Multiple Environments Bring More Control to Your Lab’s Software Systems
Technical notes | 2023 | WatersInstrumentation
The paper addresses the necessity of adopting multiple software environments in regulated laboratory settings to maintain data integrity, ensure compliance with GxP standards, and reduce risk associated with system updates, custom developments, and disaster recovery. By segregating development, testing, and production stages, laboratories can reliably manage software patches, application upgrades, and configuration changes while protecting critical production data.
This white paper examines common challenges in operating a single production environment throughout a system lifecycle. It proposes a multi-environment architecture—consisting of Development, Test, and Production setups—and evaluates how this model mitigates risks from:
The authors analyze regulatory guidelines PIC/S Annex 11, ISPE GAMP 5, and EU Directives alongside real-world use cases in QC labs. They detail typical software landscape components and map each to potential risk scenarios. Key systems and modules discussed include:
Adopting separate environments delivers the following advantages:
The paper presents risk–outcome tables that illustrate how multi-environment strategies eliminate disruption to routine operations, reduce data loss, and streamline regulatory compliance.
A multi-environment approach helps labs to:
Emerging trends include leveraging virtualization and cloud platforms to rapidly provision and refresh separate environments at lower cost. Integration of automated monitoring, risk-based change management, and continuous delivery pipelines can further optimize validation efforts. Advanced analytics and AI may support proactive detection of vulnerabilities and streamline decision-making around environment promotions.
Multiple, purpose-driven environments offer a pragmatic solution to balance system currency and regulatory compliance in GxP laboratories. By segregating development, validation, and production tasks, organizations can reduce risk, protect data integrity, and ensure uninterrupted laboratory operations.
Software
IndustriesManufacturerWaters
Summary
Significance of the Topic
The paper addresses the necessity of adopting multiple software environments in regulated laboratory settings to maintain data integrity, ensure compliance with GxP standards, and reduce risk associated with system updates, custom developments, and disaster recovery. By segregating development, testing, and production stages, laboratories can reliably manage software patches, application upgrades, and configuration changes while protecting critical production data.
Study Objectives and Overview
This white paper examines common challenges in operating a single production environment throughout a system lifecycle. It proposes a multi-environment architecture—consisting of Development, Test, and Production setups—and evaluates how this model mitigates risks from:
- Operating system and infrastructure updates
- Application and instrument driver upgrades
- Trial restores and backup verification
- Customizations and high-risk developments
Methodology and Instrumentation
The authors analyze regulatory guidelines PIC/S Annex 11, ISPE GAMP 5, and EU Directives alongside real-world use cases in QC labs. They detail typical software landscape components and map each to potential risk scenarios. Key systems and modules discussed include:
- Empower Chromatography Data System (CDS) and modules MVM, SSG, BC LAC/E
- NuGenesis Scientific Data Management System (SDMS)
- NuGenesis Lab Management System (LMS)
- waters_connect System Monitoring
- Services Toolkit Applications
Key Results and Discussion
Adopting separate environments delivers the following advantages:
- Development Environment: Safe sandbox for patches, feature testing, and custom developments without affecting GxP data.
- Test Environment: Controlled validation of updates, forms, and instrument connections, ensuring readiness before promotion.
- Production Environment: Protected repository for GxP data with minimal downtime, supported by pre-validated updates.
The paper presents risk–outcome tables that illustrate how multi-environment strategies eliminate disruption to routine operations, reduce data loss, and streamline regulatory compliance.
Benefits and Practical Applications
A multi-environment approach helps labs to:
- Implement OS patches and software upgrades without halting production testing.
- Verify backup and restore processes safely in non-production systems.
- Isolate custom developments to maintain audit trail integrity in production.
- Align with regulatory expectations for timely system updates and robust validation.
Future Trends and Opportunities
Emerging trends include leveraging virtualization and cloud platforms to rapidly provision and refresh separate environments at lower cost. Integration of automated monitoring, risk-based change management, and continuous delivery pipelines can further optimize validation efforts. Advanced analytics and AI may support proactive detection of vulnerabilities and streamline decision-making around environment promotions.
Conclusion
Multiple, purpose-driven environments offer a pragmatic solution to balance system currency and regulatory compliance in GxP laboratories. By segregating development, validation, and production tasks, organizations can reduce risk, protect data integrity, and ensure uninterrupted laboratory operations.
References
- G. Orwell, Animal Farm, London: Secker and Warburg, 1945.
- PIC/S, PI 011-3 Good Practices for Computerised Systems in Regulated GxP Environments, 2007.
- ISPE, GAMP 5 Second Edition: A Risk-Based Approach to Compliant GxP Computerized Systems, 2022.
- Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2021. Cyberattack data.
- European Commission, Directive 2001/83/EC on Community code for medicinal products, 2001.
- PIC/S, PI 041-1 Good Practices for Data Management and Integrity in Regulated GMP/GDP Environments, 2021.
- EudraLex Annex 11 Computerized Systems, 2011.
Content was automatically generated from an orignal PDF document using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Similar PDF
Durable Data for Non-IT: A Lab Manager’s Guide to Ensuring Your Empower Data Is Secure and Available from Creation Through the Full Mandated Retention Period
2020|Waters|Technical notes
[ WHITE PAPER ] Durable Data for Non-IT: A Lab Manager’s Guide to Ensuring Your Empower Data Is Secure and Available from Creation Through the Full Mandated Retention Period Charlie Wakeham,1 Dr. Cody Wright, 2 and Richard Cheng3 Waters Asia…
Key words
backup, backupempower, empowerdisaster, disasterrestore, restorecloud, cloudwaters, watersdata, dataarchiving, archivingcontinuity, continuityrecovery, recoverycan, canpaper, paperrman, rmanoracle, oracleplan
A Basic Overview: Meeting the PIC/S Requirements for a Computerized System
2016|Waters|Technical notes
[ WHITE PAPER ] A Basic Overview: Meeting the PIC/S Requirements for a Computerized System Lynn Archambault Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA INTRODUCTION The Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (jointly referred to as PIC/S) provides good manufacturing…
Key words
pic, picpaper, paperwhite, whitedata, datamanufacturing, manufacturinginspection, inspectiongmp, gmpcompu, compurastruct, rastructsecure, securesla, slavendor, vendorvali, valisystem, systemtrum
The Role of Empower Chromatography Data System in Assisting with Electronic Records Regulation Compliance
2018|Waters|Technical notes
[ WHITE PAPER ] The Role of Empower Chromatography Data System in Assisting with Electronic Records Regulation Compliance INTRODUCTION The objective of this white paper is to discuss the 21 CFR Part 111 and EU EudraLex Annex 112 compliance readiness…
Key words
electronic, electronicempower, empowerrecords, recordschromatogragphy, chromatogragphycompliance, compliancedata, datapaper, paperassisting, assistingreadable, readablesignature, signatureregulation, regulationsignatures, signatureswhite, whiterecord, recordaudit
Waters’ Software Disaster Recovery Plan for Business Continuity
2020|Waters|Technical notes
[ WHITE PAPER ] Waters’ Software Disaster Recovery Plan for Business Continuity Julien Chardon and Gilles Bassard Waters Corporation, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France ABSTRACT Are you really prepared and ready for disasters? Do the business expectations match the IT solutions? Data volume…
Key words
disaster, disasterbusiness, businessrecovery, recoveryplan, plandrp, drpcontinuity, continuitylost, lostpaper, paperwhite, whiteupgrades, upgradeswaters, watersplans, plansdomain, domaindisk, diskdisasters