Requirement and possibility analysis:

Transcription

1 January 2015 Skapat av Anna Svensson, M.Sc. Industrial Design Engineering Requirement and possibility analysis: for future work in possible national or regionally available laboratory environments for researchers, industries and others at KTH Text: Anna Svensson, M.Sc. Industrial Design Engineering Responsible for the report: Ulrika Ljungman, Head of Department, KTH Business Liaison

2 Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. SAMMANFATTNING Detta kapitel innehåller en sammanfattning av hela projektet från bakgrund, metoder, resultat analys samt slutsats. Laboratoriemiljöerna inom KTH är idag beroende av extern finansiering, men finansieringen processen är under utveckling. Enligt Vetenskapsrådet, VR, behöver investeringar i forskningsinfrastruktur samordnas för att uppnå effektivitet i styrning och nyttjande. Processer för uppföljning, utvärdering och prioritering bör utvecklas för befintliga och nya infrastrukturer (Vetenskapsrådet, s. 8). I takt med att forskningsinfrastruktur blir mer omfattande och kostnadskrävande är det viktigt att utveckla infrastrukturer tillsammans i större samarbeten (Vetenskapsrådet, s. 7). VR har i uppdrag att finansiera nationell forskning, medan lärosätena ska själva finansiera lokal infrastruktur och utrustning. Knut och Alice Wallenbergs stiftelse, KAW, har tidigare varit den dominerande finansiären av utrustning och infrastruktur men har i likhet med VR meddelat att de efter 2015 ej längre avser att finansiera basutrustning eller ge bidrag till enskilda forskare (Vetenskapsrådet, s. 22). Chalmers Tekniska högskola i Göteborg har redan börjat arbetet med VR:s krav på nationell forskning vilket innebär att miljön ska vara öppen och enkelt tillgänglig för forskare, industri samt andra aktörer (Vetenskapsrådet, s. 14). Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan i Stockholm, KTH, har också inlett arbete för att öka tillgängligheten. Laboratoriemiljöer har kartlagts genom intervjustudie i form av en semi-strukturerad kontextuell intervju. Intervjuunderlaget har tagits fram genom att skapa en domänkunskap kring respektive laboratorium, genom undersökande av forsknings infrastrukturernas respektive hemsidor. Intervjustudien utfördes av Anna Svensson, civilingenjör i Teknisk Design och Ulrika Ljungman, chef på KTH Näringslivssamverkan som besökte samtliga laboratorieföreståndare på de 15 av de 16 laboratorier som anses vara nationellt eller regional tillgänglig forskningsinfrastruktur enligt Arne Johansson, vice rektor för forskning på KTH. Forskningsinfrastrukturernas gemensamma situation och behov analyserades och åtgärder föreslogs. Resultaten från intervjuerna kategoriserades inom organisation, finansiering, användare och samarbete. För att utveckla samarbetet med laboratorieföreståndare hölls en workshop av KTH Näringslivssamverkan i samarbete med RISE, Research Institute of Sweden. Workshopen riktade sig till den regionala forskningsinfrastrukturen där bland annat VR medverkade. Även laboratorieföreståndare från Stockholms Universitet, SU, och Karolinska institutet, KI, bjöds in. Samarbete har inletts mellan laboratorieföreståndarna på regional nivå, genom workshop i samarbete med de största lärosätena i Stockholmsregionen och RISE. För framtida samarbete finns förslag på öppna-hus där respektive forskningsinfrastruktur agerar värdar inom olika teman inom den specifika forskningsmiljöns expertis inom ramen för de gemensamma behoven för forskningsinfrastrukturerna. KTH:s laboratoriemiljöer som anses regionalt och nationellt tillgängliga finns idag listade på en gemensam plattform på kth.se med länk till respektive laboratoriers hemsida. Kartläggningen av forskningsinfrastrukturerna har bidragit till utvecklingsarbete som kan ligga till grund för forskningsinfrastrukturernas fortsatta arbete.

3 Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. ABSTRACT This section contains a summary of the entire project, including background, methods, result and analysis. Laboratory environments within KTH, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, currently depend on external funding, but the funding process is under development. According to the Swedish Research Council, investments in research infrastructure require coordination to achieve efficient steering and utilisation. Processes for monitoring, evaluation and prioritising should be developed for existing and new infrastructures (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 8). As the research infrastructure will be more extensive and costly it is important to develop infrastructures together in larger collaborations (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 7). VR is mandated to fund national research, while the universities themselves will finance local infrastructure and equipment. The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, KAW, was formerly the dominant financier of equipment and infrastructure but, in common with VR, it announced that after 2015 it no longer intends to finance the basic equipment or provide grants to individual researchers (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 22). Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg has already begun working with VR s demands on national research, which means that the laboratory environment should be open and easily accessible to researchers, industry and other users (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 14). KTH has also initiated the process of increasing accessibility. Laboratory environments have been identified through an interview study in the form of a semi-structured contextual interview. The interview material has been produced by acquired domain knowledge, through examining research infrastructure websites. The interview study was conducted by Anna Svensson, Master of Science in Industrial Design Engineering and Ulrika Ljungman, Head of Department at KTH Business Liaisons, who visited all the laboratory directors in 15 of the 16 laboratories that are considered to be national or regional research-available infrastructure, according to Arne Johansson, Vice President for Research at KTH. Research infrastructures mutual situations and needs were analysed and possibilities were proposed. The results of the interviews were categorised within the areas of the organisation, financing, users and collaboration. To initiate collaboration between the laboratory directors, a workshop was held by KTH Business Liaisons in cooperation with RISE, Research Institute of Sweden. The workshop was aimed at the regional research infrastructure where, among others, VR participated. Laboratory directors from Stockholm University and Karolinska Institutet were also invited. For future collaboration, open-house is one suggestion, where each research environment hosts a subject within the mutual requirements of research infrastructure. KTH laboratory environments that are considered to be regionally and nationally available are now listed on a common platform on kth.se with a link to each laboratory s website. The mapping of research infrastructures has contributed to the development work that can form the basis for research infrastructures continued work.

4 Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. NOMENCLATURE This section includes a dictionary to define words and a summary of software that been used during the process. There are also collections of abbreviations to ease the readability of the report. Dictionary Research infrastructure KTH research infrastructure LIMS According to the Swedish Research Council definition: research infrastructure can be central or distributed research facilities, databases or large-scale computation, analysis and modelling resources. (Vetenskapsrådet, s. 7) KTH research infrastructure is not an official name, but used in this report as a collective name for 16 laboratory environments at KTH that could possibly be nationally or regionally available for researchers, industries or other users. LIMS, Laboratory Information Management System, is a softwarebased system for managing information in laboratory environments. It can be specialised for a specific laboratory. As the laboratories often evolve, LIMS has to be adaptable for change where new features can be changed or added. Abbreviations WS VR KTH RISE SU KI KAW Workshop The Swedish Research Council, (Vetenskapsrådet) Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Research Institute of Sweden Stockholm University Karolinska Institutet Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation

5 INNEHÅLL SAMMANFATTNING... 2 ABSTRACT... 3 NOMENCLATURE... 1 Dictionary... 1 Abbreviations INTRODUCTION Background Objectives Purpose METHODS The design process Benchmarking Semi-structured contextual interview Direct observation Workshop IMPLEMENTATION Information retrieval Interview study Preparations Performance Workshop Preparations Performance RESULT Information retrieval Different actions at three levels Investigation of each laboratory s website Benchmarking KTH research infrastructure Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg Current availability of KTH's laboratory environments A visualisation example of available laboratories Interview study Capacity Collaboration Organisation Marketing

6 4.4 Workshop ANALYSIS Mutual requirements of the laboratory environments Suggestions for future work CONCLUSION REFERENCES

7 1 INTRODUCTION The introduction describes the background of the analysis project, goals, purpose and delimitations. 1.1 Background Most laboratory environments today depend on external funding, but this funding has changed during recent years, according to Alf-Erik Almstedt, Vice Principal of Research at Chalmers Technical University (Wallquist, (CIS), & Ullberg, 2014, p. 3). The Swedish Research Council is assigned to fund national research, and universities are responsible for local infrastructure and equipment (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 7). One demand from the Council is that the national research needs to be open and easy to access for researchers, industries and other users. The research infrastructure should also have a plan for availability (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 14). The Research Council believes that investment in research infrastructure needs to be coordinated to achieve management and user efficiency and a processes for monitoring, evaluation and prioritisation should be developed for existing and new infrastructures (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 8). As the research infrastructure will be more extensive and costly, the council believes it is important to develop infrastructures together into larger collaborations, regionally, nationally or internationally (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 7). The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, KAW, has been the dominant financer of advanced equipment and research infrastructure. Similar to VR, KAW has announced that after 2015 it will no longer fund basic equipment or provide grants to individual researchers (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 22). In early 2014, 16 laboratories at KTH were identified as being regionally or nationally available laboratories. This project works within the context of the Stockholm innovation strategy. Stockholm s innovation strategy is a broad regional cooperation, where the aim is to gather and coordinate initiatives affecting the Stockholm region s ability to innovate and gather the region s key users. The strategy contains five action plans; the action plan for research and innovation infrastructure is managed by KTH which currently also involves KI, SU and RISE. 1.2 Objectives The objectives of this project can be divided into three categories: 1. Initiate collaboration between KTH research infrastructures. 2. Identify relevant requirements in order to increase the availability at KTH research infrastructures. 3. Analyse the requirements and suggest future work. 1.3 Purpose The main purpose is to support KTH laboratory environments to be sustainable after changes in funding have been implemented by increasing the availability of KTH laboratory environments to researchers, industries and other users. 3

8 2 METHODS This chapter describes the methods used, from planning, information retrieval and interview study and to initially create a collaboration between the laboratory environments. 2.1 The design process A modification of the mechanical design process by David G. Ullman was undertaken in order to optimise the design process (Ullman, 2010, p. 81). An overview of the modification can be viewed in Figure 1. Project discovery Project planning Project definition Conceptual design Further development Figure 1. Modification of Ullman s design process. The project discovery was initiated by KTH Business Liaison with directive from the Stockholm innovation strategy. The next phase involves project planning. According to Maylor s method, the project was broken down into activities, a so-called work breakdown structure, where all the deliveries and decisions were included in a network plan to find a critical path in order to define a risk log. A Gantt chart was made to express the project plan (Maylor, 2010). In the following phase the project is defined and research is made to gain a greater understanding: for example, investigating similar work at other universities and investigating internal work within KTH. During this phase, information was also gathered from each laboratory website in order to create a questionnaire for the interview study. This phase ends with an identification of the mutual requirements of the laboratory directors. The next phase of Ullman s design process consists of conceptual designing. Suggested ideas were created from the information gathered. During these phases the result is documented, which will be presented as a report at KTH in March Benchmarking Benchmarking is often explained as a learning method from existing solutions, regardless of branch and geographic location. This can be done both externally by looking at other universities or businesses, and internally by investigating KTH s existing solutions. The purpose of this method is to gain knowledge in order to develop an improvement of the existing solution (Johansson & Abrahamsson, 2010, p. 104). 2.3 Semi-structured contextual interview A semi-structured contextual interview lies between a structured and an unstructured interview where the interview takes place at the location of the interviewee and in the context of the subject concerned. The interviewer is free to choose the order of questions and has the opportunity to ask follow-up 4

9 questions. This interview method contains both specific and open questions. This method can obtain both qualitative and quantitative responses (Osvalder, Rose, & Stig, 2010, p. 487). It is both subjective and flexible which gives the interviewer insights into how the interviewee thinks, and asking follow-up questions when needed reduces the risk of misinterpretation. It is possible for the interviewer to affect the interviewee and the interviewee may change their answers to suit the interviewer. Is it preferable to complement this method with observation (Osvalder, Rose, & Stig, 2010, p. 487). 2.4 Direct observation Observation is an objective method to gather information about how people act in different situations (Osvalder, Rose, & Stig, 2010, p. 484). This method is used as a complement to a semi-structured contextual interview. The people performing the observation are present and will observe with their own eyes, ears and other senses. It is important to be as unobtrusive as possible, to not affect the people who are observed (Osvalder, Rose, & Stig, 2010, p. 484). Since it is a subjective method, it is preferable if there are two observers. Then the result can be discussed to see if the observers received similar impressions. 2.5 Workshop Within science and research a workshop is often defined as an interactive meeting about a pre-decided subject with a limited number of participants. In this case laboratory directors are invited to discuss requirements and possibilities to attract new users to the laboratory environments. Within projects, workshops can be used to gather competence to solve a specific problem. 5

10 3 IMPLEMENTATION This chapter describes how the interviews were performed, from information retrieval, interview preparations to performance of the interviews and the purpose and goals of the workshop. 3.1 Information retrieval Domain knowledge was obtained by investigating the laboratory environments websites to create the material for the interviews, see Table 1. Table 1. A collection of investigated laboratory homepages. Laboratory Electrum Labratoriet SciLifeLab PDC Odqvistlaboratoriet Sjöstadsverket Albanova Nanofabrication Facility AlbaNova Laser Lab AlbaNova Mesoscopic Measurements Lab VIC Visualization Studio SAPC - Centrum för flyg och rymdfysiologi XPRES Lab KTH Transport Labs Byggkonstruktion Mätlaboratoriet ABE Highway and Railway Engineering Lab Greenhouse Labs Homepage skolan/organisation/inst/byv/avd/bro/labbet/byggkonstruktion-matlaboratoriet The following information was identified from each website from a user-friendly perspective. The mapping is subjective and is only from the author s perspective. The result can be viewed in Appendix B. Does the website contain structure? Does the homepage have explanatory texts and/or pictures? Does the website cater to industries? Is the laboratory s equipment stated? Are the personnel stated? Is it mentioned what service they provide? Is it easy for industries to apply or contact them? Language? Swedish and/or English? Are the costs of the services mentioned? 3.2 Interview study The interview has been created from (Osvalder, Rose, & Stig, 2010) Metoder - The preparations for the interviews include: purpose of the interview, relevant information about the participants, material, the information the participants will receive, what kind of data will be collected and how it will be analysed. 6

11 3.2.1 Preparations Purpose and aims of the interviews: To collect and map information from laboratories: how they work with external users and business contacts today, their potential overcapacity and their need to make their services and lab / instrument / equipment available for new external users / clients. Users and information that will participate in the interview: The equipment used is a recorder, about which the interviewees are informed. Each interviewee is responsible for the laboratory and the interviews were held at 15 different laboratories at KTH. The laboratories are considered to be nationally or regionally available for researchers, industries or other users. The interviews were held at: Each individual laboratory. Data collected: Recording of the interview such as notes and photos taken by the interviewer. There was also a clarification of ideas with the interviewees so the answers were well documented and easy to understand in a later stage of the project. Questions and reflections were collected from the participants after the test for further improvement for future interviews. Implementation by the interviewer: Good domain knowledge is required by the interviewer to formulate questions beforehand. The interviewer should be familiar with the topic and have a clear picture of which areas should be investigated. This is done by investigating and mapping each laboratory homepage, such as a basic knowledge about LIMS. It is important that the questions are formulated univocally, to avoid misinterpretation. The interviewer should listen to all ideas and ask questions so she fully understands the ideas. The interviewer has full responsibility for documentation. Analysis: Recorded voices, pictures and notes from the interview were evaluated by the interviewer. 7

12 3.2.2 Performance The same questions were asked to each laboratory director by the same people, Anna Svensson and Ulrika Ljungman, to obtain an equivalent result. A collection of images from the interview visits can be viewed in Figure 2. Figure 2. Collection of images from laboratory environment visits. 3.3 Workshop The preparations included purpose of the WS, relevant information about the participants, different material to be used, the information the participants would receive, what kind of data would be collected and how it would be analysed Preparations To create the WS an event group was formed. It consisted of Ulrika Ljungman (Head of Department at KTH Business Liaison), Emma Ny (Communication Manager at KTH Business Liaison), Olof Sandberg (Chief Strategist at RISE Holding AB) and Anna Svensson (M.Sc. in Industrial Design Engineering). Their responsibility was to host the event, invite and gather together the laboratory directors and Anna would then present the result of the interview study and her analysis of future work. The information 8

13 about this event was given to the directors at KTH through an invitation during the interview and an e- mail was sent to all directors. Purpose and aims of the WS: The purpose of the WS was to initially create collaboration between the laboratory directors. The WS was created as an event to lift the subject: how to attract new users to the laboratory environment. Materials used and participants in the WS: The material used was PowerPoint presentations, Post-its, pens and two A3 papers. The majority of the invitations were sent to laboratory directors from KTH, SU and KI. A list of participants can be viewed in Appendix C. The interviews were held at: RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB, Mäster Samuelsgatan 60, Stockholm. Data collected: Notes by Anna Svensson and photos taken by Magnus Atterfors, editor at RISE and Anna Svensson. The participants were asked to state challenges and possibilities about how to attract new users to the laboratory environments on Post-its. Questions and reflections were also collected from the participants. Analysis The possibilities and challenges as stated by the participants Performance Olof Sandberg began the WS by welcoming everyone to the event then Ulrika Ljungman talked briefly about the purpose of the WS and about the project regarding availability of research infrastructure in Stockholm. Elin Swedenborg, Research Secretary at VR, informed everyone about VR s plans for research infrastructure funding. Olof Sandberg mentioned how RISE makes its test beds available. This was followed by a group discussion, led by Ulrika Ljungman, where the participants were asked to state the challenges of how to attract new users to the laboratories. Anna Svensson then presented the interview study at the laboratory environments at KTH and briefly mentioned some results and analysis of suggestions of future possibilities. Björn Thuresson, Laboratory Director at VIC, explained how they make their laboratory environment available to new users. Ulrika continued with the group discussion, where the participants were asked to state the possibilities of how to attract new users to the laboratory environments. The discussion was summarised and a first WS schedule can be found in Appendix E. Figure 3 shows a picture from the WS. Figure 3. WS at RISE. 9

14 4 RESULT This chapter contains the results from information retrieval, benchmarking and the laboratories mutual requirements obtained from the interview study. 4.1 Information retrieval The information retrieval was made in order to gather useful information for an overview of the different actions at each level from national level to the laboratory level and to construct a questionnaire for the interview study Different actions at three levels The organisation, from national level to the laboratory level, was mapped in order to understand the different levels actions regarding research infrastructure. National level The Swedish Research Council Regional level Stockholm s County Board Local level Universities Laboratories Figure 4. Overview of three levels from The Swedish Research Council to Laboratories. The three levels are: National level: The Swedish Research Council is assigned to fund national research (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 7). Regional level: is defined as Stockholm s County Board. Stockholm s innovation strategy is a broad regional cooperation, where the aim is to gather and coordinate initiatives affecting Stockholm region s ability to facilitate innovation and to identify the region s key users of research infrastructure. The strategy contains five action plans. The action plan for research and innovation infrastructure is managed by KTH. The action plan currently also involves KI, SU, RISE and Stockholm s County Board. Local level: represents both the universities in the Stockholm region and its laboratories that could possibly be available for researchers, industries or other users. 1. Universities are responsible for their own infrastructure and equipment (Vetenskapsrådet, s. 7). They are also responsible for making the research infrastructure available regionally, nationally and internationally. 2. Laboratories: One demand from the Swedish Research Council is that the laboratories need to be nationally and regionally open and available for researchers, industries and other users to receive funding form the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, p. 14). This means that the laboratories need to work with their visibility and marketing to new users. 10

15 4.1.2 Investigation of each laboratory s website To construct the interviews, domain knowledge had to be received and an investigation of every laboratory website was made to construct the questionnaire for the interview study. The result of the investigation can be seen in Appendix B. 4.2 Benchmarking Existing markets were examined to get an idea about how other institutions have proceeded to increase their laboratory availability and how the research infrastructure is currently available at KTH KTH research infrastructure KTH research infrastructure is not an official name, but is used in this report as a collective name for 16 laboratory environments at KTH that could possibly be nationally or regionally available for researchers, industries or other users. The following criteria have been used to form the first list of 16 laboratories at KTH. There is no current official name of the list. Arne Johansson (Vice Principal of Research at KTH), Ulf Karlsson (Professor at KTH) and Susanna Pehrson (Research Administrator at KTH) made these criteria. Each school dean connected to laboratory environments had the opportunity to give feedback and their opinions have been taken under consideration when the principal group at KTH constructed the latest list. Criteria at different levels: - National interests (existing) to be of national interest the laboratories should be unique in that they are used by researchers or industries all from Sweden. They should also be open for use for non-kth researchers. - National interests (planned) these are, according to the principal group, efforts that KTH can possibly do, but are not yet decided. - National interest (possible) this involves national interest of investments by KTH. - Regional interests laboratories that are used by external users but are not regarded to be unique in Sweden. The users are within the region. - KTH laboratories other research infrastructures that are large and/or collective infrastructures. Users are external users. The laboratories are not unique within the region. The list includes every large laboratory environment at KTH. The laboratory environments are not on the list because they have been pointed out by the KTH principal group as prioritised laboratories; rather the laboratories are stated on the list since the KTH principal group regards these laboratory environments to be of possible national or regional interest if there are interests from other actors (e.g. financially). A similar list has been requested from each university in Sweden by the VR s infrastructure council. The list will form VR s future infrastructure system. A general plan for development of these laboratories at KTH does not exist. Each laboratory environment is responsible for a plan, where the school dean is responsible. This plan is communicated to the school dean together with the vice principals approximately two times a year. 11

16 4.2.2 Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg Alf-Erik Almstedt, Vice President of Research at Chalmers University in Gothenburg, has drawn attention to the possibility of obtaining external grants for research infrastructure having changed in recent years, with focus on major infrastructures with a clear national need and interest (Wallquist, (CIS), & Ullberg, 2014, p. 3). Chalmers has therefore constructed a roadmap that contains both a short-term plan with objectives within a year and a long-term plan for five years (Wallquist, (CIS), & Ullberg, 2014). Chalmers has formed criteria for its laboratory environments at Chalmers, where they can obtain and sustain the status as a Chalmers research infrastructure. Chalmers criteria are (Wallquist, (CIS), & Ullberg, 2014, p. 4): Have a broad user base: be of interest and used by several research groups, from different divisions, at Chalmers. Be owned or controlled, fully or partly, by Chalmers, and organisationally and economically decoupled from research divisions. Provide access to all Chalmers researchers. All researchers at Chalmers must be treated equally with respect to user fees and conditions. Provide user support in terms of training on how to use the infrastructure. Have a clear vision and purpose, with focus and limitation. Have long-term planning concerning financing, use, upgrades, evaluation and decommissioning. Have a clear and efficient management and organisation. Be followed up annually, within Chalmers yearly planning process, with respect to the above criteria Current availability of KTH's laboratory environments Each laboratory has a website, with very different user information. KTH Business Liaison has constructed a page at kth.se to increase the availably of research infrastructure. The laboratories are ranked with their website link. The layout of the page can be seen in Figure 5 or visited at kth.se. Figure 5. Illustration from kth.se, d. 12

17 4.2.4 A visualisation example of available laboratories. A visualisation example of how KTH can get an overview of available laboratories is taken from ri.se. In order to get an overview, RISE, Research Institute of Sweden laboratories has mapped its laboratories at its webpage, ri.se. The tiles are made by Stamen Design and Open Source, see Figure 6. Notes and comments are added to each laboratory. The information consists of the name of the laboratory, address and website. Figure 6. Snapshot from ri.se, Interview study This chapter presents only the results used for the analysis of the mutual requirements of the laboratory environments, from the interview study. The interview study consists of four categories: capacity, cooperation, organisation and marketing. 13

18 4.3.1 Capacity Number of laboratory directors who consider their laboratory to have excess capacity 13% Yes No 87% Comments: 13 of 15 laboratory directors feel that the laboratory has excess capacity and is in need of more users. Several directors pointed out that more users would be beneficial for both the research within the area but also from an economic perspective. However, a few laboratory directors pointed out that the laboratory does not have the resources to assist new users with guidance to use the equipment Collaboration Laboratory directors who consider collaboration between academia and industry to be difficult 40% 60% Yes No Comments: 9 of 15 laboratory directors find it difficult to manage payment from different users: e.g. external researchers and industry. The laboratory environments handle payment in different ways and it often depends on the individual case. Most laboratory directors wish there was more help available, because of legal uncertainty and lack of knowledge. Some laboratory environments have a common LIMS-system, where three different levels of payment are constructed for internal research, external researchers and industry. Some laboratory managers have formed minor clusters with other laboratory directors in the areas they frequent and share their equipment and knowledge amongst themselves 14

19 within the cluster. Sometimes there is equipment in other laboratories the laboratory director does not know about; therefore better collaboration between all laboratory environments in Stockholm is desired along with an easy way to share knowledge and equipment among the laboratory directors Organisation Number of laboratory directors who think the laboratory organisation should be improved 20% Yes No 80% Comments: The majority of laboratory directors feel stressed and the organisation is perceived as being heavy. Making a decision can take a long time, because sometimes several steps and several people are involved. Another factor which contributes to slow organisation is that laboratory directors do not feel there is the enough support. Several laboratory directors feel they do not get enough time for their research, if they have one Marketing Laboratory directors who regard that their laboratory can be more available 100% Yes No 15

20 Comments: Every laboratory director considers that their laboratory can be more available. The needs are different for the various laboratories. Some need support with social media and some need to update information on their website: e.g. visiting address, some laboratories were hard to locate and in some cases and/or a phone call had to be made to find out where the visiting address was. Most directors do not have the knowledge or the time to manage the availability of the laboratory. Every director wants support, in the shape of some kind of marketing of the availability of the laboratory. Today, the laboratories themselves are in charge of marketing. Most directors have a website and direct contact with users, while some directors arrange different kinds of events and are more visible in different social media. The majority of directors believe that appearance on a mutual platform is a good idea to increase the availability of the laboratories. Some laboratory managers prefer direct contact when initiating projects, while others prefer to use different booking systems. Some laboratories use LIMS to access their equipment, personnel and services which they offer, while some use other booking systems, which are connected to their . Most of the laboratories are accessed by direct contact. 4.4 Workshop There were approximately 40 participants at the workshop and most of them were laboratory directors. This means an initial meeting for laboratory directors at KTH, SU and KI has been created, see Appendix C for participant lists. The subject of the workshop was: How to attract new users to the laboratory environments. The workshop included insights from the Research Council, represented by Elin Swedenborg, Research Secretary, who presented the Council s plans for external funding of research infrastructure. A brief summary of the result and analysis of the requirement analysis of KTH laboratory environments was presented by Anna Svensson. This probably affected the participants stated challenges and possibilities regarding how to attract new users to their laboratory environment but also confirmed that Anna s analysis was received as the basis for the possibility of future work by the laboratory directors. A case of how to attract users was presented by Björn Thuresson, Laboratory Director at VIC, which probably also affected the result of the participants answers. The following challenges and possibilities about how to attract new users to their laboratory environment were stated by the participants. The answers were collected by Ulrika Ljungman, Head of Department at KTH Business Liaison. Challenges Dare to let the infrastructures become available to others Operating costs Pricing to obtain economic sustainability Usage costs and costs to train users To customise offers requires individuals who can create the offer All lab instruments should be centralised, for all users No resources to increase the laboratory usage How to market towards SME Who will perform the selling process? How to set user fees to allow hiring more staff How to optimise the usage of equipment How can companies present themselves to an institution? Large facilities: o find the research questions, then we will solve the task o find long-term financing o visibility, to show where we are and what we can Receive knowledge about existing resources / infrastructures available Competence to use equipment 16