fast moving trends in life science automation and...

Fast Moving Trends in Life Science Automation and Robotics

by Brian Handerhan

Parker HannifinElectromechanical Division N.A.

1140 Sandy Hill RoadIrwin, PA 15642

724-861-8200 www.parkermotion.com

2Fast Moving Trends in Life Science Automation and Robotics

The Results of Parker Hannifin’s Survey of Industry Experts

This document represents the culmination of a Parker Hannifin survey series administered to help drive research and development of automation trends in the life sciences. It is also the last in a series of whitepapers on the very trends our survey takers indicated were most important to them. It will answer two critical questions from the perspective of industry experts:

• Which industry trends are contributing most to the development of effective life sciences solutions?

• What challenges do instrument developers still face in automating those solutions?

The insights shared by these professionals are helping Parker develop motion control and automation solutions that will, in turn, help the industry develop life-improving solutions for all people.

We are sharing the data and insights from this research to drive awareness of these trends and challenges in the life sciences, create a common understanding of those trends and challenges, and to initiate an open dialog on how to leverage the strengths and address the opportunities. We will walk you through trends you can look forward to, those you’ll need to prepare for and we’ll illustrate how opinions about both can—and must—drive the dialog in various segments of the life science community.


Executive summaryIn analyzing the first of our two major questions, we found that the overwhelming majority of respondents (84%) identified Automation Technologies and Transformative Technologies as the key trends driving improvement in life science instruments.

From these two major categories, Modular Automation, Miniaturization, and Lab-on-a-Chip were seen as the largest overall factors driving improvement in the future of life science instruments.

• Modular automation was identified as a key tool in reducing overall product development time because this technology can be easily re-applied in future designs, allowing for reduced verification, validation and qualification cycles. Leveraging modular automation was also identified by OEM managers as having the positive impact of allowing them to attack lower volume applications than could normally be justified, which created additional customer value because of their ability to supply more complete laboratory automation solutions.

• Miniaturization was identified as helping instrument manufacturers meet the demand for smaller instruments that consume less laboratory space, consume less reagents and require smaller test samples. From the end user perspective, these were identified as critical to reducing the overall cost of ownership of an instrument.

• Lab-on-a-chip is the transformative technology that most respondents identified as having the most immediate impact and having the largest potential to revolutionize the industry.

In response to the second of our two major questions, the majority of respondents (74%) identified three sets of challenges: Cost, Quality & Regulatory, and Safety & Ease of Use.

Modular Automation

Miniaturization

Collaborative Robotics

Servo Positioning

Internet of Things/Cloud

Lab-on-a-Chip

Big DataDistributed Motion

Aut

omat

ion

Tech

nolo

gies

Tran

sfor

mat

ive

Tech

nolo

gies


Of these three categories, Reducing Costs generated the most signifi cant individual feedback. However, there was signifi cant disparity in what this means, depending on the perspective of the respondent. Ultimately, the top-level driver is the trend toward smaller reimbursements to the laboratory, which are forcing cost reductions down to the OEM and the component suppliers. Users are looking at the cost model from a per-test perspective and a fl oor space perspective, while OEMs are looking at their bill of material cost and their engineering costs.

Methodology and demographicsOur survey methodology was simple and straightforward. Using social media and e-mail, Parker invited life sciences industry participants to fi ll out a survey administered via SurveyMonkey. The survey included a total of seven questions, including identifi cation, demographics, intended trade show participation, industry trends and industry challenges.

From a demographic standpoint, we asked questions to be able to split the data in two separate ways based on the function of the respondent and the position their company holds in the industry.

The function-based analysis allows us to break the respondents into three groupings:

1. Technical Decision Makers (Engineering)

2. Business Decision Makers (Management)

3. Infl uencers (Other)

The employer-based analysis allows us to break the respondents into four groupings:

1. Suppliers to the Developers of Instruments

2. Developers of Instruments

3. Users of Instruments

4. Industry Observers

For the sake of clarity, our discussion will focus on how the two primary infl uencers in the life sciences—engineers and business managers—view industry opportunities and challenges.

Supplier Qualityand Reliability

FDA Requirements

SampleIdentifi cation

Increasing Robustness

Qua

lity

& R

egul

ator

y

Reducing Costs

ReducingInstrument Size

DecreasingInstrument Size

IncreasingThroughput

IncreasingInstrument Speed

Cos

t C

halle

nges

Lack of UserTraining

New SafetyRequirements

BetterServiceabilityS

afet

y &

Eas

e of

Use

■ We supply components to life science instruments

■ We develop life science instruments

■ We use life science instruments

■ We aren’t directly tied to the industry, but I’m a keen observer

11%

38%

24%

27%

■ 16% Engineering

■ 50% Other

■ 34% Management

50%34%

16%


Survey fi ndingsIn looking at the responses regarding trends that are either improving or will improve how these professionals do their jobs, these were the trends about which they are most excited:

Modular Automation – Using pre-engineered elements that have defi ned performance characteristics allows for more rapid machine design, requiring fewer iterations. These innovations have been through verifi cation and validation processes and can accelerate the overall process to get an instrument through qualifi cations.

Miniaturization of Motion Control and Fluidics – Reducing the size of the major subsystems used in the life sciences enables developers to shrink their instruments so they consume less laboratory space, require fewer reagents and process smaller specimens.

Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC) – The goal of scaling a single lab process down to a chip format is to reduce fl uidic volumes to less than a picoliter, thus downsizing the reagents and specimen samples and their associated costs. LOC also promises faster time to results and higher throughput due to mass parallel processing. This technology is still too new to have reached widespread use.

Internet of Things (IoT) – This is a network of devices embedded with electronics, software, sensors and connectivity, enabling it to achieve greater value and service by exchanging data with the manufacturer, operator and/or other connected devices.

ContractManufacturing

6%

CollaborativeRobotics

8%

Big Data9%

IoT/CloudConnectivity

9%

Miniaturization14%

Lab-on-a-Chip13%

ModularAutomation

24%

Other17%

Most Promising Trends for Life Science Professionals


Big Data – This plays a key role in enabling quantum leaps forward in DNA and molecular technologies. The ability to process so much data, so quickly, continues to be a major driver for reducing cycle times and creating sampling technologies that are much faster.

Collaborative Robotics – This involves devices that can operate in parallel with humans without the need for safety guards and interlocks because the robotic devices are inherently safe for human interaction.

Contract Manufacturing – Instrument providers are subcontracting the manufacture of their instruments to 3rd party manufacturers, enabling an increase in production capacity and fl exibility, while reducing overall manufacturing cost.

Other trends mentioned in these surveys include:

1. Distributed Machine Control – A control architecture for reducing cabling and control panel size.

2. Wireless Communications – Leveraging wireless technology to reduce cabling in instruments.

3. Mass Customization – A manufacturing approach to make low volume production cost effective.

4. Outsourcing Engineering – Using outside engineering resources to help with instrument designs.

5. Servo Positioning – The use of brushless DC motors to improve speed, responsiveness, and accuracy.

6. Standard Communication Protocol – Creation of industry standardization to simplify communication between instruments and modules within instruments.

In looking at the responses regarding the challenges in implementing automation and motion control in the life sciences, the most common responses across the entire population were:

What Are Your Key Challenges in

the Implementation of Automation and Motion Control into Life Science

Instruments?

Other25%

FDA Requirements

6%

New SafetyRequirements

6%

Lack ofEngineering

Expertise7%

Supplier Quality orReliability

9%

Lack ofUser Training

7%

Reducing Costs26%

ImprovingAccuracy

14%


• The need to reduce costs placed at the top. The driver is the trend toward smaller reimbursements to the laboratory, which is forcing cost reductions down to the OEM and the component suppliers. Users are looking at the cost model from the per-test and floor-space-per-test perspectives, while OEMs are looking at their bill of material and engineering costs. Many respondents pointed to the concept of total cost of ownership as the critical measure, with a relatively even split looking at it through the eyes of the end user in terms of instrument performance compared to looking at the internal costs of the instrument.

• Accuracy weighs heavily on the quality scale, and that requires new levels of performance for motion control systems. Trends toward new technologies like DNA sequencing, digital pathology, cell inspection and manipulation, and molecular diagnostics require precision and repeatability outside of the normal liquid handling or robotic handling applications—thanks primarily to smaller sample sizes.

• Quality and regulatory challenges highlight the need for “bullet-proof” and “robust” designs, with much discussion about the move away from strictly internal quality measurements like returned parts per million (RPPM) or mean time between failure (MTBF) and looking at more end-user-centric measurements like laboratory uptime. MTBF was seen as a “killer variable.”

• People problems include lack of engineering manpower and training. Since the recession of 2008– 2009, staffs have been kept relatively trim, causing teams to extend project timeliness, outsource design elements, or find subsystem level suppliers that can provide more completely engineered system solutions.

• The lack of user training results from more complex, automated instruments being introduced into laboratory settings where the staff does not have the expertise or bandwidth to troubleshoot. This is a key driver for the system quality and reliability challenges mentioned earlier.

• On the regulatory side, the discussion ranged from the trend away from releasing instruments outside the United States. to synchronizing the instrument revenue stream with gaining FDA approvals. The concern is that both European and Chinese regulations are tightening to the point where approvals in all three markets might happen on the same overall timeline. Design strategies must help shorten the overall verification and validation process so that regulatory approvals will not create a major time barrier to achieving the desired revenue ramp-up.

• Instrument safety and usability are related to the increase in instrument complexity and difficulty among laboratories that don’t have engineers or maintenance staff to deal with downtime or troubleshooting. With advances in cellular research, multiple instruments are being configured together, with lab robots taking care of loading and unloading. This makes user safety paramount, whether achieved through the use of collaborative robots or simply with machine guarding. Sample safety is another aspect of user safety, and here again, guarding and closed-loop control are needed to keep users safe from in-process samples and to protect samples from possible user interference or tampering.

Other challenges mentioned in these surveys include:

1. Serviceability – Designing to make instruments more field serviceable to minimize cost and maximize uptime.

2. Robustness – Designing instruments to maximize uptime and minimize user interaction requirements.

3. Instrument Size – Reducing the floor space requirements for instruments due to constraints within the target lab environment.

4. Sample Size – Development of processes to minimize the size of samples required to run tests. Samples are considered a precision resource and minimizing the amount required is a consideration.

5. Engineering Outsourcing – Using outside engineering resources to help with instrument designs.


SummaryThe functional perspective

Our respondents identifi ed cost, quality, regulatory challenges, safety and usability as their major challenges in the near term. Although engineers tend to have priorities that are different from those of managers (and those differences came across in our surveys), these issues came forth as the megatrends among their challenges.

Among technical decision makers, modular automation was given the top ranking regarding the positive trends. Engineers focused on the modularity concept as a way to accelerate the design cycle of instruments while being able to make design more robust. They also rated miniaturization, Big Data and lab-on-a-chip technology as holding great promise. The technical decision makers rated reducing costs signifi cantly higher than any other challenge of implementing automation, with the cost concern being squarely focused on minimizing the bill of material cost. Other challenges prioritized by the engineering respondents were improving accuracy, improving robustness, decreasing instrument size, decreasing sample size and improving serviceability.

Among business decision makers, modular automation was also identifi ed as the most important positive trend, not only to enable faster instrument development but to allow them to stretch their engineering resources and to generate revenue faster by shortening the verifi cation, validation, and qualifi cation cycles. Contract manufacturing of instruments was next on their priority list because these operations can quickly ramp up capacity to meet highly variable demand curves, position production closer to the center of their customer base, and institute client-compliant procedures and controls. This group identifi ed reducing costs as the most critical challenge being faced. These business decision makers shared the technical focus on bill of material costs but also pointed to the cost of engineering resources, the development cycle time, and the cost of completing all verifi cation and validation as other cost drivers in consideration.

Key Challenges

■ Cost

■ Safety & Ease of Use

■ Engineering

■ Quality & Regulatory

■ Performance

■ Supply

Positive Trends

■ Automation Technologies

■ Organizational Structure

■ Transformative Technologies

■ Communication Technology

52%

31%

12%

21%

14%

10%

2%

17%

36%

5%


Among influencers, modular automation again was given the highest priority as the most positive trend in improving instrument development and instrument results. This group pointed to the benefit of modular automation as an enabler for providers to broaden their portfolios and attack niche markets, thus improving their ability to provide full laboratory solutions.

The market position perspective

Both developers and users of life science instruments pointed to modular automation as the number-one positive trend, again with the focus being on speed to market, robustness, and ease of use.

Users of life science instruments rated reducing costs as the largest challenge by a 4x factor over the next closest ranked challenge. Developers of life science instruments also saw reducing costs as the highest ranked issue, but saw improving accuracy as a similarly rated challenge. The concept of accuracy was aimed at many aspects of performance, which included true accuracy, repeatability, responsiveness, and deterministic positioning.

ConclusionAdvances in laboratory technology are directly tied to overall trends in the economy, education and population demographics. The cost of health care is among the top budgetary and societal concerns among all citizens and their governments. Professionals in the life sciences are in a unique position, both to drive the dialog among these groups and to affect its outcome. Before they can do that, their hopes and concerns must be addressed.

Bottom line, the promise of modular automation is less related to tactical issues like bill of material cost reduction and more pertinent to business strategies like getting products to market faster and with fewer resource requirements. OEMs are also leveraging modularity to increase the overall robustness of instruments and to get through regulatory-related verification, validation, and qualification more quickly. And because modular components are easier to field service and repair, safety and reliability are a natural outcome.

On the engineering challenges side, it’s getting harder for smaller staffs to handle the multitude of projects in their pipeline. That makes outsourcing both an opportunity and a challenge. But modular automation addresses that challenge too by shortening the engineering time to develop new instruments. Not only that, but modular automation suppliers are often capable partners who can help counterbalance light staffing with their ability to design and engineer motion control subsystems for laboratory instruments.

Parker Hannifin is dedicated to the continued study of these trends so it can meet the needs of instrument OEMs and their customers in the life sciences. That will be a direct outcome of our efforts, but indirectly, we hope to contribute to a better quality of life for all citizens.

Reducing Costs

24%

Supplier Quality or Reliability

22%

Improving Accuracy

14%

Developers of Life Science Instruments

8%

Reducing Instrument Size

Reducing Costs

Supplier Quality or Reliability

37%

9% 9% 9%

Users of Life Science Instruments

Improving Accuracy

Increasing Robustness

© 2015 Parker Hannifin Corporation

Parker Hannifin CorporationElectromechanical Division N.A.1140 Sandy Hill RoadIrwin, PA 15642phone 724-861-8200fax 724-861-3330www.parkermotion.com

About the Author:Brian Handerhan is a business development manager focusing on Parker’s Life Science Automation group. Brian has more than 20 years of experience in the implementation of automation across a broad range of industries. His primary expertise has been as a process improvement leader, change agent, and P&L owner. He now focuses that broad experience on working with industry OEMs to develop lasting business relationships built on both operational and technical value.

Parker Hannifin Parker’s name can be found on and around everything that moves. We manufacture highly engineered components and systems. The Electromechanical Division delivers a wide range of high-quality motion control systems to meet any application need. Solutions are designed for easy configuration to make a complete motion system - from miniature precision for life sciences to overhead gantries for the factory floor. In the life sciences, motion systems range from analytical instruments through liquid handling robotics. Parker’s process for system solutions has helped many world leading life science companies develop next generation instruments. Parker’s focus on solving some of the world’s greatest engineering challenges sparks our passion for innovation and secures our future growth. Our technological expertise creates a more sustainable future for us all.

fast moving trends in life science automation and...

Documents