INSIDE VIEW Separating hype from reality
Simon Wood, director of marketing and training for Starlims, evaluates the pros and cons of Software as a Service (SaaS) for laboratory informatics
There has been a great deal written on the web concerning the delivery of LIMS using a Software as a Service (SaaS) or cloud computing model. Although running the risk of adding to this deluge this article aims to provide some alternative insights. Equating SaaS with cloud computing is
a common misunderstanding. SaaS can be simply defined as the third-party hosting of IT applications that customers access on a subscription or pay-per-use basis. Cloud computing is a technology that enables applications and data to be spread across multiple servers, allowing greater utilisation of server and IT infrastructure, and easy expansion as demand increases. The concept of hosted applications is not new; previously, applications were hosted in data centres running large mainframe computers, and customers would submit their work to the data centre. Better computer performance, falling prices and the ready availability of PCs, servers and networking technology, made this model less attractive. However, there was still a demand for hosted applications, as seen by the rise of the Application Service Provider (ASP)
with a monthly operating expense, based on the number of users. The other major benefit is that responsibility for installing, upgrading, and ensuring continued availability of the software rests with the SaaS provider, not the customer; thus reducing or possibly eliminating IT support costs. Some other benefits offered by SaaS LIMS
may be less tangible, and indeed the delivery model may hinder some organisations’ ability to get real competitive advantage from the LIMS. SaaS LIMS are being offered as fully functioning LIMS accessible over the web; the web-based model allowing secure access from any location with internet access. While this is true, any web-based LIMS (SaaS or not), will be the same. The functionality that is available in SaaS-based LIMS is not different from the functionality offered in non-SaaS based systems. To some extent a LIMS is a LIMS is a LIMS; the delivery method does not impact the available functionality. Where SaaS-based systems may differ from others is in the ability to modify or add functionality that meets specific needs or provides competitive advantage. For example, many SaaS-based LIMS do not
‘Organisations should adopt a measured approach to some of the other claims made by suppliers’
model; this has now morphed into SaaS, with customers running applications that are not installed on their own IT infrastructure and outside of their firewall. For SaaS providers, the arrival of cloud technology has been a huge benefit; allowing them to maximise the utilisation of their technology infrastructure and to respond quickly to growing demand. A number of LIMS providers have recently
entered the SaaS market, offering benefits that range from the perfectly reasonable to the vaguely preposterous. Arguably the biggest benefit of SaaS LIMS is that it removes the upfront capital expenditure on licenses, and hardware. This capital expenditure is replaced
46
have the ability to develop customer-specific functionality, as configuration would make software support and upgrade more difficult. Whether the SaaS approach is right for a
given lab depends on whether the LIMS is purely a data management tool, or whether it is also a way of gaining advantage. Many small laboratories need a low-cost solution to help them track sample, test and result information. Here LIMS is just a tool that lets them do their job, and a configurable SaaS-based system is ideal. For large multi-national life science organisations the ability to add functionality to LIMS is almost certainly a requirement. It has been suggested that the need for
SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING WORLD AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2010
training is minimised; SaaS based LIMS are sold as fully functioning configurable LIMS, therefore training is still required on the standard functionality. Also, end users still need to be trained in using the system in their job function. It is also suggested that SaaS systems are easier to use; but ease of use is dependent on the design of the system, not the delivery method. Finally it has been suggested that because they are accessed via the web, data accessibility is improved by SaaS-based systems. However, this a function of being web-based, not a function of the SaaS delivery model. It has been said that implementation time is reduced. Of course a configuration, as opposed to customisation, approach will reduce the implementation time, but this approach is applicable to any LIMS, provided customers accept the limits of the available functionality and configuration. Workflow analysis and mapping together with the definition of user- specific data is still required no matter what the delivery method. Users should also be aware of how the technology has been implemented. Is it truly web-based, having been built from the ground up on web technology? Or is it web-enabled, using an intermediate product to deliver an existing system over the web? While SaaS-based systems can offer benefits
in terms of total cost, organisations considering a SaaS-based system should adopt a measured approach to some of the other claims made by suppliers and must seriously consider if some of the limitations of SaaS-based systems will allow them to gain real business benefit.
www.scientific-computing.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48