In part one of this blog series, we’ll summarise the considerations to make when answering 3 common questions about lab informatics systems, all in the theme of ‘is a single system better than multiple similar systems?’

1. Should R&D labs use the same informatics systems as QC?

Here the context matters. If one were to generalise, R&D labs tend to be experiment-based, answering questions like ‘What ingredient changes in the product formulation will increase effectiveness and reduce environmental impact?’. On the other hand, QC labs are more focused on samples taken from production runs, and questions such as ‘Are the % composition of key ingredients within a production batch within specification?’

If we use the above generalisation and apply lab informatics thinking, in broad terms, ELNs are centred on recording experiments and therefore more suited to R&D. LIMS, being sample, test and results biased, are generally more suitable to QC labs.

However, it is not that simple. For example, perhaps one of the R&D labs provides analytical services to various teams executing R&D experiments – this type of ‘service’ lab is often better served by LIMS than ELNs.

The type of labs involved is not the only factor to consider. For example, CDS systems are generally applicable to both R&D and QC. The methods and use of the instruments may well vary across R&D and QC, but the instrument data systems can be exactly the same.

Finally, regulatory needs, specifically for QC can also be a driving factor in answering the question. We will consider this further in one of the following questions.

2. Should we implement a single global system or several more local systems?

When Scimcon first started nearly three decades ago, the focus within large multi-national companies was on implementing large, monolithic lab systems. This approach still has its place, particularly where the distributed labs are very close in terms of operational and analytical workflows.

Current thinking, however, looks to best support the diversity of lab workflows across global sites. While this should not mean a different system in every single lab, it should ensure some flexibility in selecting systems locally. This has several benefits, including a better informatics fit for each lab, and the increased local user buy-in gained by allowing flexibility.

However, against the background of the drive to increased data aggregation, data science and analytics, and AI/ML, this local approach can be counterproductive. It is therefore important to set standards and guardrails about how these systems are implemented, and how the data is structured and linked via reference data, so that consolidation into centralised reporting tools and data lakes is facilitated.

3. Should I have different systems for GxP and non-GxP work?

There is a well-used saying within regulatory-compliant organisations: ‘If a system contains just 1% of GxP data, then the whole system is required to be implemented, managed and maintained in a regulatory compliant manner.’

This statement leaves compliant organisations questioning:

1. Is it easier to run one regulatory compliant system, that contains both non-GxP and GXP data, and accepting that the non-GxP will also be subject to the associated GXP administrative overheads?
2. Or is it easier to have two systems, one GxP and the other non-GxP, the latter of which is subject to less rigid controls?

The first step to answering the question is to determine the delta between administering a GxP system, and administering a non GxP system. LIMS, ELN, SDMS, CDS and other lab informatics systems are often classified by labs as mission-critical. Most organisations wouldn’t countenance a lack of system administration rigour or releasing untested changes to mission-critical systems, so this delta may be lower than it first seems.

The next step is an open conversation with QA teams about the types of data being held, and the control systems that will be put in place. In the past, we have successfully taken a two-tier approach, where the administration procedures for non-GxP are simpler than those for GxP data in the same system. However, for this type of arrangement to be viable, a detailed risk assessment is required, and the ongoing management and control of the administration has to be very well executed.

Finally, before making the decision, it’s worth considering whether there are shared services or functions involved. For example, if the GxP and non-GxP work uses the same inventory management, it might be complex to get the inventory system interfacing and updating two systems simultaneously.

Summary

Hopefully, we have illustrated the importance of being clear about what your requirements are before answering these key questions about lab informatics systems. Each case is unique, and your decision will usually be based on a wide range of influencing factors. We help organisations to consider all of the options and roll out their chosen model.

Stay tuned for part 2 of this blog series, where we will look at the key question of how you can prepare your data for AI and machine learning.

The post Common lab informatics questions – part 1: one system or more? first appeared on Scimcon.

The post Common lab informatics questions – part 1: one system or more? appeared first on Scimcon.

The post Scimcon sponsors SmartLab Exchange EU and USA and identifies key themes at Europe event for 2023 lab informatics first appeared on Scimcon.

The post Scimcon sponsors SmartLab Exchange EU and USA and identifies key themes at Europe event for 2023 lab informatics appeared first on Scimcon.