[labnetwork] Feedback on Transition to iLab from FOM

[Martin, Michael]

Hi Esta and Burak,
   We currently use FOM and really like it however, like you, we are being pushed to implement software that in not a good fit for our service center, specifically Statorcore PPMS.  It is a terrible fit as it is really designed for Med School/biotech-based service centers that don't have external users on their equipment.  Our solution for the transition (so far) has been to keep FOM but just feed our FOM data into PPMS at the end of the month.
   To your point Burak, ".. it’s important to be very clear about your requirements at the start of the implementation.", assumes that the research administration actually listens to your requirements. I think many of our service centers, including bio-based ones in our Med. School felt that the software was adopted without careful consideration of their needs.

-Michael
________________________________
From: labnetwork <labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu> on behalf of Burak Birkan <BBIRKAN at ku.edu.tr>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 10:17 PM
To: Abelev, Esta <eabelev at pitt.edu>; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu <labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Feedback on Transition to iLab from FOM


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.

Dear Esta, We have been using the iLab Platform for three years now. I haven’t used FOM before, so unfortunately I can’t offer a comparison on that front.

In our experience, configuring the soft and hard interlock points—and understanding how they work—was the most time‑consuming part. You really need to dig into the details of your equipment software and confirm whether it supports the “soft” interlock methodology. In the end, we implemented an in‑house “screen‑lock” file to prevent unauthorized access; when that wasn’t possible, we relied on the instrument’s own screen lock.

Financial models vary from core to core, but it’s important to be very clear about your requirements at the start of the implementation.

If you have any detailed questions, please feel free to email me. I’ll be happy to help.

Best regards.



Burak Birkan, Ph.D

bbirkan at ku.edu.tr<mailto:bbirkan at ku.edu.tr>

[cid:image001.jpg at 01DCDC0B.5D1DD760]

Rumeli Feneri Yolu, SNA Binası, Ofis:Z01

34450, Sariyer, İstanbul

Tel: 0212 338 08 04; 0549 824 50 42



From: labnetwork <labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu> On Behalf Of Abelev, Esta
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 11:49 AM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] Feedback on Transition to iLab from FOM



You don't often get email from eabelev at pitt.edu<mailto:eabelev at pitt.edu>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Dear Colleagues,

A few years ago, Pitt implemented iLab as a platform for managing university shared user facilities. Our time to transition has now come, and we are currently preparing to implement iLab in both our cleanroom and characterization facilities, which have previously operated on FOM.

As we continue to evaluate iLab, we are finding that some key features available in FOM are lacking in iLab, which may make our operations more complex and, in some cases, more manual.

I wanted to ask whether any of you have been in a similar situation—specifically, being asked to transition to iLab—and whether you were able to address these challenges or provide feedback to your administration. Any insights or lessons learned would be greatly appreciated.

Please feel free to reply directly.

Best regards,  Esta


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20260505/5bf6542b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 296162 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20260505/5bf6542b/attachment.jpg>