LIMS Core System
Sample management, testing workflow, data review, report generation with e-signature, QA/QC statistics and full audit trails.
A complete software portfolio covering every step from sample receipt to final report.
Sample management, testing workflow, data review, report generation with e-signature, QA/QC statistics and full audit trails.
Field sampling App with offline capture, GPS positioning, photo evidence and instant sync to the lab.
Automatic collection of chromatograms and raw data from GC, LC, AAS and other analytical instruments.
Quality traceability system and standardized regulatory data reporting interfaces.
Each module in the Yiheng product line maps to a stage that laboratories already run today. Sample management issues barcodes at acceptance so that every downstream record carries the same identifier. Workflow management assigns tasks by role and workload, and flags items that approach their promised turnaround. Instrument acquisition reads results directly from chromatography and spectroscopy workstations, so values are not retyped. Report generation assembles results into a controlled template and routes the draft through preparation, review and approval before electronic signature.
Deployment is on-premise: the database and file storage stay inside the laboratory network, which matters for institutions that cannot send sample data to a public cloud. Interfaces to existing instruments and to reporting systems are configured during implementation rather than assumed.
Yiheng LIMS is deployed inside the laboratory's own network. The database, uploaded files and instrument exports stay on institution hardware, which is usually a hard requirement for government testing institutes and for laboratories working under confidentiality agreements. There is no mandatory cloud component.
Integration happens at three points. Instruments are connected by reading their result files rather than by modifying their acquisition software, so the vendor's validation is untouched. Existing systems such as LIS or a regulatory reporting platform are connected through standard interfaces where available, or through file exchange where not. The mobile client shares the same user directory and sample numbering, so there is no second source of identity to maintain.
For institutions preparing for a CNAS or CMA assessment, the system produces the records assessors typically request: original observations, instrument output, review history and the identity of everyone who touched a result.
Most deployments run four to six weeks for a single laboratory, depending on how many test categories are in scope and how much historical data needs to move.
Week one is analysis: test items, standards, approval levels, report formats. Week two and three are configuration and integration: task templates, report layouts, barcode printing, instrument connections. Week four is a pilot with real samples in a limited scope. Weeks five and six cover migration, training and the switch of remaining sections.
Multi-site institutions usually stagger the rollout by laboratory rather than switching everything at once, so that lessons from the first site improve the second.
A report is not only a formatted document; it is the point where several records must agree. The result values come from the bench, the method and limits come from the standard, the conclusion comes from the limit check, and the signatures come from the approval chain. If any of these is assembled by hand, the report can differ from the underlying record.
The report module pulls all four from the same record. Templates are maintained by the quality manager rather than by developers, so a format change does not require a release. Drafts move through preparation, review and approval with comments retained, and the signed version is archived with a stable identifier so that a client query two years later can be answered precisely.
Quality management in a testing laboratory is mostly about evidence produced before the assessment, not during it. The module keeps that evidence in one place: controlled documents with version and effective dates, internal supervision records, nonconformities with root cause and corrective action, and personnel competence records tied to the tests each person is authorised to perform.
The value appears when an assessor asks a specific question: what happened after the finding raised eight months ago, and who verified the fix. Without a system, answering means searching email, shared drives and personal folders. With the module, it is a single lookup, and the answer includes the record, the person and the date.
Because the quality module shares its data model with the testing workflow, a supervision finding can point directly at the sample and the record that triggered it, rather than at a document someone has to find later.
Instrument coverage is usually the deciding factor in scope. A laboratory running twelve instruments with stable export formats can automate nearly all result entry; one running legacy equipment with paper printouts will keep a manual path for those units. Both are workable, provided the split is decided early rather than discovered during the pilot.