Difference between revisions of "User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel10"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
*They may ask if there are alternatives to LIMS that might be less costly and easier to implement.
*They may ask if there are alternatives to LIMS that might be less costly and easier to implement.


*add more here*


 
So far we've talked about the manager as the one who needs to receive the justification for LIMS acquisition and deployment, but it's not always that simple, especially within larger organizations. While management is often a stakeholder in an organizational project, there often are other stakeholders inside and outside the organization. A "stakeholder," as defined by ISO 26000 ''Social responsibility'', is defined as an "individual or group that has an interest in any decision or activity of an organization."<ref name="ASQStake">{{cite web |url=https://asq.org/quality-resources/stakeholders |title=Stakeholders |work=Quality Resources |publisher=American Society for Quality |accessdate=07 July 2023}}</ref> As such, identified stakeholders of the decision to acquire and deploy a LIMS could be anyone from IT personnel to the laboratory's clients, and anything in between. In some cases the number of apparent stakeholders, at first glance, may become daunting, requiring a formal stakeholder identification process that asks questions such as "who can help the organization address specific impacts?" or "who would be disadvantaged if excluded from stakeholder engagement?" Once identified, those stakeholders may be further separated into those most directly impacted by the LIMS decision vs. those who are only indirectly impacted.<ref name="ASQStake" /> From there, more refined decisions can be made as to who will be included in the LIMS justification process.
So far we've talked about the manager as the one who needs to receive the justification for LIMS acquisition and deployment, but it's not always that simple, especially within larger organizations. While management is often a stakeholder in an organizational project, there often are other stakeholders inside and outside the organization.
 
* talk about what a stakeholder is*


Conducting relations (i.e., interacting) with these stakeholders—management and otherwise—can be seen as stakeholder engagement. Kujala ''et al.'' define "stakeholder engagement" as "the aims, activities, and impacts of stakeholder relations in a moral, strategic, and/or pragmatic manner."<ref name="KujalaStake22">{{Cite journal |last=Kujala |first=Johanna |last2=Sachs |first2=Sybille |last3=Leinonen |first3=Heta |last4=Heikkinen |first4=Anna |last5=Laude |first5=Daniel |date=2022-05 |title=Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00076503211066595 |journal=Business & Society |language=en |volume=61 |issue=5 |pages=1136–1196 |doi=10.1177/00076503211066595 |issn=0007-6503}}</ref> Their definition, based on a literature review and descriptive analysis of academic literature, provides a wide level of applicability organizations of many types. Table 9 is an adapted version of their take on how these different components can benefit the organization engaging in stakeholder engagement.
Conducting relations (i.e., interacting) with these stakeholders—management and otherwise—can be seen as stakeholder engagement. Kujala ''et al.'' define "stakeholder engagement" as "the aims, activities, and impacts of stakeholder relations in a moral, strategic, and/or pragmatic manner."<ref name="KujalaStake22">{{Cite journal |last=Kujala |first=Johanna |last2=Sachs |first2=Sybille |last3=Leinonen |first3=Heta |last4=Heikkinen |first4=Anna |last5=Laude |first5=Daniel |date=2022-05 |title=Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00076503211066595 |journal=Business & Society |language=en |volume=61 |issue=5 |pages=1136–1196 |doi=10.1177/00076503211066595 |issn=0007-6503}}</ref> Their definition, based on a literature review and descriptive analysis of academic literature, provides a wide level of applicability organizations of many types. Table 9 is an adapted version of their take on how these different components can benefit the organization engaging in stakeholder engagement.

Revision as of 21:52, 7 July 2023

Sandbox begins below

3. Management buy-in

3.1 The importance of manager (and stakeholder) buy-in

Management may raise one or more concerns about laboratory information management system (LIMS) acquisition. Some of their perceptions might be rooted in past experiences or comments about computerized systems from the late twentieth century. Among those concerns could be:

  • They may have investigated the subject of LIMS, seen it as another software project, and been concerned about opening a financial black hole.
  • They may be concerned about adding more stress to an already overloaded IT organization.
  • They may ask if the implementation can be done in a reasonable amount of time, and if the organization has the financial resources and expertise needed to get the job done.
  • They may ask if there are alternatives to LIMS that might be less costly and easier to implement.
  • add more here*

So far we've talked about the manager as the one who needs to receive the justification for LIMS acquisition and deployment, but it's not always that simple, especially within larger organizations. While management is often a stakeholder in an organizational project, there often are other stakeholders inside and outside the organization. A "stakeholder," as defined by ISO 26000 Social responsibility, is defined as an "individual or group that has an interest in any decision or activity of an organization."[1] As such, identified stakeholders of the decision to acquire and deploy a LIMS could be anyone from IT personnel to the laboratory's clients, and anything in between. In some cases the number of apparent stakeholders, at first glance, may become daunting, requiring a formal stakeholder identification process that asks questions such as "who can help the organization address specific impacts?" or "who would be disadvantaged if excluded from stakeholder engagement?" Once identified, those stakeholders may be further separated into those most directly impacted by the LIMS decision vs. those who are only indirectly impacted.[1] From there, more refined decisions can be made as to who will be included in the LIMS justification process.

Conducting relations (i.e., interacting) with these stakeholders—management and otherwise—can be seen as stakeholder engagement. Kujala et al. define "stakeholder engagement" as "the aims, activities, and impacts of stakeholder relations in a moral, strategic, and/or pragmatic manner."[2] Their definition, based on a literature review and descriptive analysis of academic literature, provides a wide level of applicability organizations of many types. Table 9 is an adapted version of their take on how these different components can benefit the organization engaging in stakeholder engagement.

Table 9. A tabular view of the benefits of stakeholder engagement, based on the definition by Kujala et al. and adapted from their research.[2]
Component Aims Activities Impacts
Moral

• Legitimacy, trust, and fairness
• Corporate responsibility and sustainability
• Stakeholder inclusion and accountability

• Stakeholder empowerment
• Democratic activities

• Enhanced social and ecological well-being
• Giving voice to stakeholders
• Stakeholder value

Strategic

• Financial performance, risk management, and value creation
• Knowledge creation and learning
• Reputation building

• One-way and two-way communication activities
• Co-creation
• Supportive organizational structures

• Improved efficiency and competitive advantage
• Innovation
• Enhanced reputation

Pragmatic

• Context-dependent problem-solving and decision-making
• Organizational and societal development

• Collaborative and dialogic activities
• Relationship cultivation

• Broad stakeholder involvement
• Inclusive accountability and disclosure activities
• Achieved resolutions


3.2 Pitching the LIMS project

3.3 Developing a cheat sheet for management

Address how the LIMS acquisition specifically addresses organization goals and challenges.

If management isn't familiar with a LIMS, you'll probably want to include a more broad list of bullet points as to how LIMS can benefit labs of all types. That list might look something like this:

A LIMS can...

  • Increase efficiency: LIMS can help laboratories manage data more efficiently by eliminating data silos, managing standard operating procedures (SOPs), generating custom reports, facilitating data interoperability and exchange, tracking reagent inventories, and managing staff training. This in turn can minimize wasted resources.
  • Improve process control: LIMS can help laboratories better manage test/sample status and workload evaluation, resulting in better customer support and smoother workflows. With a LIMS, these and other tasks are automated, so we can spend more time on what really matters: research and testing. As an added benefit, LIMS also reduces errors by automating manual processes and eliminating the potential for human error.
  • More rapidly disseminate business data and analytical results: LIMS can help laboratories communicate test results more quickly and accurately. In research, this means faster project execution and better decision-making. In production, this means faster release of products, quicker evaluation of incoming raw materials, and prevention of wasted products.
  • Enable access to data anywhere, anytime: Many LIMS can help laboratories access lab data from anywhere, particularly cloud-based LIMS. With cloud-based LIMS software, we can access lab data from anywhere with an internet connection. That access capability means we can work remotely or collaborate with team members across different locations, all with a high level of security.
  • Provide safer, more secure storage for critical lab data: LIMS can help laboratories centralize and secure their various data and information. LIMS software provides a centralized location for all lab data, making it easy to access and share data with other team members. It also ensures that data is secure and protected from unauthorized access, especially when the LIMS is purpose-built to meet data- and information-related regulatory requirements.
  • Facilitate better results interpretation and retrieval: LIMS can help laboratories interpret and retrieve results more quickly, increasing customer satisfaction and lab productivity.
  • Improve billing processes: LIMS can help laboratories streamline their billing processes, improve record access, and provide greater insights into organizational financials.
  • Increase productivity: LIMS can help laboratories realize 10-20% productivity benefits based on a reduction in clerical work alone. By automating manual processes and providing easy access to lab data, LIMS software frees up time for researchers and analysts to focus on their core work. Using automated reporting, and giving clients controlled access to the system—i.e., through a secure, administrator-controlled client portal—for sample logging, along with having automated instrument connections for worklist downloading and data entry, will greatly increase those productivity gains.
  • Facilitate collaboration: LIMS can help laboratories share data and collaborate on tasks and projects, resulting in improved communication and streamlined workflows.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 "Stakeholders". Quality Resources. American Society for Quality. https://asq.org/quality-resources/stakeholders. Retrieved 07 July 2023. 
  2. 2.0 2.1 Kujala, Johanna; Sachs, Sybille; Leinonen, Heta; Heikkinen, Anna; Laude, Daniel (1 May 2022). "Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future" (in en). Business & Society 61 (5): 1136–1196. doi:10.1177/00076503211066595. ISSN 0007-6503. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00076503211066595. 


Citation information for this chapter

Chapter: 3. Management buy-in

Title: Justifying LIMS Acquisition and Deployment within Your Organization

Edition: First Edition

Author for citation: Joe Liscouski, Shawn E. Douglas

License for content: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Publication date: