This is Part 2 in a three-part series on choosing the right informatics provider within the context of regulated clinical sequencing. You can read Part 1 here.
It’s Not Build vs. Buy. Rather, Whom Do I Partner With?
“It is important to be adequately capitalized when you start [genomic testing]. Trying to build NGS in a piecemeal fashion is not a successful strategy.”
Genetics in Medicine, December 2014
—
“If I go with your solution, how many more pieces will we need to add?”
“Will your solution integrate with all our existing systems?”
“Will your company be innovative enough to keep pace with our evolving needs?”
“How can we trust that your company will be around in 2, 3, 5 years?”
Despite weeks, sometimes months (and even years) of intricate vetting that various components of informatics pipelines go through prior to an organization acquiring them, the undercurrent driving decisions in our field is more aptly represented by the questions above, though they may never be expressed quite as explicitly.
This was not the case in a recent conversation I had with a large, well-established clinical laboratory aiming to implement progressive molecular genetic testing to its hundreds of thousands of pediatric constituents. When asked what the number one evaluation criterion was, the answer I received was simple – ‘company stability’. This was further advocated by the request for proposal subsequently issued by the same lab where, in addition to the 40+ pages of technical questions, we were required to submit company financials.
This makes sense. Choosing an informatics provider is not a decision made lightly, nor should it be. Informatics, if not properly resourced and made accessible to a broader team, can negatively impact everything from the development and validation of new tests, to the quality of the interpretation of genomic variants and timely issuance of actionable reports for practicing physicians, to adequate growth of test volumes and expansion of test menus. Let’s also not forget that patients’ lives are at stake, reputations are on the line and profit expectations, which drive the adoption of innovation in healthcare (like it or not), can be severely jeopardized. A wrong decision on informatics can be disastrous.
The irony however, is that the fear of making the wrong decision often leads to no decision, which benefits no one, or months to years of delays as an organization attempts to build the informatics infrastructure in-house, only to discover later that the maintenance, scaling, and human resource demands are cost-prohibitive.
What’s needed is not another “user-friendly” app to add to the quiver of other point-solutions no matter the number of awesome features each point solution may have. Organizations need an informatics partner that provides apps and other integrated technologies as a means to an end. Yes, the technology must provide a sufficient foundation to get started now, but it must also be amenable to customization and innovation for future needs.
In Part 3 of this series, “Tute Genomics. Playing with a Full Deck.,” I make the case that Tute Genomics is a partner you definitely want to consider on your quest for an informatics partner. In the meantime, to help you make a more informed decision, I encourage you to learn more about what Tute Genomics has to offer by visiting our website or by watching one of our archived webinars.
