Learning what a purchased test unit could not tell me

The first laboratory cost schedule I reviewed appeared straightforward: purchased units, reported tests and a price per unit. It became less straightforward when the laboratory director explained the controls and repeat work included in the consumption. The financial record had not been wrong, but the comparison had asked it to answer a question it did not fully describe. That conversation in my early laboratory-finance years has stayed with me. A low purchase price is not a complete account of what it costs to provide a dependable report.

I began elsewhere, in the accounts office of Xianruo Medical Supplies in August 1991. I had completed an accounting degree at Shunqiao Commerce College the previous month. My work involved supplier statements, inventory records and customer reconciliations under the chief accountant. I learnt to follow a difference back to its document and to distinguish a goods-return question from an ordinary payment delay. I did not select medical products or advise customers on their clinical use.

In August 1998, I joined Luyanshu Diagnostic Services as a laboratory-cost accountant. The company was smaller then, and I could speak directly with the people maintaining the instrument and reagent records. They explained why some work supported quality or resolved a technical question without creating another billable report. I learnt not to describe every gap between purchased units and invoiced activity as waste. Finance needed to understand the approved process before judging the financial result, and the laboratory director retained responsibility for that process.

Purchasing finance became my focus in 2004. Suppliers offered different combinations of equipment placement, reagent prices, service arrangements and minimum commitments. A proposal with little initial equipment expenditure could still create a substantial obligation through future purchases. I worked with procurement and laboratory leaders to compare the terms they considered technically acceptable. I was responsible for the financial comparison and for making conditions visible, not for deciding which method or instrument met the laboratory's clinical requirements.

From 2010, I led commercial financial analysis. Hospital and clinic customers differed in collection patterns, report handling and the support they expected. An average analytical cost could hide those differences. I worked with the commercial team to understand the service described in a proposal before recommending a price. A discount might be justified by a simpler arrangement or dependable activity, but it should not be funded by pretending that additional pickups or support were free. Those discussions taught me to explain the cost of a relationship without reducing it to a single margin label.

Group control followed in 2015. By then the organisation operated across several sites, and the directors needed a consistent account of performance and commitments. I led reporting, planning and the financial schedules supporting investment decisions. I also learnt to examine the timing of a benefit. A replacement instrument might be a sound investment while still requiring an expensive overlap with the existing arrangement. The financial account needed to show that transition, rather than imply that the first year's cost had to fall immediately for the decision to be worthwhile.

I became CFO in August 2020. Our founder shareholders and minority investor brought different perspectives on expansion and returns. I wanted them to share an understandable account of the service model before debating its value. I lead the finance functions through three managers and present to the board as an executive invitee. I have not held a directorship. My recommendation may influence a decision, but I do not confuse that influence with the responsibility of being appointed to the board.

The examples I have chosen are deliberately about the support around clinical work. A higher reagent price reduced an excessive minimum commitment, but would cost more at higher volume. A proposed customer discount was revised when collection obligations were properly included. Paid support for an older instrument continued during a transition, even though that made the annual budget less attractive. In each case, the financial judgement depended on colleagues being clear about what the service required and what could legitimately change.

I am interested in a future board contribution where commercial expectations need to remain connected with professional obligations. I would bring experience of procurement commitments, service pricing and investment transitions, together with a clear awareness of the authority held by clinical and technical leaders. I would also need to learn the new company's particular responsibilities. A familiar-looking laboratory or service contract is a starting point for questions, not a reason to assume that my current experience supplies every answer.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / Mandarin · English