63
view the test results, calculations, and observations before they could create a certifi cate of analysis. This process was time consuming and had the knock-on effect of holding up the product in the reactor vessels meaning they would be idle and unproductive for 2-3 hours. Using a LIMS to streamline the process resulted in signifi cant effi ciency gains across not only the laboratory but the whole production plant, vastly reducing production idle time.
This example shows how laboratory effi ciency gains and cost savings achieved through the use of LIMS can benefi t not just the laboratory but the entire organisation.
Automation of Data Analysis Improves Report Effi ciency
Some of the biggest paybacks, and cost savings, can come from digitising your data and having it all in one easily accessible place. Gone are the days of pulling data from multiple spreadsheets for a customer audit, or manually creating a report full of statistics for the monthly management meeting. Having all the data in one database means managers can create a monthly report showing the required laboratory statistics, throughput, and profi tability, and run it at the touch of a button. This can reduce an arduous task taking several hours, even days, down to seconds and free up valuable resources to do something more creative with their skills.
A manufacturer of medical devices needed a LIMS to help manage their biobank of clinical samples and the data associated with it [4]. The goal was to have a readily searchable database for easier data recall and manipulation and better management of the samples. The improved automation of the new LIMS, which now manages the clinical biobank, clinical trials activities, and the laboratory testing activities, as well as all the associated data and information has created effi ciency savings and freed up valuable managerial time from the manual creation of monthly management reports. This in itself is a signifi cant justifi cation for the costs.
pulling the appropriate information becomes much simpler and faster, often resulting in a quicker audit and a more positive outcome. In the worst scenario of a product recall, being able to instantly trace which constituents are in each production batch allows manufacturers to quickly identify suspect products for recall. This can not only save lives, but early recall can dramatically reduce the complexity of fi nding the products in the supply chain and the overall recall costs.
Creating the Cost Justifi cation
A major part of the cost justifi cation for a LIMS is a matter of identifying which manual processes cost you most in terms of man hours, and estimating the time saved through automation. For example, logging received samples, creating labels, and routing the samples to the appropriate testing areas within the lab may be estimated to take 6 minutes per sample when done manually but 2 minutes per sample when automated, saving 4 minutes per sample. If the laboratory processes 300 samples per week the time saved will be 300 x 4 = 20 hours per week. In a similar way, if the monthly report took two days to create manually and is now automated then a saving of 2 days per month can be estimated.
Looking through each process in the laboratory, and estimating the time saved through LIMS automation, will result in an overall cost saving in man hours. By deducting from this the cost of a LIMS, (licensing and implementation costs), as well as ongoing annual support, the overall return-on-investment (ROI) of implementing the system can be calculated.
The key is that the cost of implementing a LIMS will be offset by the reduced costs achieved through automation. After working through the costs and savings for the project you will identify the breakeven point, the point in time (measured in months or years) when the time saved through automation outweighs the cost of LIMS implementation. This provides a solid fi nancial business case for your LIMS project that management can believe in and support.
More Information
A more detailed paper covering these points and including worked examples, can be requested from the author to help justify your next LIMS project. Please email the author Dr Phil Williams at
phil@lims4u.co.uk or visit ‘LIMS4U’ on LinkedIn. Phil has over 37 years’ experience in Lab automation. He founded LIMS4U in 2020 and offers LIMS marketing services primarily via LinkedIn.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Autoscribe (
www.autoscribeinformatics.com) who supplied some of the fi gures and dialogue used.
The Cost of Manual Audit Processes, and Product Recall
Regulated businesses are often audited by customers or the regulatory authority to ensure compliance. Finding and preparing data for such audits can take considerable preparation time when done manually, as can fi nding additional information during a live audit. These audits can also be extremely stressful for the people involved. When all data is held in one database
References
1. Variation in the transcription of laboratory data in an intensive care unit, Black et al. Journal of Anaesthesia, 2004.
2. Journal of End User Computing’s Special issue on Scaling Up End User Development, Panko et al. Uni of Hawaii, revised 2008.
3.
https://www.autoscribeinformatics.com/case-studies/specialty-chemicals- manufacturer-uses-matrix-gemini-lims-to-improve-operational-effi ciency
4.
https://www.autoscribeinformatics.com/case-studies/spd-adopt-matrix- gemini-lims-to-manage-pregnancy-studies
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188
