FUGE- a survey of user satisfaction

Transcription

1 FUGE- a survey of user satisfaction Undertaken by Perduco AS on behalf of FUGE- Research in functional genomics in orway, The Research Council of orway By Adviser Arild Rognan Head of Bureau Gyrd Steen

2 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Preface On behalf of FUGE/The Research Council of orway, Perduco has undertaken a survey of user satisfaction of FUGEs national technology platforms. The questionnaire was developed by the administration and board of FUGE in cooperation with Perduco. Data was collected electronically through the web during September and October of Perduco, not FUGE, is completely responsible for the analysis and interpretation of the data in this report. Oslo, the 15th of ovember,

3 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Index Preface... 2 Index... 3 Introduction... 5 Technical comments... 6 Population...6 Sample and sample methodology... 6 Methodology related to collection of data... 7 Date of the collection of data... 7 Principal findings The overall impression Characteristics of the survey s respondents Reasons for which the respondent did not apply for a grant from FUGE The technology platforms of FUGE Information about FUGE Contact with the technology platforms Use of the technology platforms Attachment Questionnaire Attachment Frequency- and crosstables Chart 1: Gross sample... 6 Chart 2: et sample Chart 3: What is your knowledge of FUGE, The Research Council of orway s programme for research on functional genomics? Chart 4: Region Chart 5: Relationship with FUGE by region Chart 6: Sex Chart 7: Title Chart 8: Employer Chart 9: Ownership Chart 10: Point of connection Chart 11: Reasons for which the respondent did not apply for a grant from FUGE Chart 12: Reasons for not using FUGEs technology platforms Chart 13: Amount of users related to technology platform Chart 14: Means of cooperation the user has with the technology platforms Chart 15: Sources of information about FUGE and the technology platforms Chart 16: Manner of contact Chart 17: Quality of cooperation and satisfaction with technical expertise in relation to the accessibility of the technology platform(s) Chart 18: Consequences a closure of the technology platform(s) would have for the research activities of the users Chart 19: Consequences of the cooperation with the technology platforms Chart 20: Would you characterize the contact with the technology platform(s) to be a result of your need, or of pressure/demand from FUGE?

4 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Figure 1: What is your opinion about the information on FUGE at FUGEs programme websites? Figure 2: Do you believe the information about the technology platforms at FUGEs websites to be useful? Figure 3: How would you characterize your first experience with the technology platform(s) you are making use of? Figure 4: Are there other research communities, public or private - in orway or abroad, that could replace the role the technology platform(s) play(s) for your research activities? Figure 5: Is it your impression/experience that the FUGE technology platforms have led to increased national cooperation across of various research communities? Figure 6: How important is the organization of the FUGE technology platforms for your research activity within functional genomics/biotechnology? Figure 7: How are you with the cost/price of using the technology platform(s)? Figure 8: How are you with the quality of the data material that you obtain from the technology platform(s)? Figure 9: How are you with the accessibility of the technology platform(s)? Figure 10: How are you with the technical expertise of the technology platform(s)? Figure 11: What is your opinion on the quality/professionalism of the cooperation with the technology platform(s)? Figure 12: How was your experience related to initiating a collaboration with the technology platform(s)? Figure 13: How would you characterize the contribution of the technology platform(s) in order to reach your goals/expectactions related to the research activities? Figure 14: Would your research activities have been undertaken given that the FUGE technology platforms did not exist?

5 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Introduction The Research Council of orway s programme for research in functional genomics FUGE has established eleven national technology platforms in order to meet the need for advanced technology and highly qualified personnel within the research in functional genomics. The reason for initiating this survey was the need, identified by FUGE and its board, to find out what experiences FUGE s technology platform-users have with FUGE and the platforms. The main focus of the survey is on the technology platforms. Some additional questions have been added about FUGE as such, however the majority of the questions are related to the use, experience with and opinions regarding the technology platforms. The users of FUGE s technology platforms can be divided into three subgroups; recipients of grants from FUGE, those that applied but weren t granted financial support from FUGE and those that didn t apply for grants. It is the intention of this study to look into whether these three sub-groups have different experiences with FUGE. The survey also intends to answer why a number of people working within functional genomics and using the technology platforms have not applied for grants. Some respondents are not users of the technology platforms. The latter have been asked about why they don t use the technology platforms. In addition, the survey has evaluated the contribution of the users cooperation with the technology platforms. A final important question the survey tries to give an answer to is how the users would have managed without the technology platforms of FUGE. 5

6 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Technical comments Population This survey s population is the totality of grant recipients, applicants who FUGE denied a grant, FUGE technology platform users who have not applied for a grant through FUGE, and researchers within functional genomics and biotechnology who do not make use of the FUGE technology platforms. The total population is defined with the support of databases belonging to the Research Council of orway and the Regional Health Authorities, (the socalled helseforetak ). Sample and sample methodology The sample was chosen from the population as described over. A questionnaire was sent all registered recipients of grants and applicants denied grants from FUGE. A questionnaire was also sent scientists/researchers within the field of functional genomics and biotechnology that are registered at the Regional Health Authorities. Amongst these one finds both users and non-users of the FUGE technology platforms. The reason for including the relevant non-users, was that it was considered important to assess why they didn t apply for a FUGE grant and why they don t use the technology platform(s). FUGE doesn t have a complete overview of all users of their technology platforms, just recipients of grants and those that applied for grants that were denied it. In order to access users that did not apply for a grant, the Regional Health Authorities were contacted, in order to provide possible users of the FUGE technology platforms. One was aware that many of these persons were not users of the FUGE technology platforms, and that many would hence not reply. There were introductory questions in the questionnaire, so that irrelevant respondents would not be asked to answer the following questions in the survey that demand use or good knowledge of the FUGE technology platforms. Please find the sample s gross number below. Chart 1: Gross sample. Frequency Valid percent Cumulat. Recipient of grant ,3 29,3 29,3 Denied grant ,5 23,5 52,8 Researcher on functional genomics and biotechnology ,2 47,2 100,0 who did not apply for a grant ,0 100,0 A total of 225 answers to the questionnaire were registered. These can be categorized into the following: 6

7 Chart 2: et sample. PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Frequency Valid percent of the gross sample Recipient of grant 98 43,6 43,6 28,2 Denied grant 85 37,8 37,8 30,6 Researcher on functional genomics and biotechnology who did not apply for a grant 42 18,7 18,7 7, ,0 100,0 The majority is made up of grant recipients, closely followed by those denied grant. The response amongst the last group, (those who didn t apply), is low; however one must keep in mind that there was no previous overview of how many in this group possess knowledge of and/or use the technology platforms. Amongst the last group there is also many who are not involved with the specific type of research in functional genomics that FUGE is focusing on. Methodology related to collection of data The data collection was carried out as a web survey where the respondent received a link via , and thereafter logged on to the online questionnaire. The original timeframe was one week. Thereafter a reminder was sent out with an additional one-week time-limit. Date of the collection of data Perduco/ORSTAT carried out the data collection in the period of September 14 th through October 12 th of

8 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Principal findings 1.1 The overall impression The general image the user survey reveals, is a positive one; both regarding FUGE as a program and its technology platforms. The questions asked to measure the satisfaction with FUGE and the technology platforms disclosed predominantly positive answers. The importance of FUGE and the contribution of the technology platforms also seems to be ascertained. The impact of FUGE s technology platforms are such that many research communities would be unable to continue their work without the access to FUGE s technology platforms services and technology. Regarding the quality of the cooperation, cost/price, data quality and the technology platforms accessibility, the feedback is very positive, with only few respondents not being. Moreover, FUGE s technology platforms have contributed to increased national cooperation, improved quality of the research, as well as directing orwegian research in the field of biotechnology in the direction of functional genomics. The main reason why a number of users have not applied for grants from FUGE, is that they believe they are not eligible. The main reason why a certain number of researchers in the fields of biotechnology and functional genomics do not use the technology platforms, is that the platforms are not suitable for the research they carry out. Relationship (grant recipient, applicant denied grant, users who have not applied for a grant), point of connection (service, research cooperation, both) and whether the respondent is directly involved with the technology platform(s), (either as an owner and/or involved with the allocation of funds), seem to be relatively important factors when interpreting the respondents answers. Those only loosely connected to FUGE s technology platforms are generally less enthousiastic than those being more heavily involved,- and the former also considers the impact of the technology platforms to be of less importance than the latter. Those who are loosely connected are less dependent on FUGE s technology platforms. This hardly comes as a surprise. The loosely connected have alternative solutions, as well as being less involved with operations and cooperation. They are, in many aspects, less responsible for the situation of the technology platforms. In a methodical perspective this is important to keep in mind. Those more loosely involved with the cooperation and ownership have the freedom of expressing their real opinion simply because their statements will not cause trouble for themselves. 8

9 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO In brief, the analysis of the survey results reveals the following findings: Most respondents possess good knowledge of FUGE. Amongst the respondents who have not yet applied for a grant through FUGE, the large majority states that the reason for this is that the probability of obtaining a grant is too small for them to spend resources on an application process. Many share the belief that their projects do not qualify for FUGE grants, whilst some receive financial support from other sources. Four out of five respondents use or have used FUGE s technology platforms. The main reason why some choose not to use FUGE s technology platforms is that it is not suitable for their field of research. Also, many state that they possess the technology themselves. A majority of those using or having used FUGE s technology platforms are cooperating on projects. The second most used mean of cooperation is analysis. Meetings/conferences/seminars and conferences/training are the means of cooperation named less frequently. The most frequently named source of information about FUGE and the national technology platforms are colleagues. In second place comes The Research Council of orway and the Internet. Very few have obtained information from external consultants and the media. A definite majority of the respondents find the information about FUGE and FUGE s technology platforms at FUGE s websites relevant/useful and informative. Most of them got in touch with FUGE s technology platforms through the platform itself. A definite majority found the process of getting connected with the technology platform(s) either very or quite easy. More than one out of three holds the opinion that the function of the FUGE technology platforms cannot be replaced by other research communities. More than one half of the respondents argue that the FUGE technology platforms have led to increased national cooperation amongst research communities. Four out of five respondents argue that the organization of the FUGE technology platforms is very or quite important for their research activities. One half of the respondents are very of quite with the cost/price of use of the technology platforms. Only five per cent are not very or not at all. 9

10 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO More than one half of the users are very or quite with the quality of the data-material they receive from the technology platforms. Only three per cent are not very or not at all. Three out of five respondents are very or quite with the access of the technology platforms. Around six per cent are not very or not at all. A clear majority says they are very or quite with the technical expertise at the technology platforms. 7 out of 10 argue that the quality of the cooperation with the technology platforms is very or quite satisfactory. Only four per cent finds the quality to be not very satisfactory or not satisfactory at all. The majority of the respondents says that it was very or quite easy to initiate a collaboration with the technology platforms. About four out of five say that the contribution of the technology platforms has been very or quite important in order to meet the expectations they had related to their research activities. Two out of five argue that their research activities would not have been undertaken, had it not been for the FUGE technology platforms. The most frequent consequence of any closure of the FUGE technology platforms is that the researchers would have had to find new partners/collaborators. Many projects would also have been delayed. The least common answer is a cancellation of the research project. When asked, most mention that the collaboration with the technology platforms have led to new partners to work together with, including more national cooperation. Least argue that the collaboration has led to an increase in foreign grants. Four out of five argue that the contact with the technology platforms is a result of own need and not that of demand(s) from FUGE. 10

11 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO 2.1 Characteristics of the survey s respondents There were a total of 225 respondents in the net sample. The chart below demonstrates the various background variables. Knowledge of FUGE. Chart 3: What is your knowledge of FUGE, The Research Council of orway s programme for research on functional genomics? Frequency Valid percent Cumulat. percent Very good 69 30,7 30,7 30,7 good ,9 60,9 91,6 bad 15 6,7 6,7 98,2 Very bad 4 1,8 1,8 100, ,0 100,0 A clear majority of the respondents state that they have quite good or very good knowledge of FUGE. Only a minority possesses quite bad or very bad knowledge of FUGE. Amongst those who possess very bad (little) knowledge of FUGE, none has applied for a grant. A third of those who state to have quite bad (little) knowledge of FUGE has never applied for a grant. Respondents who have applied for a grant seem to have a good knowledge of FUGE. Chart 4: Region. Valid Cumulat. Frequency Region percent percent Eastern orway ,4 44,4 44,4 Western orway 66 29,3 29,3 73,8 Mid-orway 28 12,4 12,4 86,2 orthern parts of orway 28 12,4 12,4 98,7 ot relevant 3 1,3 1,3 100, ,0 100,0 The majority of the respondents belong to FUGE s Eastern orwegian region, followed by the Western region. There are the same amount of respondents from Mid-orway and the orthern part of orway. Three respondents answered not relevant, as they are working abroad. 11

12 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Chart 5: Relationship with FUGE by region. We would like to know what relationship you have to FUGE Receiver of grant Denied grant ot applied for grant, but researcher within the field REGIO Eastern orway 53,1% 40,0% 33,3% Western orway 24,5% 34,1% 31,0% Mid-orway 11,2% 15,3% 9,5% orthern parts of orway 11,2% 10,6% 19,0% ot relevant 0,0% 0,0% 7,1% (=225) 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% The chart above shows that most applicants of grants come from Eastern orway, according to the survey, followed by the Western part of orway. There is the same amount of applicants from both Mid-orway and the orthern part of orway amongst the respondents. The tendency is more or less equal amongst applicants who were denied grants and respondents who have not applied for such. Chart 6: Sex. Valid Cumulat. Frequency Sex percent percent Male ,6 71,6 71,6 Female 64 28,4 28,4 100, ,0 100,0 A definite majority (71,6 %) of the respondents are men. Chart 7: Title. Valid Cumulat. Frequency Title percent percent Head of Research/Research Director/Research ,6 51,6 51,6 Manager/Professor Researcher/Scientist 45 20,0 20,0 71,6 Managing Director/Head of Institute 24 10,7 10,7 82,2 Scholarship recipient/ Research Fellow/Post Doc 15 6,7 6,7 88,9 Other, please note 25 11,1 11,1 100, ,0 100,0 Most of the respondents have titles such as Head of Research/Research Director/Research Manager or Professor. Thereafter comes Researchers/Scientists, MDs/Heads of Institutes as well as scholarship 12

13 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO recipients/research Fellows/Post Docs. Eleven per cent answered other. Amongst these are for instance senior scientific officers and others. Chart 8: Employer. Valid Cumulat. Frequency Employer percent percent University ,4 60,4 60,4 College 6 2,7 2,7 63,1 Institute 27 12,0 12,0 75,1 Industry 14 6,2 6,2 81,3 Hospital 30 13,3 13,3 94,7 Other 12 5,3 5,3 100, ,0 100,0 More than half of the respondents work at a university. This is followed by hospitals, institutes, the industry and colleges. Chart 9: Ownership. The respondents were also asked whether they are directly involved with technology platform(s) as an owner and/or involved with the allocation of funds. Valid Cumulat. Frequency Ownership percent percent Yes 58 25,8 32,4 32,4 o ,8 67,6 100, ,6 100,0 Did not receive question 46 20, ,0 One third of the respondents are either directly involved as an owner and/or involved with the allocation of funds. Chart 10: Point of connection. Valid Cumulat. Frequency Point of connection percent percent Service 34 15,1 19,0 19,0 Scientific/research cooperation 71 31,6 39,7 58,7 Both service and scientific/research cooperation 74 32,9 41,3 100, ,6 100,0 Did not receive question 46 20, ,0 13

14 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Two out of five respondents are connected to the platforms both through service and research collaboration. About the same number state that they are connected through research collabo ration only. One out of five is connected through service only. 14

15 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO 3.1 Reasons for which the respondent did not apply for a grant from FUGE. 42 out of the respondents had not applied for a FUGE grant. These are all in the field of functional genomics and biotechnology. They were asked why they had not applied for FUGE grants. In the chart below, you find the explanations in order of presedence. Chart 11: Reasons for which the respondent did not apply for a grant from FUGE. Reason (=42) The likelihood of receiving a grant is too small in order to spend time on the application 38,1 I/we don t think that our projects would qualify for a grant from FUGE 33,3 I/we receive financial support from other sources 33,3 I/we possess little knowledge about FUGE 14,3 It is too complicated to apply for a grant from FUGE 11,9 It is too time-consuming to apply for a grant from FUGE 4,8 I/we don t need financial support from FUGE 0,0 There is no need to cooperate with the FUGE-technology platforms 0,0 I/we don t want others to acquire insight into our research activities 0,0 The most frequently named reason to which an application for a FUGE grant has not been made, is the presumption that the likelihood of receiving a grant is so scarce that they don t prioritize to use resources on it. One third state that they don t think their projects qualify for a grant/financial support. Another third receive grants from other sources. 14 per cent state that they don t know enough about FUGE, whilst 12 per cent state that it is too complicated to apply for a grant, and five per cent state that it is too time-consuming to apply for a FUGE grant. o-one answers that they don t need the FUGE grant, neither does anyone reply that they don t need to cooperate with the FUGE platforms. or does anyone answer that they desist from applying because they don t want others to get insight into their research activities. There seems to be a widespread belief amongst non-applicants that it is difficult to obtain a grant for their projects. One explanation could be that it is generally difficult to receive a grant from the Research Council of orway, another that they don t believe that their specific project will qualify for a grant. One out of ten has the impression that it is complicated to write an application. It is also interesting to note that no-one replies that they don t need to cooperate with the technology platforms. 15

16 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO 4.1 The technology platforms of FUGE. on-users of FUGEs technology platforms. About 20 per cent of the respondents state that they have never used FUGEs technology platforms. In the survey they were asked about the cause of this. The answers were distributed accordingly: Chart 12: Reasons for not using FUGEs technology platforms. Why haven t you used one or more of the technology platforms? (=46) The offer to use FUGEs technology platforms is not relevant for my research 54,3 I already possess the technology 41,3 It is too expensive to make use of FUGEs technology platforms 17,4 I don t possess enough knowledge about FUGEs technology platforms 6,5 The most common factor was that FUGEs technology platforms are not adapted to their research. This indicates that there is work to be done in order to widen the service of the technology platforms to cover more fields of research. All respondents from the industry who do not use the FUGE technology platforms name this cause. Many of the respondents also have access to/own the technology themselves. Almost one out of five state that FUGEs technology platforms are too expensive to use. This is interesting. In the survey, the users of the technology platforms were asked their opinion about the price and cost of use of these. 80 per cent replied that they were either very, quite or with price/cost. Only five per cent were either not very or not at all. One explanation to the findings that many non-users find the price/cost of use to be too elevated, can be that they don t have the complete overview over these. In that regard, FUGEs technology platforms have a marketing job to do regarding the actual price. Users of FUGEs technology platforms. 80 per cent of the respondents in the survey use, or have used the FUGE technology platforms. It is interesting to note that as many as 76 per cent of those who have not applied FUGE for a grant, use or have used the FUGE technology platforms, and likewise 72 per cent of those who applied but were denied a grant. The greatest amount of FUGE technology platform-users are found amongst respondents working at universities (84 %), closely followed by hospitals and colleges (both at 83 %). The ratio is the lowest amongst respondents from the industry (64 %). The respondents are distributed accordingly amongst the 11 FUGE technology platforms: 16

17 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Chart 13: Amount of users related to technology platform. Platform (=179) The orwegian Centre for Microarray Technology (MC) 37,4 The orwegian bioinformatics platform 34,6 The orwegian Proteomics Centre (PROBE) 32,4 The orwegian Molecular Imaging Centre (MIC) 19,0 The orwegian Structural Biology Centre (ORSTRUCT) 16,8 The orwegian Centre for Integrative Genetics (CIGEE) 16,2 orwegian Transgenic Center (TS) 12,3 The orwegian Arabidopsis Research Centre (ARC) 10,6 Biobanks for Health 10,1 The orwegian Centre for Microbial Technology (CAMST) 7,8 Regional Research Biobank in Central orway 2,2 Most of the respondents are connected with The orwegian Centre for Microarray Technology (MC). Thereafter, in order of presedence, The orwegian bioinformatics platform, The orwegian Proteomics Centre (PROBE), The orwegian Molecular Imaging Centre (MIC), The orwegian Structural Biology Centre (ORSTRUCT), The orwegian Centre for Integrative Genetics (CIGEE), orwegian Transgenic Center (TS), The orwegian Arabidopsis Research Centre (ARC), Biobanks for Health, The orwegian Centre for Microbial Technology (CAMST) and in the last place, the Regional Research Biobank in Central orway. Cooperation with FUGEs technology platforms. The users of the FUGE technology platforms were asked to state the means of cooperation they have with the platforms. The answers were distributed accordingly: Chart 14: Means of cooperation the user has with the technology platforms. Means of cooperation (=179) Project work 65,4 Analysis 62,6 Developing methodology 34,6 Borrowing/use of apparatus/technology 33,0 Meetings/conferences/seminars 29,6 Courses/training 29,1 Project work is the means of cooperation that most respondents state to have with the platforms, followed by analysis. Three out of five have stated that they collaborate in these ways, whilst about one out of three say that they 17

18 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO borrow/use apparatus/technology, cooperate through meetings/conferences/ seminars and through courses/training. It is worthwhile noticing that collaboration with the platform(s) is more frequent amongst those who receive a grant from FUGE than those who did not receive a grant or who have not applied. In addition, a higher percentage amongst those who applied but were denied grants collaborate with the platform(s) than amongst those who did not even apply. 5.1 Information about FUGE. Sources of information. The manner in which the respondents obtained information about FUGE and the technology platform(s) vary. The chart below illustrates the sources of information in order of presendence. Chart 15: Sources of information about FUGE and the technology platforms. Sources of information (=225) Colleagues 74,7 The Research Council of orway 72,9 Internet 56,9 The Research Council of orways/fuges information meetings 37,3 Research institutions 30,2 Information material 26,7 Articles in scientific publications 20,4 Other 6,2 The media 5,3 External consultants 1,3 Most respondents obtained information about FUGE and the national technology platforms through colleagues, The Research Council of orway or the Internet. Very few obtained information through the media or external consultants. 18

19 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO The quality of the information about FUGE on FUGEs websites. The respondents were asked to evaluate the quality of the information about FUGE at the FUGE websites, as well as the quality of the information about the technology platforms. The answers were as follows: Figure 1: What is your opinion about the information on FUGE at FUGEs programme websites (=225)? 80 % 70 % 68,4 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % 7,6 % Very informative informative 8,4 % Less informative 0,9 % ot informative 14,7 % Figure 2: Do you believe the information about the technology platforms at FUGEs websites to be useful? (=225) 70 % 60 % 63,0 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 17,7 % 19,3 % 10 % 0 % Yes o Have not read the information A clear majority held the opinion that the information about FUGE and the technology platforms at FUGEs websites is of high quality. Amongst the subgroups (background variables) more than fifty per cent hold this opinion. Interestingly, 23 per cent of those who receive grants, have not read the information about the national technology platforms on the FUGE websites. This is only a scarce 5 percentage points lower than of those who did not even apply for a grant. 19

20 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO 6.1 Contact with the technology platforms Most respondents got connected with the technology platforms directly. FUGE contributed to arrange about one third of this contact. ot surprisingly, three out of four non-applicants got connected with the technology platforms directly. The great majority found it very easy, quite easy or easy to get connected with the platform. Very few state to have experienced problems getting connected. Chart 16: Manner of contact. How did you gain contact with the technology platform(s)? (=179) Directly with the respective platform(s) 63,1 Through FUGE 30,2 Other 6,7 Figure 3: How did you experience to get in contact with the technology platform(s) you are making use of? (=225) 45 % 40 % 35 % 30 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5 % 0 % 42,5 % 33,5 % 19,6 % 3,4 % 1,1 % Very easy easy Easy difficult Difficult 20

21 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO 7.1 Use of the technology platforms. According to the results of the user survey, FUGE and FUGE s technology platforms contribute considerably within functional genomics. Figure 4 below demonstrates that more than one out of three users hold the viewpoint that other communities cannot replace the technology platform(s) they use. In particular the universities, recipients of grants and owners hold this opinion. There are large differences between the owners of platforms and those who don t. Amongst those who are directly involved with technology platforms either as an owner or involved with grants for platforms, 64 per cent reply that the function of the platforms cannot be replaced by other research communities, whilst the percentage amongst those who don t own a platform is 33 per cent. Figure 4: Are there other research communities, public or private - in orway or abroad, that could replace the role the technology platform(s) play(s) for your research activities? (=225) 50 % 45 % 40 % 35 % 30 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5 % 0 % 44,0 % 35,1 % 20,9 % Yes o Figure 5 below shows that FUGEs technology platforms have been an important factor in order to create more national cooperation across relevant research communities. 21

22 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Figure 5: Is it your impression/experience that the FUGE technology platforms have led to increased national cooperation across of various research communities? (=225) 60 % 55,1 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 21,3 % 23,6 % 0 % Yes o The survey shows that the point of connection is relevant. Amongst those connected through both service and scientific/research cooperation, a clearly larger percentage holds the opinion that FUGEs technology platforms have led to increased cooperation in research, than amongst those only connected through service. Ownership also seems to play a role. Eight out of ten being directly involved with technology platform(s) as owner and/or are involved with the financing of the platforms, hold the opinion that the technology platforms have led to increased national cooperation in research. Amongst those who don t own a platform, the corresponding percentage is 52. A clear majority amongst the users signal that the organizing of FUGEs technology platforms is of importance to their research activities within the field. Figure 6: How important is the organization of the FUGE technology platforms for your research activity within functional genomics/biotechnology? (=179) 50 % 47,5 % 45 % 40 % 35 % 31,3 % 30 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 13,4 % 10 % 5 % 4,5 % 3,4 % 0 % Very important important unimportant Very unimportant The figure shows that those whose only point of connection is through service, those who don t own a platform and those who received a decline in the grant- 22

23 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO application, are considerably less inclined to see the importancy in the organization of the FUGE technology platforms than the other groups. As previously mentioned, most are happy with the price and cost of use of the technology platforms. Those who receive financial support from FUGE are more than other groups. Also, owners or those who are involved with the allocation of grants are more than those who are simply users. This hardly comes as a surprise, since these are responsible for deciding the price. Figure 7: How are you with the cost/price of using the technology platform(s)? (=179) 35 % 30 % 30,7 % 30,2 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 18,4 % 15,6 % 10 % 5 % 0 % Very Satisfied 3,9 % Less satisifed 1,1 % ot The feedback from the users shows that most are pleased with the quality of the data material they have received from the technology platforms. Only a scarce number hold the opinion that there is a lack of quality in the data material they obtain. Figure 8: How are you with the quality of the data material that you obtain from the technology platform(s)? (=179) 40 % 35 % 36,3 % 30 % 25 % 21,8 % 25,1 % 20 % 15 % 13,4 % 10 % 5 % 1,7 % 1,7 % 0 % Very Satisfied Less ot 23

24 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Most are happy with the accessibility of the technology platforms. There are, however, some groups that are less so. The users from colleges and institutes are dominantly less pleased with the accessibility of the technology platforms than are users from universities, the industy and hospitals. Within these groups, (colleges and institutes), 20 per cent are either not very or not at all. The survey shows that those connected to FUGE for service matters only, are considerably less with the accessibility than those connected through either research collaboration or both research collaboration and service. Figure 9: How are you with the accessibility of the technology platform(s)? (=179) 40 % 37,4 % 35 % 30 % 25 % 25,1 % 22,3 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5 % 3,9 % 1,7 % 9,5 % 0 % Very Satisfied Less ot The users are generally happy with the technical expertise of and the quality of the collaboration with the technology platforms. Interestingly, how pleased the users are with the access of the platforms and their opinion on the technical expertise/quality of the cooperation with the platform(s), seem to be interconnected. Those who are very or quite with the accessibility are to a larger extent very or quite with the technical expertise of the platform(s)/quality of the collaboration. 24

25 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Figure 10: How are you with the technical expertise of the technology platform(s)? (=179) 45 % 40 % 41,3 % 35 % 30 % 25 % 20 % 24,6 % 21,2 % 15 % 10 % 5 % 3,4 % 2,2 % 7,3 % 0 % Very Satisfied Less ot Figure 11: What is your opinion on the quality/professionalism of the cooperation with the technology platform(s)? (=179) 45 % 40 % 35 % 30 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5 % 0 % Very satisfactory 26,8 % satisfactory 42,5 % Satisfactory 18,4 % Less satisfactory 2,2 % 1,7 % ot satisfactory 8,4 % 25

26 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Chart 17: Quality of cooperation and satisfaction with technical expertise in relation to the accessibility of the technology platform(s). What is your view(s) on the quality of the collaboration with the technology platform(s)? How are you with the accessibility of the technology platform(s)? ot Very Satisfied very ot Don t know Very satisfying 62,2% 22,4%,0% 28,6% 33,3% 11,8% 26,8% satisfying 35,6% 61,2% 40,0% 14,3%,0% 11,8% 42,5% Satisfying 2,2% 14,9% 42,5% 28,6% 33,3% 11,8% 18,4% ot very satisfying,0%,0% 7,5% 14,3%,0%,0% 2,2% ot satisfying,0% 1,5% 2,5%,0% 33,3%,0% 1,7% Don t know,0%,0% 7,5% 14,3%,0% 64,7% 8,4% = % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% How are you with the theoretical /professional/techni cal competency at the technology platform(s)? How are you with the accessibility of the technology platform(s)? ot Very Satisfied very ot Don t know Very 55,6% 17,9% 10,0% 14,3% 33,3% 5,9% 24,6% 37,8% 58,2% 25,0% 42,9%,0% 29,4% 41,3% Satisfied 2,2% 20,9% 45,0% 28,6% 33,3% 11,8% 21,2% ot very 2,2%,0% 12,5%,0%,0%,0% 3,4% ot,0% 1,5% 5,0%,0% 33,3%,0% 2,2% Don t know 2,2% 1,5% 2,5% 14,3%,0% 52,9% 7,3% = % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Only a small number of users state that it was not easy or not easy at all to initiate cooperation with the platforms. This is in line with the fact that most said they were pleased with the quality of the cooperation. 26

27 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Figure 12: How was your experience related to initiating a collaboration with the technology platform(s)? (=179) 40 % 35 % 30 % 30,2 % 34,1 % 26,8 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5 % 6,1 % 2,8 % 0 % Very easy easy Easy ot very easy ot easy at all The technology platforms have been instrumental in bringing about the expectations the users had to their research activities. ot everyone, however, are equally positive. Users at colleges and institutes are considerably less enthousiastic than those from other sectors. Likewise, applicants denied grants, and those who are only connected through sevice, are not overly positive. Owners of the platforms, on the other hand, are more pleased than simply users. Figure 13: How would you characterize the contribution of the technology platform(s) in order to reach your goals/expectactions related to the research activities? (=179) 60 % 50 % 53,1 % 40 % 30 % 23,5 % 20 % 15,1 % 10 % 0 % Very important important 6,7 % unimportant 1,7 % Very unimportant As many as two out of five users hold the opinion that they could not have undertaken their research activities, had it not been for the FUGE technology platforms. This is especially true for users in the Western part of orway, where more than one half hold this opinion. Users who received a grant are by far more dependent on the technology platforms than users who received a denial in their application for grants or those who never applied for such. 27

28 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO early one half of the recipients of grants would not have been able to undertake their research activities without the platforms, and 31 per cent in the other groups held this view. Those who are connected both trough service and research collaboration, as well as owners of platforms, also largely state that they would not have been able to undertake their research had it not been for the technology platforms. As one can see, those who are closely connected to the platforms would experience most problems if the technology platforms were to close. Figure 14: Would your research activities have been undertaken given that the FUGE technology platforms did not exist? (=179) 70 % 60 % 60,9 % 50 % 40 % 39,1 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Yes o If the platforms were to be closed down, most say the solution would be to find other collaborators/partners. Users from the Western part of orway state this most frequently. There are differences amongst those who are connected with the platforms both through service and research collaboration, and those who are only connected with the platform in one of those ways. A substantial number also report that the projects would be delayed, especially owners of platforms say so. 12 per cent report that serious consequences such as closing down the research project would be the case. This is especially true to colleges and owners of technology platforms. Overall, it seems like a closure of the technology platforms could provoke several unfortunate consequences. 28

29 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Chart 18: Consequences a closure of the technology platform(s) would have for the research activities of the users. Consequences (=179) Would need to find other partners to collaborate with 58,7 The project would be delayed 35,8 The project would be less ambitious 27,4 The project would be more expensive 26,8 Would need to establish the technology myself/ourselves 15,6 o consequences 14,5 A closure of the research activities 11,7 ew collaboration partners is the most frequently mentioned result of the cooperation with the technology platforms, closely followed by extended national cooperation. Many users also find that orwegian research in the biotechnology field has been more directed towards functional genomics, and that their research has improved in quality. Overall, the respondents report that the cooperation with the technology platforms has shown good results. Chart 19: Consequences of the cooperation with the technology platforms. Implications: (=179) ew partners to collaborate with 62,6 Extended national cooperation 59,8 That orwegian biotechnology research has been more directed towards functional genomics. 57,5 That my research has improved in quality 56,4 Better coordinated research nationally 38,0 To make me/us more attractive to EU-projects 31,8 That I/we have better access to international research grants 20,7 As chart 20 below demonstrates, 20 per cent feel pressurized by FUGE to initiate a cooperation with the technology platforms, whilst 80 per cent use the platforms of own will/need. Chart 20: Would you characterize the contact with the technology platform(s) to be a result of your need, or of pressure/demand from FUGE? Result of: (=179) Own need 78,2 Demand of FUGE 10,6 I don t know 11,2 29

30 PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Attachment Questionnaire Question B1: How is your knowledge of FUGE, the Research Council of orways programme for research on functional genomics? Alternatives: Very good good bad Very bad o knowledge [End interview] Question B2: In which county do you work? Østfold Akershus Oslo Hedmark Oppland Buskerud Vestfold Telemark Aust-Agder Vest-Agder Rogaland Hordaland Sogn og Fjordane Møre og Romsdal Sør-Trøndelag ord-trøndelag ordland Troms Finnmark Question B3: Are you female or male? Kvinne Mann 30

31 Question B4: What is your age? [ years] PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Question B5: What is your professional title? [The one you mean is of most relevance] Alternatives: Head of Reasearch/Reasearch Director/Professor Researcher/Scientist Managing Director/Head of Institute Scholarship recipient/research Fellow/ Post Doc Other, please note. Question B6: Where do you work? Alternatives: University College Institute Industry Hospital Other, please note. Question B7: We would like to know what connection you have to FUGE. Stated below follows three different alternatives, and we ask you to kindly put a cross on the one that suits you the most. Alternatives: Receives grant from FUGE [Continue with question B9] Have applied to FUGE, but was denied a grant [Continue with question B9] Have not applied to FUGE for grant, but am doing research within the field of functional genomics and biotechnology. [Continue with question B8] 31

32 Question B8: PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Why have you not applied for a FUGE-grant? Alternatives (multiple answers are possible): It is too complicated to apply for a grant from FUGE It is too time-consuming to apply for a grant from FUGE I/we do not need financial support from FUGE I/we do not believe our projects would qualify for a grant from FUGE I/we possess little knowledge about FUGE I/we get financial support from other sources There is no need to cooperate with FUGEs technology platforms The likehood of receiving a grant is too small in order to spend resources on the application process I/we do not want others to acquire insight into our research activities Question B9: FUGE has established 11 national technology platforms in order to secure the accessibility of advanced technology and highly skilled expertise related to functional genomics in orway. The following platforms have been established: Biobanks for Health The orwegian bioinformatics platform The orwegian Centre for Integrative Genetics (CIGEE) The orwegian Arabidopsis Research Centre (ARC) The orwegian Centre for Microarray Technology (MC) The orwegian Structural Biology Centre (ORSTRUCT) The orwegian Molecular Imaging Centre (MIC) orwegian Transgenic Center (TS) The orwegian Proteomics Centre (PROBE) Regional Research Biobank in Central orway The orwegian Centre for Microbial Technology (CAMST) Have you made use of one or more of these technology platforms? Alternatives: Yes [Continue with question B12] o [Continue with question B10] 32

33 Question B10: PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Why haven t you made use of one or more of these technology platforms? Alternatives (multiple answers are possible): Already possess the technology Don t have sufficient knowledge of the FUGE technology platforms Too expensive to make use of FUGEs technology platforms The profile of the FUGE technology platforms are not relevant for my research Question B11: Would you characterize your knowledge of the FUGE technology platforms as good or bad? Alternatives: Very good [Continue with question F1] good [Continue with question F1] bad [End interview] Very bad [End interview] Question B12: Which of FUGEs national technology platform(s) are you using? Alternatives (multiple answers are possible): Biobanks for Health The orwegian bioinformatics platform The orwegian Centre for Integrative Genetics (CIGEE) The orwegian Arabidopsis Research Centre (ARC) The orwegian Centre for Microarray Technology (MC) The orwegian Structural Biology Centre (ORSTRUCT) The orwegian Molecular Imaging Centre (MIC) orwegian Transgenic Center (TS) The orwegian Proteomics Centre (PROBE) Regional Research Biobank in Central orway The orwegian Centre for Microbial Technology (CAMST) I don t know 33

34 Question B13: PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Are you directly involved with the technology platform(s) as an owner and/or involved with the allocation of funds? Alternatives: Yes o Question B14: Which of the following connections do you have with the platform(s)? Alternatives: Service Research collaboration Both service and research collaboration Question B15: What kind of cooperation do you have with the platform(s)? Alternatives (multiple answers are possible): Analysis Development of methodology Borrow/use of apparatus/technology Courses/training Meetings/conferences/seminars Projectwork 34

35 Question F1: PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Various information sources are listed below, and we kindly ask you to state whether you have received information about FUGE and the national technology platforms from any of the following: Alternatives (multiple answers are possible): Colleagues External consultants Research institutes The Research Council of orway Information material The Internet The Research Council of orways/fuges information meetings Articles in scientific periodicals The media Other, please note.. I don t know Question F2: What is your opinion regarding the information about FUGE on FUGEs websites? Alternatives: Very informative [Continue with question F3] informative [Continue with question F3] A little informative [Continue with question F3] ot informative at all [Continue with question F3] I don t know/i have not looked at the websites [Continue with question F4] Question F3: Do you believe the information about the national technology platforms at FUGEs websites to be useful? Alternatives: Yes o I have not read the information about the national technology platforms on the Internet 35

36 Question F4: PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO Is it possible for other research communities (public and/or private) in orway or abroad to replace the function of the technology platform(s) related to your research activities? Alternatives: Yes o I don t know Question F5: Do you experience that FUGEs technology platforms have led to increased national cooperation across research communities (within the fields of functional genomics and biotechnology)? Alternatives: Yes o I don t know Question F6: Do you believe that all researchers in orway can make use of the service and/or initiate research cooperation with FUGEs national technology platforms? Alternatives: Yes o I don t know [Those who answered Very good or good at question B11 move on to question F21 after question F6. The remaining continue with question F7] 36

37 Question F7: PERDUCO FUGE SURVEY OF USER SATISFACTIO How important is the organization of FUGEs technology platforms for your research activities within functional genomics/biotechnology? Alternatives: Very important important ot very important ot important at all I don t know Question F8: How did you get connected with the technology platform(s)? Alternatives: Through FUGE Through the respective platform(s) Other, please note Question F9: How was your experience of getting connected with the technology platform(s) you are making use of? Alternatives: Very easy easy Easy difficult Difficult Question F10: How are you with the cost of/price for making use of the technology platforms? Alternatives: Very Satisfied ot very ot at all I don t know 37