Interview Markus Groß

In­ter­view with our Ap­pli­ca­ti­on Spe­cia­list:
Mar­kus We­ber

We are ex­ci­ted to in­tro­du­ce our new month­ly se­ries, Em­ployee In­ter­views, whe­re we will dive into the per­so­nal ex­pe­ri­en­ces, chal­lenges, and in­sights of our team mem­bers. In this first edi­ti­on, we ex­plo­re the jour­ney of one of our ex­perts, shed­ding light on his uni­que chal­lenges and how he over­ca­me them. Stay tu­n­ed for more in­spi­ring sto­ries in the co­ming months!

What is the most com­mon mis­con­cep­ti­on peo­p­le have about working in re­se­arch and de­ve­lo­p­ment?

I think many peo­p­le ima­gi­ne re­se­arch and de­ve­lo­p­ment work to be much more straight­for­ward and clear-cut than it ac­tual­ly is. In rea­li­ty, it’s rare for sin­gle ex­pe­ri­ment to pro­vi­de de­fi­ni­ti­ve ans­wer to ques­ti­on. In­s­tead, it usual­ly rai­ses multi­tu­de of new ques­ti­ons. The­re are ty­pi­cal­ly do­zens of pos­si­ble in­fluen­cing fac­tors that could be re­spon­si­ble for re­sult. To be able to draw meaningful con­clu­si­ons, ex­pe­ri­ments usual­ly have to be re­pea­ted many times and sta­tis­ti­cal­ly eva­lua­ted. That one „eu­re­ka“ mo­ment of dis­co­very is the ab­so­lu­te ex­cep­ti­on.

What was the most pro­mi­sing idea that ul­ti­m­ate­ly fai­led – and why?

Ide­as fail for va­rie­ty of re­asons. Most of­ten, sim­ply due to lack of time. One ex­am­p­le of a (pro­vi­sio­nal­ly) fai­led idea is de­vice that en­ables uni­ver­sal com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on bet­ween mass spec­tro­me­ters, chro­ma­to­gra­phy sys­tems, la­ser ab­la­ti­on, and other cou­pling de­vices from va­rious ma­nu­fac­tu­r­ers. This would sol­ve one of the big­gest chal­lenges for SICRIT®, as the tech­no­lo­gy en­ables uni­ver­sal cou­plings from the hard­ware side. Ho­we­ver, com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on bet­ween the dif­fe­rent de­vices in the cou­pling set­up is al­ways an in­di­vi­du­al chall­enge.

What per­cen­ta­ge of your time do you ac­tual­ly spend on in­no­va­ti­on, and how much on bu­reau­cra­cy?

In fact, bu­reau­cra­cy and ever­y­day tasks take up lar­ge por­ti­on of my time. At the mo­ment, would esti­ma­te the time split is about 25% in­no­va­ti­on and 75% other tasks.

What un­ex­pec­ted in­sight from one of your pro­jects sur­pri­sed you the most?

I was very sur­pri­sed by how dif­fer­ent­ly va­rious in­dus­tries ap­proach ana­ly­ti­cal ques­ti­ons. In some ca­ses, the­re is very de­tail­ed eva­lua­ti­on of which tech­ni­que can best sol­ve spe­ci­fic pro­blem. In other ca­ses, tech­ni­que con­ti­nues to be used sim­ply be­cau­se it was once in­tro­du­ced, and no one has sin­ce che­cked whe­ther it is still the best available op­ti­on.

Is the­re an in­ven­ti­on or tech­no­lo­gy from a com­ple­te­ly dif­fe­rent field that you would like to in­te­gra­te into your work?

The­re are ac­tual­ly quite few. Due to the di­ver­se ap­pli­ca­ti­on pos­si­bi­li­ties of the SICRIT tech­no­lo­gy, we fre­quent­ly come into cont­act with other fields. One ex­am­p­le is pro­ject whe­re the plas­ma ion source could be used to si­mu­la­te che­mi­cal re­ac­tions in the io­ni­zed at­mo­sphe­re of one of Sa­turn’s moons.

Turns out, in R&D, you re­al­ly are shoo­ting for the stars. ;)

Thank you for sha­ring your va­luable in­sights and ex­pe­ri­en­ces with us. We’­re ex­ci­ted to con­ti­nue our jour­ney of #Rethin­king mass spec­tro­me­try tog­e­ther.