Facilities Access

Overview

The MIT campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, includes 24 classes of equipment that could be described as specialized and highly useful but cost prohibitive or otherwise out of reach for startup companies to purchase, maintain, or operate. For example, access to the MIT Tow Tank, environmental scanning electron microscopes, or bio/wet lab equipment could be game-changing for a new tough-tech venture. As of May 2017, however, MIT’s policies and procedures were not conducive to sharing such facilities and equipment.

In The Engine Working Group on Facilities Access, we examined the opportunities for and barriers to sharing some of MIT’s specialized equipment with The Engine. We identified three key areas where MIT must adapt to permit access for qualified individuals and entities: policies and procedures; administrative tools and frameworks; and training, insurance, and safety systems. We believe changes in these areas will foster productive interactions among companies supported by The Engine and MIT’s expert makers—facility managers and students who may be able to participate in the activities of The Engine.

A key principle guiding our assessment has been maintaining the primacy of facilities access for MIT’s education and research activities. On the logistics front, our group examined the potential timing of ramp-up activities, safety, training, legal and regulatory issues, information flows, and joint database and software needs.

Where We Are Today

Contrary to common perception, MIT has at hand most of the components it needs to grant The Engine safe, secure, and mutually beneficial access to Institute facilities. Existing policies and procedures, when properly and uniformly understood, do not raise unnecessary barriers. Administrative tools and safety systems must be adapted, rather than reinvented, to accommodate outside startup users. Important concerns remain, however, related to MIT and to federal policies that MIT must anticipate and monitor proactively.

Existing Policies and Procedures Permit Access

During our research, our group encountered broad variations in understanding of what is permissible when sharing resources with non-MIT individuals and entities. Much of the confusion stems from a range of conservative policy interpretations that trickle down from offices advising on and governing external access. When assessed objectively, however, existing MIT policies do provide viable paths for external access to on-campus equipment.

Programs at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, the MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratory (MTL), and MIT Center for Materials Science and Engineering (CMSE)[1], for example, follow Institute procedures to allow outside use of facilities and ensure compliance with relevant MIT policies, the law, and federal guidelines. The MTL has successfully granted access to many companies for more than 15 years with its Fabrication Facility Agreement (FFA). The CMSE facilities grant outside access to the Shared Experimental Facilities (SFE) and on-campus staff who are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). We note, however, that such outside use and charging agreements would require specific modifications for each facility before they could be widely adopted across MIT.

Management Tools and Systems Are Not Fully Compatible

MIT manages the flow of people, money, and materials associated with facilities access using two major platforms, Mobius and Coral. Mobius serves the needs of MIT’s shops, makerspaces, and research labs—an inventory of more than 800 pieces of equipment. Coral is the lab management system used by MTL and for some CMSE equipment. Several other units each have their own distinct systems for tracking and qualifying users and equipment. The Engine has developed its own prototype platform, the Engine Room, to perform those functions as well as to make matches among local equipment experts.

Although the Engine Room is powered via the Mobius platform, the Engine Room’s database structure was modified during its development. This has created a situation in which compatibility between the Engine Room and Mobius is tenuous and one way. The Engine Room’s database can read—with some finagling—from the Mobius database, but the reverse is not true. This incompatibility could worsen when either the Mobius or the Engine Room platforms undergo further upgrades.

Foundations of Expertise and Goodwill

Expertise, trust, and goodwill are the bedrock of any shared facilities program—all of which MIT has in abundance. Cultivating personal relationships with the experts and craftspeople who are running Institute facilities, educating members of the community, and helping people find and use the right equipment are key.

These experts also help build the mens et manus skill set within the MIT community, a skill set that is essential for the future success of the startups that The Engine will support. At the same time, clarity about whether and how MIT employees and students participate in this shared use—whether to enable companies’ use or as members of companies sponsored by The Engine—is important for continued goodwill and the appropriate use of human resources.

Addressing Safety Concerns

Teams from MIT’s Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS) Office oversee safety policies and procedures within Institute facilities. They also have experience working with external entities to ensure proper transfer of hazardous materials and biological materials to campus from outside the Institute. EHS systems work well for the MIT community, but they are not broadly positioned to accommodate external users.

Equipment safety is important to ensuring that machines and facilities are available to MIT students and staff when needed. MIT has excellent training and use policies that help keep people and equipment safe, but equipment does get damaged accidentally. At the moment, minor accidental damage to MIT equipment typically is covered by the host facility, while major accidental damage is covered by MIT insurance. The existing system doesn’t provide any means to ensure the rapid repair or replacement of equipment that may be necessary with increased external use.

Addressing Export Control Concerns

At present, MIT is an international community of researchers and educators who conduct fundamental research. MIT policy states that “research conducted on campus, without restrictions on publication or participation, is fundamental research from inception to publication as long as the intent is to publish the results.” Work on campus that does not meet this interpretation is considered an exception that is subject to special review, in part to comply with federal export control policies such as International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

It is reasonable to expect that a company sponsored by The Engine would not use MIT equipment for fundamental research and that, as a result, when that company brings materials to the MIT campus, the materials would be considered subject to export control regulations. It is also reasonable to expect that some individuals participating in companies sponsored by The Engine will have at least partial appointments at MIT. For this reason, use of the campus by The Engine and its sponsored companies must adhere to written policies on whether and how ITAR/EAR should be considered separately from existing MIT policy.

Allowing Time to Gear Up

Our working group estimates that The Engine’s own newly constructed makerspace will accommodate more than 80% of the typical hardware-type prototyping capabilities needed by tough-tech startups. This includes a modest space for wet-bench work. Given the lead time needed to gear up the MIT facility access program, The Engine may need to consider short-term alternatives to meet the remaining 20% of its facilities needs. Alternative facilities may be useful in the long term when startups from The Engine need access to equipment outside MIT’s normal working hours.

Depending upon the activities of the startups, The Engine may need to make similar arrangements for additional wet-bench space. Distinguishing between chemical wet-bench work and biological wet-bench work is critical because infrastructure, equipment, and safety needs differ between the two. This holds true whether the facilities are in The Engine’s new makerspace, alternative space accessible to The Engine, or MIT space used by The Engine.

What We Need

MIT does not need to overhaul its approach to its facilities access. Nor does it require additional equipment. Our group believes that MIT can accommodate the external users who will be coming in through The Engine by clarifying and adapting existing systems for training, oversight, coordination, and safety.

Standardize and Disseminate Guidelines and Agreements

Given the widespread misinterpretation of guidelines for external access by MIT’s DLCs, the Institute urgently needs to review and clarify, or modify, existing policies to ensure consistent interpretation and application of sharing procedures. The Institute should implement a companion communications strategy to educate DLCs about what is permitted under MIT guidelines. In the Facilities Access Working Group, we believe these efforts will encourage more DLCs to opt into a campus-wide shared facilities program.

MIT also needs a standard facilities access agreement that can serve as a template for DLCs wishing to share equipment with startups supported by The Engine. This FPI could be based on the MTL’s FFA and other agreements (such as the one CMSE uses), and should be compared with those in use at another federally supported facility. We recommend that the FPI contain a streamlined core document that aligns with MIT’s general terms for facilities access. DLCs could supplement the core document with addenda to customize access for their particular facility.

We recommend that MIT also create standard supporting materials that DLCs can use to manage and track sign-in, training, and financial charges associated with granting access to their facilities. The Institute also will need to develop a training program for financial officers and facility staff in the use of FPI templates and related materials.

Address Database and Software Licensing Issues

MIT must create a master database that may be used by Mobius, the Engine Room, and other MIT entities such as the EHS Office. The master database will enable DLCs to manage equipment, training, payment, and other essential elements of a shared facilities access program. MIT should endeavor to make any new database or querying system compatible with complementary equipment access or query systems already on campus, such as Coral, or make it forward-compatible with new ones.

MIT and The Engine also must develop a joint strategy for coordinating the software needed to prepare materials for processing on MIT equipment. The Institute relies heavily on educational licenses, and The Engine will own commercial licenses. External companies are not permitted to use MIT’s educationally licensed software to design, measure, simulate, and optimize parts or to create the programs they need to run computer-controlled equipment within the DLCs. Incompatibilities may arise without proper coordination.

In some cases, educational and commercial versions of software create programs that are incompatible. Work completed using software at The Engine, for example, may be viewable on MIT computers but will not yield code that can operate Institute equipment.

Connect Two Communities of Experts

MIT needs to help connect its community of experts and craftspeople with staff at The Engine who manage its equipment and advise on engineering and fabrication best practices. These connections depend heavily on facilitating personal exchanges. Interactions between the two groups of equipment experts will strengthen the lines of communication within the facilities sharing program and improve outcomes.

Those connections also will establish a pipeline to The Engine for students who are passionate about the theoretical, prototyping, and experimental aspects of tough-tech enterprises. Finally, MIT and The Engine must understand clearly that access to any MIT facility is a voluntary decision by the known stakeholders of any specific facility or piece of equipment.

Adapt Environment, Health, and Safety Policies and Procedures

The MIT EHS Office should adapt its systems for tracking policies, procedures, and training to accommodate external users. The office also will need to establish and maintain a formal relationship with The Engine. This will ensure good communication and effective oversight of the flows of people, materials, and waste associated with the use of MIT facilities by external startups.

Our group expects that when ventures supported by The Engine start using MIT equipment, the frequency of accidental damage and the speed of wear and tear on equipment will increase. MIT needs to take steps to minimize repair times and mitigate additional costs that may affect DLCs’ education and research activities.

General training in laboratory and shop safety and equipment operation is crucial to the safety of people and machines. MIT and The Engine must determine how to train the entrepreneurs supported by The Engine, and who will supply the resources to do so. In our experience, most MIT facilities lack the bandwidth to train external users. Inadequate training programs may deter many DLCs from participating in a shared resources program.

Articulate Export Control Policy

Our working group reasonably expects that the use of campus facilities by The Engine and its sponsored companies has the potential to involve materials—including data—that may be subject to export control. MIT and The Engine must provide and enforce written policies on whether and how export control policies differ from current MIT policy. Employees of such companies, some of whom may also have MIT affiliations, should not assume any policy that differs from MIT’s current policy with respect to the campus’ designation for fundamental research.

Use a Phased Approach

In the short term, the Institute should leverage pre-existing frameworks to share specialized equipment with The Engine’s startups at facilities such as MTL, CMSE, and the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research. For the long term, MIT must develop a blanket FPI agreement that can be customized with addenda according to the needs of each participating facility.

Protect MIT Community Members in Shared Facilities

Our group recommends that MIT enact protections for students who may use or work within facilities that will be shared with The Engine. Such students should not be exposed to interactions with members of The Engine if non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are required or if a conflict of interest could arise because students are hired to conduct work within MIT facilities on behalf of The Engine.

How We Get There from Here

MIT must mobilize key stakeholders and other experts on campus to develop the infrastructure it needs to significantly increase access to MIT facilities by outside users. MIT should collaborate with The Engine to ensure that these frameworks are mutually beneficial.

Convene a Facilities Program Interface Development Team

To create the core of a new FPI, MIT should seek consensus among the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP), Office of the General Council (OGC), TLO, and those campus facilities interested in becoming early adopters of the FPI. Our working group recommends that an FPI development team use MTL’s FFA as a starting point. Early adopters should play a key role in shaping a suitable core-addendum structure that can be used by participating facilities to adapt the FPI to their circumstances.

Invest in a Master Database

We recommend that MIT invest in making the Mobius and the Engine Room databases compatible with a master database that each platform will use as needed. This investment will be particularly beneficial over the next several years as Mobius expands to include equipment at other universities and colleges within our region.

Connect People and Foster Relationships

The many dozens of people who oversee equipment—rather than the pieces of equipment they oversee—are the most important element of a successful MIT shared facilities program. Understanding and working with these individuals is critical given that this will be an opt-in program.

Our group recommends that MIT and The Engine appoint people on each side who are cognizant of equipment access issues, understand engineering practice and fabrication technology, and have experience building successful teams. These individuals will cultivate relationships among members of The Engine and MIT facility managers. Such individuals also will make it clear internally that access to any MIT facility is a voluntary decision by the stakeholders of any specific facility or piece of equipment.

Train a Cohort of Mens et Manus Makers

The Engine and the startups it sponsors will need a deep pool of students and postdoctoral researchers skilled in advanced modeling, design, and fabrication to complement the skill sets of other MIT students who focus on the entrepreneurial side of new tough-tech ventures. To fill this need, our group proposes the formation of a Mens et Manus Makers program. The new program would be overseen jointly by Project Manus and The Engine, and would train and vet students for internships at The Engine.

Establish a Formal Framework for Environment, Health, and Safety

To create subsets of policies and procedures, the EHS Office and The Engine must establish a formal framework for sharing data and vetting the flow of people, materials, and projects to the MIT campus. At minimum, this framework should include regular meetings of representatives from both entities to coordinate proper government permitting of facilities for specific projects and to track and approve the flow of controlled materials (e.g., biological materials, hazardous materials, waste, etc.). This group also should be responsible for generating solutions to EHS issues as they arise.

In addition, our working group recommends that the EHS Office, Project Manus, and The Engine collaborate on an assessment of environment, health, and safety training needs (programmatic, financial, and staffing). As part of training delivery, we recommend the creation of a just-in-time training program that incorporates online training and testing. The online components should be designed to reduce the training load on MIT staff without sacrificing safety or the quality of skill development. MIT’s Project Manus programs—MakerLodge and other tiered training programs—can be adapted to address this issue. MIT and The Engine also must create a “Rapid Fixit” program that expedites equipment repair or replacement and thereby minimizes disruption to MIT activities.

Build Upon Approved Facilities-Sharing Programs

Our working group envisions three phases to the adoption of a campus-wide facilities access program. In phase one, facilities with approved sharing programs and substantial experience (e.g., MTL, CMSE, Koch, and Lincoln Laboratory via CREDA) could opt in and begin sharing resources. Simultaneously, MIT should develop the blanket MIT–The Engine FPI it will deploy for phase two.

Also during phase one, we recommend that The Engine consider a corporate membership at the local, high-end makerspace Artisan’s Asylum. This would give The Engine access to a wide range of equipment, including after-hours access, while MIT gears up its facilities access program. In the long term, this type of membership would give The Engine access to equipment its startups could use for work subject to ITAR/EAR without exposing MIT to additional risk.

MIT would launch its formal FPI program in phase two. Using the FPI, plus appropriate addenda, Institute facilities such as the MIT Tow Tank, the Edgerton Center, 3D printing at CopyTech, and BeaverWorks could be opened to The Engine. Access could be expanded to include a select group of local accelerators and startups, such as Greentown Labs and MIT’s partner institutions within the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.

Phase three would incorporate additional MIT facilities that have or can be equipped with administrative structures needed to manage and enforce an FPI. These facilities will have the benefit of lessons learned from early adopters. We envision MIT.nano and the Metropolitan Warehouse Makerspace as part of phase three when their spaces come online.

Open Questions

We expect that new or follow-on working groups will address many of the issues raised by our recommendations. Beyond that, our group suggests that the MIT administration consider several questions that are fundamental to developing a campus-wide facilities access program.

• What are the best mechanisms for reviewing and approving addenda to the standard FPI agreement when a DLC amends it to meet the specific needs of its facilities?
• MIT and The Engine need to monitor the evolving needs of teams at The Engine and identify gaps in additional resources such as staff and equipment, as applicable. How will MIT provide additional resources if the evolving needs of The Engine make this necessary?
• Federal laws and guidelines may require MIT to include depreciation and other costs related to facilities access that yield a total use fee that is prohibitive to companies sponsored by The Engine. In such cases, will MIT subsidize outside use of its facilities?
• Will The Engine allow work subject to ITAR/EAR? If so, MIT needs to make sure that no work subject to ITAR/EAR from The Engine is allowed on campus without MIT approval. A robust system must be developed to check for and manage any such work.