Who actually signs the purchase order
In a laboratory capital purchase, four people matter: the scientist who will use the instrument, the lab manager who owns the workflow, the technical evaluator who tests the claim, and the budget holder who signs. Selling to only one of them is the most common reason a promising deal stalls after the demonstration.
Four roles, four questions
The scientist asks whether it works on their material. They want the method, the limits and the comparison against what they run now.
The lab manager asks what it does to the workflow. Throughput, bench space, training, who covers it when the trained analyst is away.
The technical evaluator asks whether your claim survives their samples. Sometimes this is the same person as the scientist; in a larger organisation it is not, and they are professionally sceptical by design.
The budget holder asks what changes if this is bought, and whether the justification will hold up when someone questions it in six months.
Procurement is a fifth party. It rarely selects, but it can delay — and a deal delayed past the budget cycle is a deal lost for a year.
Where deals actually die
The demonstration goes well. The scientist is enthusiastic. Then nothing, for two months.
What has usually happened is that the enthusiastic scientist has to build an internal case with material you never gave them. They have your method data. They do not have a five-year cost comparison, a validation timeline, a service coverage statement or a one-page justification their manager can forward.
So the case does not get built, because writing it is not their job.
Arm the internal champion
Assume the person who likes your instrument will have to sell it internally without you in the room. Give them the documents that makes that possible: a short justification aimed at their manager, total cost of ownership including consumables and service, a validation and installation timeline, and honest answers on what changes operationally.
Nothing here is complicated. It is mostly unwritten because the material naturally gets written for the person you talk to most.
Map it before the demo
Before a demonstration, write down the four names and what each needs. If a name is missing, that is the question to ask on the call — and asking it makes you look like someone who has done this before, which you now have.
Written by Matthew McGann, President and Owner of Particle Analytx. More about the practice.
Questions on this piece
Who should we approach first?
The scientist or lab manager. They define the requirement. Going to the budget holder first produces a referral back down and loses time.
What stalls deals after a good demo?
Usually nobody has given the budget holder a justification they can defend, and nobody has answered procurement on total cost and service terms.
Do we need different material for each person?
Yes — different documents, one position. Same claim, different supporting argument.
Recognise the problem?
If this describes where you are, thirty minutes on a call will get further than another article.