And this is important because when the conduct of electron microscopy is no longer price competitive with other analytical methods, either microscopic or non-microscopic, less EM works gets done. And that means there are fewer people employed to do EM work.

For at least the last ten years I have heard, especially when standing in our exhibit booth at trade shows, story after story about TEM labs being closed down, mainly in the life sciences area but also in the materials sciences. I invariably hear about the “high cost of doing electron microscopy relative to other techniques”. The shut downs are always blamed on hapless “bean counting” administrators. But is it really?

I for one don’t believe it has to be that way.

In our own laboratory some years ago, when we implemented a “Total Quality Management” system, which in the 1990’s was the management “buzz” word of the decade, we were quite shocked to see how many samples had to be run over again because they were not done right the first time. The quality professionals call this the “cost of rework”. Quite frankly, I was shocked to find out how much money was being wasted because we had not done our work properly the first time. Now I do know that EM work is delicate and all kinds of things can potentially go “wrong”. But once we started keeping track of the different kinds of reasons why the samples were not done right the first time, so that we could learn from our mistakes and reduce the number of instances where such mistakes happened, we were able to reduce the cost of “rework” dramatically.

I know that from time to time there are symposia on “laboratory management” but at least those I have myself attended, they seemed to focus on bringing in money to the laboratory, either by way of increased grant writing or even soliciting work from commercial firms (I will have more to say about this later in some future blog posting).

To me, the real meaning of laboratory management is the managing of the way samples flow through the laboratory and the way human resources are allocated for handling the sample flow. And this all has to be done from the perspective of meeting or exceeding customer and/or client expectations. This means building into each step of each procedure or protocol, a stop-and-look step, to see what could possibly go wrong, and then take some action to make sure it does not happen. And the samples won’t have to be run over again.

This is not the first time I have expressed these thoughts to a TEM audience, though in the past the audience size was far smaller. Some typical responses: “You could never apply TQM in a research laboratory setting.” “It is not the same as manufacturing widgets to some standard specification.” ” I think professionals generally don’t like someone else looking over their shoulder.” But having someone review the reasons why samples had to be done over again, and why they were not done right the first time does not to me seem to be the kind of onerous situation that should get someone upset.

In order to reduce the cost of doing TEM work, we need better management in the laboratory. The skills needed for the proper management of an EM laboratory are no less important than the skills needed for the writing of proposals for funding for the laboratory.

The whole world at times seems like it is on a “quality” kick. How many times a day do we see manufacturers’ statements about “ISO 9000 registration, ” which imply that their product somehow has a higher quality because it carries this designation. I am personally unaware of anyone who has ever documented that products with such registrations are either more reliable or last longer than those that are not so registered. But marketing people from one corner of the world to the other think it is important.

This means that all microscopy laboratories in such ISO registered firms must also be accredited to the standard of ISO 17025, And this means that the laboratory must be inspected by an outside inspector to satisfy some laboratory accreditation agency. And this also means that the laboratory uses, on a regular basis, “certified” standard. The startling fact: a “certified”standard can cost up to ten or more times additional than the “traceable” version of the same thing.

So just what is the difference?

Take the case of a stage micrometer for a light microscope calibration. For years, light microscopists have purchased stage micrometers to calibrate their light microscopes. The manufacturer checks the “markings” against some other standard that has been checked against a standard measured at NIST or some other national metrology laboratory. But if one wants a “certified” standard, that means that some many different measurements are made with a microscope, in an accredited metrology laboratory, and then the many measurements are analyzed and a standard deviation calculated and reported in a “report” that accompanies the “certified” item. It is the very same item that could have been purchased without the papers for perhaps $100. But with the papers, the cost skyrockets to $1000 or more.

I just don’t believe many of the standards being purchased in “certified” form are really needed. Unfortunately I see too many customers with limited budgets paying outrageous amounts for the “papers” when the standard in its uncertified form would be more than sufficient. Putting it another way, how many times might a laboratory be better off with a variety of different standards or calibration aids but in “traceable” instead of “certified” form?

Hello Fellow Microscopist,

If you are reading this, consider yourself a part of an experiment, one of my own creation. A blog about microscopy. Or perhaps more precisely, a periodic venting of my own personal views on some aspect of microscopy, the business of microscopy, future trends and/or other factors impacting on those working in “microscopy”.

Who am I?

Some know me as Charles A. Garber and others know me as “Dr. Garber” For those who know me through postings on listservers and newsgroups, I am known as “Chuck”. For the blog, I will be known as “MicroChuck”. No snickering about that name will be tolerated….but it seemed only natural to combine “Chuck” with something suggesting “microscopy”.

Do I have any such credentials to prognosticate about future trends in microscopy? Or other aspects of microscopy? I will let the readers be the judge. I have worked my entire professional life in electron microscopy. And for the past 36+ years, I have created, grown, and nurtured my own firm, Structure Probe, Inc, which to some is better known as SPI Supplies. We now employ 35+ scientists, engineers, and others in our West Chester, PA USA headquarters. Not many companies serving the microscopy and microanalysis market can claim that many years under the same management and ownership. But I do believe this lifetime of working in the microscopy field, not just as a researcher using microscopes but also as an entrepreneur and corporate manager, does give me some unique insights into the microscopy world.

In order to attract a wide viewer base, MicroChuck will not be covering highly technical points and concepts. This is better left to the many fine scientific meetings and publications. Here we will talk about topics of interest to microscopists generally, not just life science or materials science, not just to cutting edge researchers but also to high school teachers and even students. I plan to emphasize future trends, not just from the technical but also from the management, quality, marketing, and even career perspectives. We plan to cover topics that will be of interest and understood by virtually anyone using any kind of a microscope, be it a few hundred dollars to a few hundred thousand dollars……

Why am I doing this? I guess my first off response is that I want to share what I think in some instances, represents unique perspectives on our industry and profession. I hope others might benefit from my experience and views. Oh, yes, this will, if done correctly, enhance the already excellent branding (brand reputation) of SPI Supplies and Structure Probe, Inc. There might even be some links to certain pages on the SPI Supplies website but such links would be there only if they enhanced the value of the content in that particular posting. When appropriate there could be even links to sites of other firms or in an extraordinary circumstance, even to relevant website pages of competitors. But the content covered and the thoughts expressed will be 100% my own, and under no circumstances would money or any other consideration be accepted to mention or promote any particular concept or product. This will be a completely independent undertaking and one should not be surprised if my comments at times might even seem to upset those with whom I might like to do business (through SPI Supplies).

At some point, as the traffic builds to the MicroChuck blog, we might invite a limit number of firms serving the microscopy industry to be listed on the side as a “sponsor”. This will be done tastefully and unobtrusively. Yes, for these we will accept a payment to help defray the costs of running MicroChuck. Since there will be an opportunity for any viewer to post their own comments regarding thoughts expressed by MicroChuck, more than anything else it will be our viewers who keep us true to our stated goals and objectives.

Thank you for visiting the MicroChuck blog. This is the introductory posting. I hope you will return often. I hope you will share your views with the concept of the MicroChuck blog.

MicroChuck