Skip to main content

Who owns the electron microscope after the grant ends?

Major instruments in Bangladeshi universities are rarely lost to technical failure. They are lost to governance. How to choose an operating model, name a custodian, fund the running cost and write the right terms into the purchase order.

The instrument arrives on a research grant with two years left to run. It is installed, it produces the data behind three papers, and the student who learned to drive it graduates. The grant closes. The service contract is not renewed, because the recurrent budget has no line for it. Eighteen months later a detector needs one part, the quotation goes to a committee with no fund to draw on, and a working instrument sits under a dust sheet in a locked room. That is the most common way a major instrument is lost in a Bangladeshi university, and not one step in it is technical.

Choose the operating model before the purchase order

The rule of thumb is straightforward: the more expensive the instrument and the more the result depends on operator skill, the further towards a staffed facility you have to move. An electron microscope, a Raman system or a thermal analysis suite operated by whoever happens to be free that week produces inconsistent data and a short service life. Settle the model before the tender, because it changes the training you buy, the spares you buy, and whether the institution needs to create a technical post at all.

A custodian is a person with hours, not a title

The most common failure in shared instrument governance is that responsibility is assigned to a department rather than to a person, which means it is assigned to nobody. Name a custodian and a deputy, write down what they are responsible for, and take those hours out of their other workload. A custodian carrying a full teaching load will do the urgent thing, and instrument maintenance is never the urgent thing until it is far too late to be maintenance.

What the role should actually cover, written down and agreed:

Budget the running cost as a recurrent line

The capital case is normally argued carefully. The running case is often not argued at all. Before the purchase, list every recurring cost and get it into a recurrent budget line rather than into a project that is going to end.

A useful test before signing: if nobody can say today where the money for the next filament comes from, the instrument is not funded. It has merely been purchased.

Charging that funds maintenance without killing use

Access, training tiers and the culture around faults

  1. Sample submission. The user does not touch the instrument. Right for occasional users, and for anything where one mistake is expensive.
  2. Trained user under supervision. Can run the routine modes with the custodian present or reachable.
  3. Independent user, signed off in writing against a defined checklist, with an individual account and, where justified, out of hours access.
  4. Custodian and service level, covering alignment, calibration and anything that opens the instrument.

Alongside the tiers, set one cultural rule and hold to it: whoever breaks something must report it immediately, and is not penalised for reporting it. Concealed faults are what turn a repair into a replacement. An operator who keeps running a damaged stage for another fortnight because they are afraid of the consequences will cost the institution more than any training programme it could have run.

The service contract question, answered honestly

Full cover, labour only and pay per call are three different bets, and the right one depends on the instrument rather than on a general policy.

What to write into the purchase so the facility works in year five

Every one of these is easier to obtain while a purchase order is unsigned than at any point afterwards. How readily a supplier answers them in writing, before the order, is the most reliable indication you will get of what support is going to look like in year five.

Back to all Insights