LIMS (laboratory information management systems) lie at the heart of many laboratories’ informatics systems. Strategic Directions International’s (SDi’s) April report entitled “2012 Lab Informatics Survey of End-Users” is based on a survey of LIMS end-users and provides insight into important topics for LIMS vendors, including the use of LIMS with other software systems, how and why laboratories purchase a LIMS, and the nature of LIMS support.

The report is based on a March survey of 552 laboratories, over half of which are located in North America. Survey participants came from a wide range of industries, with the pharmaceutical sector representing the largest end-user segment at 25%. Thirty-five percent and 34% of respondents work in analytical services and quality control/quality analysis labs, respectively. Fifty-six percent of 359 surveyed labs have LIMS enterprise or site licenses, as opposed to no license. Just over half of 378 labs surveyed have a LIMS with 1 to 20 concurrent users. For 360 surveyed labs, just over three-quarters of respondents, their LIMS supports more than one lab.

As detailed in the report, the LIMS market is growing in low single digits and is forecast to total over $350 million this year (see graph, page 3) to represent over 60% of the laboratory management informatics market, which also includes electronic lab notebooks/laboratory execution systems (ELNs/LES), and scientific data management systems (SDMS). The ELN market is the fastest-growing segment of the lab management informatics market. The total lab management informatics market is valued at more than $500 million.

The largest LIMS companies in 2011 by market share were LabWare, Thermo Fisher Scientific and LABVANTAGE Solutions. However, only one of these companies, Thermo, participates in the LIMS, ELN and SDMS markets. Other competitors that participate in all three software markets include PerkinElmer and STARLIMS.

LIMS’ Use with Other Systems

Laboratory software integration and combinations are a trend in the lab management informatics market. However, nearly 90% of the labs that took SDi’s LIMS survey have a LIMS installed. However, fewer labs have ELNs, CDS or SDMS. More than 30% of respondents have CDS, 20% have ELNs, and less than 10% have SDMS. Asked about their use of a combination of such informatics systems, just over half of labs frequently use their LIMS alone. In fact, less than 20% of respondents each use their LIMS together with their CDS or in combination with their ELNs.

How laboratory informatics systems are used can take many forms. Although they may not be used in combination, as described above, informatics systems are available as integrated solutions. The survey asked respondents how valuable various highly integrated informatics solutions would be to their labs. More than half of the surveyed labs each rated integrated LIMS/ELN, LIMS/CDS and LIMS/SDMS solutions as valuable. In fact, an integrated LIMS/ELN solution would be “extremely valuable” according to just over a third of respondents and “somewhat valuable” for 32%. However, a third were indifferent to such an integration, suggesting the range of informatics needs among labs.

Asked about a LIMS/CDS integrated solution, even a higher percentage, 44%, were indifferent. However, 27% labeled it as “extremely valuable” and 28% rated it as “somewhat valuable.” As for a LIMS/SDMS integrated solution, 43% of survey laboratories were indifferent. But 34% and 22% rated it “somewhat valuable” and “extremely valuable,” respectively.

Interestingly, the software packages most commonly used on site in association with 215 respondents’ LIMS were data analysis/analytical software and enterprise resource planning systems (ERPs). When asked what informatics systems linked to their LIMS, the highest percentage of surveyed labs, at over 40% each, reported links with ERPs and CDS.

Buying a New LIMS

Almost two-thirds of survey respondents are planning to buy a new LIMS within three years. However, more than 20% of respondents each selected three other reasons for a new purchase: “specific application not addressed,” “not satisfied with current LIMS,” and “our needs outgrew current LIMS.” Over a third of these respondents that indicated they were buying a new LIMS are doing so because their current LIMS is “obsolete.”

For all surveyed labs, over a third, the largest percentage, had purchased their LIMS more than 10 years ago, although nearly 50% of 367 respondents had upgraded their LIMS in 2011 or 2012.

Although not asked in relation to their purchase of a new LIMS, respondents were asked to rate the most important factors for LIMS products and LIMS vendors, allowing for multiple answers. Nearly 80% of respondents selected “flexibility/configurability/upgradeability” as among the most important factors for a LIMS. Over 50% each selected “ease of use/user friendliness” and “functionality/performance.”

Asked to rate the most important factor for vendors, over 90% of respondents selected “service and support,” while a quarter selected “responsiveness/reliability.” For those labs that had switched vendors, nearly half of respondents selected a new LIMS provider because their current LIMS was “difficult to maintain.” Over a third selected their LIMS was “expensive to maintain.” In fact, respondents rated “ease of deployment” as the top reason for their choice of LIMS client-server architecture, whether thin client (less reliant on a server), thick client (more reliant on a server) or web enabled.

LIMS Support

As indicated above, LIMS service is also an important factor for customer satisfaction. In the case of 315 labs surveyed, over three-quarters had a service contract for their LIMS. For those labs that did not have a service contract, nearly three-quarters indicated they did not have it because they had in-house support.

LIMS vendors are also very involved with LIMS implementation, but seldom do it alone, according to survey results. For more than 50% of 386 respondents, LIMS implementation was a joint project involving the lab and the LIMS provider. In fact, the LIMS was implemented by the LIMS vendor for less than 20% of respondents. In regard to LIMS validation, for 371 respondents, more than 60% lab analysts were involved in validation. LIMS vendors were involved in the LIMS validation for less than 30% of respondents.

IT departments manage and administer the LIMS, according to more than 60% of 384 labs surveyed. Lab analysts manage and administer the LIMS for over 50% of respondents.

Bar Graph: LIMS Market (Millions)

 2011 $341 
 2012 $359 
 2013 $376