.svg)
In a rapidly changing business landscape, lab managers are seeking to streamline their operations and work smarter to gain a competitive advantage. One way to do this is by ensuring that informatics systems can effectively support the lab’s existing and future workflows.
Each change in the lab, whether it’s adding a new assay, upgrading a piece of equipment, or implementing a new software feature, requires the effort of the lab’s in-house or consulting software team. How much effort is involved is based on the informatics system’s capabilities.
Can the change be handled by the laboratory information management system (LIMS) or other lab software out-of-the-box (OOTB), or addressed by configuring an existing feature? If not, it might require an extension to the software or an investment in a custom feature.
Understanding the implications of these four scenarios will help your lab plan the necessary resources, reduce risk, and align stakeholder expectations around timelines and cost.
In this scenario, the feature your lab wants to implement exists within your informatics solution and requires no modifications. You can enable it and begin using it immediately.
Whether this is true for your lab will depend on the informatics system you have in place. For example, many LIMS solutions offer standard features used by labs across industries, such as sample tracking and querying capabilities. Labs with modern, sophisticated informatics systems will have even more OOTB features.
This scenario offers the least expensive and quickest implementation. Testing and validation should be straightforward since the software vendor will have performed extensive testing as part of its development and release lifecycle. Your software team will be able to help you understand the resourcing and scheduling requirements and give you an estimate of how quickly the work can be completed.
However, the downside of this scenario is that an OOTB feature might not meet your lab’s unique needs. Even worse, it may compel your lab to modify established workflows, leading to inefficiencies.
In this second scenario, the feature is available in your informatics software but requires configuration. This setup might be done via built-in user interface (UI) components, such as toggles, settings, or workflow rules.
Again, whether your lab can do this will depend on your existing software solutions. The more full-featured your informatics system, the more likely this will be an option you can use to tailor features for your lab.
This scenario will also be relatively inexpensive and quick. At the same time, it has the potential to more closely meet your lab’s exact requirements compared to a feature straight out of the box. Testing and validation should also be simple, and the risk of extended timelines should be low.
If a feature is not supported OOTB or via configuration, your lab’s in-house or consulting software team might be able to develop an integration to extend your current informatics solution. Integrations can help labs add instruments like automated liquid handlers, electronic health records/electronic medical records (EHR/EMR), and other enterprise software. They enable the exchange of information by bridging the gap between two or more self-contained systems, reducing manual data entry and the potential for errors, as well as improving performance.
Some informatics systems are designed to facilitate extension via predefined integration points — these solutions often require scripting or custom logic but within supported boundaries. If this isn’t the case, your lab might need to develop a custom integration. Each type of integration, whether direct or indirect, brings its own set of challenges.
Because this scenario is more complicated, timelines might be longer, and implementation, testing, and validation may be more costly. Your software team will help you understand resourcing and expenses based on the type of integration.
In the final scenario, the informatics system does not natively support the feature OOTB, via configuration or an integration. Instead, implementing the feature will require custom software development to achieve the desired outcome.
Your in-house software team might be equipped to handle this on their own. If not, it could be time to bring in an external consultant with laboratory domain knowledge and software engineering expertise to ensure any customization meets regulatory requirements and is thoroughly tested for accuracy and performance.
This scenario will be more resource-intensive. While likely to take longer to implement, test, and validate, and at a higher cost, a custom feature could match your lab’s unique requirements. It might also provide a path to supporting additional updates in the future.
Recognizing the differences between these four implementation scenarios will help you and other stakeholders make informed decisions that align with the lab’s strategic vision. You’ll better understand the effort involved — in terms of development, testing, and validation — and recognize whether your in-house team can make the changes or if you’ll need to work with an external consultant.
With a clearly defined implementation plan, you can reduce the risk of unexpected delays, cost overruns, or lab downtime. Furthermore, the lab’s stakeholders will know what to expect and be able to anticipate the resources required for further changes.
Ultimately, navigating the complexities of implementing lab software solutions requires a careful balance between using pre-built features and accommodating specific operational needs. As the landscape of laboratory informatics continues to evolve, labs must remain vigilant in their selection processes, ensuring that chosen implementations not only meet current demands but also support future growth and innovation.
Our Semaphore Solutions team can help you identify the best type of implementation for your desired outcomes, architecting an efficient system that complies with regulatory requirements. Contact us today.
