Lab leaders are under increasing pressure to boost efficiency and drive higher value strategic science throughout 2025 and beyond, meaning that it is imperative for them to get the most, and very best, out of their lab environment and the people within it.
However, according to the Lab Leader Vision 2025 report, based on a survey of 1,000 laboratory leaders in the UK by Functional Service Provider (FSP) and industry-leading life science & clinical talent specialists Synergy by SRG, there are growing efficiency and operational challenges to contend with.
Efficiency and Operational Challenges in Laboratories
The best, highest-performing laboratories, lab leaders and lab teams are ones that are efficient in everything they do and the way they operate.
And for a lab to be at its most efficient in its operations, to drive high-value strategic science, several factors and potential challenges must be identified and their impacts considered and addressed.
Be it a lab team’s lack of skills, expertise and experience; struggles to attract, hire and retain talent; or the pressures of projects, their tight deadlines and high demands, any issues and problems within a lab environment have the potential and power to impact its operational efficiency.
But whilst there is an awareness of such problems and challenges, and of the need to tackle them, many lab leaders are concerned about their possible implications.
73% of lab leaders we asked worry about lab efficiency and what could impact it, with 60% also concerned about their potential to problem solve. This highlights an increase in the level of concern since 2022, when our survey revealed that 50% of lab leaders asked were worried about problem solving.
Additionally, 23% of lab leaders are showing concern beyond their current state-of-play, telling us that operational efficiency will be their biggest challenge in 2025. This suggests that plenty of problem-solving work is to be done, now and into the future.
Workflow Optimisation in Laboratories
For a lab to be at its most efficient, the way it operates needs to be optimised to its full potential.
Whether it’s optimising a team’s performance by making the most of their skills, expertise and time; using and optimising software and technology for specific projects; or ensuring that strategies are optimised to meet the objectives of organisations, their projects and their requirements.
In a laboratory environment, optimising workflows has always been a key component of achieving optimal results. Responding to our survey, 55% of current lab leaders asked supported this view, stating that workflow optimisation is ‘critical’ to them for driving innovation.
This correlates with the opinion of 49% of leaders asked, who highlighted that manual processes take up most time in their labs and require optimising to make them more efficient.
The Power of Driving Continuous Improvement in Lab Environments
Responding to lab leaders’ thoughts and concerns regarding operational efficiencies in laboratories and how to address them, Synergy by SRG – utilising the expertise and experience-led insight of the Synergy team – have spotlighted the importance of Continuous Improvement in lab environments in the Lab Leader Vision 2025 report.
Continuous Improvement (CI) is built upon analysing and optimising processes and their outputs, with a focus on identifying, prioritising and actioning changes required for optimisation over time.
In a laboratory environment, CI usually involves understanding existing processes and potential opportunities to improve them, the way a lab functions and how to continue developing the skills and knowledge of its people. It is key to enabling optimal operational and workflow efficiency, cost saving and problem solving.
However, for Continuous Improvement to be effective, it requires strategies built on objectives that often rely on the experience, expertise and insights of lab leaders and key stakeholders – something that isn’t always easy to achieve, as it can mean taking such expertise away from important day-to-day tasks. In fact, 55% of lab leaders told us that Continuous Improvement, the work involved in CI and how to implement it is a real concern.
When we consider how important CI is to lab efficiency, and that 100% of lab leaders we asked emphasised the importance of increasing lab efficiency, it is vital to get it right.
And this is why the team at Synergy – understanding the power of Continuous Improvement – weave it into everything they do; providing expert support and taking care of operational efficiency improvements on behalf of clients, leaving them free to concentrate on their other priorities.
Discussing the potential of CI in labs, and of implementing effective CI training within laboratory teams, Carly Gorman – CI & Quality Manager at Synergy – said:
“At Synergy we provide CI training of varying levels to our onsite teams. This investment in people equips them with tools and techniques to improve processes… and empowers them in giving autonomy in the day-to-day unregulated processes and trends towards a more positive ‘can do’ working culture.
“For clients, this not only has benefits for the completed project and improved process efficiencies (better quality, KPIs met, less time or less cost) but also for long term, embedded positive changes on site.”
About Synergy - Functional Service Provider (FSP)
Synergy provides a flexible FSP model, deploying and integrating expert teams to deliver core Lab Activities across the pharmaceutical, biotech, FMCG, chemical, clinical research, biopharma, and sensory industries.
Powered by SRG, we take a collaborative approach to delivering fundamental core scientific activities, working closely and directly with your team to understand existing processes and infrastructure, identify areas to improve operational efficiencies and innovation, and support business continuity and continued improvement. All whilst allowing your people to focus on what’s most important – your core strategic science and projects.
[JL1]Can we slightly reword please as we had to be careful with how we used this number. We're all good to say we surveyed 1,000 people but we can't suggest we had 1000 responses. In the press release we tweaked it to ' based on a survey of 1,000 laboratory leaders in the UK'.
