Chromatography Forum

I'm getting depressed. The thing that depresses me is how often things go wrong because someone, somewhere, didn't think about what they were doing. I'm by no means the sharpest tool in the box, but I find it frustrating. Ours is a profession that is skilled and involves problem-solving. But we also live in a paradox, that many labs have to operate to such tightly-controlled procedures that able technical staff are positively discouraged from having any opinion or using any initiative.

What do other labs do to encourage their staff to use their brain-cells? Or do other labs encourage this? How do you get people to take responsibility for what they are doing, and be proud of improvements they can suggest, while also reining in the less desirable modifications and method-creep? How do you balance honest, well thought-out initiative and professional attention to procedure? How do you get people to think before they rush into activity, or think about whether a procedure is appropriate and likely to produce the best outcome before plodding off into the procedure? How do you motivate?

Hi,

Unfortunately I don't have any answers for you but I would like to offer some solidarity. You are not alone.
I work in a high throughput lab and have the same issues with locking methods down and encouraging staff to do little but process, process, process. But when something does go wrong we (as a company) look at these same staff and despair that they can't think for themselves.
What can we do about it ? Personally I think we need a small excess in staff to allow individuals to work within the development department where free thinking must be encouraged. But with money being so tight everywhere this in never going to happen unless there are drastic changes in mindset ahead.

Rich

Check this:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15698

Hellow
1) Ne zamorachivajsa!
Do not bother, do not take to heart. Health more (is a great price) then work problem.
2) It's all over the world so. Who is carrier (worker) - on his (as horse) ride.
3) This is need translated from Russian, though the automatic translation. This ara some interesting ideas
А) J Muhin "Suggest a rope!". (big papers)
http://www.duel.ru/200845/?45_5_1
Businessman and politician appreciates the successful work of Brazilian businessman Ricardo Semler.
"The fire at the headquarters - the slogan of Mao" - not the fruit of excessive bureaucracy.
"The money should go meet the man"
" Its not my commands - its You frount of work "
"Anarchia => mother of ORDUNG" ( c Bakunin)
"We in a one (frends)ship" Rules Principles
B) Virtual trade union of Philipp Moris USSR
http://www.delo-tabak.narod.ru/page_10.htm
http://www.delo-tabak.narod.ru/page_10a.htm
In the parodic manner describes the implementation of the "american system of personal governance" at the Alma-Ata tobacco factory (Kazachstan), bought in 1995, Phillip Morris.
Specifically here, the major errors in dealing with people.
False smiles, inadequate planning, senseless and unnecessary procedures, confidentiality. Caricatures understood without translation.

From the same -correct Toilette procedure (translation procedure as parody )
http://www.delo-tabak.narod.ru/page_10a.htm
Attention all employees!
Previously, employees were allowed to use toilet facilities without any restrictions. Starting from November 1, 2000 the company introduced new rules for using toilets: Set New Toilette Policy (NTP). According to the NTP each employee to stand up front twenty (20) toilet items per month. Unused items are considered to be transitioning to the next calendar month and accumulate.
At the end of the calendar year gained more than 20 points shall be reimbursed to employees in the form of compensatory time off or additional leave at the rate of three (3) minutes per item.
During the next two weeks, the doors to all toilets will be equipped with voice recognition. In the period prior to November 1, 2000, every employee must submit to their immediate supervisor two samples of his voice (one normal, the other - in a stressed state).
During November this year, the voice recognition system will operate in part, that is, will keep a record of points, but will not restrict access to toilets. The full STP comes into force on 1 December 2000. If the balance points to the officer first in December would fall to zero, then the door to the toilet he / she will not open in the future during the entire month of December this year. Access to a toilet such employee will be activated only with the beginning of next month, ie January 1, 2001.
In addition, all cubicles in the toilets will be equipped with new holders of rolls of toilet paper with a timer. If an employee takes a booth during the period of time than the allowed three (3) minutes, after this time included a warning beep. If after thirty (30) seconds after the alarm has not released a booth worker, then the holder with a roll of toilet paper automatically moves into a special niche in the wall and closed valve, the water in the toilet bowl automatically goes down and the doors automatically swing open cubicles and open. If an employee does not relieve the booth and not leave toilet during and subsequent thirty (30) seconds, the hidden camera automatically makes him / her a picture and this picture posted on the "bulletin board employees."
If during a calendar year employee picture, there are three (3) times on the bulletin board, it is considered a cause for administrative investigation and organizational conclusions.
Administration.
Department of Workforce Management

Thank you all for at least cheering me up! I also enjoyed the NTP!

I always find it interesting/amusing/despairing watching people deal with a blocked hplc. You can tell so much about someone's character.

Further suggestions always welcome...

DSP007, we're all in it together!

You might find this article by Koni Grob interesting - written in 1998

http://www.restek.com/Technical-Resourc ... orial_A015

Cheers

Ralph

I did enjoy it! He concentrates on only one facet of the problem. True, half of our profession is "too professional" in that they're so tied in chains of QC that they are no longer allowed to think and innovate. But many others lack training, or have fallen into a belief that their 20-year-old training is sufficient for the rest of their professional life, and are skating on analytical thin ice. Just as regulated labs have out-of-date methods that they can't afford to update and revalidate, academic labs have out-of-date (and frequently never validated) methods that have been handed down from person to person, photocopied until they're fuzzy, reapplied to different scenarios, and never thought-about with any degree of care.

Personally, I'm one of those totally lack any proper professional training. But it's very frustrating. Objectively, I'm scared by dubious lack of QC in some parts of academia, but I'm also scared by the lack of ability to think, reason and explain found in the better parts of professional analysis. I try to understand how things should be done, but when I can't understand, and ask experts who do have the right training, their answers often boil down to "it's like that because it's like that and always was, and if you don't know that, it's because you haven't got enough experience to understand".

I feel that neither camp want me (or anyone) to think. The first camp don't want to rock the boat. They don't want to hear that their method may not be valid. They don't understand what validation entails, they don't understand concepts such as selectivity, and they're happy with their method because "it looks right" and because the first time it was used, it confirmed their professor's belief in what the samples should contain. They don't really want to have an understanding, because understanding analysis is just another job in their already busy lives. It's a thing for people who worry too much...

The second camp don't want me to think either, and are equally challenged by it. They've forgotten that understanding and knowledge are two different things. If I ask "why is it wrong to smooth data?" (as I have!), they don't see a problem with answers such as "because it's not allowed in the ABC regulations" (knowledge) or "because it is a manipulation of the raw data" (undefined ethics). What I want to know is why does this particular operation run a risk of giving me answers that are no longer robust/accurate/precise/selective or otherwise fall short of what an answer ought to be. I don't care tuppence about the ABC regulations since I'm not working in that environment, but presumably whoever wrote the regulations had some reasoning behind their writings. What was it? I don't want a philosophical debate about ethics. I want to know about statistics and metrology, the numerical basis of how we go from a fluctuating electronic signal to a belief about how much of something was in a glass tube.

Another example that has me in giggles is the question "I want to measure something at a range of 1-100nmoles, how many calibration points do I need?"

I'm sure you can guess the range of answers:
PhD student in academia: "What's a calibration curve?"
Post-doc in academia: "Oh, do you need a calibration curve? I just use peak areas to compare"
Professor: "Use however many Jim B uses, I met him at a conference last week and he knows everything there is to know about analysing things. He runs this super facility in X (I know the facility is super because he told me so over a beer, so it must be, mustn't it?)"
RA in academia: "I use the protocol from Y, which I photocopied off some bloke who gave it to my boss at a conference 5 years ago. They got it from a student who used to work at Z, I think, but I'm not really sure. They make up a standard from this thing bought from A, but we can't get it any more, so we buy a different salt from B (but still follow the same recipe despite the fact that it's now got 27 water molecules associated with its crystal structure, and its molecular weight is now twice as big). We use 5 points, but often one of them doesn't work, so we miss out the bad point. Oh, you want to know what I mean by 'doesn't work'? I mean, one point sometimes doesn't sit on the line, so we miss it out."
Expert A: "5" "Why?" "Because that's the right number."
Expert B: "Use however many points it says in the protocol. If you change it, your method is no longer valid"
Expert C: "If you're using Chemstation you could download this macro"

Sorry to rant!

lmh

I feel your pain ! A huge majority of analyses are done either by technicians who know how to do it, but do not understand why, or by people just using analytical chemistry as a measurement tool in pursuit of a bigger answer than the result of an analysis.

God bless the technicians who come into work and do the same thing over and over, day after day, because then I don not have to drive myself crazy doing it myself. And then cast them into the deepest pits of hell for just running and runnning the analysis while retention times drift, extra peaks mysteriously appear and not-ready lights glow in all directions, without noticing any of it.

Automated instrumental analysis has become its own worse enemy - sample in, number out, sample in, number out. What the numbers mean, if anything, requires brains to be engaged, and that is a dying skill. In the publish or perish academic jungle why not just go with the flow and throw reams of dubious data into a number crunching programme in the hope that a pattern emerges ?, everyone else is doing it, and getting their papers published.

It has not been the best of days

Peter

The first question was the "cry of the soul"

I'm getting depressed. The thing that depresses me is how often things go wrong because someone, somewhere, didn't think about what they were doing. I'm by no means the sharpest tool in the box, but I find it frustrating. Ours is a profession that is skilled and involves problem-solving. .......
How do you get people to think before they rush into activity, or think about whether a procedure is appropriate and likely to produce the best outcome before plodding off into the procedure? How do you motivate?

and for solution of this question no technical solutions. This psychology
and rational work motivatioin.

Secondary question - is a technical question, but there is no but do not have to do a unique solution. As mathematicians say," the equation has only partial solutions".

Rational principles - Reasonable sufficiency. Do not listen to what others say, but look at the specific task and for her to develop a strategy and plan of analysis. So to be sure by yourself at all 200%.
In the words of Chenghis Khan - Khs'i met [Any problems will solve Allah . (From this solve) You must do what do(need do) , and come what may ].