AAA as a "beancounter" victim
Gary Hathaway (hathaway@cco.caltech.edu)
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:48:28 -0700
Anita et al.
We also faced the dilema of wanting to continue AAA for our "in-lab" use
in spite of overall declining sample workload. The problem was that we were
looking at about 5K for maintenance costs to do about 50 samples per year.
That's $100 per sample just to cover the cost of keeping the equipment
running. You are correct in pointing out,the beancounters perspective, that
unless samples can be run for less than an outside agency, there is no
justification for it, speed, quality, etc. notwithstanding. Now it happened
that a sister organization down the road was charging $45/sample in-house,
but $100 for outsiders.
So, we entered into an agreement with them. They agreed that they could
easily run more samples for AAA and would like access to our MS analysis.
So, they run our AAA and we run their MS samples. To normalize the sample
flow, both parties agreed to extend their "in-house" rates to the other. So
far it's worked out pretty well and we've "moth balled" our 420H. In a way
this makes good sense as it optimizes the use of equipment by extending the
core facility concept over more than one institution.
Now I just worry they can keep their 6300 going.
regards