As the summer approaches, I’ve noticed that there’s a lot less traffic and buzz about industry trends. Of course, you have to expect this: The Spring show and conference season is winding down, people start thinking about vacations and the kids are out of school.  Another winter season has come and gone, and there have been little overall developments in the standards/data integration arena. Some may say, “Well, it’s just timing. People tend to put all of that stuff on the back burner during the Summer”.

I’m not so sure. Over the past few years, I’ve made some observations on why the standards/integration movement in the biosciences industry never seems to get off the ground. True, everyone agrees they’d like to see something come together, but there’s little overall organization and cohesiveness. Go to your favorite seminar, interest group or association, and getting a room full of people to agree on anything is like herding cats, never mind organizing anything on a larger regional or even national level.

Truth is, there is very little organization in the user community. Sure, there are lots of groups, associations and the like. But they’re not aligned. You’d nearly need everyone to agree on and establish a central governance body. Only then would you have some serious political clout to move and shake things. Most people seem to believe that you’d need to apply some major leverage on vendors and manufacturers to get them to adopt a standard, or commit to at least a more open architecture. I myself though this way for many years - Now, I’m not so sure.

Point in case: over the past year, while attending various shows, seminars and groups, I’ve noticed that people love to get together, and talk about the latest and best products, how to implement them, or resolve issues or problems. Of course, people also talk about their wish lists, with new feature sets, SaaS, with open standards usually being right at the top. There’s a lot of excitement, and conversations can get intense.

Intense until a vendor or manufacturer walks into the room. All of a sudden, there’s this collective “who invited you?” and immediately people withdraw. There seems to be an ingrained, inherent distrust or suspicion that takes hold. It’s as if people suddenly think “Ok, watch what you say…they might try to sell us something!”. There are a few forums I know that are so anti-vendor, that even the slightest commercial reference can get your removed. Of course, there have been abuses, so these kinds of cautions are warranted and justified to some extent, and groups and forums have user policies for good reason. And they apply to everyone.

Still, I find this phenomenon to be a bit baffling. On one hand, people get really exciting about a bit of software and want to learn all about it, but then they distrust the company that makes it. The trouble with this is that this can go both ways, and become self fulfilling. If a vendor or manufacture perceives this reaction, then they will tend to adopt an equally defensive posture. Given this, what motivation does a manufacturer or vendor have to what to work with the user community at large to even consider adopting an open standard?

In the medical industry, the financial drivers created by managed care and the market forced organizations to standardize. It was either adopt, or perish. Plain and simple. In the biosciences industry, you don’t have the same financial regulation, so vendors and manufacturers are not “required” to change. And why should they when they, as well as all the bioscience companies, continue to thrive even in our current economy.

Bioscience companies spend a lot of money on industry products – a single company can easily spend millions of dollars yearly. So clearly, no one wants to loose a customer like this! And being this kind of paying customer, you could have some influence. One things for sure in the biosciences industry – it’s intensely competitive, and getting more so very day. So, why is there the user-vendor reluctance to work on changes that could be mutually beneficial? Why the distrust?

An acquaintance of mine, who runs an Institute, states that a large number of problems encountered in labs have nothing to do with the science, technologies involved or the instruments. He feels the origin of these problems arise out of the business itself due to organization inefficiencies rather than technical shortcomings. In short, he’s referring to the human factor.

I couldn’t agree more. In many organizations that I have worked in or visited, there often are conflicts of some type between lab personnel, management, and information technology professionals. Those organizations that have close alignment between these groups tend to be the most efficient and successful.

How do these conflicts - the “us vs. them” mentality - originate? Can you think of one at your company? I’m sure you can…now can you recall how it started? Or was it always “just there” when you started working there? In the big picture, it really doesn’t matter how it starts. What matters most is how it can be resolved, and that we are willing to try.

So here’s a novel concept: if people started to work with vendors and manufacturers on a level playing field, and dropped their guard, I wonder if we might be surprised by the reaction they’d get. I’ll bet that most would be willing to at least talk. Talking is the most important, crucial step. Once that starts, everything else is possible. We might find that manufacturers and vendors are more than willing to cooperate with us, and give us what we want, perhaps in some middle ground. That certainly would be a whole lot better than where we are now.

Perhaps this sounds naïve, even pollyanna-ish. Well, something needs to give sooner or later. Someone has to hold out their hand for that first handshake. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, and this post, there needs to be leadership to start this. That’s the first step. The second step is willingness to work with the vendors and manufacturers and have a neutral playing field where the needs of both sides can be seen and understood. This process may take years. Perhaps longer. But we need to start thinking about it now.

Data Integration | Life Sciences IT | Biotechnology Trends

MUSA recently attended the 2010 BIO-IT convention in Boston, as well as the BIO International convention in Chicago. As an exhibitor, we were of course interested in how some of our newest services and solutions would be received.  At the same time, we wanted to gain a broader experience and understanding of some of the trends going on in the industry right now, and how these trends are being addressed.

As a lab specialist, I was particularly interested to see the latest developments in data integration solutions. At BIO-IT, I wasn’t disappointed – there were a number of vendors that had offerings in this area. On one hand, this was very encouraging to see. Data integration technologies are really beginning to emerge and gain ground, in response to a growing call from the scientific communities for tools and solutions that will help them work with their data.

This doesn’t mean the instrument manufacturers will jump on the standards development bandwagon. However, as data integration solutions continue to gain a broader foothold and user adoption, the demand for open access will become progressively harder for the manufacturers to ignore.

There was one pitfall to most of the solutions I saw at BIO-IT: cost. It seems that many of the Data Integration solutions available on the market right now are enterprise level. Many of the applications I saw were impressive, offering very powerful toolsets. The downside is that entry price, in one case, was nearly $50,000. A full deployment was hundreds of thousands, and required specialized staff to be onsite. If you’re big pharma, that may not be an obstacle. But if you’re a startup, or a small company, many of these solutions will be out of reach. On the other end of the spectrum, there were some DI vendors who are offering right sized solutions, but lack the visibility (and marketing budgets) of larger companies.

This is what makes shows such as BIO-IT and BIO International so important – it’s a chance for everyone to see “what’s out there” first hand. The shows allow new companies to network, and connect with others to collaborate, share information or partner. And, of course, they provide direct access to users who may be interested in their products.

BIO International in Chicago was a great example of information exchange and networking. For me, the best thing about BIO was the collaboration. Nothing replaces face to face meetings. It’s just the best interactive format for people to really learn who you are, what you do, and what you have to offer, and vice versa. So, this is the best way to further data integration and standards development, right?

The answer to this question is surprising. I recently spoke with a number of people who attended shows such as PITTCON and Smartlabs Exchange, and they voiced a common concern: while nearly everyone who gave or attended sessions agreed the need for data integration and standards exist, there isn’t a lot of agreement about what to do about it. The movement just lacks a clear direction right now.

The answer to this problem may be as simple as time. While the direction or the form of the change may not be clear now, shows such as BIO-IT and BIO International clearly indicate we are in the early stages. We’re seeing more examples of information exchange, more vendors creating new products, and people are talking. Which is to say, we’re making progress.

For information about MUSA's data integration and lab support services, contact us through MUSA's information request form or call (800) 401-9123.

Data Integration | Lab Technology Support | Life Sciences IT | Biotechnology Trends | Technology Consulting

Companies of all sizes at some point look to outsource at least part of their technology support primarily to allow their existing staff to focus more on the business’s core competencies rather than day-to-day IT issues. Because daily support issues can be time consuming and require a great deal of time and attention, companies look to third party managed service providers who specialize in technology support issues. While it sometimes makes sense to bring in a third party technical resource for a small project, working with a managed service provider is usually a long term relationship, which means it’s important to do your homework to make to choose the right one for you.

First of all, it’s important to outline out what services you are looking for, and what kind of support you need. There are some firms that offer 24/7 support, while others only offer support during regular business hours. Also, it is important to know whether you will need the firm to send consultants to your site or if you would like them to work by tapping into your systems remotely to help you with your technology concerns. Most managed services providers work in a way where you can contact them through email or over the phone and they will respond in whatever mode is best suited for the job, including remotely accessing your network to support the issue.

More recently, companies have been moving towards cloud and virtual solutions. While these are definitely cost-effective and beneficial to companies to set up, they can still be demanding in terms of regular support and maintenance. It is important to find a consulting firm that is comfortable working with these technologies and can help troubleshoot incidents you may have with cloud computing or VMware servers. In order to verify this expertise, ask for VMware certified professionals, to make sure that the company has people on staff who have proven knowledge and experience working with these sensitive environments.

Lastly, If your firm is in an industry that has strict regulations to comply with, it is important to find an IT consulting firm that has the experience and certifications to be working on sensitive data and information in your industry. For example, if your firm is in the life sciences industry, which is rigorously regulated by the FDA, it is important that the firm you choose for your managed services solutions is familiar with HIPAA standards and regulations for data protection and integrity, and it is crucial that the technology consultants you bring in are GxP certified to validate your systems and hardware based on latest regulations. For firms in the financial industry, it is important that IT support staff is abreast of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations and is certified to be working in such a sensitive environment.

As mentioned in a previous blog post titled  “Domestically Outsourcing IT Services and Support,” the primary reasons to outsource IT services and support are to reduce and control operating costs, improve company focus, gain access to world-class capabilities, and to free up internal resources for other purposes. Thus, it’s apparent that outsourcing IT support, especially for day-to-day support issues that pull away resources from a company’s core function,  can be a good investment for a company. However, it is important to choose the right managed services provider based on your specific needs, including the size and type of your business, what kind of services you’re looking for, and what industry standards you have to comply with. By researching numerous managed services providers, and making sure to choose the one that best fits your needs, you will be able to find a solid partner for the long haul.

Life Sciences IT | Technology Consulting | MUSA | Managed Services | Domestic Outsourcing