A working machine goes unused when the cost to change it exceeds the value it provides.
Lab automation systems collect dust when the cost to use or modify them grows higher than the value they provide. The machine may have worked at first, but the workflow changed, the trained user left, or the system became too hard to reprogram.
A system collects dust when it's technically functional but practically unused — the automation no longer fits the lab's active workflow. Biology labs change often: reagents, plate formats, timing, added or removed steps. If the automation can't change with the workflow, people eventually bypass it.
A liquid handler is useful for one prep protocol. The protocol changes, and only one person knows how to edit the method. That person leaves — the machine still works, but the lab has lost the practical ability to use it. The same happens with integrated systems: a robotic arm may move plates perfectly, but if the process changes, the whole integration may need rebuilding or revalidating, and doing the work by hand starts to feel easier.
Automation that's too hard to adjust becomes expensive furniture.
Underused instruments aren't a rare edge case — they're common enough to be measured. In enterprise laboratories, expensive equipment can sit unused a large share of the time: by one industry estimate, up to 40% of the time [1]. Automation that's hard to change is one of the fastest routes into that statistic.
Before buying, ask who will maintain the workflow after deployment. A system is only useful if the lab can keep using it after the process changes. Good automation makes the next experiment easier, not just the first one impressive. (This is closely related to why automation projects fail.)
