Not long ago, I was sitting in a question-and-answer session at a LIMS seminar. The head of a large project stood up and asked the following question, “Why is it that I have spent so much money for my large, sophisticated project, but still cannot get the information out to the people that need it?” In his description of his problem, it turns out that, at the end of the project, most of the laboratory functionality was present, but there were an unexpectedly large number of reports that needed to be created, as well as a large number of requests for data output (e.g., for statistical analysis).

Now, this is a common situation that many of us have seen before, and you might wonder why I find this to be notable. I find it notable because, in the many years that I have been in this business, this problem occurs over and over again. For many years, I asked myself why this was. It was only several years ago that I started to put the problem into a new perspective.

The answer I gave at this seminar is a tactic that I believe defines the difference between the most successful projects and all others:

Before you begin your project, you must decide what is the focus of your project.

There are some projects that are truly LIMS-only projects. They are meant only for enhancing the operations of the laboratory. The focus, then, is solely on the laboratory.

Then, there are LIMS projects that are meant for other purposes. One example of this would be a strategic effort to collapse the time it takes to bring a project to market, part of this effort requiring that laboratory data be made available more quickly to the rest of the organization. A LIMS is typically installed as part of this effort.

There is one school of thought on this that suggests that, in either case, you would do each project the same way. That is, focus on the laboratory now and worry about the rest later. As some of you already know from experience, this does not shorten the project. You will find that when you get to the end point, in able to retrofit the system to accommodate the needs of the outside factors, there is still a lot of work to be done (e.g., creating and handling new fields).

So, a project comes to its expected end point, only for the realization to occur that there is still significant work ahead. Additionally, at the expected end of the project, the purpose for the project has not begun to be met.

Now, the answer to this is not to ignore the needs of the laboratory but to prioritize them in a different manner. It goes without saying that if a project is put in place that ignores the needs of the laboratory, it will negatively impact the laboratory's performance.

In more successful projects, requirements are gathered from both the laboratory and from any outside areas that require information from the laboratory or that will be giving information to the laboratory.

Then, those requirements are prioritized by the following:

• Importance to the project;
• Feasibility;
• Possible negative impact to laboratory.

This last step is what makes this type of project different from those that are not intended to meet outside needs, since laboratories tend not to make requests that would negatively impact their work.

Another reason that projects will focus solely on the laboratory's needs when something else is desired, is that the laboratories fear that this last step will not be taken. This fear is well-founded.

For the occasional project that takes the opposite approach, where everything but the needs of the laboratory are considered, the failure at what should be the end of the project is that it is unusable. Since this approach is usually taken with large, strategic projects, millions of dollars may have been spent at this point. So, at the expected end of the project there is usually an attempt to force the laboratories to use something that severely impacts their performance. The laboratory can be put between the proverbial rock and hard place, but it does not change the fact that any laboratory has a set number of resources at its disposal.

In these types of projects, we see a final installation that so severely negatively impacts the laboratory that they have to make a choice between using the new LIMS and getting their work done. Inevitably, this is no choice -- the work must be done. And then, there is much gnashing of teeth about why it is that these types of projects fail.

In the end, it comes back to all proper project scope, and complete and appropriate requirements, complete with an exercise in prioritization. Most of us recognize this and agree with this, as well as with the fact that this is not remotely a new concept. Still, as long as projects continued to ignore this, we will continue to sit in seminars where we hear these questions time and time again.