In the modern laboratory, the word “innovation” is often treated as a synonym for “investment.” We equate it with the arrival of a high-throughput sequencer, the implementation of a new laboratory information management system (LIMS), or the patenting of a novel assay.
However, as Sean Grace, leadership consultant and founder of Peak Luma, argued at the 2026 Lab Manager Leadership Summit, this narrow view of innovation is actually a strategic blind spot. In his session, Grace challenged the industry to look beyond hardware and recognize that the most impactful innovations often happen in the quietest corners of the laboratory: in the workflows, the team structures, and the way the lab communicates with its stakeholders.
For the lab manager, this shift requires looking past the bench and into the workflows, partnerships, and customer experiences that define the organization’s true impact.
Innovation vs invention in science: Defining measurable value
To lead an innovative team, one must first clear the semantic fog. In many technical circles, "invention" and "innovation" are used interchangeably, but Grace noted that the distinction is critical for resource allocation.
Sean Grace, communication consultant, coach, speaker, and author.
“Invention is really about just being creative and coming up with something new, whether anybody wants it or not,” Grace explained. An invention can be a brilliant piece of engineering that solves a problem no one actually has. Innovation, conversely, was defined by its utility; it is the bridge between a creative spark and measurable value.
If a laboratory developed a groundbreaking new testing method that was too expensive to implement and offered no improvement in turnaround time or accuracy for the end user, it was an invention. If that same lab found a way to use existing equipment to cut processing time in half while maintaining quality, they had innovated.
Applying the 10 types of innovation framework to lab management
Most organizations—and laboratories are no exception—innovate in only one or two dimensions: product performance and process. We focus on making the test faster or the data more accurate. While essential, Grace pointed out that these are the most "tangible" and, therefore, the most easily copied by competitors.
To provide a more robust framework, Grace introduced Doblin’s 10 Types of Innovation, a system developed by Jay Doblin and Larry Keeley. This framework categorizes innovation into three primary buckets: Configuration, Offering, and Experience.
Configuration: Streamlining Lean lab workflows and operational efficiency
This category focused on the innermost workings of the organization.
Profit Model: How does the lab generate value? This could involve moving from a fee-for-service model to an internal chargeback system or contract research services.
Network: Innovation through collaboration. This involved partnering with universities or engaging in vendor co-development programs.
Structure: How are teams organized? Grace suggested that moving toward cross-functional project teams or embedding automation specialists within specific research groups could be a structural innovation. Understanding how a lab team moves from forming to performing is essential for managers looking to optimize these internal structures.
Process: This is the most familiar area—lean lab workflows, automated sample tracking, and AI-assisted data analysis. Managers must often decide which methodology fits their lab’s improvement goals when streamlining these processes.
Offering: Enhancing technical output and product systems
- Product Performance: Improving technical output, such as higher sensitivity assays or faster turnaround times.
- Product System: Creating complementary offerings. For a lab, this might have meant integrating testing panels or providing end-to-end research support rather than a single data point.
Experience: Driving ROI through customer engagement in science
This is where Grace argued labs often miss the mark.
- Service: Supporting stakeholders through experimental design support or data interpretation guidance.
- Channel: How services are accessed. Innovations here included online submission portals or automated scheduling systems.
- Brand: The lab’s reputation. Are you known for speed, precision, or perhaps sustainability (e.g., "Green Lab" certification)?
- Customer Engagement: Using "lab office hours" or collaborative problem-solving sessions to embed the team into the client’s success.
Case Study: Improving laboratory operational efficiency on a budget
To illustrate that innovation does not require a massive capital budget, Grace pointed to BIA Diagnostics, a small food-testing lab in Vermont. They faced a common bottleneck: homogenizing physical samples like oats and grains.
The standard solution was to buy more high-end lab homogenizers at several thousand dollars apiece. However, these machines were difficult to clean and maintain, creating a throughput nightmare. Instead of buying "better" equipment, BIA Diagnostics innovated its process and structure.
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.
They replaced the expensive homogenizers with consumer-grade KitchenAid coffee grinders and purchased 200 interchangeable cups. This modular design allowed them to scale rapidly, clean components more efficiently, and eliminate the cleaning bottleneck—all at a fraction of the cost.
“They didn’t buy better equipment,” Grace noted. “They redesigned the tool system entirely.”
BIA’s innovation extended beyond the bench. They expanded into the network category by partnering with the FDA to establish standards for gluten testing. They then innovated their offering by creating lateral flow device (LFD) kits, allowing their clients to perform rapid testing on-site. This effectively turned a service-based lab into a product-based profit center—a move so successful that 3M eventually acquired that portion of the business.
The duct tape philosophy: A roadmap for laboratory continuous improvement
For lab managers looking for a starting point, Grace suggested looking for "duct tape."
In any organization, employees often find hacks or temporary workarounds to solve recurring frustrations. These "duct tape" solutions were, in Grace's view, the clearest indicators of a pain point ripe for innovation.
Interested in lab leadership?
“When you see duct tape being used, it’s often to try to solve a problem without having to go through the whole process of actually being too innovative about it,” Grace said. “But those duct tape experiences are where the innovation could be.”
However, he cautioned that a workaround is not an innovation until it is measurable and scalable. The transition from a "band-aid" to a "KPI-driven solution" requires leadership that asks the right questions.
The art of the question: Lab leadership strategies for technical teams
Technical leaders often fall into the "expert trap." Because they are skilled problem solvers, they are often anxious to provide answers to their teams. However, Grace argued that the most innovative lab leaders were those who asked better questions rather than providing better answers.
In his book, The Art of the Question, Grace emphasized that innovation is born from curiosity. To foster an innovative culture, he suggested leaders use "How might we...?" questions.
- “How might we redesign the sample intake process to reduce error?”
- “How might we collaborate more effectively across departments?”
This shift in language does more than just spark ideas; Grace noted that it effectively disarms the ego. Fostering this mindset of adaptability and continuous improvement is a hallmark of successful laboratory leadership.
Overcoming institutional resistance to change in the lab
Resistance to change is a constant in laboratories, where "the way we've always done it" is often backed by years of validated protocols. Grace argued that this resistance is rarely malicious; it is often a defensive mechanism to protect quality and stability.
When a manager says, “I have a solution,” it often creates an immediate barrier. If, instead, a leader asked, “Would it make sense if we looked at the process this way?” it invites the team to be part of the solution.
“It has this strange effect on people where they say, ‘That’s worth thinking about,’” said Grace. “All of a sudden, you loosen up a bit of that armor, and now you get people to be part of the solution.”
Practical lab leadership strategies for fostering an innovation mindset
To move a lab toward a more innovative future, Grace recommended a three-pronged approach:
- Model the Behavior: Show curiosity. Be open about uncertainty. If the leader is not willing to experiment and occasionally fail, Grace argued, the team will not be either.
- Incentivize the Mindset: Innovation should not only be rewarded when it leads to a patent. Grace encouraged rewarding pilot programs, small process improvements, and even "smart failures" that provide valuable data.
- Layer Your Innovation: The most successful labs do not just improve their testing sensitivity (product performance). They pair that improvement with a better online portal (channel) and expert consultation (service). Grace explained that the more layers added, the harder it is for the lab’s value to be commoditized.
Final thoughts
Innovation in the laboratory is not limited to scientific breakthroughs. It exists in the transition from a "black box" LIMS process to a visible pipeline for clients. Modern AI-powered integrated data analytics are already beginning to strengthen these LIMS capabilities, turning raw data into strategic insights. Innovation also exists in a "faith-based" or "green-certified" brand that creates a unique identity in a crowded marketplace.
“Look beyond the science. Question how work is structured and delivered. Create the conditions for innovation to emerge,” Grace concluded in his presentation.
When lab managers learn to recognize the many faces of innovation—from profit models to customer engagement—Grace believes they unlock opportunities that were previously invisible. By asking better questions and looking beyond the technology, leaders can transform their labs from mere data providers into essential, innovative partners in the scientific ecosystem.
