Downloaded 31 times
Uploaded byCSols, Inc.
LIMS Implementation: “Big Bang” or “Phased” Approach
This document discusses the "big bang" and "phased" approaches to implementing a new Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). The "big bang" approach involves a complete system implementation all at once, while the "phased" approach divides the implementation into multiple phases. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages related to factors like time, resources, flexibility, and stakeholder satisfaction. The document recommends considering an organization's current situation, goals, processes, culture, and resources to determine the best implementation approach. Careful planning and stakeholder involvement are also keys to success.
More Related Content
Similar to LIMS Implementation: “Big Bang” or “Phased” Approach
LIMS Implementation: “Big Bang” or “Phased” Approach
- 1. Premier Laboratory InformaticsExperts Strategic Planning Implementation Validation www.csolsinc.com LIMS Implementation: “Big Bang” or “Phased” Approach
- 2. © 2015 CSols,Inc. Agenda Approach vs. Methodology “Big Bang” Implementation Approach Pros & Cons “Phased” Implementation Approach Pros & Cons Choosing Your Approach Conclusion Q&A
- 3. © 2015 CSols,Inc. Approach vs. Methodology Approach is “How” you will implement “Big Bang” “Phased” Methodology is the “Process” you will use to implement Waterfall Prototypical Time “boxed” Agile
- 4. © 2015 CSols,Inc. The Question? Vs. Phased“Big Bang” Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase “N”
- 5. © 2015 CSols,Inc. “Big Bang” Approach Completeness Stakeholder satisfaction System adoption & utilization ROI sources Advantages / Benefits
- 6. © 2015 CSols,Inc. “Big Bang” Approach Time Resources Momentum Changing Needs Priorities Budgets Disadvantages / Challenges
- 7. © 2015 CSols,Inc. “Phased” Approach Time Momentum Resources Minimize 80/20 rule Flexibility Advantages / Benefits Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase “N”
- 8. © 2015 CSols,Inc. “Phased” Approach Getting to Phase 2 Unmet needs Suboptimal efficiency Stakeholder satisfaction Phase balancing System adoption & utilization Disadvantages / Challenges Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase “N”
- 9. © 2016 CSols,Inc. Choosing Your Approach Factors to consider Current situation / goals Business / processes stability M&A / Reorganization Scope # labs / locations / functional areas Single / multi-language Interfaces / integrations Culture Pro/Con automation Top down / bottom up Resource availability Budget
- 10. © 2015 CSols,Inc. Conclusion Approach Methodology Both Approaches are viable Pros and Cons with either Approach Many factors to consider when choosing Current state, Budget, Culture, Scope, etc. Keys to success Planning, planning, planning Stakeholder involvement
- 11. © 2015 CSols,Inc. 11 www.csolsinc.com
Editor's Notes
- #6 Big Bang” Approach Pros Completeness - all needs and requirements met upon go-live User satisfaction – everything is there from go-live ROI – more sources of ROI available Cons Time – getting all needs and requirements will take longer Resources – getting all needs and requirements met will require more resources Momentum – since this approach takes longer your project momentum will suffer Senior Management may change priorities impacting the project
- #7 Big Bang” Approach Pros Completeness - all needs and requirements met upon go-live User satisfaction – everything is there from go-live ROI – more sources of ROI available Cons Time – getting all needs and requirements will take longer Resources – getting all needs and requirements met will require more resources Momentum – since this approach takes longer your project momentum will suffer Senior Management may change priorities impacting the project
- #8 “Phased” Approach Pros Time – phase 1 can be up “quickly” with core needs and requirements met Momentum –users and management will see improvements from phase 1 quickly Resources – fewer resources may be needed per phase Minimize 80/20 rule – 80% of effort to meet last 20% of requirements – phased approach minimizes this Cons User satisfaction – if phase 1 does not include significant improvements for the users (scientists) they will not be happy with the new system Unmet needs -not unusual that Phase 2 never happens due to resource/priority issues Suboptimal efficiency - Phase 2 often includes some of the most beneficial process and work improvements (i.e. workflows, instrument &systems integration) but it never happens System utilization/adoption – if users do not get what they wanted they may not utilize the new LIMS
- #9 “Phased” Approach Pros Time – phase 1 can be up “quickly” with core needs and requirements met Momentum –users and management will see improvements from phase 1 quickly Resources – fewer resources may be needed per phase Minimize 80/20 rule – 80% of effort to meet last 20% of requirements – phased approach minimizes this Cons User satisfaction – if phase 1 does not include significant improvements for the users (scientists) they will not be happy with the new system Unmet needs -not unusual that Phase 2 never happens due to resource/priority issues Suboptimal efficiency - Phase 2 often includes some of the most beneficial process and work improvements (i.e. workflows, instrument &systems integration) but it never happens System utilization/adoption – if users do not get what they wanted they may not utilize the new LIMS
- #11 Continuation[edit] A "continuation application" is a patent application filed by an applicant who wants to pursue additional claims to an invention disclosed in an earlier application of the applicant (the "parent" application) that has not yet been issued or abandoned. The continuation uses the same specification as the pending parent application, claims the priority based on the filing date of the parent, and must name at least one of the inventors named in the parent application. This type of application is useful when a patent examiner allowed some, but rejected other claims in an application, or where an applicant may not have exhausted all useful ways of claiming different embodiments of the invention.[citation needed] During the prosecution of a continuation application, the applicant may not add additional disclosure to the specification. If the inventor needs to supplement the disclosure of the earlier parent application, he must file a continuation-in-part application.[2] In the typical case, a patent examiner will examine patent claims and amendments in an original patent application for two rounds of "office actions" before ending examination. However, often two office actions are not enough to resolve all of the issues in the patent prosecution. Request for continued examination[edit] A request for continued examination (RCE) is a request by an applicant for continued prosecution after the patent office has issued a "final" rejection. An RCE is not considered a continuing patent application - rather, prosecution of the pending application is reopened.[3] The inventor pays an additional filing fee and continues to argue his case with the patent examiner. No RCE was allowed prior to June 8, 1995. See 37 CFR 1.114. Divisional[edit] See also: Divisional patent application A divisional application also claims priority based on the filing date of the parent application, but differs from a continuation application in that a divisional application claims a distinct or independent invention "carved out" of the parent application. A divisional application must share at least one of the inventors named in the parent application. A divisional application is often filed after the examiner issued a "restriction requirement", because a patent can only claim a single invention (cf. unity of invention). Continuation-in-part[edit] A "continuation-in-part" application ("CIP" or "CIP application") is one in which the applicant adds subject matter not disclosed in the parent, but repeats substantial portion of the parent's specification, and shares at least one inventor with the parent application. The CIP application is a convenient way to claim enhancements developed after the parent application was filed. It is the successor to the earlier "additional improvement" patents mentioned above. For a continuation-in-part application, claims to subject matter that was also disclosed in the parent are entitled to the parent’s priority date, while claims to the additional subject matter are only entitled to the filing date of the CIP application.[4]