How to Choose the Right Laboratory Technology for Your Needs

For laboratory managers and scientists evaluating new analytical technologies, their first question is often: “What instrument do we need?”

Increasingly, however, equipment manufacturers and service providers are approaching that conversation from a different direction: “What problem are you trying to solve?”

HORIBA offers one example of this approach at its Analytical Solution Plaza (ASP), a roughly 15,000-sf optical spectroscopy center at its Piscataway, NJ, facility. The space includes dedicated laboratory areas where customers can bring samples, explore analytical methods, and work with application scientists to evaluate potential solutions.

For Koutara Katovice president of HORIBA Instruments Incorporated, the goal is to move beyond the instrument itself and focus on the outcomes that end users are trying to achieve.

“If customers have concerns prior to purchasing instrumentswe can address them,” says Kato, explaining that the ASP facility allows application scientists to demonstrate equipment so customers can choose the best fit for their labs.

Starting with the challenge, not the instrument

For laboratory teams, this approach can change how they evaluate new technologies. Instead of arriving with a predetermined instrument in mind, researchers can start with a sample, an analytical question, or a workflow challenge and explore which methods might offer useful results.

Jeff Julienlife science applications manager at HORIBA Instruments Incorporated, says the ASP grew out of conversations that application scientists were already having with customers.

“Historically, when customers were coming in, we were interfacing with them [by asking]‘What instrument do you need?’” Julien says. “Whereas now, that question has morphed into, ‘What is your problem or pain point?’”

The distinction is significant when a laboratory’s needs don’t align neatly with a particular product or technology. Researchers may have an idea of which analytical method they want to use, but testing can reveal that another approach better suits their samples or objectives.

At the ASP, modular carts and benches let the laboratory reconfigure around different applications. This flexibility supports side-by-side testing of multiple analytical methods rather than limiting the evaluation to a single instrument demonstration.

For example, a lab working with extracellular vesicles could examine the same sample using fluorescence and particle characterization. Comparing the methods helped the researchers evaluate which approach could provide the information needed for the application. This kind of feasibility testing can help laboratories make more informed technology decisions before investing in equipment or incorporating a new analytical method into an established workflow.

It also illustrates a broader point: identifying the right technology may be less about finding the most advanced instrument and more about understanding what information a laboratory actually needs.

For labs considering this type of vendor-supported testing, the key question is whether the evaluation reflects the conditions, workflows, and decision criteria they will face in their own facility

Moving from demonstration to routine use

The problem-solving approach can extend beyond selecting an existing instrument. In some cases, a laboratory’s needs may require modifying a technology, creating a customized setup, or designing a solution for a specific application.

Lab Quality Management Certificate

The Lab Quality Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.

Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.

According to Julien, that process starts with understanding the customer’s samples, analytical requirements, and intended use. If existing technology doesn’t fully meet those needs, the next step may be to explore a fit-for-purpose or custom solution. This can be especially relevant in pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical research, where analytical requirements can differ considerably across research, development, and manufacturing environments.

The broader challenge is translating analytical capabilities developed in a laboratory setting into tools that can work in practical environments. A method that performs well on a benchtop may need adaptation for routine use, process monitoring, or integration into a larger workflow.

The advantage, says Julien, is “being able to develop a solution that’s fit-for-purpose—from an ease-of-use, from a hardware and software capability perspective—to being able to translate those benchtop solutions into real-world, practical solutions that are actually addressing a pain point.”

For laboratory managers, a successful demonstration is only part of the decision. They must also consider how a technology will perform under actual operating conditions, including staff expertise, sample volume, existing systems, maintenance capacity, and quality requirements. Identifying differences between the vendor’s application lab and the customer’s facility can help reveal potential challenges before implementation.

After a demonstration or consultation, lab managers can take the next step by assessing implementation costs, training requirements, validation needs, and compatibility with existing workflows. They should also clarify what ongoing technical support the vendor provides and whether the lab has the resources to troubleshoot problems independently. Evaluating these practical considerations alongside technical performance can help determine whether a promising solution is one the lab can sustain over the long term.

Listening to laboratories to shape future solutions

When vendors engage directly with laboratory teams, labs gain an opportunity to communicate where current technologies fall short and what they need from future solutions. Sharing real-world workflow challenges, unmet analytical needs, and limitations of existing tools can help shape products and services that better reflect how laboratories actually operate.

That exchange can benefit both sides, but labs should be clear about what they are contributing, how results or intellectual property will be handled, and whether the engagement is intended to inform a purchase, support method development, or both. Vendor collaboration can be useful, but it should still support the laboratory’s own evaluation process. Starting with the problem helps teams compare options, test assumptions, and judge whether a proposed solution fits their workflow, resources, and goals.