A Guide to UCSF Shared Research Facilities
Definition:
Four general categories of UCSF shared scientific research laboratories are presented in Table 1. Because
of their more local focus, funding sources for level 3 and 4 facilities are generally provided by individual
faculty members and/or their respective Departments. Because of the broader campus-wide reach, level 1
and 2 facilities are given priority over level 3 and 4 facilities for central campus funding. Exceptions can be
made but should be clearly justified. To achieve level 1 or 2 status, a shared scientific facility should have
all or almost all of the following characteristics:







Access by the entire research community broadly
Cutting edge or state-of-the-art technology that requires advanced instrumentation
High quality scientific, technical, and educational services
A defined R&D mission
Campus vetted business planning including financial management, marketing, and
market analysis components
Equitable cost-recovery practices including campus approved usage tracking and fee
structures
A defined management structure overseeing community usage practices that includes a
Faculty Director, a Technical Director and a Core Faculty Advisory Board (CFAB)
The Three-Fold Mission of UCSF Shared Facilities:
 Service: Provides cutting–edge and state-of-the-art technologies and expertise in an
efficient operation
 Education: Provides explicit training in the proper application of technology and
analysis of the data produced
 R & D: Provides an environment for technology and application development,
broadening the use and applicability of research tools globally and enhancing local
discovery
Table 1
Typical
Characteristics
Key Function Focus:
Service
R&D
Education
User Base
Training
Marketing
Governance
Business Plan
Support sources
Level 1
Technology Center
Level 2
Campus Core Resource
Level 3
Collaborative Resource
Level 4
Local Shared Resource
R&D – Primary
Service – secondary
Education - limited
Service - Primary
Education – secondary
R&D - limited
Service - primary
R&D – secondary
Education - limited
Service only
Routine use by cuttingedge users with access
to cross-departmental
casual users as well
Training on use and
application of
technology available
Functions advertised to
entire campus and
external clients
Management structure
includes Fac Dir, Tech
Dir & Advisory Comm
Formal
Recharge & Grants
Routine use by a crossdepartment user base
Periodic use by closed
group of researchers
Intermittent use by a
handful or researchers
Training on use and
application of
technology available
Functions advertised to
entire campus and
external clients
Management structure
includes Fac Dir, Tech
Dir & Advisory Comm
Formal
Recharge & Grants
Limited training is
available
No formal training
provided
Functions advertised
within School or
Department
Consortium users
Functions not widely
advertised beyond local
geographic network
Dept Admin
Informal
User funds (grants) with
some Department or
School support
Informal
Department or School
Local Management Structure for Level 1 and 2 Resources:
Core Faculty Director (FD) – The primary facility champion who has scientific oversight of
services provided within the facility. The responsibilities of the FD include:
 Serving as principal investigator for all protocols used in the facility
 Scientific oversight of the technical director
 Negotiation of any client difficulties or concerns that cannot be taken care of by the
technical staff
 Appropriate oversight of facility space, equipment and financial decisions.
 Identifying potential sources of funding for the facility; for example, inclusion in
center grants, program project grants and NIH or NSF instrumentation grants.
Core Technical Director (TD) - responsible for daily operation of the facility and all technical
aspects of the services including hiring, supervision and training of technical staff to
perform service duties. The TD is responsible for communication with the faculty clients
during the course of services. Other responsibilities include administrative duties such as
supply procurement and expenditure oversight, maintenance of project/usage logs, usage
report generation, and contributions to grant applications to support the facility.
Core Faculty Advisory Board (CFAB) – Assists the Faculty Director by meeting periodically to
review services, fee structures, identify potential sources of funding, and assess the need to
develop new technologies and services. The CFAB should consist of 3-5 faculty members.
The FD and TD will serve as ex officio members. The CFAB will meet at least once a year
and provide a 1-2 page report to the RRP, if campus funding has been provided. The report
should include an assessment of the impact to UCSF and the greater scientific community,
innovation, financial health, good management practices, and educational opportunities.
Campus Support Structure for Level 1 and 2 Resources:
Core Leadership Advisory Committee (CLAC) – Team comprised of core facility directors that
defines and prioritizes support programs necessary for the facilities including core scientist
development, contributes to definition of goals and evaluation metrics for facilities, assists in
development and implementation of communication plans, market analysis opportunities, and
marketing of core services. This group is not involved with campus funding decisions.
Research Resource Program –UCSF Campus Core Resources unit providing structured support
for operation and financial management including:
 Identification of best practices for facilities: operational and financial management
 Financial management services for facilities
 Communication strategies to improve core utilization including non-campus clients
 Consensus building among the stakeholders who invest in core technologies
 Strategic planning for shared scientific resources: capital investment, space allocation
and long-range financial support
The Campus supports a culture of innovation and collaboration in the use of research tools
positioning UCSF faculty as leaders in scientific discovery and its translation into improved
health. Investment and nurturing of specialized resource centers supports a diverse research
base including sophisticated, dedicated technology users as well as investigators needing access
for less complex analysis. Appropriate centralized administrative structures support this
complex service model and allow for well-informed institutional investment decisions.