A few volunteers generously donated their time (and patience), and using three different approaches, they ran the same workflow: dose 25 vials, with a target weight of 5 mg ± 0.2 mg.
What followed was a practical, real-world snapshot of how these methods perform under typical lab conditions, complete with interruptions, human habits, and the occasional inefficiency. The results paint a clear and compelling picture.
Method 1: Manual dosing with an analytical balance
Emily took on the fully manual approach, weighing and recording everything using a traditional analytical balance. The process took 1 hour 56 minutes, all of which required continuous, hands-on effort.
Unsurprisingly, 19 minutes were lost to everyday lab distractions - colleagues, pauses, and the natural stop-start rhythm of manual work. The repetitive nature of the task also results in high RSI risk, particularly over longer or repeated runs.
From a data perspective, this method introduces significant risk. Manual transcription of results, often via improvised setups like plastic-covered keyboards, means data integrity is low, with clear potential for human error. While straightforward, this method is both time-consuming and highly dependent on operator consistency.
Method 2: Semi-automated dosing with an XPR balance
Neave’s approach introduced some automation, using an XPR balance to assist with dosing. While this reduced active working time to around 30 minutes, it came in short bursts -frequent interventions of less than a minute each.
Despite the reduced hands-on time, the total process actually extended to 2 hours 7 minutes, the longest of the three methods. Additionally, 28 minutes were lost to interruptions and inefficiencies, highlighting how fragmented workflows can impact productivity.
The RSI risk drops to low–medium, but the need for repeated user interaction prevents full ergonomic relief. Data integrity improves slightly, as USB transfer is possible, but in practice, manual setup and intervention are often still required, meaning the process remains partially exposed to human error.
Method 3: Fully automated dosing with the Labman MultiDose®
Sahil’s role was arguably the easiest: set up the run on MultiDose and let the system take over. The entire workflow completed in 1 hour 45 minutes, making it the fastest method tested, with just 7 minutes of setup time.
Once running, the system required no further input, resulting in zero time lost to interruptions. This fully autonomous operation eliminates RSI risk entirely, as well as the inefficiencies associated with stop-start human workflows.
Crucially, data integrity is high, with automated data handling removing the need for manual transcription. The process is consistent, traceable, and far less prone to error.
And perhaps the most practical advantage: MultiDose doesn’t need coffee breaks. It can run unattended, including overnight, enabling labs to extend productivity well beyond standard working hours.
ROI and what this means in practice
There are many variables to consider in real-world situations, but in our general comparison the implications are difficult to ignore:
• Significantly reduced hands-on time allows skilled staff to focus on higher-value work
• Improved throughput, especially with overnight operation, increases overall lab capacity
• Higher data integrity reduces errors, rework, and compliance risks
• Elimination of repetitive strain contributes to a safer working environment
Final thoughts
This may not have been the most scientifically rigorous study, but that’s arguably the point. It reflects how these methods perform in the real world, where interruptions happen, workflows aren’t perfect, and time is always limited.
The outcome is clear: while manual and semi-automated approaches can get the job done, fully automated dosing with MultiDose delivers superior efficiency, reliability, and return on investment.
Read more about MultiDose: https://www.labmanautomation.com/portfolio/products/multidose/