Evaluating Laboratory Management Platforms beyond Equipment Booking
Shared research instruments may serve researchers, students, technical staff and external collaborators under different training requirements, access permissions, funding arrangements and service needs. A reservation calendar can show who intends to use equipment, but it cannot establish whether that person is authorized or whether the instrument was actually used. Charging may depend on records held elsewhere. When these details are scattered across separate systems, facility staff must reconcile them before making reliable decisions about access and cost recovery.
A laboratory management platform should connect bookings to the rules governing each resource. Instrument schedules need to reflect availability and permitted use, while user records must account for training and approval requirements. Those controls differ across facilities and sometimes between instruments in the same room. Standardizing every resource under one booking model may simplify installation but leave staff managing exceptions outside the software. The purchasing assessment should establish which rules can be configured, where approvals enter the process and how readily staff can administer changes.
Existing workflows also need to be understood before configuration decisions become implementation commitments. That includes how users are onboarded, historical records are transferred, new procedures are tested and staffs are trained. Institutions need to know whether a requested change falls within standard configuration or requires separately scoped development. Unclear boundaries can complicate budgets and delay deployment. A proposed system must accommodate existing governance without recreating the manual handoffs it is intended to replace.
Recorded bookings provide only a partial account of equipment activity. For instruments where authorization at the point of use is important, onsite authentication and sign-in can connect a reservation to actual access. Such arrangements may also help staff compare scheduled hours with recorded use. The purchasing decision should distinguish an online booking function from additional physical-access hardware or instrument controls, including which equipment can support them. This affects the reliability of usage records and the work required to implement access controls.
“UniLab configures rules around individual facilities' instruments and approval processes, distinguishing standard setup from separately scoped development.”
Those records become more useful when facilities can examine utilization, cancellations, training compliance and billing completeness together. Consumables and service activity also need to enter the reporting process if cost recovery is to reflect work performed. Reporting tools should reveal changes over time, while integration with institutional identity or finance systems can reduce duplicate administration. Equipment inventories and policies will continue changing after deployment. Software maintenance and support for revised workflows consequently deserve attention during selection rather than after procurement.
Developed by UniLab, AC Lab System (ACLS) links resource bookings with user eligibility, training records, usage activity and financial workflows. UniLab configures rules around individual facilities' instruments and approval processes, distinguishing standard setup from separately scoped development. Its MoxyTap and MoxyTap Plus options connect onsite sign-in and instrument access with system records, including power-control options for appropriate equipment. MoxyTouch supports touch-based interactions, while MoxyViewer displays relevant information. Node BI provides dashboards and reporting. UniLab also supports maintenance, staff training, issue resolution and integration through APIs or single sign-on. Configurable ACLS workflows allow institutions to maintain different instrument policies while connecting equipment access with usage records and cost recovery.
