocate less important duties (custodial, clerical, supervision of trainee instrument practice) to the RA and thus increase the productivity of the center.

   At least twenty percent of Stevens's time is directly or indirectly involved in instruction. Indeed, one user noted that NMR techniques were taught in a regularly scheduled course at his undergraduate institution, and that students who enter graduate programs in chemistry are generally expected to have had some knowledge of NMR research methods. Perhaps part of the costs of the unit could be shifted to graduate and undergraduate education if Stevens had faculty status in a department and taught a regularly scheduled course.

2. Equipment. The facility houses two NMR instruments and computer hardware and software associated with accessing and interpreting NMR data. Researchers cannot access this data from remote locations. The computer hardware and software is seriously outdated, and a minimum of $60,000 is necessary to procure state-of-the-art hardware and software. This computer upgrade is essential to carry out new research methods. It would also enable researchers remote access to data and the new Chemistry computer lab housed next to CEM could be used for instructional purposes for both graduate and undergraduate science courses by allowing the transmission of data from the NMR instruments to the computer lab. There is a grant application under review to acquire funds to upgrade computer equipment.

   In the recent past, Stevens has solved a number of difficulties affecting the equipment, including a condensation problem and variations in climate/temperature control. A $25,000 grant from a user enabled the facility to install a vibration table on one of the instruments, and a similar vibration table is needed for the other instrument to increase the accuracy of its readings.

   The two NMR instruments are nearing the end of their normal lifespan. ORDA does not appear to have a strategic plan at this time to replace either of the instruments in the event of major failure. It is evident that if these instruments fail some major research operations will be forced to close down with serious consequences for the University.

3. Facilities. The NMR facility is housed in the basement of Neckers hall in cramped quarters. Some space within the NMR facility is occupied by a small physics lab that is not often utilized. Consequently, space limitations place obstacles in the way of both instruction and research by limiting the number of people who can fit in the facility at any one time. Also, space limitations do not allow for the best possible placement of the two instruments to resolve other problems such as vibration and temperature variations. The Director's office is also inadequate. If the Glassblowing shop is moved, the NMR facility could mitigate its space limitations by moving the infrequently used physics lab into the space vacated by Glassblowing, which is directly across the hall.

4. Users. Users state emphatically that loss of the NMR facility would virtually terminate molecular research on campus and thus eliminate a major source of external grant funds (and overhead recovery monies). Undergraduate courses would be left with gaps in their curriculum and training of graduate students would be severely hampered. Furthermore, the loss of the NMR facility would severely limit the ability of the University to recruit faculty in the sciences. Users are alarmed by what they perceive as diminishing levels of support for the NMR shop. "NMR is a rapidly developing field," one researcher writes, "and there seems little desire in ORDA to keep the facility up-to-date and competitive." Another user remonstrates: "No NMR, No Chemistry."

   Dr. Stevens provides good service overall and the facility is well managed, according to users, but he needs release time for updating his skills. It is difficult for Stevens to get away for week-long training seminars without administrative and maintenance support because the instruments are on twenty-four hours per day, and Stevens needs to be available. Users noted that additional training for Stevens would be moot if computer hardware and software upgrades necessary to perform more sophisticated techniques do not occur.

5. Costs and Fee Structure. The OTS budget for the NMR facility is beyond inadequate; it does not exist. It is the only shop without even a pittance in this budget line. This is particularly important since the equipment (acquiring data or not) requires constant cooling by liquid nitrogen and helium. In good years with high levels of use, Stevens has been able to pay for repairs and supplies out of user fees. There have been a number of occasions, however, when Stevens has had to depend on handouts from the Medical School and/or ORDA when maintenance and supply expenses have exceeded income.

   Since the instruments are running continuously, users receive a fifty percent cost reduction during off hours. The normal charge to use the instruments is $8/hour with an additional $20/hour if the assistance of an operator is needed. "The current philosophy of requiring a set rate per hour for usage has failed to generate new money," one user argues. "I have a specific amount of money allocated in my grant for NMR time and am willing to turn it over to the NMR facility in one lump sum every year." The Director believes that raising the rate to $10/hour would reduce usage. There are other options that might be worth future discussion, including sale of large blocks of time at reduced rates, greater reductions in charges during off hours, or establishment of additional gradations of fees.

   Stevens charges outside users $60/hour for the smaller instrument and $100/hour for the larger instrument. He has had little success in attracting outside users. This may be because Carbondale is isolated from large population centers. Even so, ORDA should assist Stevens in advertising his services to outside researchers. The services of a GA would free up time for Stevens to seek outside users for his facility.

   Maintenance of the equipment is the greatest ongoing cost. The instruments are not on service contracts (such contracts would be at least $50,000/year). Thus, Stevens does the work himself whenever possible. He estimates that this has saved the university at least $100,000 in the past five years. There are repairs that he cannot make, however, and this problem will only get worse as the instruments increase in age.

6. Conclusions. ORDA and the Medical School need to find the means to ensure that SIUC researchers continue to have an NMR facility available on campus. It is essential that the computer hardware and software be upgraded so that researchers can use recently developed methodologies. It is equally important that the University began planning now for upgrading and replacing the NMR instruments in the near future. As one user put it, if the NMR facility goes down for the count, twenty-five or more researchers will immediately be out of business. And the University will be poorer in every sense of the word if this event occurs.

Part III: Recommendations

1. The level of funding for these Research Support Facilities should not be diminished and in some instances needs to be enhanced. However, some minor adjustments are recommended to improve operations.

2. The University needs an expert in modern scientific electronics repair and maintenance. This has been recommended repeatedly in the past. An electronics expert is sorely needed by the research and instructional community on campus, and such a person might save the University substantial sums by reducing the number of expensive maintenance contracts.

3. The Fine Instruments and Central Research Shops should be merged to pool resources, quipment, expertise, and maintenance chores. A logical place for the combined shops appears to be in the engineering building, where space should be available, especially when the new annex is completed. If possible, access for trucks and large equipment to the CRS should be maintained. This move will solve the problem of the woefully inadequate space now occupied by CRS. A half-time GA or Civil Service position should be provided to this facility to assist with routine maintenance chores and paperwork. Given the apparent duplication of services and equipment between the ORDA machine shops and the machine shop operated by the Department of Mechanical Engineering, we recommend that consideration be given to merging the Mechanical Engineering machine shop with this combined facility.

4. Hans Bank is recognized as a true artisan, with unparalleled skills. Because of Mr. Bank's professed dislike of administrative chores, Mr. Moroz should be placed in charge of project management. The proposed merger of Fine Instruments and CRS will allow Mr. Moroz to learn the skills of fine instrument design and fabrication from Mr. Bank, to ensure that this vital service is maintained.

5. Mr. Bank should immediately be placed back on continuing appointment. His loss to early retirement would be a tragedy for this University. As is the case for all other Facility Directors, Bank's salary should no longer be dependent on user fees.

6. Contemporary computer graphics is rapidly superseding traditional scientific illustration. This trend toward computer graphics will accelerate over the next several years. It will always be beneficial to maintain a high level of expertise in the latest software programs in a central facility, though some graphics packages are user-friendly enough that some researchers can create their own illustrations. Moreover, the imaging techniques are changing rapidly so that producing images from electron microscopy, one of the important users of research photography, is already being done by the CEM in conjunction with RPIF. Hence, planning should commence for the eventual physical and administrative merging of RPIF and CEM, retaining those capabilities that are unique to each facility and that cannot be duplicated locally. This facility should continue to have state-of-the art computer graphics hard- and software and personnel proficient in their use, and be available at reasonable rates to campus personnel to create their own computer graphics. This merging of services will reduce costs by using only one Director. The Committee has recently learned that RPIF may not be given space in Life Science III Annex. This means that the University will lose the possibility of long-term cost savings through merging of units. The Committee strongly urges that RPIF be moved to Life Science III Annex, with CEM.

7. A user fee of $10/hour phased in over a three-year period should be established for the Glassblowing facility, in addition to the current markup for materials. It is hoped that the Director of this facility can use accumulated user fees to maintain his equipment and purchase new items when necessary. A new annealing oven should be purchased for this facility.

8. The glassblowing shop should be moved to the laboratory which has supposedly been designated for it in Life Sciences I or another adequate facility.

9. The NMR instruments are badly outdated. Since it may not be realistic to expect the University to pay the full cost of modernization, it is recommended that the University encourage attempts by NMR users to obtain external support for such upgrades. This support should include matching funds when expected by the external agency. It is also recommended that a half-time GA be provided to this facility to assist the Director with routine maintenance and billing. It is understood that the Director will use some of his freed-up time to try to secure more external funding for the facility and to update his skills by attending training seminars.

10. Each facility should develop a Users Advisory Group. Each UAG should be composed of three users, with a rotating membership. The committee will provide user input on matters of shop operation, user satisfaction, equipment purchases, fee structure, publicizing shop services to the university and outside communities, etc.

11. To the extent permitted by legal constraints, the Directors should be encouraged to solicit outside work from individual, corporate, or community college sources to help subsidize their operational costs. The Users Advisory Groups can help in this matter and advise if and when such outside work becomes detrimental to overall operations. ORDA should help coordinate efforts to publicize these services outside the University.

12. The various Directors should meet periodically, perhaps semiannually, to discuss common issues and perhaps share successful strategies for obtaining work orders from outside the University. The Directors should also decide on the optimal means of disseminating information about the capabilities of their various facilities to the research community.

Additional Recommendations:

13. While the Committee did not have detailed budget breakdowns to allow us to evaluate authoritatively the distribution of expenses between different units, it appears that the School of Medicine does not contribute its proportional share to the operating costs of some facilities. For example, many CEM users are SOM faculty yet the SOM contribution is disproportionately small. Since the SOM budtet line is distinct from Academic Affairs, under which the research shops are housed, it appears that the SOM should contribute proportionally to those shops in which it has a direct interest. Efforts should be made to distribute these costs more equitably.

14. Since a significant fraction of the effort of some of these facilities is devoted to undergraduate education, it is unfair that the entire cost of operation must be borne by the Graduate School. Some accounting mechanism should be developed to recognize this fact and adjust funding sources appropriately.

15. Existing reporting procedures make it very difficult to determine the actual cost effectiveness of each research shop. For example, income from 6-accounts and other sources (departmental research, departmental education, direct payments by university researchers, non-university) is not systematically compiled. These data are crucial to allocate costs appropriately between different accounting categories for comparison with the other institutions under the purview of the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE). Further, compilation of data concerning 6-accounts, if correlated with the corresponding grant, indicate the amount of grant monies that are linked to the existence of these shops, and provide empirical data concerning their centrality or lack of centrality to the research mission of the university. We therefore recommend that these data be compiled on a regular basis and used for strategic planning by the Graduate School.

16. The research shops, with one notable exception, have been allowed to deteriorate, despite efforts by the Graduate School to convince higher authorities to provide supplemental resources to update the shops in order to protect SIUC's Carnegie II status. It is too often forgotten that without the research shops, overhead recovery funds would be drastically reduced. It is time for the Provost and the Chancellor to rethink how the overhead recovery funds are distributed. This can only be done as part of an overall plan for graduate research and education at the university, which must be articulated by the higher adminstration in consultation with the faculty.

17. In the course of the Committee's review of the Research Shops, it became clear that the flow of information between shop directors and the Graduate School needs improvement. We recommend that the Graduate Council committee charged with reviewing the Graduate School in 1996-97 should be provided copies of this report and documents from previous related reviews to help it appraise the effectiveness of the School's administration of the shops.

Implementation:

Please send comments to Sharon Shrock. - June 26, 2000 - jh