Sample tracking software against the neighbouring problem it is often bought to solve: why core facility management software bills instrument time and schedules access rather than tracking vials, what lab asset management software and laboratory asset management actually cover once calibration and service history are included, where pharmaceutical sample management adds retention and chain of custody duties a research tracker never had, why lab inventory management software free of charge and free lab inventory software generally are usually free of the audit trail too, what a lab audit or a laboratory audit will ask of whichever system you chose, and how to tell which of the three problems your laboratory has before anyone buys a licence

Choosing between three systems

1. Write down the question you cannot answer today. Is it where a particular vial is and what it came from? Is it when an instrument was last calibrated and who serviced it? Is it who used the cytometer last month and what they should be charged? Each question maps to a different product, and a laboratory that cannot state which one it has is not ready to buy.
2. Follow a sample end to end on paper first. Take one real sample and write every point where it is split, moved, consumed or destroyed, and who records that. The points where nobody records anything are the requirements. A system that does not capture those points will be filled in retrospectively, which is worse than paper.
3. Decide whether lineage or location is the point. Location tracking says which freezer, rack and position holds a tube. Lineage says which parent it was derived from and what was done to it. Most laboratories need both, but only lineage survives a question asked two years later, and many cheap trackers only do location.
4. Test the search that matters, not the dashboard. Ask the vendor to find every aliquot descended from one collection, or every instrument due for calibration in a named month, in front of you. Dashboards demonstrate well and answer nothing. The retrieval query is the product.
5. Settle the record requirements before the licence. If any output feeds a regulated decision, the system needs attributable, time stamped, unalterable records and a defined user access model. That is a different tier of product from a shared spreadsheet with a web front end, and retrofitting it is not realistic.
6. Plan the exit before the entry. Ask how data leaves: full export, in an open format, including the audit trail. A system whose export is a rendered report rather than structured data has taken the laboratory's records hostage, and that becomes apparent only when you try to move.

Why the three systems keep being confused

All three sell against the same pain, which is that nobody can find something. The vial that has gone missing, the instrument whose calibration lapsed and the unbilled hour on a shared microscope feel like one problem to the person who has to chase all three. They are not one problem, because the object being tracked is different in each and the data model follows the object.

The test that separates them quickly is to ask what the primary record is. If it is a physical item with parents and children, you need sample tracking. If it is an instrument with a maintenance history, you need asset management. If it is a booking with a rate attached, you need facility management.

Chain of custody changes the specification

Once material comes from people, or feeds a regulated product, tracking stops being a convenience and becomes a duty. The system must record who handled what and when, hold the consent or authorisation scope against the material, and make retention and destruction deliberate rather than incidental. Those requirements do not appear in a research tracker's feature list.

If any of that applies, put it in the tender in plain words. Vendors will otherwise demonstrate the convenient features and leave the duties to be discovered during the first audit.

What implementation actually costs

The licence is the visible number. The invisible ones are cleaning the existing inventory before migration, labelling the physical estate so scanning works, configuring the data model to match how the laboratory really works, and the months during which people maintain both the old spreadsheet and the new system.

Budget a named person's time for the rollout rather than assuming it will happen alongside the day job. Systems in this category almost never fail technically. They fail because nobody owned the migration.

Common questions

Is sample tracking just a small LIMS?

No. A laboratory information management system is organised around tests, workflows and results; a sample tracker is organised around the physical item and its lineage. Laboratories that buy the wrong one find themselves fighting a data model rather than using it.

What does core facility software do that the others do not?

It schedules shared instruments, records who used what for how long, and turns that into a bill or a cost allocation. Tracking vials is not its job, and asking it to do so produces a clumsy result.

Does asset management need to hold calibration records?

If the instrument produces data anyone relies on, yes. An asset register that lists serial numbers but not calibration status, service history and out of tolerance events answers the finance question and none of the scientific ones.

Is free software ever the right answer?

For a small group tracking location only, sometimes. It stops being the right answer the moment a record has to be attributable and unalterable, because that is precisely what the free tier usually omits.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices