Have your say
And now for something completely different...[1]
By Ângelo Martins *
When I was asked to write this text, I had no idea of the theme to choose. I was told that I could write about anything, about what was going on in my mind. I could possibly write about my nomination to coordinate CSIG [INESC TEC’s Centre for Information Systems and Computer Graphics]. So here goes something politically incorrect...
I started working over 20 years ago for organisations belonging to the Portuguese State, and I was always irritated by the management model that incentivises full compliance with the annual plan/budget, even if that means a less appropriate use of (euphemism...) unused balances, frequently for valid reasons, which could very well be used in the following year. The “unchangeable” character of the annual budget (it is unclear why the expenses always surpassed what was planned) may simplify the accounting process, but it is economically wrong. The country is not a project with a beginning and an ending ; it is continuous, and for that reason, draconically applying “closed” financial years to public entities at the system’s base, as is the case of higher education institutions, significantly hampers the proper management of these entities. So, when organisations have some money to spare, due to good management or some bad luck, they are more likely to lose it. They were incompetent, they didn’t use their money...
INESC TEC is not exactly a public organisation, but it works with public entities, especially the FCT, more specifically through national and European funded projects. This means that we are stuck with the rule “spend within a deadline”. This makes perfect sense in the context of projects, as resources should naturally be spent on the project.
But the organisation is not a project and we have basic resources that can be used across the organisation (for instance, in computers) or in a scientific area (in laboratories, for example). The first are usually supported by the overheads of the projects and by the FCT’s multiannual funding. Why not use the same for the second? That depends...
Equipment/laboratories are usually the result of specific funding, which covers acquisition and installation costs. The long-term operation must result from the use of the equipment/laboratory. I could not agree more with the principle. This is an incentive for a profitable use of the equipment, which should have strategic goals and a long-term development plan that promotes its use in projects and service provision activities. Ideally, the results of the activity should be enough for a sustainable operation and the evolution of the equipment. I think we would all agree, but is it so?
In projects, funding is usually available for new equipment and material, and for the human resources required to use the existing equipment. The evolution of the project funding models, with an increasing self-funding component and based on the amortisation throughout the project, does not make the process easier. It is always possible to go get some change from different projects for small equipment, but we cannot maintain and improve a laboratory with a part here and there. Some of the equipment is very expensive and has a short life cycle, not only due to wear, but also due to obsolescence. In many cases we are talking about 3 or 4 years. This is how “cutting edge” works. Many of these laboratories may need further investment after the amortisation period, in some cases even before that.
The multiannual funding may be the most obvious funding source for this type of equipment, but I seriously doubt that it is enough to cover all the costs of all laboratories at INESC TEC. I’m not even sure if this funding makes sense because laboratories are also capable of generating revenue that could be used to upgrade them.
What if things were a bit different? What if the laboratories could work as “units within centres”[2], providing a service provision mechanism for the projects and activities of a centre or INESC TEC as a whole? Co-promoted projects would have to be paid in kind (working hours of the laboratory staff, small equipment, materials, etc.), while subcontracts and service provisions should be paid in cash.
And by the way, what if the laboratories could work on a multiannual funding basis, i.e., maintaining an account and accumulating balances for the following years? This would make it possible to renew and/or acquire expensive equipment with our own revenue, with the added advantage of promoting the work and the excellence of the labs.
This may be the typical naivety of someone who just started managing a Centre at INESC TEC, but I think none of this collides with INESC TEC’s legal system, nor would it lead to significant changes in the institution’s operation. This means that implementation costs would be practically nonexistent, and the impact on the scientific and financial results would be significant.
Sometimes, small things can change everything.
I wish you a Happy New Year!
*Coordinator of the Centre for Information Systems and Computer Graphics (CSIG)
