Datasets:
srobertsphd
/
mit-labnetwork

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
2.97k
<af8162d1fcb54e3d890d885c920b2322@epfl.ch>
Message-ID: <CAERBAG-+Mvoo-PZ_jrqfz6NfkR688tTL10-DYVPSonTE1DkgLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Philippe and Colleagues,
Thanks for the feedback. We are reviewing Stratocore at the moment as part
of a last minute due diligence.
In our brief assessment, it seems that Stratocore was designed particularly
for microscopy cores for *tool access control*, and while there is some
operational overlap with running a cleanroom, absent is *area access
control* as we charge and track access to parts of our cleanroom, which
NEMO does well. A few of us have found that reserving tools is a bit clunky
using the Stratocore calendar interface. NEMO's calendar is a bit more
intuitive and has the ability to provide a cleaner view of one's schedule.
This is especially important when running a multi-tool process, and you
want to plan your day accordingly with *fewer clicks*.
Looking at three specific categories of Annual Cost of Ownership,
Flexibility, and Feature Richness:
1. *Annual Cost of Ownership*: Stratocore is significantly more
expensive than NEMO. NEMO can be installed without vendor lock-in (no
service agreement). And for about the same price year-to-year, we could
push Atlantis to develop more into NEMO on our behalf for
our specific processes and impact a larger community.
2. *Flexibility*: Stratocore is closed source and feature
implementation is dependent on the development team's decision. NEMO is
community driven; anyone can contribute and their source code can be
modified. For those not familiar, NEMO is extendable by way of plug-ins or
you can completely branch out like our PennState colleagues.
3. *Feature Richness*: While initially there are many well-thought out
features in Statocore when it comes to billing, tool training requests,
etc., the community contribution aspect of NEMO could easily outpace these
over time.
Cost aside, I believe flexibility wins especially when there is community
involvement (similar to my days with GenISys and the ecosystem they created
with its customer base and user meetings). I am looking for a positive
difference of opinion if there are any. So far, I have heard none from our
network here but am open to them and a deeper discussion on our process
so far.
I agree with Philippe that this is a very hot topic for sure.
Best,
Gerald
Gerald G. Lopez, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
Director of Operations and Business Development & Center Associate Director
University of Pennsylvania | Singh Center for Nanotechnology
NNCI Mid-Atlantic Nanotechnology Hub (MANTH) ? nnci.net
3205 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA Deliveries: 3231 Walnut
Street, LRSM Building, Philadelphia, PA 19104
nano.upenn.edu ? lopezg at seas.upenn.edu ? +1-215-573-4041 ?
linkedin.com/in/geraldglopez/
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 6:18?AM Fl?ckiger Philippe <
philippe.fluckiger at epfl.ch> wrote:
> Hello Gerald, Dear Folks and Friends,
>
>
>
> I hope you are all doing well.
>
>
>
> In the following months, we are going to evaluate how STRATOCORE can be
> adapted to the specific needs of our state-of-the art platform.
>
>
>
> Access control (physical interlock on every tool), conditional
> reservations depending of the targets installed on sputters/evaporators
> will be the key points to address.
>
>
>
> We will see how STRATOCORE is willing to be responsive and motivated to
> proceed to our demands, and what add-ons might be made by EPFL.
>
>
>
> Currently we are still running our homemade 20+ years old permanently
> upgraded software but we are reaching the limits of it.
>
>
>
> The reason we will investigate STRATOCORE is that it is already
> implemented in Life Science at EPFL.
>
>
>
> This is definitely a hot topic !
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
> *Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger*
>
> *Director of Operations*
>
> *http://cmi.epfl.ch/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://cmi.epfl.ch/__;!!IBzWLUs!XNt7jKZP_y-F055dlRPn4AEPFGQRT5T7HMCrEM3DLLO_gMCbSJPyAQRkeQ1JTvBMqYTWGQERJfgNOaS44Fxqg8jwU37J22mH$>*
>