Difference between revisions of "LII:Laboratory Technology Planning and Management: The Practice of Laboratory Systems Engineering"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Saving and adding more.)
(Saving and adding more.)
Line 30: Line 30:
* "[https://go.labmanager.com/webinar-2020-digital-technologies How Digital Technologies are Changing the Landscape of Lab Operations]," ''Lab Manager'' webinar, April 2020
* "[https://go.labmanager.com/webinar-2020-digital-technologies How Digital Technologies are Changing the Landscape of Lab Operations]," ''Lab Manager'' webinar, April 2020


===Directions in lab operations===
====The lab of the future====
People often ask what the lab of the future (LOF) is going to look like, as if there were a design or model that we should be aspiring toward. There isn’t. Your lab's future is in your hands to mold, a blank sheet of paper upon which you define your lab's future by setting objectives, developing a functional physical and digital architecture, planning processes and implementations, and managing technology that supports both scientific and laboratory [[information management]]. If that sound scary, it’s understandable. But you must take the time to educate yourself and bring in people (e.g., LSEs, consultants, etc.) who can assist you.


Too often, if vendors and consultants are asked what the LOF is going to look like, the response lines up with their corporate interests. No one knows what the LOF is because there isn’t a singular future, but rather different futures for different types of labs. (Just think of all the different scientific disciplines that exist; one future doesn’t fit all.) Your lab's future is in your hands. What do you want it to be?
The material in this document isn’t intended to define your LOF, but to help you realize it once the framework has been created, and you are in the best position to create it. As you create that framework, you'll be asking:
# Are you satisfied with your lab's operations? What works and what doesn’t? What needs fixing and how shall it be prioritized?
# Has management raised any concerns?
# What do those working in the lab have to say?
# How is your lab going to change in the next one to five years?
# Does your industry have a working group for lab operations, computing, and automation?
Adding to question five, many companies tend to keep the competition at arm's length, minimizing contact for fear of divulging confidential information. However, if practically everyone is using the same set of test procedures from a trusted neutral source (e.g., [[ASTM International]], United States Pharmacopeia, etc.), there’s nothing confidential there. Instead of developing automated versions of the same procedure independently, companies can join forces, spread the cost, and perhaps come up with a better solution. With that effort as a given, you collectively have something to approach the vendor community with and say “we need this modification or new product.” This is particularly beneficial to the vendor when they receive a vetted product requirements document to work from.
Again, you don’t wait for the lab of the future to happen, you create it. If you want to see the direction lab operations in the future can take, look to the manufacturing industry: it has everything from flexible manufacturing, cooperative robotics<ref name="BourneMyBoss13">{{cite journal |title=My boss the robot |journal=Scientific American |author=Bourne, D. |volume=308 |issue=5 |pages=38–41 |year=2013 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0513-38 |pmid=23627215}}</ref><ref name="CookCollab20">{{cite journal |title=Collaborative Robots: Mobile and Adaptable Labmates |journal=Lab Manager |author=Cook, B. |volume=15 |issue=11 |pages=10–13 |year=2020 |url=https://www.labmanager.com/laboratory-technology/collaborative-robots-mobile-and-adaptable-labmates-24474}}</ref>, and so on.{{efn|See the "Scientific Manufacturing" section of ''[http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15605.42724 Elements of Laboratory Technology Management]''.}} This is appropriate in both basic and applied research, as well as [[quality control]].


==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 19:07, 6 February 2021

Title: Laboratory Technology Planning and Management & The Practice of Laboratory Systems Engineering

Author for citation: Joe Liscouski

License for content: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

Publication date: December 2020

Introduction

What separates successful advanced laboratories from all the others? It's largely their ability to meet their goals, with the effective use of resources: people, time, money, equipment, data, and information. The fundamental goals of laboratory work haven’t changed, but they are under increased pressure to do more and do it faster, with a better return on investment (ROI). Laboratory managers have turned to electronic technologies (e.g., computers, networks, robotics, microprocessors, database systems, etc.) to meet those demands. However, without effective planning, technology management, and education, those technologies will only get labs part of the way to meeting their needs. We need to learn how to close the gap between getting part-way there and getting where we need to be. The practice of science has changed; we need to meet that change to be successful.

This document was written to get people thinking more seriously about the technologies used in laboratory work and how those technologies contribute to meeting the challenges labs are facing. There are three primary concerns:

  1. The need for planning and management: When digital components began to be added to lab systems, it was a slow incremental process: integrators and microprocessors grew in capability as the marketplace accepted them. That development gave us the equipment we have now, equipment that can be used in isolation or in a networked, integrated system. In either case, they need attention in their application and management to protect electronic laboratory data, ensure that it can be effectively used, and ensure that the systems and products put in place are both the right ones, and that they fully contribute to improvements in lab operations.
  2. The need for more laboratory systems engineers (LSEs): There is increasing demand for people who have the education and skills needed to accomplish the points above and provide research and testing groups with the support they need.[a]
  3. The need to collaborate with vendors: In order to develop the best products needed for laboratory work, vendors should be provided more user input. Too often vendors have an idea for a product or modifications to existing products, yet they lack a fully qualified audience to bounce ideas off of. With the planning in the first concern in place, we should be able to approach vendors and say, with confidence, "this is what is needed" and explain why.

If the audience for this work were product manufacturing or production facilities, everything that was being said would have been history. The efficiency and productivity of production operations directly impacts profitability and customer satisfaction; the effort to optimize operations would have been an essential goal. When it comes to laboratory operations, that same level of attention found in production operations must be in place to accelerate laboratory research and testing operations, reducing cost and improving productivity. Aside from a few lab installations in large organizations, this same level of attention isn’t given, as people aren’t educated as to its importance. The purpose of this work is to present ideas of what laboratory technology challenges can be addressed through planning activities using a series of goals.

This material is an expansion upon two presentations:

Directions in lab operations

The lab of the future

People often ask what the lab of the future (LOF) is going to look like, as if there were a design or model that we should be aspiring toward. There isn’t. Your lab's future is in your hands to mold, a blank sheet of paper upon which you define your lab's future by setting objectives, developing a functional physical and digital architecture, planning processes and implementations, and managing technology that supports both scientific and laboratory information management. If that sound scary, it’s understandable. But you must take the time to educate yourself and bring in people (e.g., LSEs, consultants, etc.) who can assist you.

Too often, if vendors and consultants are asked what the LOF is going to look like, the response lines up with their corporate interests. No one knows what the LOF is because there isn’t a singular future, but rather different futures for different types of labs. (Just think of all the different scientific disciplines that exist; one future doesn’t fit all.) Your lab's future is in your hands. What do you want it to be?

The material in this document isn’t intended to define your LOF, but to help you realize it once the framework has been created, and you are in the best position to create it. As you create that framework, you'll be asking:

  1. Are you satisfied with your lab's operations? What works and what doesn’t? What needs fixing and how shall it be prioritized?
  2. Has management raised any concerns?
  3. What do those working in the lab have to say?
  4. How is your lab going to change in the next one to five years?
  5. Does your industry have a working group for lab operations, computing, and automation?

Adding to question five, many companies tend to keep the competition at arm's length, minimizing contact for fear of divulging confidential information. However, if practically everyone is using the same set of test procedures from a trusted neutral source (e.g., ASTM International, United States Pharmacopeia, etc.), there’s nothing confidential there. Instead of developing automated versions of the same procedure independently, companies can join forces, spread the cost, and perhaps come up with a better solution. With that effort as a given, you collectively have something to approach the vendor community with and say “we need this modification or new product.” This is particularly beneficial to the vendor when they receive a vetted product requirements document to work from.

Again, you don’t wait for the lab of the future to happen, you create it. If you want to see the direction lab operations in the future can take, look to the manufacturing industry: it has everything from flexible manufacturing, cooperative robotics[1][2], and so on.[b] This is appropriate in both basic and applied research, as well as quality control.

Footnotes

  1. See Elements of Laboratory Technology Management and the LSE material in this document.
  2. See the "Scientific Manufacturing" section of Elements of Laboratory Technology Management.

About the author

Initially educated as a chemist, author Joe Liscouski (joe dot liscouski at gmail dot com) is an experienced laboratory automation/computing professional with over forty years experience in the field, including the design and development of automation systems (both custom and commercial systems), LIMS, robotics and data interchange standards. He also consults on the use of computing in laboratory work. He has held symposia on validation and presented technical material and short courses on laboratory automation and computing in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. He has worked/consulted in pharmaceutical, biotech, polymer, medical, and government laboratories. His current work centers on working with companies to establish planning programs for lab systems, developing effective support groups, and helping people with the application of automation and information technologies in research and quality control environments.

References

  1. Bourne, D. (2013). "My boss the robot". Scientific American 308 (5): 38–41. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0513-38. PMID 23627215. 
  2. Cook, B. (2020). "Collaborative Robots: Mobile and Adaptable Labmates". Lab Manager 15 (11): 10–13. https://www.labmanager.com/laboratory-technology/collaborative-robots-mobile-and-adaptable-labmates-24474.