DALLAS, Oct. 16, 2013 /PRNewswire-iReach/ -- The Lab Instrument Support Strategies Trends 2013 survey (http://www.reportsnreports.com/reports/269331-lab-instrument-support-strategies-trends-2013.html ) 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 organisation/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.
The survey collected 59 validated responses, of these 75% provided comprehensive input. Survey responses were geographically split: 59% North America; 26% Europe; 7% Japan; 5% Rest of World; and 3% Asia (excluding Japan). 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. Order a copy of this report at http://www.reportsnreports.com/Purchase.aspx?name=269331 .
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.
- PM based on usage was strongly preferred over PM based on a scheduled date.
- Feedback on how respondents support obsolete instruments was documented.
- The instrument types respondents would most like to see covered by a support agreement at their organization were laboratory robotics and liquid handlers/pipettors/dispensers.
- Most respondents have considered working with a third party MVS provider, but only a minority have worked with an MVS provider to date.
The full Lab Instrument Support Strategies Trends 2013 report of 50 pages provides the data, details of the breakdown of the responses for each question, its segmentation and a few estimates for the future (2016). It also highlights some interesting differences between the survey groups.
Explore more reports on Medical Devices market at http://www.reportsnreports.com/market-research/medical-devices/ and on the Biotechnology market at http://www.reportsnreports.com/market-research/biotechnology/ .
ReportsnReports.com is an online market research reports (http://www.reportsnreports.com/latest-market-research.aspx ) library of 350,000+ in-depth studies of over 5000 micro markets. Call +1 888 391 5441 with your research requirements.
Media Contact: Priyank Tiwari, ReportsnReports.com, +1 888 391 5441, email@example.com
News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com