Dallas, TX (PRWEB) October 21, 2013
Proper maintenance of laboratory instrumentation is an important consideration to ensure that lab assets remain available to researchers. Minimizing downtime makes the research process more efficient. A variety of support options are available from original equipment manufacturers (OEM), small third party independent service organizations (ISO), large multi-vendor service (MVS) providers and internal support staffs. A specific aim of this global benchmarking study was to track the increasing use of/interest in MVS providers. Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from persons who make or influence purchasing or service maintenance/support decisions for lab instruments in pharma, applied and academic research labs.
Complete report available @ http://www.rnrmarketresearch.com/lab-instrument-support-strategies-trends-2013-market-report.html.
The survey looked at the following aspects of lab instrument support and service as practiced today (2013) and in a few cases as predicted for the future (2016): the application areas that best describes respondent’s use of lab instruments; typical level of instrument use; reasonable and maximum hourly labour rates for an instrument service visit; reasonable expenses for a service call on top of an hourly rate; who is responsible for setting aside (allocating) an instrument support budget in respondent’s organization/facility; how an instrument support budget is funded; how lab instruments are currently maintained or serviced; respondents who have purchased an extended warranty or service contract from an instrument manufacturer; whether the extended warranty or service contract was considered worth the price paid; % of the original instrument value respondents expect to pay annually for instrument service and support; respondent’s philosophy on PM; preferred type of PM (i.e. instrument usage versus scheduled purely on calendar driven events); how obsolete instruments are supported; types of lab instrument respondents would you like see covered by a support agreement at their organization; respondents who have ever considered working with a third party MVS provider; current use of MVS providers; satisfaction with MVS providers used; level of MVS coverage wanted; MVS providers most associated with a list of desirable characteristics or attributes; basis for selecting an MVS provider; main reasons/drivers for using/considering an MVS provider; approval needed internally to sign an MVS agreement; most important features offered by MVS; areas of concern/reservation about MVS; importance of specific concerns when thinking about entering into an MVS agreement; categories of instruments most interested in covering with MVS; likelihood will contract out instrument service and support coverage to an MVS provider over the next 3 years; and any unmet needs in instrument support that respondents would like to see addressed by service providers.
Respondents came from 12 Large Pharma; 8 University; 6 Medium-Small Pharma; 5 Research Institute; 5 Medical School/Hospital/Clinic; 4 Biotech Company – Established; 4 Contract Research Organization; 3 Biotech Company – Startup; 3 Diagnostics Company; 2 Agrochemical/Agri-Biotech Company ; 2 Government Laboratory; 2 Academic Screening Center; 2 Other and 1 Not-For-Profit Research Center.
Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 15 principal investigators; 12 lab managers; 9 senior scientists/researchers; 7 research scientists/associates; 6 section/group leaders; 6 directors; 5 principal investigators; 4 others; 3 vice presidents; 3 instrument support staff; 2 professors/assistant professors; 1 department head; and 1 graduate student/PhD student.
Few highlights of this survey report include:
- The main application areas of respondent’s lab instruments were basic/academic research or pharmaceutical/drug discovery research.
- The level of use of instruments by most respondents was occasional use.
- The median reasonable hourly rate for an instrument service visit was $150-$200/hour.
- The median maximum hourly rate for an instrument service visit was $200-$250/hour.
- The claimable expense thought most reasonable on top of an hourly rate was an air fare.
- Most respondents thought it was a divisional/departmental responsibility for setting aside an instrument support budget.
- Most respondents would fund an instrument support budget from a general site fund.
- The approach respondents most currently use to maintain or service lab instruments were instrument manufacturer service contracts.
- The majority of respondents have purchased an extended warranty or service contract from an instrument manufacturer and thought it was worth the price paid.
- The median % of the original instrument value respondents would expect to pay annually for instrument service and support was 5%.
- The primary philosophy towards PM was to inspect regularly & repair as needed.
- The alternative philosophy towards PM was to follow OEM recommendations.
Purchase a copy of this report @ http://www.rnrmarketresearch.com/contacts/purchase?rname=120432.
Browse more reports on Laboratory Instrumentation Market @ http://www.rnrmarketresearch.com/reports/life-sciences/diagnostics/in-vitro-diagnostics-ivd/laboratory-instrumentation.
RnRMarketResearch.com is an online database of market research reports offer in-depth analysis of over 5000 market segments. The library has syndicated reports by leading market research publishers across the globe and also offer customized market research reports for multiple industries.