Automation


Survey respondents’ current preference for the level of walkaway automation they want to achieve with small-scale benchtop automated sys- tem was evenly spread between: moderate (ie want to process a few samples through an entire process), 34% preferring; significant (ie want to process a batch of microplates through an entire process), 31% preferring; and some (ie want some unattended processing of single steps, but still expect manual intervention), 29% preferring: with only minimal interest in limited walkway automa- tion (ie happy to feed and assist an instrument to process samples, high manual intervention), only 7% preferring (Figure 3).


The majority (66%) of survey respondents required moderate flexibility (ie automated solution requiring moderate training to operate) in a small- scale benchtop automated system. Of the remaining survey respondents, 19% wanted high flexibility (ie complex automated solution that requires dedicat- ed highly trained personnel to operate) and 15% low flexibility (ie simple automated solution, with dedicated functionality limited by the manufacturer that requires very little training to operate) (Figure 4). The above findings highlight the diversity of views on the type of small-scale automation that is most wanted by bench scientists. This is indicative of a market where the end user is still unfamiliar with all the options and no single solution is per- ceived as significantly superior to the rest. In such circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that many individuals are opting for generic ‘open’ platforms such as Eppendorf’s epMotion® systems.


Most important drivers To enable a technically challenging or repetitive process was ranked the most important driver for implementing small-scale benchtop automation, this was closely followed by more reliable data, better quality of assay results and then expected increased in sample number/throughput. Ranked least important driver was ownership of the device versus sharing with a core facility (Figure 5). Immediately obvious benefits (ie cost, labour savings, better quality data) were ranked as the greatest influence on making small-scale benchtop automation fully accessible. This was followed by frees end-user from error prone repetitive tasks and then opens up new experiments, ie hitherto impos- sible or impracticable or not considered. Least influence was proximity to their lab bench (Figure 6). So the myth that each scientist must have their own personal automated instrument, sitting on their part of the workbench for their use alone does not seem to hold.


Drug Discovery World Winter 2011/12


Figure 4: Flexibility required in small-scale benchtop automation


manufacturer that requires very little training to operate 15%


Low Flexibility – simple automated solution, with dedicated functionality limited by the


High Flexibility – complex automated solution that requires dedicated highly trained personnel to operate 19%


© HTStec 2011


Moderate Flexibility – automated solution requiring moderate training to operate 66%


Figure 5: Drivers for implementing small-scale benchtop automation


Expected increased in sample More reliable data, better Enable technically challenging


or repetitive process quality of assay results number/throughput


Cost savings or cost reduction


To gain access to a Gain walkaway time/free Labour savings/fewer


human resources up to do other tasks new technology


Documentation, GLP and Health and safety considerations


Ownership of the device versus


regulatory demand sharing with a core facility


3.41 3.49 3.61


1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 © HTStec 2011 10.00 MEAN RANKED ORDER 1 to 10, where 1 = least on not important and 10 = most important


7.28 7.36


7.04


6.76 6.84


5.94 4.23


Figure 6: The key to making small-scale benchtop automation accessible


cost, labour savings, better quality data


Opens up new experiments hitherto Frees end-user from error Immediately obvious benefits –


prone repetitive tasks impossible, impracticable or not considered (user may bring their own consumables)


Lost cost initial capital investment Easily shared between users


Small footprint, light weight, portable – can be readily moved around


Proximity to their lab bench No learning curve


3.10 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 MEAN RANKED ORDER 1 to 8, where 1 = least or not influence, and 8 = greatest influence © HTStec 2011


4.35 4.37


5.41 5.42 5.54


6.93 6.42


29


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80