<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EstiloDeEmail17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=PT-BR link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hello,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I suggest looking at the data gathered in the paper presented at UGIM2010 by Aamer Mahmood and Ron Reger, from Purdue. They look at data from several microfab labs in the US, NNIN and non-NNIN:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Aamer Mahmood and Ron Reger , “Microfabrication Process Cost Calculator,”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Birck Nanotechnology Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is in the CD with proceedings, and I am sure the authors would get you a copy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Their emails are: amahmood@purdue.edu, rreger@purdue.edu<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Roberto Panepucci<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>----<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Roberto R. Panepucci, PhD<br>Division Head - DCSH<br>Centro de Tecnologia da Informação Renato Archer - CTI<br>Rodovia Dom Pedro I, km 143,6 Bairro:Amarais<br>Campinas - São Paulo - Brasil<br>CEP 13069-901<br>Telefone: +55 19 3746-6072<br>Fax: +55 19 3746-6028<br><a href="http://www.cti.gov.br">www.cti.gov.br</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>De:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> labnetwork-bounces@mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces@mtl.mit.edu] <b>Em nome de </b>John Shott<br><b>Enviada em:</b> terça-feira, 19 de março de 2013 17:28<br><b>Para:</b> labnetwork@mtl.mit.edu<br><b>Assunto:</b> Re: [labnetwork] cost recovery<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rick:<br><br>It will be interesting to see the responses to this question ... in my experience there is a greater lab-to-lab variation in how people charge for lab usage than anything else.<br><br>Here is what we do at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility. Details are at <a href="http://snf.stanford.edu/join/fees.htm">http://snf.stanford.edu/join/fees.htm</a>, but I'll provide more of a prose discussion of what we do and why.<br><br>First, we don't charge a monthly access fee and we don't charge for being in the clean room.<br><br>We charge one of three hourly rates for equipment usage: most equipment is charged at $75 per hour for academic users. Wet benches, manual spinners, and a number of basic characterization tools are charged at $50 per hour (2/3 of the base rate). Three tools (Raith 150 ebeam, ASML i-line stepper, and AMAT Centura epi) are charged at $92 per hour. Industrial rates are double that of academic rates for all tools.<br><br>We then have what we call the "notched" cap. If your equipment use charges reach $3000 in a month (the equivalent of 40-hours of base-rate equipment usage), your equipment charges don't go up ... unless you exceed 160 hours of equipment use in a month. If that happens, you begin to get charged again at 25% of the original rate for each tool. The industrial equipment cap kicks in at $6000, so both the "flat" portion and the non-zero slope kick in at the same point in terms of hours of usage. The purpose of the slope after 160 hours of equipment usage is both to prevent equipment hogging and to discourage people from working around the clock for extended periods of time.<br><br>I view the cap as a volume-discount in the hourly equipment rate for our biggest users. We have survived many audits ... although I believe that auditors are genetically predisposed to dislike anything other than a flat hourly rate.<br><br>Oh, one minor wrinkle: we also charge for precious metals (Au, At, Pt, and Pd, and Ir, I think) based on the net weight used for each of those materials (labmembers weight the target/crucible before and after their deposition) and those precious metal charges are not subject to capping.<br><br>Staff usage for processing wafers and training are charged on an uncapped basis of about $60 and $90 per hour, respectively. That rate is applied equally to academic and non-academic users.<br><br>People like the cap because it is predictable in terms of budgeting and proposal writing. It also doesn't penalize folks for taking longer to get something done (in a given month) than they might have first envisioned. The users who only use a lab a few hours a month probably don't like it because their hourly rate has to be higher than the "true" cost of that usage (otherwise the cap can't work ...) but they still get access to a lot of equipment, technology, and infrastructure for a pretty reasonable hourly rate.<br><br>Let me know if you have any questions,<br><br>John<br><br><br>On 3/19/2013 11:32 AM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Draper is investigating cost recovery for our new Microfabrication Center. Right now we charge a flat fee of $117 per hour to recover cost. I was wondering what others did in this regard. I have the presentation from UGIM on the Berkeley Marvell center but I was wondering if others could share their detail with me.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Thanks<br>Rick<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>