Veja como o Actiz LIMS pode transformar seu laboratório
Peça uma demo
Why Should Accredited Labs Invest in a LIMS?
Discover how a LIMS can optimize laboratories accredited under ISO/IEC 17025, improving efficiency, quality, and regulatory compliance.
An ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory has no technical obligations that differ from those of a competent laboratory that never seeks accreditation. It carries one additional, specific obligation: to demonstrate that competence at any moment, for a sample somebody else picks, with recoverable evidence. The wording makes it sound like a subtle difference. In operation it is enormous, because it shifts the effort from doing the work correctly to proving the work was done correctly, and that shift is where the cost shows up.
It is worth being precise about where that cost settles, because it is rarely where people expect. It is not in running the test, which the team already knows how to do. It sits in the connecting work: finding the calibration certificate for the instrument used in a run eighteen months ago, proving the analyst was authorised for that method on that date, locating the justification for a repeat, pulling together results for a batch that moved through three areas. None of that work produces new information. All of it consumes qualified staff hours, and all of it scales with volume.
Why the effort to demonstrate grows faster than volume
There is an asymmetry that explains why accredited labs feel pressure out of proportion to their growth. Running twice as many tests takes roughly twice the analytical capacity, which is predictable and easy to budget. Demonstrating compliance across twice as many tests takes more than twice the effort when records are scattered, because the cost of each demonstration depends on how many sources have to be cross-checked, and that number does not fall with practice. A lab that opened three spreadsheets to reconstruct one sample still opens three spreadsheets after doubling volume, just far more often.
This has a management consequence that usually goes unnoticed until it becomes a problem. The bottleneck in a growing accredited lab tends to show up first in review and quality assurance roles, not at the bench. Coordinators often conclude they need to hire more analysts when the real queue is in validation and consolidation, which means the investment increases the inflow to a bottleneck that lies further downstream. One symptom tells the two cases apart: if some point in the flow is idle while another is drowning, the problem is not analytical capacity.
How to roll out a system without disrupting accreditation
The legitimate concern for a lab that is already accredited is not whether the system helps, it is what happens to the accreditation during the transition. Three precautions handle most of the risk, and none of them is technical in the software sense. The first is to define scope in waves, starting with the highest-volume tests: a smaller scope means a smaller validation protocol, and validation is the most expensive line item of any rollout in an accredited environment. The second is to keep prior records recoverable during and after the transition, because the next audit will ask about tests run in the old system. The third is to decide in advance which system is the official source for each piece of information while the two run side by side.
That third precaution is the one most often forgotten, and the one that produces the most uncomfortable finding. When the new system goes live and the old one stays active as a safety net, two different answers to the same question become possible, and the lab cannot state which one is official. In an audit that is worse than the starting point, because the discrepancy is no longer informal, it is recorded in two systems. The rule that prevents it is written before go-live: from date X, for the tests in scope Y, the official source is the new system, and the old one exists only to look up earlier periods.
What accreditation actually requires, and how that lands in daily work
An accredited laboratory does not carry different obligations from a competent one: it carries the obligation to demonstrate that it is competent, recoverably, at any moment. That difference is what makes the information-system discussion relevant. The table below translates ISO/IEC 17025 requirement areas into the concrete work each one generates, comparing a scattered-records approach with an integrated-record approach.
| Requirement area | With scattered records | With an integrated record |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel competence by method | Training records in a folder, unlinked to execution | Authorisation by method checked at the moment of entry |
| Metrological traceability | Certificates filed separately from the test performed | Instrument and standard linked to the result produced |
| Validity of results | Control charts filled in, the analysis never recorded | Decision rules applied and the action documented |
| Control of data and records | Editable spreadsheets, no change history | Audit trail with prior value, author and reason |
| Nonconforming work | Events in a spreadsheet parallel to the source data | Nonconformity linked to the record that caused it |
| Reporting of results | Assembled by hand, transcribed between sources | Report generated from validated data, no re-typing |
| Internal audit and management review | Indicators compiled manually each cycle | Indicators pulled from the operating history itself |
Two rows of that table deserve to be read together, because between them they explain most audit findings in accredited labs. The fourth is about changing data: when a value is corrected in a spreadsheet the previous value disappears, and the record loses the reconstruction capability the standard requires. The fifth is about the link between a nonconformity and the data that produced it: without that link there is no way to demonstrate the corrective action addressed the cause, only that some action was recorded. The FDA data integrity guidance for cGMP describes the same set of attributes, and 21 CFR Part 11 specifies the audit trail a user must not be able to switch off. The requirements converge because the underlying problem is the same.
Conclusion
Here is the reading that closes the subject: for a lab that is already accredited, the return on an information system is not in performing the test better, it is in shortening the time between the question and the evidence. That time is measurable today, with nothing installed, and it is the number that should open any investment discussion in this area. Pick a sample from more than a year ago at random and time how long it takes to assemble the method, its version, the instrument with calibration valid on that date, the authorised operator, any repeats with their justification, and the release decision. That measurement, compared against the same exercise six months later, is the only return assessment that survives scrutiny.
Frequently asked questions
Does an accredited laboratory need a LIMS to keep its accreditation?
No. ISO/IEC 17025 does not require any specific software, and laboratories do maintain accreditation with paper records and spreadsheets. The better question is about the cost of demonstration. The standard requires records that allow every result to be reconstructed, plus evidence that controls were analysed and not merely performed. Scattered records can do that, but the cost per demonstration is high and it grows with volume. The system does not replace technical competence; it shortens the time between the auditor question and the evidence.
What generates the most findings in an accredited laboratory audit?
Data changed without a trace, and the missing link between a nonconformity and the record that caused it. In the first case a value corrected in a spreadsheet erases the previous value, and the record can no longer support reconstruction. In the second there is a corrective action on file, but no way to demonstrate it addressed the cause of that specific problem. In both cases the technical work was probably correct; what is missing is structured evidence, which is exactly what the audit examines.
How do you demonstrate analyst competence by method?
The evidence has to connect three things: who performed the work, which method, and what authorisation that person held on the date of execution. Keeping training records in a separate folder only partly answers this, because it does not show the situation in force at the time of the test. The robust approach makes authorisation a condition of execution, so the system only accepts entries from someone authorised for that method and records the link automatically, instead of relying on a later check.
How long should it take to reconstruct a sample history?
There is no deadline in the standard, but reconstruction time is the best practical indicator of how mature a management system is. The test is simple: pick a random sample from months ago and assemble the collection details, the method, the instrument and its calibration on that date, the operator, the reviewer, any repeats and their justifications. If that requires more than one source, or depends on someone who was there at the time, the audit will hit the same obstacle, with the difference that the audit writes the finding down.
