Share thisAnimal studies are tremendously labor intensive and logistically challenging. In the majority of research organizations, data collection and analysis, task scheduling and management, graphing and report generation are performed manually.
The do-it-yourself approach to study management software development can sometimes seem like to best way to
customize and save money. The reality can often be just the opposite.
Animal studies are tremendously labor intensive and logistically challenging. In the majority of research organizations, data collection and analysis, task scheduling and management, graphing and report generation are performed manually. Study results frequently reach management and other stakeholders days or weeks after the data is collected and, in some organizations, only after the studies have been completed.
Technology exists to automate data collection and analysis processes, to make real-time study management and review a reality, and to greatly increase efficiency. Organizations choosing to leverage the advantages of available software technology by automating their processes must decide between purchasing commercially available study management software (see article in Animal Lab News1), or undertake internal software development efforts. The purpose of this article is to discuss the risks inherent to internal software development efforts based on the available industry figures and our own experience as both scientists and commercial software developers.
Although commercial software for animal studies is available, some biopharmaceutical organizations choose to develop software internally for a number of reasons:
1. Commercial-off-the-Shelf systems (COTS) may not always offer the complete functionality needed.
2. COTS may not immediately integrate with existing legacy databases or programs.
3. COTS may not precisely mirror the exact study conduct processes used in a particular lab.
4. Commercial applications are considerably more expensive than Microsoft Excel® and similar products.
Expectations versus Reality
The expectation in developing in-house software is that the organization will end up with a customized system at a price anticipated to be lower than a commercial software package. Scientists are smart, creative people who usually know exactly what they want, so the notion of building a system in-house tailored to their needs has understandable appeal. Like managers in other non-software related industries, they often assume that it is a straight-forward process. Unfortunately, industry-wide statistics suggest that it usually isn’t so easy.
According to a 1995 Standish Group Report of a comprehensive, industry-wide study on software development projects, an average of just 16% of software projects actually succeed, finishing on time and on budget. Amazingly, 31.1% of projects are cancelled prior to completion.2 In reality, committing to develop an in-house system is like investing in a black box; it is difficult to forecast the ultimate cost and completion date, and nearly impossible to know the ultimate functionality, reliability, usability, flexibility, and overall quality of the final product.