Project: Creating an Efficient Processing Station in the Core Lab

$1.$ Purpose and Scope: The aim of the project was to fulfill the need for an efficient processing station in the core lab with sufficient capacity to handle a lot of specimens and reduce the delay between intake and processing. The scope included:

$$ Space planning your core lab area in your firm$$s head office:

$$ Implementation of automation devices:

$$ Designing and enhancing the currently used labeling and sorting protocols:

$$ Teaching employees how to operate the new systems:

$2.$ Roles and responsibilities:

My Role: I managed the project throughout and liaised from the point of coordination of the setup and installation of equipment in various departments up to the installation of equipment.

Team Members:

$$ Lab technicians: Aided in assessing usability and reporting back on the same.

$$ IT Department: Built and incorporated IT infrastructure; developed LIS and automated processes in place.

$$ Supplies Manager: Handled the ordering of goods or subjects that were required for the performance of events or activities within the core labs.

$$ Phlebotomy Supervisor: Organized the transferral of items from the phlebotomy department to that of the core lab and vice versa:

$3.$ Communication:

$$ A meeting of the team members was held once every week to review activities and outputs.

$$ Email notifications were sent out in the course of the day to announce any changes that had been made and which could not wait to be communicated vocally:

$$ A live online collaborative document was established to communicate rapidly in a collaborative manner whenever updates were needed to be conveyed:

$$ Zoom was used to conduct meetings that could not take place physically, and they used Microsoft Teams to share documentation.

$4.$ Task Assignment:

$$ They were done according to the specialization of the teams.

$$ Weekly meetings provided a platform for reallocation and modification of the tasks as and when required.

$$ The coordination and management provided by the leadership enabled the resolution of the degree of adaptiveness administratively.

$5.$ Team Involvement:

$$ Since one of the lab technicians was not completely engaged, attempts were made to isolate the problem by having one$-$on$-$one sessions and having the feedback incorporated.

$6.$ Roadblocks:

$$ The integration of the$\_$leader information system with automation tools took longer than was expected, thereby causing many downtimes during testing.

$$ In order to prevent delays in processing the specimens, workarounds were created and more innovative and effective approaches were pursued.

$7.$ Timeline and Key Decisions:

$$ The initial timeline of four weeks was put to six due to delay in the software and availability of supplies.

$$ Other feasible measures were taken by the team as training since delays on automation tools were from vendors.

$$ Recommendation: Buffer time should be incorporated into future timelines for the projects.

$8.$ Outcome and Lessons Learned:

$$ The project met its objectives since the core lab made improvements in the specimen intake and processing efficiency.

$$ Some crucial lessons include the importance of flexibility, constant communication, and involving IT early in the project to be able to deal with any roadblocks.

$$ Recommendations: It would be better to manage vendors than to wait until the project is over and to factor in buffer time in the project timelines.