Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences

Labs pick their next instrument before anyone asks for a quote.

An instrument maker selling to research and testing labs suspected its reps were arriving after a lab had already picked its next capital instrument. To see when that choice is made, we interviewed 150 lab leaders at three stages of a purchase. The report was ready in 12 days.

Illustrative scenario

Samplen = 150

Illustrative report

Lab Capital Instrument Buyer Journey

When does a lab settle on its next capital instrument, and is the sales team in the room when it does?

Study architecture

Find the triggerNine purchase catalysts, indexed to the strongest

Map the stagesFrom first need to signed order, and when the shortlist forms

Name the signersWho starts, shapes and signs a capital purchase

Scope

A sales team that waits for the request for quotes may arrive after the lab has already made up its mind.

Sample

150

Lab directors and managers in research, testing and production labs.

Research by

Study typeDecision timing study

ScenarioIllustrative

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Labs choose their instrument early, and expiring service sets the purchase in motion

The 150 lab leaders, interviewed at three stages of a capital purchase, describe a choice made well before the formal quote. Most recent buyers bought from their first list, and most labs just starting already have a favorite. Service ending on an aging instrument starts more purchases than any vendor launch, and finance signs most orders after a median 13 months.

82%n = 50

of recent buyers chose a vendor from their first list

64%n = 50

of labs just starting already name a favorite vendor

13 momedian, n = 50

from first need to signed order

62%n = 150

of purchases are signed by finance or a capital committee

Figures rounded. Base n = 150 lab leaders, 50 at each stage, unless stated.

Top lines

1Service ending on an aging instrument starts the most purchasesNine purchase catalysts, indexed03

2The shortlist forms before the first quoteFirst lists, favorites and the final pair04

3Capital approval takes longest, after the choice is madeMonths at each stage of a purchase05

4Lab leaders start most purchases, and finance signs most of themWho starts, shapes and signs06

5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07

AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

150 lab directors and managers

Stages

50 starting, 50 comparing, 50 bought

Method

AI-moderated interviews with a stage map

Labs

Research, testing and production

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02

Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Delivered in

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews

150

Lab directors and managers who start or approve capital instrument purchases.

Audiences

50 just starting, 50 comparing vendors and 50 recent buyers.

Method

Journey map

Labs at three buying stages, nine purchase catalysts indexed to the top.

The brief

Client

A lab instrument maker

Decision

When and where its sales team should engage a lab

Stage

Commercial planning, before the next sales year

How we ran it

Approach

AI-moderated interviews with a stage map and a catalyst index

Measured

Purchase stages, decision time, catalysts, who signs

Sample

Research, testing and production labs at three stages of a purchase

Headline figures

Decision time13 months

median from first need to a signed order, among recent buyers

Shortlist64%

of labs just starting a purchase already name a favorite vendor

First list82%

of recent buyers chose a vendor already on their first list

The question

When does a lab settle on its next capital instrument?

The maker’s reps did most of their work once a lab sent out a request for quotes. The commercial team suspected that was too late, and needed evidence from the lab leaders who start and approve these purchases, at every stage, before moving field effort.

What sets a capital instrument purchase in motion?

At which stage does the shortlist form?

Who shapes the choice, and who signs it?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff
The commercial team names the decision.
Is our sales team in the room when a lab settles on its next instrument? The kickoff turned it into three questions: what sets a purchase in motion, at which stage the shortlist forms, and who shapes the choice and signs it.
2Design
Three stages, one catalyst index.
The screener sorted lab leaders who start or approve capital instrument purchases by stage: 50 just starting, 50 comparing vendors, 50 recent buyers. Each traced the purchase as far as it had gone, named who signs and scored nine catalysts.
3Fielding
150 leaders trace their purchases.
Leaders responded by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, a median 37 minutes; a follow-up traced each vendor named back to its first appearance. The researcher read all 174 and removed 24 for wrong roles or no capital purchases, leaving 150.
4Analysis
The favorite is set before any quote.
The researcher set each recent buyer’s first vendor list side by side with the instrument they chose, to see when the field closes: 82% bought from a vendor already on that first list, and 64% of labs just starting already name a favorite.
5Readout
The first list wins 82% of the time.
The researcher opened the commercial team’s live readout with the stage map, then walked through the catalyst index and a 32-page report holding every verbatim, with the full data file. Field effort moved upstream, to labs whose aging instrument’s service contract is ending.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Labs settle on a vendor long before the formal quote: most recent buyers bought from their first list, and most labs just starting already have a favorite. Service ending on an aging instrument starts more purchases than anything a vendor launches. Lab leaders start most purchases, yet finance or a capital committee signs most of them, after the choice is made.

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Service ending on an aging instrument starts the most purchases

¹ Q9. How strongly did each of these push your lab toward this purchase? Nine catalysts, scored by all 150 lab leaders.

² Catalysts by lab type are directional; see the appendix tables.

Every lab leader scored nine catalysts, indexed to the strongest. A service contract running out on an aging instrument scores 100, ahead of rising test volume at 74¹. Staff shortages that push labs toward automation follow at 58. A vendor’s new model release scores 17, the lowest of those shown, though respondents say new features can shape a purchase already under way.

100index

service ending on an aging instrument

74index

rising test volume

58index

staff shortages pushing automation

17index

a vendor’s new model release

What sets a capital instrument purchase in motion

Catalyst score, indexed to the strongest (n = 150)

Age of the instrument replaced (recent buyers, n = 50)

Under 8 years8 to 12 yearsOver 12 years

Service ending named as the main trigger, by stage

Scores are rescaled so the strongest catalyst = 100 and do not sum to 100; six of nine shown, the lowest of them a vendor’s new model release. n = 150 lab leaders, 50 at each stage.

Supporting evidence

Recent buyers name service ending as the main trigger more often than other labs. § 3.2
Budget cycles matter most to research labs; testing labs move on volume. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

The shortlist forms before the first quote

¹ Q18. Which vendors were on your first list, before any quote was requested? Open list, coded. Recent buyers, n = 50.

² Late-vendor wins are four cases and serve as examples only.

The choice is made early. 82% of recent buyers bought from a vendor already on their first list, and 64% of labs just starting already name a favorite¹. Among labs comparing vendors, 72% are down to two or fewer, and 70% of recent buyers ordered the favorite they started with. Only 8% of recent buyers chose a vendor they first met at the quote stage.

82%n = 50

of recent buyers chose a vendor from their first list

64%n = 50

of labs just starting already name a favorite

72%n = 50

of labs comparing vendors are down to two or fewer

8%n = 50

of recent buyers chose a vendor first met at the quote stage

How settled the vendor list is, by stage of purchase

Vendor list already settled, by stage

Where recent buyers first met the vendor they chose (n = 50)

Already in the labA colleagueA conferenceAt the quote stage

What put a vendor on the first list (recent buyers, n = 50)

1An instrument already in the lab
2Service record on past purchases
3A colleague’s experience

Single-select first-contact question; shares are rounded and sum to 100. Favorite and final-pair questions are asked of labs at that stage only, n = 50 each.

Supporting evidence

The incumbent starts ahead: 44% of recent buyers chose the brand already in their lab. § 4.2
The few late-vendor wins followed a failed site test of the favorite. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Capital approval takes longest, after the choice is made

¹ Q24. Roughly how many months did each stage take, from the first need to the signed order? Recent buyers, n = 50.

² Q26. Which stage took, or do you expect to take, longest? Single select, n = 150.

Recent buyers took a median 13 months from first need to signed order, and capital approval was the longest stage at 5 months¹. Building the shortlist took a median 3 months. For 76% of recent buyers, approval began after the shortlist had formed, so for most of them the longest wait comes after the choice.

13 momedian, n = 50

from first need to signed order

5 momedian, n = 50

in capital approval, the longest stage

3 momedian, n = 50

from first need to a shortlist

76%n = 50

began approval after the shortlist formed

The longest stage of a capital purchase

Longest stage, as named by recent buyers (n = 50)

First need to signed order (recent buyers, n = 50)

Under 9 months9 to 15 monthsOver 15 months

Capital approval named the longest stage, by purchase stage

Months are self-reported by recent buyers and rounded to the nearest month; each stage median is computed on its own. Labs mid-purchase name the stage they expect to take longest; recent buyers name the one that did.

Supporting evidence

Approval runs longest where a capital committee meets once a quarter. § 5.2
Evaluation is shortest when the favorite is already running in the lab. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Lab leaders start most purchases, and finance signs most of them

¹ Q31. Who started, shaped and signed this purchase? Multi-select by role, n = 150.

² Q33. Who signs, or will sign, the order? Single select, n = 150.

Lab leaders start three purchases in four but sign only one in four. Lab leaders start 74% of capital purchases and sign 24%; a finance lead or capital committee signs 62%¹. Procurement shapes the final terms in 56% of purchases, usually after the shortlist has formed. A median of five people take part in each purchase.

74%n = 150

of purchases are started by a lab leader

62%n = 150

are signed by finance or a capital committee

56%n = 150

have procurement shaping the final terms

24%n = 150

are signed by the lab leader

Who starts, shapes and signs a capital purchase

Role in the purchase, share of purchases (n = 150)

Who signs, or will sign, the order (n = 150)

Finance or committeeLab leaderExecutive leadership

Finance or committee signs, by stage

Roles are multi-select and do not sum to 100; the signer is single select. Labs still mid-purchase name who they expect to sign.

Supporting evidence

Lab leaders who start a purchase still pick the shortlist in most cases, before finance sees it. § 6.2
Procurement enters once the favorite is set, and spends its time negotiating terms with that vendor. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · The trigger

Service ending on an aging instrument starts the most purchases.

A service contract running out on an aging instrument scores 100 among nine catalysts, ahead of rising test volume at 74. A vendor’s new model release scores 17, the lowest of the catalysts shown.

Service ending on an aging instrument100

Rising test volume74

Staff shortages pushing automation58

A vendor’s new model release17

Catalyst score, indexed to 100 · 4 of 9 shown · n = 150

Question 2 · The shortlist

The shortlist forms before the first quote.

Among the 50 recent buyers, 82% bought from a vendor already on the first list they drew up. Among the 50 labs just starting, 64% already name a favorite, and 72% of labs comparing vendors are down to two or fewer.

82%chose from their first list

64%just starting, have a favorite

Recent buyers n = 50 · labs just starting n = 50

Question 2 · The stages

Capital approval takes longest, after the choice is made.

Recent buyers took a median 13 months from first need to signed order. Capital approval was the longest stage at a median 5 months, and for 76% of them it began after the shortlist had formed.

13 mofirst need to signed order

5 moin approval, the longest stage

Median months · recent buyers · n = 50

Question 3 · The signers

Lab leaders start most purchases, and finance signs most of them.

Lab leaders start 74% of capital purchases and sign 24%. A finance lead or capital committee signs 62%, and procurement shapes the final terms in 56%.

Lab leader starts it74%

Finance or committee signs62%

Procurement shapes terms56%

Lab leader signs24%

Share of purchases · n = 150

“By the time purchasing sends out the quote request, we already know which instrument we want. The quote is how we get the price down.”

Lab director · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

The trigger

“The service contract on our old analyzer ran out and the maker would not renew it. That was the start of the whole purchase.”

Lab manager

The shortlist

“We had two names on the board before anyone talked to finance. A third vendor called later and never had much of a chance.”

Lab director

Approval

“Choosing took us a few months. Getting the capital committee to sign took longer than everything else put together.”

Operations manager

What the instrument maker did

Three moves made with the report.

1The field plan · from finding 1

Moved field effort upstream.

Reps now work a list of labs whose service contract on an aging instrument is running out, and visit before a shortlist forms.

2The first list · from finding 2

Kept the maker on the first list.

An installed-base program keeps the maker in front of labs running its instruments, since 44% of recent buyers chose the brand already in their lab.

3The signers · from finding 4

Wrote a business case for finance.

Lab leaders now get a capital request pack written for the finance lead or committee that signs 62% of purchases.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next commercial question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More healthcare & life sciences studies

Sub-brand study

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff

The commercial team names the decision.

Is our sales team in the room when a lab settles on its next instrument? The kickoff turned it into three questions: what sets a purchase in motion, at which stage the shortlist forms, and who shapes the choice and signs it.

2Design

Three stages, one catalyst index.

The screener sorted lab leaders who start or approve capital instrument purchases by stage: 50 just starting, 50 comparing vendors, 50 recent buyers. Each traced the purchase as far as it had gone, named who signs and scored nine catalysts.

3Fielding

150 leaders trace their purchases.

Leaders responded by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, a median 37 minutes; a follow-up traced each vendor named back to its first appearance. The researcher read all 174 and removed 24 for wrong roles or no capital purchases, leaving 150.

4Analysis

The favorite is set before any quote.

The researcher set each recent buyer’s first vendor list side by side with the instrument they chose, to see when the field closes: 82% bought from a vendor already on that first list, and 64% of labs just starting already name a favorite.

5Readout

The first list wins 82% of the time.

The researcher opened the commercial team’s live readout with the stage map, then walked through the catalyst index and a 32-page report holding every verbatim, with the full data file. Field effort moved upstream, to labs whose aging instrument’s service contract is ending.

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Service ending on an aging instrument starts the most purchases

¹ Q9. How strongly did each of these push your lab toward this purchase? Nine catalysts, scored by all 150 lab leaders.

² Catalysts by lab type are directional; see the appendix tables.

100index

service ending on an aging instrument

74index

rising test volume

58index

staff shortages pushing automation

17index

a vendor’s new model release

What sets a capital instrument purchase in motion

Catalyst score, indexed to the strongest (n = 150)

Age of the instrument replaced (recent buyers, n = 50)

Under 8 years8 to 12 yearsOver 12 years

Service ending named as the main trigger, by stage

Scores are rescaled so the strongest catalyst = 100 and do not sum to 100; six of nine shown, the lowest of them a vendor’s new model release. n = 150 lab leaders, 50 at each stage.

Supporting evidence

Recent buyers name service ending as the main trigger more often than other labs. § 3.2
Budget cycles matter most to research labs; testing labs move on volume. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

The shortlist forms before the first quote

¹ Q18. Which vendors were on your first list, before any quote was requested? Open list, coded. Recent buyers, n = 50.

² Late-vendor wins are four cases and serve as examples only.

82%n = 50

of recent buyers chose a vendor from their first list

64%n = 50

of labs just starting already name a favorite

72%n = 50

of labs comparing vendors are down to two or fewer

8%n = 50

of recent buyers chose a vendor first met at the quote stage

How settled the vendor list is, by stage of purchase

Vendor list already settled, by stage

Where recent buyers first met the vendor they chose (n = 50)

Already in the labA colleagueA conferenceAt the quote stage

What put a vendor on the first list (recent buyers, n = 50)

1An instrument already in the lab
2Service record on past purchases
3A colleague’s experience

Single-select first-contact question; shares are rounded and sum to 100. Favorite and final-pair questions are asked of labs at that stage only, n = 50 each.

Supporting evidence

The incumbent starts ahead: 44% of recent buyers chose the brand already in their lab. § 4.2
The few late-vendor wins followed a failed site test of the favorite. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Capital approval takes longest, after the choice is made

¹ Q24. Roughly how many months did each stage take, from the first need to the signed order? Recent buyers, n = 50.

² Q26. Which stage took, or do you expect to take, longest? Single select, n = 150.

13 momedian, n = 50

from first need to signed order

5 momedian, n = 50

in capital approval, the longest stage

3 momedian, n = 50

from first need to a shortlist

76%n = 50

began approval after the shortlist formed

The longest stage of a capital purchase

Longest stage, as named by recent buyers (n = 50)

First need to signed order (recent buyers, n = 50)

Under 9 months9 to 15 monthsOver 15 months

Capital approval named the longest stage, by purchase stage

Supporting evidence

Approval runs longest where a capital committee meets once a quarter. § 5.2
Evaluation is shortest when the favorite is already running in the lab. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Capital instrument purchasing · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Lab leaders start most purchases, and finance signs most of them

¹ Q31. Who started, shaped and signed this purchase? Multi-select by role, n = 150.

² Q33. Who signs, or will sign, the order? Single select, n = 150.

74%n = 150

of purchases are started by a lab leader

62%n = 150

are signed by finance or a capital committee

56%n = 150

have procurement shaping the final terms

24%n = 150

are signed by the lab leader

Who starts, shapes and signs a capital purchase

Role in the purchase, share of purchases (n = 150)

Who signs, or will sign, the order (n = 150)

Finance or committeeLab leaderExecutive leadership

Finance or committee signs, by stage

Roles are multi-select and do not sum to 100; the signer is single select. Labs still mid-purchase name who they expect to sign.

Supporting evidence

Lab leaders who start a purchase still pick the shortlist in most cases, before finance sees it. § 6.2
Procurement enters once the favorite is set, and spends its time negotiating terms with that vendor. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · The trigger

Service ending on an aging instrument starts the most purchases.

A service contract running out on an aging instrument scores 100 among nine catalysts, ahead of rising test volume at 74. A vendor’s new model release scores 17, the lowest of the catalysts shown.

Service ending on an aging instrument100

Rising test volume74

Staff shortages pushing automation58

A vendor’s new model release17

Catalyst score, indexed to 100 · 4 of 9 shown · n = 150

Question 2 · The shortlist

The shortlist forms before the first quote.

82%chose from their first list

64%just starting, have a favorite

Recent buyers n = 50 · labs just starting n = 50

Question 2 · The stages

Capital approval takes longest, after the choice is made.

Recent buyers took a median 13 months from first need to signed order. Capital approval was the longest stage at a median 5 months, and for 76% of them it began after the shortlist had formed.

13 mofirst need to signed order

5 moin approval, the longest stage

Median months · recent buyers · n = 50

Question 3 · The signers

Lab leaders start most purchases, and finance signs most of them.

Lab leaders start 74% of capital purchases and sign 24%. A finance lead or capital committee signs 62%, and procurement shapes the final terms in 56%.

Lab leader starts it74%

Finance or committee signs62%

Procurement shapes terms56%

Lab leader signs24%

Share of purchases · n = 150

Three themes behind the numbers.

The trigger

“The service contract on our old analyzer ran out and the maker would not renew it. That was the start of the whole purchase.”

Lab manager

The shortlist

“We had two names on the board before anyone talked to finance. A third vendor called later and never had much of a chance.”

Lab director

Approval

“Choosing took us a few months. Getting the capital committee to sign took longer than everything else put together.”

Operations manager

Three moves made with the report.

1The field plan · from finding 1

Moved field effort upstream.

Reps now work a list of labs whose service contract on an aging instrument is running out, and visit before a shortlist forms.

2The first list · from finding 2

Kept the maker on the first list.

An installed-base program keeps the maker in front of labs running its instruments, since 44% of recent buyers chose the brand already in their lab.

3The signers · from finding 4

Wrote a business case for finance.

Lab leaders now get a capital request pack written for the finance lead or committee that signs 62% of purchases.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

When does a lab settle on its next capital instrument?

What sets a capital instrument purchase in motion?

At which stage does the shortlist form?

Who shapes the choice, and who signs it?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The commercial team names the decision.

Three stages, one catalyst index.

150 leaders trace their purchases.

The favorite is set before any quote.

The first list wins 82% of the time.

Four findings from the report.

Service ending on an aging instrument starts the most purchases.

The shortlist forms before the first quote.

Capital approval takes longest, after the choice is made.

Lab leaders start most purchases, and finance signs most of them.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Moved field effort upstream.

Kept the maker on the first list.

Wrote a business case for finance.

Bring us your next commercial question.

Lab Equipment Brand Health

Contract Lab Testing Service Selection

Biopharma Lab Operations Spending Pulse

When does a lab settle on its next capital instrument?

What sets a capital instrument purchase in motion?

At which stage does the shortlist form?

Who shapes the choice, and who signs it?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The commercial team names the decision.

Three stages, one catalyst index.

150 leaders trace their purchases.

The favorite is set before any quote.

The first list wins 82% of the time.

Four findings from the report.

Service ending on an aging instrument starts the most purchases.

The shortlist forms before the first quote.

Capital approval takes longest, after the choice is made.

Lab leaders start most purchases, and finance signs most of them.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Moved field effort upstream.

Kept the maker on the first list.

Wrote a business case for finance.

Bring us your next commercial question.

Lab Equipment Brand Health

Contract Lab Testing Service Selection

Biopharma Lab Operations Spending Pulse