GOING WITH THE FLOW IN SOFTWARE
Today's scientists look for ways to simultaneously keep track of everything, from experimental details and results to data graphs and related literature. In fact, scientists really want software that does all of this and runs experiments too, at least where possible. This leads to the field of laboratory information management software (LIMS) and workflow packages.
In many ways, these two realms of software blend together in the latest applications. The real questions are: Where are LIMS and workflow headed, and how can scientists get more out of the available software products? To find out, we polled a variety of experts in this field: Alison Smith of AMR Research, David Hurt of Applied Biosystems, Jim Gregory of Core Informatics, James DeGreef of Genoligics, Anthony Rowe of Inforsense, and David Shin and Mark Murawski of Thermo Fisher Scientific.
Here's what they said.
In workflow/LIMS software, what do you see as the major driving trend today?
Smith: The large pharmaceutical and biotech companies we work with are eyeing laboratory IT investments not in isolation, but as one element of much larger IT architectures that package the flexibility required for the business to adapt to changes that will inevitably come. LIMS providers will find an audience that's more receptive to modern user interfaces, web-based architectures, graphical tools that reinforce configuration, and underlying data models that allow for extensibility.
Hurt: One of the major drivers in the industry today is for LIMS to expand beyond it's traditional footprint toward the manufacturing systems that it has traditionally supported.
Gregory: Companies are looking for end-to-end workflow solutions. These systems need to be able to track drug candidates from sample registration to IND [investigational new drug]. This requires tight integration with all aspects of the discovery process.
DeGreef: Instruments, software, methodologies, and technologies change frequently, and a LIMS needs to be adaptable, so it can evolve as technology changes. Historically, LIMS systems have been quite generic; now the trend is to develop LIMS with workflows specific to particular science areas.
Rowe: One of the most significant trends is being able to embed key workflows into larger applications, such as portals or business-process management systems. Also, an architecture that is scalable and adaptable to the type of workflows that an organization wishes to move into production is crucial to successful delivery and realization of return on investment of production workflows. Last, workflow systems need to be able to create analytical workflows from multi-disciplinary data that support the new research methodologies, such as combining images analysis with cheminformatics processes.
Shin/Murawski: Customers want to see more and more functionality out of the box, with fewer customizations. This means that the workflow "engine" has to perform more advanced steps and be more flexible so that configuration can accomplish what previously required costly and time consuming customization. Furthermore, workflow engines now need to span applications more than ever to facilitate integration with other systems.
For anyone using workflow/LIMS software, do you have any tips?
Smith: Prospective LIMS buyers should develop a checklist of not only functionality, but of architectural maturity. For example, is the architecture built on a modern and easily supported technology foundation? Most important, how easily can workflows - and underlying data models - be modified when new procedures and new products are added to the mix?
Hurt: Understand the difference between configuration and customization. The meaning of the word configuration has been so misused in the LIMS industry that clients are no longer able to differentiate it from customization. Here is one litmus test. Was this piece of functionality available without the customer or vendor writing additional code or using an internal scripting tool? If not, then the "configuration" is really a "customization." Obviously, if this litmus test fails, the cost and validation burden realized was probably far greater than originally planned.
Gregory: Avoid solutions that put the burden of integration on your internal staff. The workflow systems that have the greatest impact will be the ones with the most direct access to your data. When evaluating enterprise LIMS solutions, make sure that they are capable of capturing and reporting data from your entire discovery process. These systems should have either their own workflow engine or a mechanism in place to easily expose their data to a 3rd party engine.
DeGreef: There are some great commercial LIMS systems available that are user friendly, adaptable, and specific to various sciences and workflows. There is no need to go with a generic system that requires months of customization, or to build a system in-house to ensure it meets your future needs.
Rowe: Understand the key objectives up front. These include knowing the types of data you intend to be working with, where the data are located, how you intend to analyze the data, and who will benefit from these processes.
Shin/Murawski: People often assume that certain features/workflows are designed to do only one thing. While there may be a primary function that certain features are designed to perform, there are numerous other possibilities. As an example, one pharmaceutical customer was able to integrate [our workflow LIMS] with a list file to send instructions to the portfolio of instruments and/or robotics, which are changed frequently, rather than use the LIMS' built-in instrument interface. This allowed them to change out instrumentation as needed without configuring new interfaces.
