Good as New: How Instrument Upgrades May Protect Years of Development, Investment for Your Organization
By Jeff Viney
Thermo Fisher Scientific
In the life science industry today many companies are facing significant challenges to their business goals from rising costs, increasing regulatory requirements, higher quality expectations, and competitive pressure. Now more than ever, instrument life-cycle management—one that begins at acquisition and ends at disposition—is a critical part of successful business planning. Acquiring the instrument, maximizing its operation, and maintaining its performance throughout its life cycle are critical tasks, yet determining what to do at the end of the instrument’s life cycle can be the most important aspect of managing the instrument asset.
User Considerations
Asset life-cycle planning is an important part of the total cost of ownership of an instrument when one considers that companies that plan ahead will make the smartest, most cost-effective decisions to replace or upgrade retiring instruments. But how do companies achieve this objective? Unfortunately, decisions based solely on depreciation schedules don’t provide enough insight to the total value of the instrument to the organization. Further, many instruments and their software provide the basis for critical processes and data standardization. In addition, there can also be regulatory considerations with standard operating procedures (SOPs) developed for specific instruments and software validation tools.With the sheer number and scope of regulatory requirements faced by many instrument users, the extra burden of commissioning entirely new instrument platforms and keeping them in compliance can put a strain on internal resources. The bottom line: The ability to maintain an existing platform indefinitely with the application of a well-designed upgrade can protect years of development and investment, and provide better focus on the core competencies of the business.
Understanding an instrument provider’s life-cycle policy is a key consideration when making an initial instrument purchase decision or deciding to maintain a relationship with an existing supplier. Knowing the provider’s track record and product support philosophy are very important when trying to understand the instrument retirement transition. A provider known for their commitment to developing instrument upgrades can help an organization effectively manage their total cost of instrument ownership.
Important Questions
These questions need to be considered when reviewing instrument life cycle and replacement plans:
- Are there key pieces or functions of the instrument that are critical to your process?
- Has the customer-supplier relationship supported your overall business goals?
- What are the total costs associated with moving to an entirely new platform?
- Does the instrument provider offer any incentive for customer loyalty?
- Does the instrument provider offer a desirable upgrade path?
Case Study
The Thermo Scientific Magna FT-IR spectrometer line was introduced in 1992. With innovations in plug-and-play sampling technology and the advanced capabilities introduced with the company’s OMNIC software, the product line became incredibly successful during its production run and created a very significant, loyal customer base. Most of these customers made a significant investment in developing critical analytical processes and collecting irreplaceable spectral databases with a time-proven, reliable instrument they came to trust. The Magna product line was discontinued in July 1998, with product retirement scheduled for August 2009.
In August 2007, two full years before the retirement date, Thermo Fisher Scientific introduced the Nicolet 6700 upgrade. This instrument upgrade was the product of careful consideration looking at the needs of existing Magna users to provide a seamless, cost-effective platform transition from the Magna FT-IR to the highest performance FT-IR system available. While this new platform has the power to handle the most advanced research-level experiments, routine analyses are performed just as conveniently. Every facet of the upgrade has been engineered to facilitate sample handling, introduce options to scientists, and increase laboratory throughput.
Most importantly for Magna users, the upgrade supports all of the sampling accessories, spectral data, spectral libraries, validation protocols, and methods developed and used with the Magna product line. It’s also compatible with numerous advanced sampling accessories and techniques developed since the Magna was first introduced. This upgrade provides clear cost benefit, technology benefit and a platform transition to a new generation instrument that can accommodate extensive analytical needs well into the future.
Conclusion
As examined in the case study above, asset life-cycle planning is critical for instruments with the history and customer following of the Magna FT-IR. Instrument users need to assess their total investment in the retiring technology and make sure their decision for replacement or upgrade supports their business goals. Instrument providers must address the needs and concerns of the existing critical customer base to ensure a successful transition to a new product platform. Linking the new product platform to the retiring product line with upgrade options should be a key consideration when designing the new platform. Providing a seamless avenue to maintain the customer’s critical processes and operations is key to maintaining a successful customer-supplier relationship. Offering various levels of compatibility and financial incentive can provide the customer with significant cost savings as well as a sole source avenue to sustain their relationship with a preferred supplier.
0 Items 