When each wins — and the one test that reveals whether "flexible" automation actually is.
Fixed automation wins when the process is stable and throughput is everything; flexible automation wins when workflows change. But "flexible" is often claimed and rarely true. The practical test: a system is only flexible if it takes less time to describe or program a new task than to do that task once by hand. If reprogramming costs more than the manual job, it isn't flexible — it's fixed with extra steps.
A system is only practically flexible if describing or programming the new task takes less time than just doing it by hand. If not, the "flexibility" is theoretical.
This is why so much "flexible" automation goes unused: reconfiguring it for the next protocol costs more than the protocol itself, so scientists route around it.
This is the short version focused on the flexibility test. For a full buyer's comparison — including plain-language automation and an honest "when not to use us" — see Fixed vs. flexible vs. plain-language automation →
