Question:
Dear All,
Has SAP R/3 got any Laboratory Information System? If so, how do i reach it? If not what is to be done to provide a laboratory Iformation System ?
Thanks in advance.
Warm regards,
Shanny
Answer:
SAP has the QM module. What more do you need?
Exactly what are you looking for? QM is pretty good by itself. If you really need a full blown LIMS, most major LIMS vendors provide the necessary programs/info for interfacing to SAP QM. But really, I feel there are very few types of businesses that can justify a LIMS outside of SAP QM.
Craig
Answer:
Hi All
Please allow me to take this discussion a little further. (Maybe it is qualifying for a complete new thread).
We record results from the QC labs in the type 03 insp. lots coming from the process orders. In here we have Operations/phases for each QC lab in order to plan lead time. But in order to be more efficient the QC labs do the analysis in "runs" (or series) per type of analysis e.g pH measuring, conductivity measuring and so on. Each run containing samples from several batches = several insp. lots.
In order to handle these runs in an electronic system we discuss implementing a LIMS vs extending our lean QM impl. As the SAP guy I would like to suggest functionality in the QM module, but as we already use insp. lots type 03 I think it's difficult to detect which other solutions are present. Maybe insp. lot type 89 for each analysis run although it is not created automatically . It is very urgent to keep a refence or link from the process order driven work list QE51N with type 03 lots to the other types of insp. lots, or whatever functionality, and back. (Maybe this could be done with the use of physical samples? This is an area I haven't touched yet)
Wow, a whole lot to ask! In the first place it is about interpreting I think. So please don't just respond "go to ...help.sap.com" as interpreting is not what that site is about (but a great site for core functionality stuff).
Best regards, MLU
Answer:
MKU,
Are you asking a separate question? It appears so.. unless you are Shanny too!
It sounds like what you want to look at is tabular result recording, (QE73).
This allows a worklist of all outstanding lots needing a specific characteristic to be done.
I'm not sure what you mean about using 89's? You can use 03's and 04's in conjunction. You can also use 04's with early lot creation. The should be no need to create lots manually when working with production orders.
I don't know if I helped you as I'm still a little hazy about exactly what you want.
Craig
Answer:
Hi Craig, and the rest of the forum
It's all because I got inspired by your remark "SAP has the QM module. What more do you need? " and just wanted to discuss a single case just to hear your, and others in the forum's, opinions. (after all, this is a discussion forum, right? ) And no, I'm not Shanny.
I will try to rewrite my former post and hopefully make it more understandable.
Background
A discussion of implementing a LIMS or using more of the QM module is slowly emerging in my company. So this is more a question of can the QM module meet our business requirements?
Present scenario:
Today we have implemented QM only so that it can handle the results of MIC's given to the production from the QC labs.
These results are recorded in inspection lots type 03 because they are associated with a particular batch produced. (Not type 04, but thats another story I don't mind sharing with the forum some other time, some other thread). We're on release 4.70
The case:
The QC labs in order to be as efficient as possible, collect the samples and analyse for instance pH once a week. This gives a analysis run where the first sample stems from insp. lot (type 03) number xx1 material A batch a, the next sample from insp. lot number xx2 material B batch b and so on.
In each analysis run there might be internal standards and controls which are not batch related and therefore they shouldn't be recorded in the insp. lots type 03. There might be calculations involving these standards and intermediate measurements before the final result is produced.
All these non-batch results needs to be handled in an electronic system. There should be traceability from one end to the other. That is, it should be possible to trace the final batch related result in the insp. lot type 03 back to a given analysis run, equipment, value of controls and so on. And at the same time trace a result from an analysis run to the final recording in a given inspection lot type 03.
My suggestion:
Create an inspection plan that allows for creating of manual inspection lot type 89, (though som kind of automatic creation would be preferable). For every analysis run, create an inspection lot, do the analysis, record everything recordable in this inps. lot. Transfer batch related results to inspection lots type 03, preferably automatic.
Here is where I would like your opinions. Is this "intended use"/best practise of QM
Problems:
1) The traceability between inspection lots type 03 and the data from the specific analysis run.
2) The automatic datatransfer.
All technicalities I will investigate once a procedure for handling the analysis runs are chosen.
Best regards, MLU (that's a "L" in the middle )
Answer:
Good morning,
Very good discussion regarding the use (or non use) of LIMS and QM. I'd like to add just a couple of points:
1) Amount of data and frequency of data entry. This can have an impact on system performance if you are frequently taking a lot of measurements.
2) Who will be looking at the data. If there are a number of process engineers for example that will view or manipulate the data, they will need an SAP logon. If they have no other reason for getting into SAP, it may be more cost effective to use LIMS for capturing the data, and just pass a Usage Decision up to SAP.
3) What kind of manipulations of the data will be done. If the above process engineers are going to be running some calculation intensive experiments with a large data set, you really want to do that outside of SAP.
Humbly submitted for your consideration.
Cheers
Gerry
Answer:
you might find interestic the discussion under /forums/viewtopic.php?t=44763 .
dp
Answer:
I would probably just have the technican record the analysis run number or information in the inspection description field if it's that critical to the traceability. Can turn on the control indicator "documentation required" for each test where this might apply.
Craig