Class II instrument maker
A California instrument maker gives labs and clinics a spec-complete site with the compliance file, IFUs and performance data.
Situation
The company designs and sells its own benchtop instrument for laboratories and point-of-care settings in the United States. It is a Class II device, and its buyers are laboratory managers, clinical engineers, and distributors who serve them. A lab does not buy an instrument on a brochure. The evaluation runs through a committee: procurement checks the specification, clinical engineering checks the instructions for use and the validation evidence, and someone confirms the regulatory basis — a 510(k)-style summary where applicable.
The company held that documentation, but the website carried almost none of it. Performance data sat in spreadsheets and studies that a salesperson emailed out after an inquiry. The instructions for use and the compliance summary were PDFs in a folder. Every serious evaluation opened with the same request — send us your documents — and the delay let better-documented competitors shape the committee’s view first. Meanwhile the sales team spent each cycle re-sending the same attachments instead of answering substantive questions about the instrument itself.
The site also made the company look smaller than its engineering. A spec-complete page is itself part of the evaluation: reviewers read a thin page as a thin product. The company needed its documentation to be as public as its claims, so a committee could complete a first-pass review without asking.
The build
The deployment turned the site into a complete evaluation resource for a regulated buyer. The instrument page carries the full specification, the performance data behind it, the instructions for use, and the compliance documentation — public and current, in one place. A clinical engineer can do a first-pass review without emailing anyone, and the distributor who carries the product can point its customers at the same documents. Nothing about that review depends on a salesperson’s availability, which matters when a hospital committee works on its own schedule.
The inquiry path routes by what the visitor is doing: a specification question, a distributor application, or a request for evaluation documentation. Each reaches the right person rather than a shared inbox. Because the site and the corporate mailbox share the company’s own domain, a follow-up from a clinical engineer arrives from the same address as the documents they were reading — an owned identity that matters when a hospital committee is deciding whether the vendor is real.
The company keeps a record of every request and can export it on demand, so the evaluation trail follows the product rather than the memory of the salesperson who answered.
Outcome
- Clinical engineers and procurement can complete a first-pass review from the public site — spec, IFU, compliance file and performance data
- Inquiries arrive pre-sorted by intent — specification question, distributor application, or evaluation request
- The evaluation trail is kept on the company's own domain and exportable on demand