Enabling Flexible Laboratory Processes: Designing the Laboratory Information System of the Future

  • Christoph Duelli
  • Robert Keller
  • Jonas Manderscheid
  • Andreas Manntz
  • Maximilian RöglingerEmail author
  • Marco Schmidt
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


  1. (a)

    Situation faced: Recent developments in the medical and industrial laboratory market have increased the need for highly flexible laboratory processes. This pressure results from new requirements that have accompanied the internationalization of laboratories and the digitalization of paper-based, bureaucratic work practices. The execution of laboratory processes is supported by laboratory information systems (LISs), which handle the control and information flow of incoming orders end-to-end. State-of-the-art LISs do not feature sufficient flexibility-to-use and flexibility-to-change capabilities. To prepare medical and industrial laboratories for the challenges ahead, LISs require more advanced flexibility capabilities that meet the need for flexibility in complex laboratory processes.

  2. (b)

    Action taken: To address the challenges of medical and industrial laboratories, MELOS, a leading German LIS provider, and the Project Group BISE of the Fraunhofer FIT conducted the LIS4FUTURE project. The project team compiled requirements on the flexibility of laboratory processes and derived corresponding requirements for the LIS’s flexibility-to-use and flexibility-to-change. The lack of configuration capabilities and modularity across all layers of the software architecture was identified as a major inhibitor of flexible laboratory processes. Following an agile development process and grounded on extant knowledge, the project team developed the LIS4FUTURE demonstrator, a process-aware LIS with a modular architecture and a rule-based configuration mechanism.

  3. (c)

    Results achieved: Based on identified requirements, the project team iteratively developed and evaluated the modular architecture and the rule-based configuration mechanism as part of the development of the LIS4FUTURE demonstrator. The modular architecture allows for the complete replacement of process steps at build time, while the rule-based configuration mechanism makes it possible to meet the ever-increasing demands for flexibility at runtime. The LIS4FUTURE demonstrator, which shows the applicability of the developed concepts in real-world scenarios, will help MELOS develop an innovative release of their LIS.

  4. (d)

    Lessons learned: During the LIS4FUTURE project, the project team learned that: (1) advanced flexibility-to-use and flexibility-to-change IS capabilities are needed to prepare for flexibility demands on the process level; (2) radical redesign of existing processes and systems should be preferred over incremental improvement in order to tap the disruptive potential of innovation opportunities; (3) the LIS architecture must be aligned with the process paradigm if it is to be flexible; (4) discussions among academics and practitioners are more effective if they are based on running prototypes rather than on theoretical concepts; and (5) project results improve if project team members work a substantial fraction of their time at the same location.



  1. Afflerbach, P., Kastner, G., Krause, F., & Röglinger, M. (2014). The business value of process flexibility – An optimization model and its application in the service sector. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(4), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile software development. Accessed July 23, 2016, from
  3. Fitzsimmons, J., & Fitzsimmons, M. (2013). Service management: Operations, strategy, information technology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Gebauer, J., & Schober, F. (2006). Information system flexibility and cost efficiency of business processes. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(3), 122–147.Google Scholar
  5. Johnston, R., Clark, G., & Shulver, M. (2012). Service operations management. Essex: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Lillrank, P. (2003). The quality of standard, routine and nonroutine processes. Organization Studies, 24(2), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mernik, M., Heering, J., & Sloane, A. (2005). When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(4), 316–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Reichert, M., & Weber, B. (2012). Enabling flexibility in process-aware information systems: Changes, methods, technologies. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). The six core elements of business process management. In J. vom Bnrocke & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Handbook on business process management. Introduction, methods and information systems (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 105–122). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2008). Process flexibility: A survey of contemporary approaches. In J. Dietz & A. Albani (Eds.), Advances in enterprise engineering I (pp. 16–30). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stevenson, C., & Pols, A. (2004). An agile approach to a legacy system. In J. Eckstein & H. Baumeister (Eds.), Extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering (pp. 123–129). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sulivan, K., Griswold, W., Cai, Y., & Hallen, B. (2001). The structure and value of modularity in software design. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 26(5), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2013). Business process management: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering. doi: 10.1155/2013/507984.
  14. vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., & Schmiedel, T. (2016). On the role of context in business process management. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 486–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Duelli
    • 1
  • Robert Keller
    • 2
  • Jonas Manderscheid
    • 3
  • Andreas Manntz
    • 1
  • Maximilian Röglinger
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marco Schmidt
    • 4
  1. 1.MELOS GmbHGessertshausenGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer FIT, University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  3. 3.FIM Research CenterUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  4. 4.Fraunhofer FIT, University of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations