Three Issues of LIMS/Laboratory Informatics That Can Cost Money

Laboratory information management system (LIMS) and laboratory informatics (LI) projects still have too many significant cost overruns, as do many other software projects. Some projects cost so much more than they should that it is difficult to imagine they will ever pay for themselves. Furthermore, some projects meet their budget projections, but actually should have come in under budget. This application note focuses on three common reasons for these overruns.

Poorly matched resource needs

Any resource poorly matched to the project’s needs is a drain on project resources. There are times when internal resources are not well matched to the project, but are used to redeploy a resource or for other internal reasons. However, it is rarely desirable to use external resources that are not already well matched to the project, because they are seldom going to be around long enough to make it worthwhile.

Before beginning a project, a company should consider what its true needs are. Common goals are to: 

  • Bring in knowledge the company needs but does not already have
  • Bring in knowledge the company does not want to build in-house
  • Add bodies to a large task.

Even low-skilled resources should meet some minimum skill and experience requirements.

When considering whether to use in-house or external resources, the company should do whatever is most cost-effective for the long term. Consultants are cost-effective when they add value. That means that they must be well matched to the project. Otherwise, they are a drain on the project and unnecessarily take up other project members’ time that should be focused on the project.

For example, a resource that is not making progress but is charging week after week is a drain. Less obvious is the resource that appears to be doing something, but in actuality is not. A resource that seems to be making progress but is not really doing so is exactly the same as one that is standing still. Even though this situation is more difficult to pin down than the first, the bottom line is that project money is still being expended for nothing in return.

This happens because, in their desperation for resources, companies often hire consultants who are mismatched in the following ways:

  • Wrong level. A company that needs someone who can immediately be productive requires a senior resource. If a company has more time and is willing to spend some of that extra time supervising and helping the resource come up to speed, a junior resource is acceptable.
  • Wrong skill set. The company must ask for every skill it desires of a resource. It is common for companies to ask for experience in a particular software product, but to then assume that resources have other skills, such as software development lifecycle experience. If a resource was not specifically asked whether he or she has a skill and the company has not verified it, then it should not be expected that the resource has that skill.
  • Cannot adapt to project team structure. For example, some resources are not able to work alone and cannot adapt to doing so; other resources have never worked on large project teams with others.
  • Cannot adapt to project team. If specific team styles have been created within a company, a potential resource should be questioned to verify that he or she is comfortable with and productive working in that style.

Many resources insist they can work in any style or situation, but insightful interviewing and ongoing supervision may prove that this is not the case.

A common mistake

Customers often assume that the services group from which the resource came will notice a mismatch and exchange the resource. This almost certainly will not happen. If the customer does not request that the resource be changed, it will not happen. Also, the services group might not have another person available to replace the unsatisfactory one. This is not a bad thing, actually. Going back to the example of nonproductive workers on a project who are nevertheless costing money, a company is always better off without resources that drain its budget than keeping them on the job and being deluded that money will not be wasted. The company may have to be persistent with the services group, however. Switching resources is not always easy, and some services groups will discourage this because they do not want to go through the trouble. Companies should stand their ground and not take no for an answer. It is important the services group be asked to pull that resource and make sure the company’s needs are satisfied, because keeping a nonproducing resource is the equivalent of putting project money in a pile and lighting it on fire and will be just as ineffectual.

If there is a situation where there truly is not anyone else available, i.e., the customer is working directly with an individual or the services group really does not have anyone else, then the company should look elsewhere. After all, that is what competition is all about. In fact, even if the resources seem fine, learning about alternatives is still a good idea, just in case the project loses a resource or later finds that he or she did not perform as well as expected.

Lack of supervision and training

  1. Supervision. Too often, resources are left to their own devices. This is particularly an issue when using outside consulting services. Customers assume that outside experts automatically work together to complete a project. However, an expert does not necessarily understand a company’s goals well enough to strive for the desired goal. Nor does it mean that an expert has the interest or ability to work with others, whether those others are a company’s own people, those from other consulting companies, or even those also from the expert’s own company. A project must continue to monitor the goals and progress of all of its team members, regardless of their experience level. Experienced workers should be expected to need much less guidance than junior workers, but still need to be kept on track with the project goals.

Occasionally, customers state that they desire self-directed work teams. This is a worthy goal, but it takes significant experience working together and/or a considerable effort by management for a team to become self-directed. Additionally, because the company structure may not foster or support self-directed work teams, such a degree of cooperation and cohesiveness may never be possible in that particular customer’s environment.

Supervision is also the best way to determine whether resources are well matched (or mismatched) to a project. If a company discovers it has the wrong resources, it can identify the problem much earlier in the project rather than after a good portion of the budget has been expended with little return to show for it.

  1. Training. If a resource is not properly trained before joining a project, then part of the project budget will be going toward on-the-job training. If this situation is acceptable to the company, schedules and costs can be adjusted to accommodate this. However, making sure resources are properly trained is not as simple as making sure they attend a class. Some people do not understand the classes well enough or have the right background to be immediately productive once they have completed the course, as opposed to other available resources that already have the background and experience needed.

Again, a company needs to understand both its requirements and the experience levels of particular resources. However, unless they are experts themselves, it may be difficult for employers to know which questions to ask to ascertain the experience and background of potential consultants. Those who are skillful interviewers will be able to determine what a resource can bring to the table. Also, through supervision, management can follow up and verify that a resource can do more than just answer questions, but can do the job as well.

Lack of clear goals and deliverables

Obviously, it is important for a company to understand its goals and deliverables; otherwise no one else will, be it an internal or external resource. This information must also be conveyed to resources so that they also understand the company’s goals and deliverables. The company should expect to reiterate this information often so that no one forgets or gets sidetracked.

One reason projects stray far from their original intent is that team members work toward what they think the goals are, but those goals may not be the real project goals as they were understood to be. Well-meaning resources can work hard and fast to meet the wrong goals, heading far in the wrong direction so quickly that the project derails, and no one can determine just how it happened. Throughout the project the company should continually reaffirm that everyone is moving in the right direction toward the same goals.

Summary

Consulting services that fail to match a company’s needs are a waste of money, as are internal resources that are not appropriate. Without proper supervision and training, resources seldom add value to the project. A lack of clear goals and deliverables can waste the best resources. Overall, these problems will not solve themselves. Ultimately, it is up to the company to solve its own problems.

Ms. Metrick is Owner, GeoMetrick Enterprises, LIMS Consulting, 40 Hillcrest Rd., Burlington, MA 01803-2420, U.S.A.; tel.: 781-365-0180; e-mail: [email protected]. This article is based on “The Issues With LIMS/Laboratory Informatics Consulting That Cost You Money,” by Gloria Metrick, presented at Pittcon® 2007, Chicago, IL, Feb. 26, 2007.