1 / 12

Massimo Caccia INFN & Universita’ dell’Insubria

The TTN Questionnaire: a first glance at the data. Massimo Caccia INFN & Universita’ dell’Insubria. TTN mid-term workshop, CERN – June 23-24, 2009. The data sample (1/2). benchmark institutions:.

kaycee
Download Presentation

Massimo Caccia INFN & Universita’ dell’Insubria

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The TTN Questionnaire: a first glance at the data Massimo Caccia INFN & Universita’ dell’Insubria TTN mid-term workshop, CERN – June 23-24, 2009

  2. The data sample (1/2) • benchmark institutions: * Possible misunderstanding: data for the full lab, not only for the HEP division (221/982 FTE’s)

  3. The data sample (2/2): our statistical population ( xxx % addressed institutions) • By the end of the day: • 7 institutions split into 2 categories • 1 extra benchmark •  NOT WORTH ANYTHING TERRIBLY SOPHISTICATED!

  4. Labs by size [FTE] CERN FTE GSI DESY PSI FTE in HEP • an averaging procedure weighted by FTE in HEP will be dominated by CERN • DESY and PSI do represent a good example of labs where HEP and no-HEP live together

  5. (poor) analysis method • constrained by the limited statistical population and the large spread (standard deviation) of the data • assume as basic figures the Executive Summary indicators of the 2006 ASTP survey for fiscal year 2006 [excluding financial data on the income & start-up’s], namely: • Invention disclosures • Patent applications • Patent grants • License agreements • Research agreements Normalized to 1 year and per 1000 FTE’s • assume as a reference the ASTP mean data + BNL and EPFL • compare to the mean and weighted mean values for labs & institutions (weights defined by FTE in HEP)

  6. A closer to look to the indicators for the labs (normalized to 1000 FTE’s, per annum) (1/3) GSI DESY disclosures applications CERN PSI granted licensed

  7. A closer to look to the indicators for the labs (normalized to 1000 FTE’s, integrated) (2/3) families DESY GSI PSI CERN licensed RATIO

  8. A closer to look to the indicators for the labs (normalized to 1000 FTE’s) (3/3) IP transfer/ annum DESY PSI CERN GSI  Agreement/annum 

  9. The performance indicator summary table (per 1000 FTE’s)   ASTP mean weighted by the data size in the 2 samples

  10. a picture is worth a thousand words: Conclusions (1/3)

  11. Conclusions (2/3) • labs do it better • German labs do it a lot better! • the spread among the different institutions is terrifying (a lot higher than among benchmarks, irrespective of their intrinsic differences…) • there’s a solid rock motivation for the TTN • KE towards other disciplines and Research agreements with other scientific community has definitely to be pursued (DESY is, to me, a fairly good example!)

  12. Conclusions (3/3)

More Related