Journal:Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership - Revision history

Shawndouglas: Spacing

2017-09-12T22:44:25Z

Spacing

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 12 September 2017
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|title_full = Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership		\|title_full = Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership
	\|journal = ''PeerJ Computer Science''		\|journal = ''PeerJ Computer Science''
	\|authors = Vaas, Lea A.I.; Witt, Gesa; Windshügel, Björn; Bosin, Andrea; Serra, Giovanni; Bruengger, Adrian; Winterhalter, Mathias; Gribbon, Philip; Levy-Petelinkar, Cindy J.; Kohler, Manfred		\|authors = Vaas, Lea A.I.; Witt, Gesa; Windshügel, Björn; Bosin, Andrea; Serra, Giovanni; Bruengger, Adrian;<br />Winterhalter, Mathias; Gribbon, Philip; Levy-Petelinkar, Cindy J.; Kohler, Manfred
	\|affiliations = Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology, University of Cagliari, Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, Jacobs University Bremen, GlaxoSmithKline		\|affiliations = Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology, University of Cagliari,<br />Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, Jacobs University Bremen, GlaxoSmithKline
	\|contact = Email: manfred dot kohler at ime dot fraunhofer dot de		\|contact = Email: manfred dot kohler at ime dot fraunhofer dot de
	\|editors = Baker, Mary		\|editors = Baker, Mary

Shawndouglas: /* Methods */ Added missing ref

2017-09-12T22:43:46Z

Methods: Added missing ref

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 12 September 2017
Line 115:		Line 115:
	As a compromise for step 1 (Fig. 2), we assembled a collection of user requirement specifications (URS) based on the experiences of one laboratory that had already implemented an ELN. We further selected a small group of super users based on their expertise in documentation processes, representing different wet laboratories and in silico environments. The resulting URS was reviewed by IT and business experts from academic as well as private organisations of the consortium. The final version of the URS is available as Supplemental File 1.		As a compromise for step 1 (Fig. 2), we assembled a collection of user requirement specifications (URS) based on the experiences of one laboratory that had already implemented an ELN. We further selected a small group of super users based on their expertise in documentation processes, representing different wet laboratories and in silico environments. The resulting URS was reviewed by IT and business experts from academic as well as private organisations of the consortium. The final version of the URS is available as Supplemental File 1.

	In parallel, based on literature (Rubacha, Rattan ~~& Hossel~~, ~~2011)~~ and internet searches, presentations of widely used ELNs were evaluated to gain insight into state-of-the-art ELNs. This revealed a wide variety of functional and graphical user interface (GUI) implementations differing in complexity and costs. The continuum between simple out-of-the-box solutions and highly sophisticated and configurable ELNs with interfaces to state-of-the-art analytical tools were covered by the presentations. Notably, the requirements specified by super users also ranged from “easy to use” to “highly individually configurable.” Based on this information, it was clear that the ELN selected for this consortium would never ideally fit all user expectations. Furthermore, the exact number of users and configuration of user groups were unknown at the onset of the project. The most frequently or highest prioritized items of the collected user requirements are listed in Table 2. We divided the gathered requirements into ‘core’ meaning essential and ‘non-core’ meaning ‘nice to have, but not indispensable.’ Further, we list here only the items, which were mentioned by more than two super users from different groups. The full list of URS is available in Supplemental File 1.		In parallel, based on literature<ref name="RubachaAReview11">{{cite journal \|title=A Review of Electronic Laboratory Notebooks Available in the Market Today \|journal=Journal of Laboratory Automation \|author=Rubacha, M.; Rattan, A.K.; Hosselet, S.C. \|volume=16 \|issue=1 \|pages=90–98 \|doi=10.1016/j.jala.2009.01.002}}</ref> and internet searches, presentations of widely used ELNs were evaluated to gain insight into state-of-the-art ELNs. This revealed a wide variety of functional and graphical user interface (GUI) implementations differing in complexity and costs. The continuum between simple out-of-the-box solutions and highly sophisticated and configurable ELNs with interfaces to state-of-the-art analytical tools were covered by the presentations. Notably, the requirements specified by super users also ranged from “easy to use” to “highly individually configurable.” Based on this information, it was clear that the ELN selected for this consortium would never ideally fit all user expectations. Furthermore, the exact number of users and configuration of user groups were unknown at the onset of the project. The most frequently or highest prioritized items of the collected user requirements are listed in Table 2. We divided the gathered requirements into ‘core’ meaning essential and ‘non-core’ meaning ‘nice to have, but not indispensable.’ Further, we list here only the items, which were mentioned by more than two super users from different groups. The full list of URS is available in Supplemental File 1.

	{\|		{\|

Shawndouglas: Finished adding rest of content.

2017-09-12T22:36:22Z

Finished adding rest of content.

Show changes

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-09-12T22:05:24Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, 12 September 2017
Line 514:		Line 514:

	The issues discussed above also constitute a social or a scientific community problem. Being the first, which often is considered as being the best, is the dictum scientists strive to achieve, especially when performance is reduced to the number of publications and frequency of citation, not to the quality of documentation/reproducibility accounting for determination of quality of results. This culture needs to be replaced by “presenting full sets of high quality results including all metadata” for additional benefit to the scientific community.<ref name="MascarelliResearch14">{{cite journal \|title=Research tools: Jump off the page \|journal=Nature \|author=Mascarelli, A. \|volume=507 \|issue=7493 \|pages=523–5 \|pmid=24678534}}</ref> ELNs could contribute significantly to this goal.		The issues discussed above also constitute a social or a scientific community problem. Being the first, which often is considered as being the best, is the dictum scientists strive to achieve, especially when performance is reduced to the number of publications and frequency of citation, not to the quality of documentation/reproducibility accounting for determination of quality of results. This culture needs to be replaced by “presenting full sets of high quality results including all metadata” for additional benefit to the scientific community.<ref name="MascarelliResearch14">{{cite journal \|title=Research tools: Jump off the page \|journal=Nature \|author=Mascarelli, A. \|volume=507 \|issue=7493 \|pages=523–5 \|pmid=24678534}}</ref> ELNs could contribute significantly to this goal.

			==Discussion==
			We successfully selected and implemented an ELN solution within an ambitiously short timeframe for mostly first-time electronic lab book users. The implementation included the creation and arrangement of internal training material and the establishment of an ELN helpdesk as a SPoC.

			===Lessons learned from the selection and implementation of an ELN solution===
			Generally accepted strategies for software selection and implementation are recommended because they provide a structured and well-defined process for decision-making. Typically, any selection process involves balancing several contrasting features. In our case, the functionality of the system was balanced against long-term maintenance options and costs. The choice was a compromise between these three aspects.

			Performance, ease of use and functionality are the most important aspects for end users of newly launched software. The general expectation is that software should make work quicker, easier and more precise. Thus, users anticipate that software should simplify typical tasks and support their current workflow without adaptation. However, an optimal use of the potential capacity of an ELN requires a change in the working process. Replacing the paper-based LN by a fixed installed lab PC will not lower the entrance barrier. The benefit for the end-user must be communicated in data handling and flexibility in data reuse (off-site use and rapid communication among partners).

			For an ELN in a PPP, the documentation of daily work is the key issue. In particular, in a project with widespread activities ranging from fundamental chemical wet laboratory and in silico work to biological in vitro and in vivo studies, the communication between the sites requires certain data structures. The selected ELN must support many different types of documentation (e.g., flat text files, unstructured images and multidimensional data containers) and in parallel must be at least as flexible as a paper-based notebook (e.g., portable, accessible, ready for instant use and suitable for use when the researcher is wearing laboratory protective clothing). The concealed features of an ELN, such as comprehensive filing of all information for an experiment in one place, standardised structuring of experiments, and long-term global accessibility are not as important for the end user when they are working with the system. The end user requires fast access to his latest experiments and expects support of his specific workflow during documentation. For some users, documenting laboratory work in an electronic system also requires more time and attention than writing entries in a paper notebook.

			No ELN can fully reproduce the flexibility of a blank piece of paper. The first draft for experimental documentation in a classical paper-based LN can be rough and incomplete because only the documenter needs to understand it. Later on, the user can improve the notes and add additional information. In contrast, the documentation process in an ELN is more structured and guided by mandatory fields, which appears to be more time-consuming to the user. However, the overall process could be faster once the user gets familiar with the system. The opportunity to lose any necessary information would be lowered by using the system online during the practical work. There are also other advantages in the ELN, e.g., linking experiments to regular protocols.

			The main value of an ELN is that it makes the data more sharable because it is:

			* constantly accessible;
			* more complete; and
			* easier to follow.

			===Lessons learned from technical solutions===
			Operating system or configuration dependent issues were also encountered frequently. Supporting different systems and browsers, and interfacing with other tools such as office software packages, is complex and requires testing in different environments. Only the most common combinations of systems and tools are recommended by vendors. One possible source of difficulty was the laboratory computers in academia. For the purpose of data recording, older versions of software running on outdated hardware are often used with restrictions based on instrument software installed on them (Supplemental File 2). Many incompatibilities are based on atypical configurations. However, it is impossible to drive the computer upgrade path for laboratory computers from the requirements of a single system, particularly for academic partners. Furthermore, in large academic institutions, many systems are not updated due to frequently changing personnel structures.

			===Data sharing===
			Science, by definition, should be a discipline sharing ”knowledge” with the scientific community and the general public<ref name="DFGProposals13" />, particularly if funded by public organizations. Creating knowledge only for self-interests makes little sense, because knowledge can be verified and extended only by disputation with other researchers. Why do we struggle to share and discuss our data with colleagues?

			Scientists often display a strong unwillingness to share their data. They often believe they are the data owner, i.e., the entity that can authorize or deny access to the data. Nevertheless, they are responsible for data accuracy, integrity and completeness as the representative of the data owner. The data generator should be granted primary use (i.e., publication) of the data<ref name="DFGProposals13" />, but the true owner is the organization that financially supports the project.

			Within a PPP project, it is necessary to establish a documentation policy that is suitable for all. An agreement must occur on standards for the responsibility, content and mechanisms of documentation, particularly in international collaborations where country-specific and cultural differences need to be addressed.<ref name="ElliottWhatAre10">{{cite web \|url=https://www.scientificcomputing.com/article/2010/03/what-are-benefits-eln \|title=What are the Benefits of ELN? \|author=Elliott, M.H. \|work=Scientific Computing \|publisher=Advantage Business Media \|date=30 March 2010}}</ref> Furthermore, no official, widely accepted standards are pre-defined. As long as the justification for ELNs is for more control over performance than to foster willingness to cooperate and share data and knowledge in the early phase of experiments, user acceptance will remain low.<ref name="MyersCollab14" /> Without user acceptance, the quality of the documented work will not improve.<ref name="AsifImproving11">{{cite journal \|title=Improving quality of experimentation procedure through electronic note book (ELN): A qualitative study \|journal=Journal of Quality and Technology Management \|author=Asif, K.H.; Ahsan, S.M.; Aslam, M. \|volume=7 \|issue=2 \|pages=83–90 \|year=2011 \|url=http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/iqtm/PDF-FILES/05-Improving_Quality_of_Experimentation_Procedure.pdf}}</ref><ref name="ZengImpact11">{{cite journal \|title=Impact of the implementation of a well-designed electronic laboratory notebook on bioanalytical laboratory function \|journal=Bioanalysis \|author=Zeng, J.; Hillman, M.; Arnold, M. \|volume=3 \|issue=13 \|pages=1501–11 \|year=2011 \|doi=10.4155/bio.11.116 \|pmid=21728774}}</ref>

	==References==		==References==

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-09-12T20:19:09Z

Saving and adding more.

@@ Line 503: / Line 503: @@
 |}
 |}
 ==References==

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-09-12T20:09:40Z

Saving and adding more.

Show changes

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-09-12T19:16:18Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 12 September 2017
Line 251:		Line 251:

	Overall, the regular documentation of experiments in the ELN appeared to be unappealing to researchers. This infrequent usage prompted us to carry out a survey of user acceptance in May/June 2015 (detailed description of analysis methods including [[KNIME]] workflow<ref name="BertholdKNIME08">{{cite book \|url=http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/bioml2/publications/Papers2007/BCDG+07_knime_gfkl.pdf \|format=PDF \|chapter=KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner \|title=Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications \|author=Berthold, M.R.; Cebron, N.; Dill, F. et al. \|editor=Preisach, C.; Burkhardt, H.; Schmidt-Thieme, L.; Decker, R. \|publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg \|pages=319–326 \|year=2008 \|isbn=9783540782469 \|doi=10.1007/978-3-540-78246-9}}</ref> and raw data are provided in Supplemental File 2). The primary aim was to evaluate user experiences compared to expectations in more detail. In addition, the administrative team wanted to get feedback to determine what could be done to the existing support structure to increase usage or simplify the routine documentation of laboratory work. Overall, 77 users (see Table 4) were invited to participate in the survey. Two users left the project during the runtime of the survey. We received feedback from 60 (=80%) out of the remaining 75 users. Two questionnaires were rejected due to less than 20% answered questions. The number of evaluated questionnaires is 58 (see Supplemental File 5).		Overall, the regular documentation of experiments in the ELN appeared to be unappealing to researchers. This infrequent usage prompted us to carry out a survey of user acceptance in May/June 2015 (detailed description of analysis methods including [[KNIME]] workflow<ref name="BertholdKNIME08">{{cite book \|url=http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/bioml2/publications/Papers2007/BCDG+07_knime_gfkl.pdf \|format=PDF \|chapter=KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner \|title=Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications \|author=Berthold, M.R.; Cebron, N.; Dill, F. et al. \|editor=Preisach, C.; Burkhardt, H.; Schmidt-Thieme, L.; Decker, R. \|publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg \|pages=319–326 \|year=2008 \|isbn=9783540782469 \|doi=10.1007/978-3-540-78246-9}}</ref> and raw data are provided in Supplemental File 2). The primary aim was to evaluate user experiences compared to expectations in more detail. In addition, the administrative team wanted to get feedback to determine what could be done to the existing support structure to increase usage or simplify the routine documentation of laboratory work. Overall, 77 users (see Table 4) were invited to participate in the survey. Two users left the project during the runtime of the survey. We received feedback from 60 (=80%) out of the remaining 75 users. Two questionnaires were rejected due to less than 20% answered questions. The number of evaluated questionnaires is 58 (see Supplemental File 5).

			{\|
			\| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"\|
			{\| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="70%"
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;" colspan="3"\|'''Table 4.''' Number of users of the ELN and participants in the survey
			\|-
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Description
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|''n''
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Remarks
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Maximum number of parallel users of the ELN
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|87
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Number of parallel users at the time point of the survey
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|84
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Administrators
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|3
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Not invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|External reviewers
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|4
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Not invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Project owners = Principal investigators
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|26
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Normal user
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|51
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Deactivated users during the runtime of the questionnaire
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|2
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Questionnaires returned
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|60
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Questionnaires rejected due to insufficient (less than 20%) number of answered questions
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|2
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Evaluated questionnaires
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|58
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\|}
			\|}

	==References==		==References==

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-09-12T19:02:51Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 12 September 2017
Line 243:		Line 243:
	\|}		\|}
	\|}		\|}

			In an initial analysis, we evaluated user experience by the number of help desk tickets created during the live time of the system (Fig. 4, orange line).

			During the initial phase (2013.06–2013.10) most of the tickets were associated with user access to the ELN. However, after six months (2013.12–2014.01), many requests were related to functionality, especially those from infrequent ELN users. In February 2015, the vendor released an updated graphical user interface (GUI), resulting in a higher number of tickets referring to modified or missing functions and the slow response of the system. The higher number of tickets in August/September 2015 were related to a call for refreshing assigned user accounts. However, overall the number of tickets was within the expected range (<10 per month).

			There was a clear decline in frequent usage during the project runtime. The ELN was officially introduced in June 2013, and the number of experiments increased during the following month as expected (Fig. 4, blue bars). The small decrease in November 2013 was anticipated as a reaction to a new release, which caused some issues on specific operating system/browser combinations and language settings. Support for Windows XP also ended at this time. Some of the issues were resolved with the new release (December 2013). The increase in new experiments in October 2014 and subsequent decline in November 2014 is correlated to a reminder sent out to the members of the project to record all activities into the ELN. The same is true for September/October 2015. The last quarter of each year illustrates year-end activities, including the conclusion of projects and the completion of corresponding paperwork, as reflected in the chart (Fig. 4, orange line).

			Overall, the regular documentation of experiments in the ELN appeared to be unappealing to researchers. This infrequent usage prompted us to carry out a survey of user acceptance in May/June 2015 (detailed description of analysis methods including [[KNIME]] workflow<ref name="BertholdKNIME08">{{cite book \|url=http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/bioml2/publications/Papers2007/BCDG+07_knime_gfkl.pdf \|format=PDF \|chapter=KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner \|title=Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications \|author=Berthold, M.R.; Cebron, N.; Dill, F. et al. \|editor=Preisach, C.; Burkhardt, H.; Schmidt-Thieme, L.; Decker, R. \|publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg \|pages=319–326 \|year=2008 \|isbn=9783540782469 \|doi=10.1007/978-3-540-78246-9}}</ref> and raw data are provided in Supplemental File 2). The primary aim was to evaluate user experiences compared to expectations in more detail. In addition, the administrative team wanted to get feedback to determine what could be done to the existing support structure to increase usage or simplify the routine documentation of laboratory work. Overall, 77 users (see Table 4) were invited to participate in the survey. Two users left the project during the runtime of the survey. We received feedback from 60 (=80%) out of the remaining 75 users. Two questionnaires were rejected due to less than 20% answered questions. The number of evaluated questionnaires is 58 (see Supplemental File 5).

	==References==		==References==

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-09-12T18:49:55Z

Saving and adding more.

Show changes

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-09-12T17:28:55Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 12 September 2017
Line 85:		Line 85:

	In this article we describe the process of selecting and implementing an ELN in the context of the multisite PPP project TRANSLOCATION, comprising about 90 bench scientists in total. Furthermore we present the results from a survey evaluating the users’ experiences and the benefit for the project two years post-implementation. Based on our experiences, the specific needs in a PPP setting are summarized and lessons learned will be reviewed. As a result, we propose recommendations to assist future users avoiding pitfalls when selecting and implementing ELN software.		In this article we describe the process of selecting and implementing an ELN in the context of the multisite PPP project TRANSLOCATION, comprising about 90 bench scientists in total. Furthermore we present the results from a survey evaluating the users’ experiences and the benefit for the project two years post-implementation. Based on our experiences, the specific needs in a PPP setting are summarized and lessons learned will be reviewed. As a result, we propose recommendations to assist future users avoiding pitfalls when selecting and implementing ELN software.

			==Methods==
			===Selection and implementation of an ELN solution===
			The IMI project call requested a high level of transparency enabling the sharing of data to serve as an example for future projects. The selected consortium TRANSLOCATION had a special demand for an ELN due to its structure — various labs and partners spread widely across Europe needed to report into one common repository — and due to the final goal, data was required to be stored and integrated into one central information hub, the ND4BB Information Centre. Fortunately, no legacy data had to be migrated into the ELN.

			The standard process for the introduction of new software follows a highly structured multi-phase procedure<ref name="NehmeElect06">{{cite book \|chapter=9. Electronic Laboratory Notebooks \|title=Computer Applications in Pharmaceutical Research and Development \|author=Nehme, A.; Scoffin, R.A. \|editor=Ekins, S.; Wang, B. \|publisher=Wiley \|year=2006 \|pages=209–27 \|isbn=9780471737797}}</ref><ref name="MilstedLabTrove13">{{cite journal \|title=LabTrove: a lightweight, web based, laboratory "blog" as a route towards a marked up record of work in a bioscience research laboratory \|journal=PLoS One \|author=Milsted, A.J.; Hale, J.R.; Grey, J.G.; Neylon, C. \|volume=8 \|issue=7 \|pages=e67460 \|year=2013 \|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0067460 \|pmid=23935832 \|pmc=PMC3720848}}</ref>, as outlined in Fig. 2.


			[[File:Fig2 Vaas PeerJCompSci2016 2.jpg\|500px]]
			{{clear}}
			{\|
			\| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"\|
			{\| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="500px"
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\| <blockquote>'''Figure 2.''' Schematic outline of stepwise procedure for the implementation of a new system<ref name="NehmeElect06" /></blockquote>
			\|-
			\|}
			\|}

			For the first step, we had to manage a large and highly heterogeneous user group (Fig. 3) that would be using the ELN, scheduled for roll-out within six months after project launch. All personnel of the academic partners were requested to enter data into the same ELN, potentially leading to unmet individual user requirements, especially for novices and inexperienced users.

			[[File:Fig3 Vaas PeerJCompSci2016 2.jpg\|500px]]
			{{clear}}
			{\|
			\| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"\|
			{\| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="500px"
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\| <blockquote>'''Figure 3.''' Technical and organizational challenge: schematic overview of paths for sharing research activity results within a public–private partnership on antimicrobial research</blockquote>
			\|-
			\|}
			\|}

			As a compromise for step 1 (Fig. 2), we assembled a collection of user requirement specifications (URS) based on the experiences of one laboratory that had already implemented an ELN. We further selected a small group of super users based on their expertise in documentation processes, representing different wet laboratories and in silico environments. The resulting URS was reviewed by IT and business experts from academic as well as private organisations of the consortium. The final version of the URS is available as Supplemental File 1.

			In parallel, based on literature (Rubacha, Rattan & Hossel, 2011) and internet searches, presentations of widely used ELNs were evaluated to gain insight into state-of-the-art ELNs. This revealed a wide variety of functional and graphical user interface (GUI) implementations differing in complexity and costs. The continuum between simple out-of-the-box solutions and highly sophisticated and configurable ELNs with interfaces to state-of-the-art analytical tools were covered by the presentations. Notably, the requirements specified by super users also ranged from “easy to use” to “highly individually configurable.” Based on this information, it was clear that the ELN selected for this consortium would never ideally fit all user expectations. Furthermore, the exact number of users and configuration of user groups were unknown at the onset of the project. The most frequently or highest prioritized items of the collected user requirements are listed in Table 2. We divided the gathered requirements into ‘core’ meaning essential and ‘non-core’ meaning ‘nice to have, but not indispensable.’ Further, we list here only the items, which were mentioned by more than two super users from different groups. The full list of URS is available in Supplemental File 1.

			{\|
			\| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"\|
			{\| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="70%"
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;" colspan="2"\|'''Table 2.''' Overview of user requirements organized as ‘core user requirements’ for essential items, and ‘non-core user requirements’ representing desirable features
			\|-
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Core user requirements
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Non-core user requirements
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			• System set-up and implementation should be fast and simple<br />
			• Access from different platforms should be possible: Windows, Linux, Mac OS<br />
			• Low training requirements (for high level of acceptance<br />
			• Hosted system with state-of-the-art security settings<br />
			• Simple user management (only limited support by project members possible)<br />
			• Suitable for both chemical (including e.g., drawings of molecules) and biological (including e.g., capture fluorescent images) experiments<br />
			• Low costs, especially for long-term usage in the academic area<br />
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			• Conform with Good Laboratory Practise<br />
			• User management with dedicated access permissions (expectation: all users working on the same project, but in different work packages)<br />
			• Workflow management<br />
			• Order management<br />
			• Chemical structure handling<br />
			• Dedicated tree structure for storing experiments<br />
			• Legally-binding procedures (signatures)<br />
			• Modular expandability<br />
			• Appropriate integrated analytical features<br />
			• Social networking and collaborative (chat) features<br />
			• Storage for large sets of “raw” data for re-analysis<br />
			\|-
			\|}
			\|}

	==References==		==References==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 12 September 2017
Line 251:		Line 251:

	Overall, the regular documentation of experiments in the ELN appeared to be unappealing to researchers. This infrequent usage prompted us to carry out a survey of user acceptance in May/June 2015 (detailed description of analysis methods including [[KNIME]] workflow<ref name="BertholdKNIME08">{{cite book \|url=http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/bioml2/publications/Papers2007/BCDG+07_knime_gfkl.pdf \|format=PDF \|chapter=KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner \|title=Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications \|author=Berthold, M.R.; Cebron, N.; Dill, F. et al. \|editor=Preisach, C.; Burkhardt, H.; Schmidt-Thieme, L.; Decker, R. \|publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg \|pages=319–326 \|year=2008 \|isbn=9783540782469 \|doi=10.1007/978-3-540-78246-9}}</ref> and raw data are provided in Supplemental File 2). The primary aim was to evaluate user experiences compared to expectations in more detail. In addition, the administrative team wanted to get feedback to determine what could be done to the existing support structure to increase usage or simplify the routine documentation of laboratory work. Overall, 77 users (see Table 4) were invited to participate in the survey. Two users left the project during the runtime of the survey. We received feedback from 60 (=80%) out of the remaining 75 users. Two questionnaires were rejected due to less than 20% answered questions. The number of evaluated questionnaires is 58 (see Supplemental File 5).		Overall, the regular documentation of experiments in the ELN appeared to be unappealing to researchers. This infrequent usage prompted us to carry out a survey of user acceptance in May/June 2015 (detailed description of analysis methods including [[KNIME]] workflow<ref name="BertholdKNIME08">{{cite book \|url=http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/bioml2/publications/Papers2007/BCDG+07_knime_gfkl.pdf \|format=PDF \|chapter=KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner \|title=Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications \|author=Berthold, M.R.; Cebron, N.; Dill, F. et al. \|editor=Preisach, C.; Burkhardt, H.; Schmidt-Thieme, L.; Decker, R. \|publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg \|pages=319–326 \|year=2008 \|isbn=9783540782469 \|doi=10.1007/978-3-540-78246-9}}</ref> and raw data are provided in Supplemental File 2). The primary aim was to evaluate user experiences compared to expectations in more detail. In addition, the administrative team wanted to get feedback to determine what could be done to the existing support structure to increase usage or simplify the routine documentation of laboratory work. Overall, 77 users (see Table 4) were invited to participate in the survey. Two users left the project during the runtime of the survey. We received feedback from 60 (=80%) out of the remaining 75 users. Two questionnaires were rejected due to less than 20% answered questions. The number of evaluated questionnaires is 58 (see Supplemental File 5).

			{\|
			\| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"\|
			{\| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="70%"
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;" colspan="3"\|'''Table 4.''' Number of users of the ELN and participants in the survey
			\|-
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Description
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|''n''
			! style="padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Remarks
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Maximum number of parallel users of the ELN
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|87
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Number of parallel users at the time point of the survey
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|84
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Administrators
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|3
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Not invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|External reviewers
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|4
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Not invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Project owners = Principal investigators
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|26
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Normal user
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|51
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Invited to participate in survey
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Deactivated users during the runtime of the questionnaire
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|2
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Questionnaires returned
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|60
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Questionnaires rejected due to insufficient (less than 20%) number of answered questions
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|2
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|Evaluated questionnaires
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|58
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\|
			\|-
			\|}
			\|}

	==References==		==References==