Overview

In the world of biostatistics research support groups, a debate has emerged: Should services be billed hourly, or is a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) model a better approach? Beyond the financial nuances, this debate reflects a deeper question about the nature of the relationship between research support groups and their collaborators. I’d like to highlight this topic, note industry trends, and argue that hourly billing can suggest that support services are a commodity, rather than a true partnership.

Understanding the Hourly Billing Model

Hourly billing, the traditional approach in many industries, involves charging clients based on the number of hours spent on a project. In the context of biostatistics research support groups, it means that clients pay for the time biostatisticians spend working on their projects, regardless of the project’s scope, complexity, or outcomes.

The Emergence of FTE Billing

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) billing represents a different paradigm. Instead of charging per hour, clients pay for a dedicated biostatistician or team, typically on a monthly or annual basis. This approach is gaining traction for several reasons:

1. Enhanced Collaboration

FTE billing fosters a sense of partnership and collaboration between the research support group and the client. When clients have a dedicated biostatistician, they are more likely to view them as an integral part of the research team rather than an external service provider.

2. Predictable Costs

With hourly billing, project costs can be unpredictable and subject to fluctuations. FTE billing offers clients greater cost predictability, allowing for better budget planning and financial management.

3. Focus on Outcomes

FTE billing shifts the focus from tracking hours to achieving project outcomes. Biostatisticians are incentivized to work efficiently and effectively, as their success is tied to the project’s success.

The Partnership Perspective

The choice between hourly and FTE billing goes beyond financial considerations. It reflects how research support groups and their clients perceive their relationship. Here’s why hourly billing can suggest that support services are seen as a commodity:

1. Transactional Nature

Hourly billing can create a transactional relationship, where biostatisticians are seen as hired hands rather than strategic partners. Clients may be less inclined to seek their input beyond the immediate project.

2. Lack of Incentives

Hourly billing may not incentivize biostatisticians to go the extra mile or invest additional time in brainstorming innovative solutions. Their income is tied solely to billable hours, potentially stifling creativity and collaboration.

3. Scope Creep Concerns

Clients may be hesitant to engage biostatisticians for broader discussions or exploratory work for fear of incurring additional hourly charges. This can limit the exploration of new ideas and approaches.

Conclusion: FTE Billing as a True Partnership

In a landscape where biostatistics research support groups are vital contributors to scientific progress, the billing model used should reflect the nature of the partnership. FTE billing, with its emphasis on collaboration, predictability, and outcome-driven focus, aligns better with the idea of a true partnership. While hourly billing has its place, it can inadvertently reinforce the perception that support services are a mere commodity rather than a valued and integral part of the research process. As the industry evolves, embracing FTE billing may be a step toward fostering stronger and more productive relationships between research support groups and their clients.