The Reality of Being a Laboratory Manager in 2026

Laboratory managers have always had a lot to juggle.

There are samples to process, results to review, staff to support, equipment to maintain, clients to satisfy and accreditation requirements to meet. All of this must happen while protecting the integrity of the laboratory’s work and ensuring that every reported result can be trusted.

In 2024, we described laboratory management as a circus act involving regulations, resources and far too many flaming torches.

Two years later, the circus is still running, but several new acts have joined the program.

Artificial intelligence is changing how laboratories work. Accreditation requirements continue to evolve. The costs of equipment, consumables, calibration, proficiency testing, accreditation and skilled staff are increasing. At the same time, consolidation among instrument manufacturers, service agents and calibration providers can leave laboratories with fewer choices and greater dependence on external suppliers.

Being a laboratory manager has never been just about science. In 2026, it requires technical knowledge, quality management, commercial awareness, digital judgment and a remarkable ability to keep things moving when several critical problems arrive at once.

The laboratory manager’s role keeps expanding

A laboratory manager may be responsible for technical operations, staffing, quality, safety, budgets, clients, suppliers and regulatory compliance.

In a small laboratory, these responsibilities may sit with one person. The laboratory manager may also be the technical manager, quality manager, authorised signatory, training coordinator, complaints investigator and emergency problem-solver.

Even in larger organisations, managers are expected to understand areas well beyond their original scientific training. They must make decisions about cybersecurity, software validation, data integrity, automation, procurement, employment matters and business continuity.

The problem is not necessarily that laboratory managers lack capability. It is that the role continues to expand while the time and resources available to perform it do not.

A requirement that sounds simple when written in a standard can represent hours of work in practice. Demonstrating staff competence, for example, may involve developing criteria, observing activities, reviewing results, recording authorisations, monitoring continuing performance and arranging refresher training.

Multiply that across every person, method, instrument and location, and the administrative load quickly becomes significant.

AI has entered the laboratory

Artificial intelligence was already attracting attention in 2024. Since then, generative AI tools have become part of everyday work.

Laboratory personnel may now use AI to help draft procedures, summarise documents, prepare training material, analyse data, write emails, troubleshoot instruments or review technical information. Used carefully, these tools can save time and help laboratories work more efficiently.

NATA has also publicly explored potential uses of AI in areas such as handling routine queries, reviewing documentation, identifying missing information and automating administrative communications.

However, AI creates a new set of questions for laboratory managers:

What information is being entered into the tool?
Could confidential client information or intellectual property be exposed?
How is AI-generated content checked before it is used?
Are references, calculations and technical claims being independently verified?
Could AI introduce bias, fabricated information or subtle technical errors?
Who remains accountable for the final decision?

AI can produce a procedure that looks polished and authoritative within seconds. That does not mean the procedure is technically correct, suitable for the laboratory or consistent with accreditation requirements.

The laboratory remains responsible for its work. A result, decision or procedure cannot be defended by saying, “The AI told us so.”

The challenge for managers is therefore not simply whether to allow AI. It is to establish sensible controls around its use. That may include an AI policy, approved applications, restrictions on sensitive information, documented review requirements and training in the limitations of generative AI.

AI should support technical judgment, not replace it.

Accreditation requirements are becoming more specific

ISO/IEC 17025 has not changed since the original article was published. However, the documents used by NATA to apply the standard continue to be revised.

This distinction matters.

A laboratory may be working to the same international standard while facing new or clarified expectations within its particular field of testing. Managers must therefore monitor more than ISO/IEC 17025 itself. They must also keep track of NATA’s general accreditation criteria, specific accreditation criteria, policies, forms, scopes and sector-specific publications.

Asbestos sampling and testing provides a strong example.

NATA issued revised specific accreditation criteria for asbestos sampling and testing in July 2026, effective from October 2026. The document provides detailed requirements covering ad hoc field activities, formal field sites, supervision, equipment, competency, sampling, quality control, technical records and reporting.

Among other things, the criteria distinguish between an ad hoc field activity and an established field site. A field site is associated with one contract at one location and may operate for no longer than 12 months. The base laboratory must first be accredited to establish asbestos field sites and must notify NATA before accredited work begins at each individual site.

The criteria also address how field sites may be selected for assessment. Factors include the number and duration of sites, their location, the nature and volume of work, changes in personnel or equipment, complaints and the laboratory’s previous accreditation history.

For a laboratory manager, these are not minor administrative details. They affect how work is planned, how contracts are accepted, how staff are supervised and when accredited status may be claimed.

Field sites, branch laboratories and multi-site operations

The way laboratories operate is also becoming less tied to one permanent physical location.

Testing may be undertaken at a construction project, mine, client facility, temporary laboratory or regional branch. Staff, equipment and records may move between locations, while parts of the management system are controlled centrally.

NATA’s December 2024 multi-site policy allows an organisation operating from several sites to maintain one accreditation, provided the required criteria are met. This includes consistent application of a single management system, implementation of the applicable accreditation criteria at every site and appropriate proficiency testing participation. A nonconformity identified at one site must also be considered across other applicable sites.

New criteria issued in September 2026 also address circumstances in which an accredited base site may establish a permanent branch or satellite site and temporarily claim accreditation for eligible activities before the new site gains accreditation in its own right. Eligibility depends on matters such as the base site’s accreditation history, the activities being within the base site’s existing scope and the management system being implemented at the branch.

These arrangements can provide useful flexibility, but they also create management challenges.

A centrally controlled system must still work at the local level. Staff at every site must understand their responsibilities. Equipment must remain controlled. Records must be available. Technical supervision must be effective. Internal audits must examine what is happening at each location, not simply what the central procedure says should happen.

The greater the distance from the main laboratory, the greater the risk that practice and procedure will quietly drift apart.

The rising cost of operating a laboratory

Laboratories are also under increasing financial pressure.

The cost of running a laboratory extends far beyond wages and rent. It includes:

Instruments and software
Service agreements and repairs
Calibration and metrological traceability
Reference materials and consumables
Proficiency testing
Waste disposal
Energy and environmental controls
Training and competency maintenance
Accreditation and regulatory fees
Cybersecurity and data management
Insurance and work health and safety controls

Many of these costs are difficult to reduce without creating another form of risk.

Delaying maintenance may increase the likelihood of equipment failure. Reducing proficiency testing may weaken confidence in results. Cutting training may create competency gaps. Postponing software upgrades may introduce cybersecurity or compatibility problems.

NATA’s current fee arrangements are also structured according to factors including the accredited program, site size and grouped services. This reinforces the need for laboratories to understand how their organisational structure and scope affect accreditation costs.

Laboratory managers are therefore expected to do more than control expenditure. They must explain the value of quality-related costs to senior management.

Calibration, training and quality assurance can look like overheads when viewed in isolation. Their real value becomes clearer when compared with the cost of invalid results, repeated work, dissatisfied clients, equipment failure or loss of accreditation.

Fewer suppliers can mean greater vulnerability

Another developing pressure is consolidation among laboratory support providers.

Instrument manufacturers, distributors, service companies and calibration providers may merge, withdraw from parts of the market or change their support arrangements. Laboratories can find themselves relying on fewer providers, particularly for specialised instruments or calibration services.

This can lead to longer turnaround times, higher prices and reduced access to local technical expertise. A change in distributor may also affect spare parts, software licences, service contracts and the availability of technicians who understand older equipment.

The issue is not simply procurement. It is business continuity.

Laboratories should understand where they are critically dependent on one supplier. Questions worth asking include:

Do we have an alternative calibration or service provider?
Are replacement parts still available?
How long could the laboratory operate if this instrument failed?
Can another site perform the work?
Do we have access to our data if a software provider or instrument supplier changes?
Have we considered supplier failure in our risk assessment?

Supplier evaluation should not be limited to checking accreditation status and price. It should consider capacity, turnaround time, technical capability, continuity of supply and the consequences if the provider is no longer available.

Efficiency cannot mean removing necessary controls

When costs and workloads increase, the natural response is to search for efficiency.

That is appropriate, but efficiency must not be confused with removing controls simply because they take time.

The objective is to reduce duplication, rework and unnecessary administration while preserving the activities that protect the validity of results.

Useful improvements may include:

Simplifying forms and procedures
Integrating registers and information systems
Automating reminders and routine checks
Reviewing approval pathways
Removing duplicate data entry
Using risk to determine priorities
Improving staff training and authorisation processes
Analysing recurring problems instead of repeatedly correcting them

A management system should help the laboratory operate. If staff need spreadsheets, unofficial workarounds and personal memory to keep the system functioning, the system probably needs attention.

Laboratory managers do not have to carry everything alone

One of the most damaging assumptions in laboratory management is that a capable manager should be able to handle everything personally.

Capability is not measured by how many responsibilities one person can absorb before becoming exhausted.

Good management includes recognising where additional expertise, training, technology or external support is needed. It may involve developing the quality team, distributing responsibilities more effectively, mentoring technical staff or bringing in specialist assistance for a defined project.

External assistance should build the laboratory’s capability, not create long-term dependence. A good consultant should help the laboratory understand the problem, develop a workable solution and transfer the necessary knowledge to the people who will operate the system.

Sometimes the most valuable contribution is simply creating enough space for the laboratory manager to step back from urgent daily problems and look at the system as a whole.

Making the Juggling Act More Manageable

The reality of being a laboratory manager in 2026 is that the role sits at the intersection of science, quality, technology, people and business.

Managers must respond to evolving accreditation expectations, use AI responsibly, control operations across different locations, manage rising costs and protect the laboratory from increasingly concentrated supply chains.

That is a considerable responsibility.

The answer is not more paperwork for its own sake. Nor is it expecting laboratory managers to work longer hours and juggle faster.

The answer is to build systems that provide visibility, distribute responsibility, manage risk and help people make sound decisions.

Laboratory managers may still feel as though they are running a circus. The goal is not necessarily to eliminate every flaming torch. It is to make sure the right people are holding them, the safety net is in place and someone has checked whether all those torches are actually necessary.