All Case Studies

In early 2025, execon was engaged by a mid-sized generics pharmaceutical group with an established commercial footprint across the Middle East and North Africa. New local content regulations in several Gulf Cooperation Council markets and Egypt had created an urgent mandate: a defined proportion of products sold in-country needed to be manufactured within the region to qualify for public tender participation. Two major tender cycles — with combined annual revenues of approximately $14 million — were contingent on demonstrating local manufacturing capability by a non-negotiable regulatory deadline.

The scope was substantial. Eight products needed to be transferred to alternative manufacturers within 18 months: six oral solid dosage forms (tablets and capsules spanning cardiovascular, anti-infective, and CNS indications) and two sterile products (a lyophilised injectable and a liquid fill ophthalmic). Three of the eight were insourcing transfers — bringing production into the group's own recently upgraded manufacturing facility in Jordan. The remaining five were out-transfers to two contract manufacturers, one in Egypt and one in the UAE.

Why Product Transfers Are Harder Than They Look

Pharmaceutical product transfers are among the most technically and organisationally demanding exercises in the industry. Even a single oral solid transfer between established partners routinely takes 18–24 months from initiation to first commercial batch. The reasons are structural, not bureaucratic.

Formulations do not behave identically on different equipment. Granulation dynamics, compression forces, coating parameters, and dissolution profiles all shift when a product moves to a new manufacturing line — even when equipment specifications appear equivalent on paper. Every analytical test method must be formally transferred to the receiving laboratory and demonstrated to produce equivalent results. Regulatory dossiers must be updated across all registered markets, each with its own submission format, timeline, and administrative requirements. For sterile products the burden is substantially higher: lyophilisation cycles must be re-developed and validated, aseptic process simulations completed, and the regulatory package is an order of magnitude more complex than for oral solids.

Beyond the technical work, transfers are organisational challenges. Critical process knowledge resides with individuals, not documents. Sending sites have commercial priorities of their own. Receiving sites are building capabilities in parallel with receiving products. And when supply is already on market, any interruption risks stockouts, patient harm, and potential tender delisting — there is no margin for error.

Step 1: Stratify Before You Execute

The first intervention was a rapid transfer readiness assessment across all eight products and three receiving sites, completed within the first three weeks. Rather than treating the portfolio as a uniform queue, we stratified by risk: technical complexity, regulatory pathway length, equipment equivalence gaps, analytical method transfer burden, and supply criticality.

The outputs were immediate and uncomfortable. The lyophilised injectable — widely assumed to be straightforward given the receiving site's existing lyophilisation capability — surfaced as the highest-risk transfer in the portfolio. A review of existing batch records revealed that the lyo cycle had never been formally validated at the sending site: it had been transferred informally from the originator years earlier and run on operator knowledge and institutional habit. There was no validated design space to transfer. We would effectively be developing the cycle from scratch at the receiving site, not transferring it. Identifying this eight weeks earlier than it would otherwise have appeared allowed us to initiate lyo cycle development in parallel with technical transfer documentation — a sequencing decision that ultimately saved approximately eleven weeks on the critical path.

Step 2: Build One Integrated Plan, Not Three Separate Ones

With eight products moving across three sites in two countries, the instinct of each receiving site was to manage its own transfer independently. The sending manufacturer had its own scheduling priorities. The regulatory consultants in each jurisdiction were working to their own timelines. We imposed a single integrated Master Transfer Plan with a unified critical path, weekly cross-site governance, and a shared exception log visible to all parties.

The first cross-site governance call surfaced a critical scheduling conflict: the Jordan facility had allocated the same granulation suite to two of the oral solid transfers in the same four-week window, assuming the technical batch campaigns would run sequentially. They were not — both were on the critical path simultaneously. Resolving this required two days of capacity negotiation and would otherwise have caused a six-week delay, invisible until the conflict actually occurred on the shop floor.

Step 3: Run Technical and Regulatory Workstreams in Parallel

In conventional transfer programmes, regulatory submissions are prepared after technical transfer is complete: development report, validation data, and stability results assembled, then submission filed. This sequential logic adds four to eight months to every transfer.

We structured all eight transfers on a rolling submission model. Regulatory dossier templates were prepared and pre-populated from existing manufacturing authorisations before technical work began. Analytical method transfer protocols were submitted to receiving site QC laboratories before the first technical batch, allowing laboratory preparation to proceed in parallel with process development. Stability studies were initiated at the earliest permitted timepoint — immediately after the first successful technical batch — rather than after process validation was complete.

For the three markets where the regulatory authority permitted scientific advice meetings, we engaged early: presenting the transfer strategy, the proposed comparability approach, and the stability bridging protocol before any data was available. Two of the three authorities provided written agreement on the acceptability of the methodology, eliminating the risk of a rejection at the point of submission.

Step 4: Close the Knowledge Transfer Gap

Documentation is necessary but not sufficient. The most consequential process knowledge — why a step works, what operators watch for, what happens at the edges of the design space — rarely lives in batch records or SOPs. We implemented structured knowledge transfer workshops at the sending site for each product, attended by the receiving site's process development and QA teams.

For the oral solids, the focus was granulation end-point determination and compression sensitivity — areas where the sending site's operators had developed reliable indicators through experience that existed in no written document. For the sterile products, workshops covered aseptic line setup, interventions management, and the specific behaviour of the liquid fill under varying temperature conditions.

For the lyophilised product, we arranged for the Jordan facility's process development scientist to spend four weeks embedded at an independent lyo development centre alongside the sending site's formulation scientist. The lyo cycle was effectively co-developed by both teams — not transferred from one to the other — which accelerated validation and built the receiving site's ownership of the process from the outset.

Step 5: Manage Supply Continuity as a Workstream

With products already on market, supply continuity during the transfer window was not a background assumption — it was an active workstream. We built a transfer inventory model for each product: current stock levels, consumption rates by market, residual shelf life at transfer completion, and safety stock requirements to bridge the gap between last commercial batch at the sending site and first commercial batch at the receiving site.

For two of the oral solids, the model revealed that existing stock would not bridge the transfer timeline at expected consumption rates. The sending manufacturer was contracted for a precisely timed buffer campaign — calculated to avoid accumulating excess inventory that would cannibalise the receiving site's first commercial batches. For the ophthalmic product, a short shelf life meant the buffer campaign had to be scheduled within a narrow eight-week window tied to the receiving site's first commercial batch approval — a dependency only visible because the supply and transfer timelines had been integrated into a single model from the outset.

The Results

Fourteen months after programme initiation — against an 18-month baseline for a transfer programme of this scope — six of the eight products had received commercial manufacturing approval at their respective receiving sites, with first compliant batches released to market. The two sterile products were on track for approval within the following six weeks, within the original deadline.

The overall programme timeline was compressed by approximately 31% against the reference baseline: driven primarily by the parallel technical and regulatory workstream design (saving eight to ten weeks per product), the early lyo cycle development initiation (eleven weeks), and the cross-site governance model that caught and resolved the granulation suite conflict before it caused a delay. Both target tender cycles were entered with compliant local manufacturing declarations. The combined revenue secured across the two tenders represented $13.2 million annually against the $14 million at-risk figure — a shortfall attributable to a competitor price reduction in one product category during the transfer window, not to programme execution.

The group's VP of Operations summarised the outcome with characteristic directness: "We knew the timeline was impossible on paper. What we didn't know is that 'impossible' and 'never been done before' are different things."

In early 2025, execon was engaged by a mid-sized European Contract Development and Manufacturing Organisation (CDMO) specialising in oral solid dosage forms and injectables. The company had recently secured a significant contract with a top-20 pharma partner and was under pressure to expand its manufacturing capacity. Two new filling lines and a dedicated cleanroom for high-potency APIs were in the pipeline — investments totalling over €18 million.

There was just one problem: the cash wasn't there.

A closer look at the balance sheet revealed the culprit. Days of Inventory Outstanding (DIO) stood at 163 days — more than five months of stock sitting in warehouses and production areas. For a company turning over roughly €85 million annually, that represented nearly €38 million of working capital tied up in materials, intermediates and finished goods. The CFO had been wrestling with the number for two years. "We know the inventory is too high," she told us in the first meeting. "What we don't know is what to do about it."

A System Running on Intuition

The root cause wasn't negligence — it was complexity managed manually. The CDMO produced over 340 SKUs across 60+ customers, each with its own forecast patterns, lead time constraints and contractual service level commitments. Planners were managing replenishment through a combination of ERP outputs, personal experience and conservative buffers accumulated over years of near-miss stockouts.

"We had one planner who knew exactly which APIs were risky and which weren't," the supply chain director explained. "But that knowledge lived entirely in his head." When that planner took medical leave for six weeks in 2024, the team added roughly €4 million of safety stock "just to be safe." Much of it was still sitting there when we arrived.

Step 1: Making Sense of the History

The first phase involved an AI-assisted analysis of 36 months of historical data — purchase orders, goods receipts, production orders, customer deliveries and demand signals. The data was messy: inconsistent lead time recording, duplicate SKUs, and forecast accuracy that varied wildly between product families.

Using machine learning clustering techniques, we segmented the 340 SKUs into meaningful groups based on demand volatility, supplier lead time variability and margin contribution. The analysis surfaced uncomfortable truths: 34% of SKUs with the highest stock levels had demand coefficients of variation below 0.2 — meaning they were highly predictable and had been dramatically over-stocked for years. Meanwhile, 18 high-margin products with genuinely volatile demand had no differentiated stock strategy at all.

Step 2: Right Strategy for Each Product

Armed with the segmentation, we designed a differentiated stocking strategy for each cluster. High-volume, predictable products moved to a continuous review system with statistically derived reorder points. Volatile, high-value products were assigned dynamic safety stocks recalculated weekly based on updated demand signals. Slow-moving and obsolete candidates — 47 SKUs in total — were flagged for rationalisation.

For the first time, the planning team had a logic-driven framework rather than a patchwork of rules of thumb. Target stock levels were set with explicit service level trade-offs: a 98.5% fill rate commitment for key accounts, 95% for standard customers — numbers that could be defended to the board and adjusted as the business evolved.

Step 3: A Dashboard That Replaced Thirty Spreadsheets

Before the project, the team managed inventory health through a combination of ERP reports and manually maintained Excel files — some of which, by the team's own admission, were "updated when we have time." Overstock situations went unnoticed for weeks, and emerging stockouts were caught late, triggering expensive expediting.

We built a set of HTML-based dashboards connected to the ERP system, pulling live inventory data every four hours. The dashboards were purpose-built in HTML — lightweight, browser-accessible without any additional software, and deployable across the planning team in days. They gave planners a real-time view of four key signals:

• Out-of-stock: zero on-hand with open customer orders — requiring immediate escalation
• Near out-of-stock: coverage below reorder threshold — triggering replenishment
• Overstock: coverage exceeding the maximum threshold — flagging for demand pull-forward or production pause
• Stale inventory: materials approaching expiry with no planned consumption — flagging for rework or write-off

Within the first month of go-live, the dashboard identified €2.1 million of overstock that had accumulated undetected, and flagged three API batches within 90 days of expiry that would otherwise have been written off entirely.

Step 4: Closing the Loop with Production Scheduling

The final — and most technically ambitious — component was a scheduling algorithm that acted on the dashboard signals. Rather than relying on planners to translate inventory alerts into production decisions manually, the algorithm proposed adjustments to the weekly schedule: pulling forward campaigns where near-stockout conditions were emerging, pushing back or splitting batches where overstock was accumulating.

The algorithm operated as a recommendation engine, not an autonomous system — planners reviewed and approved all changes. "We were nervous about letting a machine touch the schedule," the supply chain director admitted. "But in practice it flags things we would have missed, and saves us about two hours of scheduling work every morning."

The Results

Twelve months after implementation, Days of Inventory Outstanding had fallen from 163 to 108 — a reduction of 34%, freeing approximately €14.5 million of working capital. The CDMO used that cash to partially self-fund its capacity expansion, reducing the debt facility needed from external lenders by 40%.

Service levels, rather than declining as inventory fell, actually improved: customer-facing fill rates rose from 91.3% to 97.1% as the right products were stocked at the right levels. Planner overtime — a chronic problem during busy periods — dropped by more than half.

The CFO closed the final project review with a remark that stayed with us: "We thought this was a technology project. It turned out to be a decision-making project. The AI just made the decisions visible."

The life sciences and medical devices industries have no shortage of ambitious strategies. Boards approve sweeping transformation programmes. Leadership teams craft compelling narratives about growth, efficiency, and patient impact. Consultants deliver polished decks. And yet, year after year, a striking proportion of these strategies fail not in their conception but in their execution. The ideas are sound. The implementation is not.

This gap between strategy and outcome is not unique to life sciences — but the consequences here are more acute. A failed commercial launch at a pharma company is not just a missed revenue target; it may mean patients waiting longer for a new therapy. A stalled operational transformation at a medical device manufacturer is not just an efficiency problem; it may compromise product quality and regulatory standing. Understanding why execution fails — and how to fix it — is therefore one of the most consequential management questions in the sector.

Why Execution Fails

In our experience working across pharma, biotech, and medical device companies, execution failures tend to cluster around a recognisable set of root causes:

1. Strategy Without Operational Translation: Many strategies remain at an altitude that is inspiring but unactionable. A global pharma company may commit to "becoming the leader in patient-centric oncology" without ever translating that ambition into concrete changes to its commercial model, supply chain, or medical affairs function. Strategy that cannot be converted into specific decisions, resource allocations, and behavioural changes is a vision statement, not a plan.
2. Misaligned Incentives: Even when the strategy is clear, execution stalls if the incentive structures reward different behaviours. A medical device company pursuing a services-led growth model will struggle if its salesforce is still compensated purely on device volume. A pharma company committed to cross-functional collaboration will find that commitment tested if business units are competing for the same P&L targets. People follow incentives — and if incentives point in a different direction from the strategy, incentives win.
3. Underestimating Change Management: Transformation programmes in life sciences routinely underinvest in change management. The assumption — often implicit — is that once leadership endorses a new direction, the organisation will follow. It rarely does. At a major European medical device group, a multi-year ERP implementation delivered on time and on budget, yet adoption remained stubbornly low eighteen months post go-live because the change management programme had been scoped at a fraction of the technical investment. The system worked. The people did not change.
4. Initiative Overload: Life sciences organisations are particularly prone to launching too many initiatives simultaneously. A mid-size pharma company we worked with had 47 active transformation workstreams at the point of engagement — each with a sponsor, a budget, and a project manager, but collectively consuming far more leadership attention and organisational bandwidth than was available. The result was a portfolio of half-executed initiatives, each moving slowly, few reaching completion. Priority is not about what you say yes to; it is about what you say no to.
5. Weak Governance and Accountability: Execution requires someone to be accountable — not collectively responsible, but personally accountable. In matrix organisations, which are the norm in large pharma and device companies, accountability diffuses. Programme steering committees meet quarterly. Escalation paths are unclear. Decisions that require cross-functional trade-offs linger unresolved for months. By the time the problem surfaces at the right level, the window to correct course has often closed.
6. Loss of Momentum: Strategies are typically launched with energy and commitment. That momentum is fragile. Leadership changes, budget cycles, regulatory setbacks, or simply the passage of time erode the organisational will to sustain difficult change. At a global biotech company, a commercial transformation that had strong initial traction lost momentum after a change in regional leadership — and was quietly deprioritised before its most important elements had been embedded.

How to Fix It

There is no single intervention that guarantees execution success. But the companies that consistently translate strategy into outcomes share a set of deliberate practices:

1. Translate Strategy into the Operating Model: Every strategic priority should have a clear owner, a defined set of changes to processes, structures, and capabilities, and measurable milestones. A useful test: if you cannot describe what will be different — specifically — in the way the organisation operates twelve months from now, the strategy has not yet been translated into execution.
2. Align Incentives Ruthlessly: Review compensation, performance management, and resource allocation through the lens of the strategy. If the metrics and rewards do not reinforce the strategic priorities, change them. This is uncomfortable work — it requires confronting legacy structures and vested interests — but without it, execution will always be swimming against the current.
3. Invest in Change Management as a First-Class Discipline: Change management is not a communications plan. It is a structured programme to shift behaviours, build capabilities, and sustain adoption. In our experience, life sciences companies that invest 15–20% of programme budgets in change management consistently outperform those that treat it as an afterthought. For medical device companies navigating regulatory change or ERP transformation, this investment is particularly critical.
4. Ruthlessly Prioritise: Limit the number of strategic initiatives in flight at any one time. A useful heuristic: the number of initiatives your organisation can execute well is probably half the number currently underway. Stopping initiatives is as important as starting them — and significantly harder. Build the governance discipline to say no.
5. Establish Clear Accountability: For every critical initiative, there should be a single named owner with the authority, resources, and mandate to deliver. Steering committees advise; they do not own. Where cross-functional decisions are required, establish clear decision rights and escalation protocols in advance — not at the moment of conflict.
6. Manage Momentum Actively: Sustaining execution energy over multi-year programmes requires deliberate effort. Celebrate intermediate milestones. Maintain visibility of progress at the senior level. Connect the work to the patient and clinical outcomes it is ultimately designed to serve — in life sciences, this is a particularly powerful source of organisational motivation. And when leadership changes, invest explicitly in continuity: the incoming leader needs to understand not just the strategy but the execution context.
7. Build Execution Capability as a Core Competence: The most resilient life sciences organisations treat execution as a capability to be developed and sustained, not a one-time effort. This means investing in programme management talent, building internal consulting capabilities, and creating institutional knowledge about how change happens in the organisation — what works, what does not, and why.

Strategy execution is not glamorous work. It does not generate headlines or feature prominently in investor presentations. But it is the discipline that determines whether the ambitions of life sciences companies — ambitions that ultimately serve patients and healthcare systems — are realised or remain aspirational. In a sector where the stakes are as high as they are in pharma and medical devices, closing the gap between strategy and execution is not a management nicety. It is a leadership imperative.

The medical device industry has always operated under pressure — from stringent regulatory oversight to complex global supply chains and rapidly evolving clinical needs. But the shocks of the past decade — a global pandemic, geopolitical tensions, raw material shortages, and accelerating technological change — have elevated operational resilience from a back-office concern to a board-level priority. For medical device companies, the stakes are uniquely high: supply failures do not just affect revenue, they affect patients.

Operational resilience, in this context, means more than the ability to recover from disruption. It means designing organisations, supply chains, and manufacturing operations that can absorb shocks, adapt rapidly, and continue delivering safe, effective products — even when the environment becomes unpredictable.

The Dimensions of Resilience

Building operational resilience in medical devices requires attention across several interconnected dimensions:

1. Supply Chain Resilience: Single-source dependencies and just-in-time models proved fragile during COVID-19. Leading companies are now diversifying supplier bases, building strategic safety stocks for critical components, and mapping their supply chains multiple tiers deep — understanding not just their direct suppliers, but the suppliers of their suppliers.
2. Manufacturing Agility: The ability to flex production volumes, switch lines, or relocate manufacturing in response to demand shifts or site disruptions is increasingly valuable. Modular manufacturing concepts, cross-trained workforces, and investments in Automation reduce reliance on single sites or specialist skills.
3. Regulatory Preparedness: Regulatory compliance cannot be a bottleneck in a crisis. Companies with well-maintained technical files, proactive relationships with notified bodies, and established change management processes are better positioned to respond quickly — whether to a product modification, a field safety corrective action, or a supply chain substitution.
4. Digital and Data Infrastructure: Real-time visibility across the supply chain, demand sensing, and predictive maintenance all depend on sound data foundations. Companies that invested in ERP modernisation, IoT-enabled manufacturing, and integrated planning tools entered the disruptions of recent years with a significant advantage.
5. Organisational Resilience: Structures, governance, and culture matter as much as technology. Cross-functional crisis teams, clear escalation protocols, and leadership with the mandate to act decisively are essential — as is a workforce culture that surfaces problems early rather than absorbing them silently.

The Challenges Ahead

Despite growing awareness, many medical device companies face structural barriers to resilience:

1. Portfolio and Complexity Creep: Decades of acquisitions and product line extensions have created sprawling portfolios with thousands of SKUs, each with its own supply chain, regulatory dossier, and manufacturing footprint. Simplification is often the most powerful resilience lever — but it is also one of the hardest to execute.
2. Cost vs. Resilience Trade-offs: Building redundancy — dual sourcing, safety stock, flexible capacity — costs money. In an industry under sustained pricing pressure from hospital groups and healthcare systems, making the business case for resilience investments requires demonstrating tangible financial value, not just risk mitigation.
3. Regulatory Fragmentation: Operating across the EU MDR, US FDA, and a growing list of country-specific requirements adds complexity to every supply chain decision. A component substitution that is straightforward operationally may require parallel regulatory submissions across a dozen jurisdictions.
4. Talent Scarcity: Skilled quality, regulatory, and supply chain professionals are in short supply across the industry. Retaining institutional knowledge, building succession pipelines, and accessing specialist expertise at speed — particularly during a crisis — is a persistent challenge.
5. Technology Integration Gaps: Many companies operate with fragmented IT landscapes — legacy ERP systems, disconnected planning tools, and manual quality processes. Integrating these systems is expensive and time-consuming, yet without it, real-time visibility and data-driven decision-making remain aspirational.

Principles for Building Resilience

There is no universal blueprint for resilience, but the companies that navigate uncertainty most effectively tend to share a set of common practices:

1. Know Your Risks: Invest in structured risk identification — supply chain mapping, scenario planning, and regular stress-testing of critical processes. Risks that are visible can be managed; those that are invisible become crises.
2. Prioritise Based on Patient Impact: Not all products and supply chains deserve equal resilience investment. Focus first on critical devices — those where supply failure directly threatens patient safety — and build your resilience architecture outward from there.
3. Simplify Before You Optimise: Complexity is the enemy of resilience. Rationalising portfolios, suppliers, and manufacturing sites reduces the surface area for disruption and creates the headroom to invest more deeply in what remains.
4. Build Relationships, Not Just Contracts: The companies that fared best during recent supply crises were those with deep, trusted relationships with key suppliers — relationships built over years, not forged in panic. Supplier development, transparency, and mutual investment pay dividends when allocation decisions are made under pressure.
5. Integrate Resilience Into Strategy: Resilience cannot be a project or a task force. It must be embedded into the strategic planning cycle, with explicit targets, executive ownership, and resource allocation — treated with the same rigour as growth or cost objectives.
6. Invest in Digital Visibility: End-to-end supply chain visibility is foundational. Companies that cannot see their inventory, demand, and supplier status in near real time are flying blind in a crisis. Prioritise the data and system investments that make this possible.
7. Practise, Don't Just Plan: Resilience plans that live in documents rarely survive first contact with reality. Regular simulation exercises, escalation drills, and after-action reviews build the organisational muscle memory that makes the difference when disruption actually arrives.

Uncertainty is not a temporary condition — it is the new baseline. For medical device companies, operational resilience is not a defensive investment. It is a source of competitive advantage, enabling faster response to market opportunities, stronger customer relationships, and a licence to operate that is earned through consistently reliable supply. The companies that build resilience into their DNA today will be the ones best positioned to grow tomorrow.

Industrial companies in developed countries have been increasingly going digital during the last 10 years as a means to cut costs or to differentiate themselves from competitors. In the pharmaceutical and biotech industry the digital journey started mostly in marketing — from virtual detailing for HCPs, social media campaigns, or influencer partnerships with KOLs to more complex AI-powered patient engagement platforms — and research & development — from use of AI in drug discovery and digital twins to use of real world evidence in trial design or machine learning in biomarker identification. Only recently, mostly driven by advancements in AI and blockchain technologies, pharma companies moved their digitalization focus towards manufacturing (pharma 4.0) and supply chain.

Opportunities

The pharma supply chain — driven by high complexity and fragmentation — offers many opportunities for improvement through digitalization:

1. Enhanced Supply Chain Visibility: Real-time tracking of raw materials, intermediates, and finished products ensures better control and traceability, reducing risks such as counterfeit drugs and theft.
2. Improved Forecasting and Inventory Optimization: AI and predictive analytics can analyze historical and real-time data to accurately forecast demand, reducing stockouts and overstocking.
3. Faster Drug Delivery and Patient-Centric Models: Digitization enables just-in-time manufacturing and faster response to market demands, especially for personalized medicine and rare disease drugs.
4. Increased Regulatory Compliance: Blockchain and IoT technologies can provide an immutable audit trail for drug production and distribution.
5. Enhanced Risk Management: Early warning systems using AI and real-time data can predict and mitigate risks such as supply disruptions, quality issues, and non-compliance.
6. Sustainability Goals: Digital tools can optimize routes, reduce waste, and support sustainable packaging initiatives.

Challenges

At the same time, pharma supply chains face challenges that must be managed carefully:

1. Data Silos and Integration: Many pharmaceutical companies use disparate systems, leading to fragmented data that hinders the creation of a unified digital ecosystem.
2. Regulatory and Compliance Complexity: Compliance with global regulations (FDA, EMA, WHO) can slow down implementation.
3. High Implementation Costs: Deploying advanced technologies such as IoT, AI, and blockchain requires significant upfront investment.
4. Cybersecurity Risks: As supply chains become more digital, they become targets for cyberattacks.
5. Change Management and Resistance: Employees and partners may resist adopting new technologies.
6. Scalability Across Global Operations: Rolling out digital transformation initiatives globally while adapting to local conditions can be complex.
7. Quality and Data Reliability: AI and predictive models rely on high-quality data, which is not always readily available.

Principles for Success

While there is no "golden recipe," a few general principles are widely accepted as a good base:

1. Define a Clear Vision and Strategic Goals: Outline a clear vision for the future supply chain aligned with organizational objectives.
2. Build Data-Centric Foundations: Establish a robust data strategy covering collection, storage, and governance.
3. Foster Agile and Collaborative Operations: Adopt two-speed approaches — maintaining operational reliability while rapidly piloting digital innovations.
4. Leverage Emerging Technologies: IoT, AI, and blockchain are transforming supply chains — cloud-based solutions and APIs streamline integration with legacy systems.
5. Balance Risk and Scalability: Start with minimum viable products (MVPs) and gradually integrate successful pilots into the broader organization.
6. Enhance End-to-End Visibility: Big data and analytics tools enable companies to track supply chain performance and make data-driven decisions.
7. Drive Continuous Innovation: A culture of continuous innovation ensures that digital transformation remains dynamic and responsive to market changes.
8. Invest in Talent and Leadership: Cultivate digital skills within the workforce and attract new talent with expertise in digital and analytics — balancing traditional expertise with innovative digital capabilities.

In spring 2024, execon was engaged by a European medical device company specialising in connected diabetes management technology. The company had developed a next-generation continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system — a wearable sensor with a 14-day wear life, a companion app for real-time trend analysis, and integration with major insulin pump platforms — and had secured CE Mark under EU MDR and FDA 510(k) clearance. The product was clinically strong. The commercial infrastructure was not.

The ambition was substantial: a coordinated launch across six countries — Germany, France, Spain, and Italy in the European Union, and the United States and Brazil in the Americas — within an eighteen-month window. The VP of Commercial had been explicit in the first briefing: "We have a strong product and the regulatory clearances we need. What we do not have is a plan for executing six launches simultaneously without collapsing under our own complexity."

The Weight of Six Markets

Multi-country medical device launches are not simply national launches multiplied by six. Each market brings its own regulatory filing requirements, reimbursement pathways, tender cycles, distributor relationships, clinical evidence expectations, and pricing environment. For a connected device with a digital health component — integrating patient data, cloud connectivity, and companion software — the complexity compounds: data privacy regulations differ, software as a medical device (SaMD) classification requirements vary, and interoperability standards with hospital systems are rarely aligned.

The company had attempted to manage this complexity informally, with country managers coordinating independently and a lean central team providing light oversight. The result was a launch plan that existed in twelve different versions across as many spreadsheets, with no single source of truth on timelines, regulatory status, or resource requirements.

Step 1: Establishing a Single Launch Control Tower

The first intervention was structural. We established a central Launch Control Tower — a governance framework that brought together the heads of regulatory affairs, market access, supply chain, commercial, and medical affairs under a unified programme structure with weekly cadence, shared dashboards, and a single decision log.

The diagnosis was immediate: the six country plans were operating on incompatible assumptions. Germany's team was planning for a January 2025 reimbursement listing; France's market access team had assessed a twelve-month evaluation process that would preclude any meaningful revenue before Q3 2025. The US commercial team had sized its salesforce for a broad hospital launch, while Brazil's local partner had built a plan premised on a narrow private insurance channel. None of these plans had been reconciled.

"We had six correct answers to six different questions," the VP of Commercial reflected. "We needed one correct answer to the same question."

Step 2: Sequencing the Launch — Not All Countries Are Equal

With the landscape mapped, we designed a differentiated launch sequencing strategy. Not all six markets warranted simultaneous investment, and not all regulatory and reimbursement timelines permitted it.

Germany was the anchor market — the largest European CGM market, with a fast-track reimbursement pathway under §139c SGB V for digital health applications and established guideline support for CGM in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. A January 2025 launch was achievable and financially material. France and Spain were positioned as wave-two markets, with launches targeted for mid-2025, contingent on completing local clinical evidence submissions and HTA processes. Italy, with a more fragmented regional reimbursement structure, was sequenced last in the EU cohort.

In the Americas, the US was prioritised — but scope was narrowed. Rather than a broad hospital launch, we recommended a focused entry through endocrinology practices and integrated delivery networks with established CGM protocols, building the evidence base and commercial infrastructure before a broader expansion. Brazil required a separate operating model: import licensing under ANVISA, local post-market surveillance obligations, and a reimbursement landscape dominated by supplementary health (plano de saúde) rather than public tender.

The sequencing decision freed approximately €4.2 million of planned launch investment to be redeployed to markets and activities with higher near-term returns — a conversation that had been technically obvious for months but required an external forcing function to execute.

Step 3: Navigating the Regulatory Patchwork

CE Mark and FDA clearance were necessary, not sufficient. Each market presented a distinct regulatory overlay that required active management.

In Germany, the product's companion app required classification as a Class IIa medical device software under EU MDR Article 22 — a classification that had not been anticipated in the original CE Mark submission. A supplementary technical file was required, adding eight weeks to the German launch timeline.

In France, the Haute Autorité de Santé requested a comparative clinical dataset against the current market-leading CGM system — data the company had generated in a prior clinical study but had not formatted for HTA submission. Reformatting and translating the clinical evidence package consumed six weeks of medical affairs capacity that had not been planned for.

Brazil presented the most significant regulatory hurdle: the product's cloud connectivity infrastructure was hosted on servers outside Brazil, triggering LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados) compliance requirements that had not been assessed. Resolving this — through a combination of data residency adjustments and contractual safeguards with the local distributor — added ten weeks to the Brazilian timeline and required legal input from three jurisdictions.

"Every time we thought we had the regulatory picture complete, a new layer appeared," the Head of Regulatory Affairs told us. "What we lacked was a structured way of surfacing those layers before they became blockers."

Step 4: Building the Evidence and Reimbursement Dossiers

Medical device reimbursement in the EU and Americas is not harmonised — and for a connected diabetes device, the evidentiary bar is rising. Payers increasingly require real-world evidence of clinical utility, health economic modelling demonstrating cost-effectiveness, and outcomes data from populations that reflect their own.

We supported the medical affairs and market access teams in building five separate reimbursement dossiers — Germany, France, Spain, the US (for managed care contracting), and Brazil — each adapted to the local HTA framework, epidemiological context, and payer priorities. Germany's dossier centred on digital health application evidence requirements. France's was structured around the CNEDiMTS submission format. The US dossier was built for managed care medical directors, with emphasis on total cost of care modelling across diabetic complications.

The process surfaced a critical gap: the company's existing health economic model had been built for a homogeneous European population. Adapting it for Brazil — with a different epidemiological profile, cost structure, and treatment pathway — required a six-week rebuild that the medical affairs team had neither the capacity nor the local expertise to execute internally. We brought in a specialist health economics partner to close that gap.

Step 5: Aligning Supply Chain and Commercial Infrastructure

A product that cannot be consistently supplied is a product that cannot be launched. The CGM system's 14-day sensor carried a twelve-week manufacturing lead time, a cold-chain distribution requirement, and a shelf life of eighteen months — all of which created significant planning complexity across six markets with different launch timing, demand uncertainty, and distribution infrastructure.

We worked with the supply chain team to build a launch inventory plan that balanced the risk of stockouts in anchor markets against the carrying cost of excess inventory in wave-two markets. For Germany and the US, safety stock equivalent to sixteen weeks of demand was built ahead of launch. For France and Spain, inventory was staged at a European 3PL with the flexibility to redirect between markets as actual demand signals emerged.

Brazil required a separate supply chain configuration: import licensing timelines meant that stock needed to be in-country eight weeks before launch, and the local distributor lacked the cold-chain certification required for the sensor. Qualifying an alternative logistics provider and completing the cold-chain audit added five weeks to the Brazilian preparation.

The Results

Twelve months after the programme launched, the scorecard was clear. Germany delivered ahead of plan: first-year revenues of €9.3 million against a target of €8.5 million, with reimbursement listing secured in week three of January 2025. The US focused launch exceeded its endocrinology channel targets by 22%, and two integrated delivery network contracts were signed ahead of schedule. France and Spain were on track for mid-2025 activation; Brazil launched six weeks later than the original plan but within the revised timeline established at the outset of the programme.

Across all six markets, the structured sequencing and shared governance had avoided an estimated €6.1 million of wasted investment in premature market activities — tenders entered too early, salesforce hired before reimbursement was secured, inventory shipped to markets not yet ready to receive it.

The VP of Commercial's closing assessment was measured but direct: "We would have launched in all six markets in the same month and failed in most of them. We launched in the right order, and we succeeded in the ones that mattered first."

In November 2024, execon received a call from the deal team of a mid-market European private equity fund at 7pm on a Thursday. They had just entered exclusivity on the acquisition of a Turkish pharmaceutical manufacturer specialising in oral solid dosage forms — tablets, capsules, and film-coated generics — with an enterprise value of approximately $100 million. The fund had won a competitive auction. The problem: they had ten days to complete due diligence before the exclusivity window closed.

"We need you in Istanbul by Monday," the partner told us. "We have a data room with over 3,000 documents, a management presentation we don't entirely believe, and a factory tour we need someone who knows what to look for."

The Constraints of Compressed Diligence

Ten-day due diligence on a manufacturing asset is not simply compressed — it is a fundamentally different exercise. There is no time for iterative analysis, no margin for false starts, and no opportunity to revisit questions that were not asked in the first site visit. The risk is not just missing something — it is anchoring on the wrong things and not having the time to course-correct.

The target operated two production facilities on the outskirts of Istanbul, employed approximately 620 staff, and generated revenues of $78 million with an EBITDA margin of approximately 14%. Its portfolio comprised 180 registered SKUs across 23 therapeutic categories, with primary exposure to the Turkish domestic market (62% of revenues) and export sales to 34 countries, predominantly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. The company held EU GMP certification for a subset of its lines and was in active pursuit of WHO prequalification for two key volume products.

AI as a Force Multiplier

Before the team boarded the flight to Istanbul, we had already processed the entire data room. Using AI-assisted document analysis, we ingested over 3,200 files — regulatory submissions, batch records, quality agreements, customer contracts, financial statements, and correspondence with TITCK (the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency) — and generated a structured intelligence picture within six hours of data room access.

The AI layer did three things that would have taken a conventional diligence team three to four days to replicate manually: it identified all regulatory inspection findings from the past five years and mapped them to specific production lines and quality systems; it extracted all customer concentration metrics from contracts and cross-referenced them with the revenue data in the financial model; and it flagged 47 documents containing language inconsistent with the management narrative — commercial agreements with termination clauses, quality deviations that had not been disclosed, and a regulatory warning letter from TITCK that had been buried in a folder of routine correspondence.

"By the time we landed in Istanbul," our project lead noted, "we already knew what questions to ask and where the bodies were likely to be buried."

Step 1: Operations Assessment — Reading the Factory

The first two days on the ground were spent at the manufacturing sites. For an OSD manufacturer at this scale, the factory tells a story that no data room can fully convey: the state of equipment maintenance, the discipline of shopfloor procedures, the confidence of operators when asked to walk you through a deviation report.

The primary facility — a 12,000 sqm site built in 2011 — was running at approximately 68% capacity utilisation across its four compression lines and two film-coating units. The equipment was well-maintained and largely within calibration. The shopfloor was organised. But three things gave us pause: validated cleaning procedures for two compression lines had not been revalidated following a line modification eighteen months earlier; environmental monitoring data showed a pattern of exceedances in the granulation suite that had been closed out without adequate trending; and the maintenance management system was entirely paper-based, making equipment reliability impossible to assess without a manual audit of individual logs.

The secondary facility — used primarily for packaging and secondary operations — was more concerning. It was operating under a temporary GMP certificate issued after a TITCK inspection had identified fifteen observations the previous year, three of them classified as major. The corrective action plan was in place, but two of the three major observations remained open at the time of our visit.

Step 2: Quality and Regulatory Risk — The TITCK File

The AI-flagged TITCK correspondence proved to be the most significant finding of the diligence. A warning letter, dated eight months prior, related to a stability study anomaly on the company's highest-volume export product — a metformin 1000mg tablet destined for Gulf Cooperation Council markets. Management believed the matter was closed. It was not.

A review of the complete correspondence thread — over 140 documents, processed and sequenced by the AI tool — revealed that TITCK's response to the company's corrective action submission had not yet been received. The product remained on conditional shipping approval pending regulatory clearance. If clearance was not received, the product — representing approximately $8.2 million of annual export revenue — faced a potential market suspension.

This finding was not discoverable from the management presentation, the financial model, or the summary regulatory schedule provided by the vendor's advisors. It required reading the original Turkish-language TITCK correspondence in full — which the AI tool had translated, sequenced, and flagged within the first hours of data room access.

Step 3: Commercial Assessment — Beyond the Revenue Line

The commercial diligence ran in parallel with the operations work. The target's revenue story was superficially attractive: consistent growth of 12% per annum over five years, a diversified export footprint, and a stated strategy of premiumising the portfolio toward higher-margin specialty generics.

The AI-assisted contract review told a more nuanced story. Of the 34 export markets, six accounted for 71% of export revenues. Three of those six were serviced through a single distributor — a family-owned trading company based in Dubai — operating under a master distribution agreement with exclusivity in eleven countries and a change-of-control clause allowing termination with 90 days' notice upon a change in ownership. The acquisition, if completed, would trigger that clause.

This distributor relationship had not been disclosed as a material contract in the vendor's data room index. It surfaced through the AI contract analysis, instructed to flag any agreement containing change-of-control, exclusivity, or termination provisions. Management's response — that the relationship was "long-standing and not at risk" — did not change our assessment: $11 million of annual revenue terminable with 90 days' notice upon closing was a material contingent liability requiring either contractual resolution or a price adjustment.

Step 4: Synthesis — Building the Adjusted Investment Case

By day seven, we had enough to build the adjusted investment case. The findings were consolidated into a risk-rated issue log — 23 items in total, classified by severity and reversibility — and translated into financial impact scenarios for the fund's model.

The three headline findings were: the TITCK regulatory overhang on the metformin product ($8.2 million revenue at risk, 60% estimated probability of resolution within twelve months); the open GMP observations at the secondary facility (estimated $1.8 million remediation cost, eighteen-month timeline); and the distributor change-of-control risk ($11 million revenue at risk, requiring contractual negotiation prior to closing). In aggregate, base-case adjusted EBITDA for Year 1 post-acquisition was 23% below the vendor's model.

The fund used the findings to reopen price negotiations. A $6.5 million price reduction was agreed, along with an escrow arrangement covering the TITCK regulatory risk and a pre-closing requirement for the vendor to obtain a written continuity waiver from the Dubai distributor.

The Results

The deal closed on schedule. The compressed ten-day timeline was made possible by AI-assisted document processing that effectively doubled the analytical capacity of the diligence team without doubling headcount or cost. Three findings that would likely have been missed — or discovered only after closing — were identified, quantified, and priced into the transaction.

The combined financial impact of these findings, had they remained unaddressed, would have reduced Year 1 EBITDA by approximately $2.8 million against the acquisition model. The fund's operating partner summarised the experience at the post-close debrief: "Ten days felt impossible. It turned out to be enough — but only because the first six hours of AI analysis told us where to spend the next ten days."

In the summer of 2018, execon was asked to step into the procurement function of a Swiss-based generics pharmaceutical manufacturer on an interim basis. The Head of Procurement had departed unexpectedly, a replacement had not yet been identified, and the procurement team — three buyers covering direct materials and two covering indirect spend — was operating without leadership at a moment when several critical supplier contracts were coming up for renewal and a strategic sourcing initiative that had been under discussion for over a year remained entirely unstarted. The brief was straightforward in its scope and demanding in its timeline: take over management of the procurement function for twelve months, stabilise operations, and use the period to build a materially stronger procurement foundation than the one we had inherited.

The company manufactured approximately 120 active SKUs across solid oral dosage forms and a small injectable portfolio, sourcing APIs from twelve primary suppliers — the majority in India and China — alongside a broad base of excipient and packaging material vendors across Europe. Total direct materials spend was in the range of CHF 45 million annually, of which APIs accounted for roughly 65%, excipients 18%, and packaging the remainder. The procurement function had historically operated as a transactional buying operation: placing purchase orders against established supplier relationships, renewing contracts with minimal negotiation, and managing day-to-day supply issues reactively. There was no category management structure, no systematic supplier performance monitoring, and no strategic view of supply risk.

Establishing the Foundation: Spend Visibility and Category Structure

The first four weeks were spent on diagnosis. Three years of purchase order data were extracted, cleaned, and structured into a spend cube — analysed by material category, supplier, product, and business unit. This was the first time the company had a complete, consolidated view of what it was buying, from whom, at what prices, and under what contractual terms. The picture that emerged was one familiar to procurement functions that have grown organically without strategic oversight: significant supplier fragmentation in excipients (over 40 active vendors for a spend base that warranted no more than 15), pricing inconsistency for the same material across different purchase orders, and several large API contracts that had been on automatic renewal for years without a formal competitive review.

From the spend analysis, a category management structure was designed — the first the function had ever had. Direct materials were organised into five categories: APIs by therapeutic area cluster, complex excipients (speciality functional materials), commodity excipients (fillers, binders, lubricants), primary packaging (bottles, blisters, closures), and secondary packaging (cartons, leaflets, labels). Each category was assigned to a named buyer with explicit accountability for supplier relationships, contract management, and the sourcing pipeline. This structural change — apparently simple — was the prerequisite for everything else: it gave the team a framework for prioritisation and gave individual buyers a clear ownership stake in commercial outcomes rather than a queue of transactions to process.

Contract Review: Renegotiation and Risk Reduction

With the category structure in place, the second major workstream was a systematic review of all active supplier contracts — 78 in total across direct and indirect spend. The review assessed four dimensions for each contract: pricing versus current market benchmarks, contractual flexibility (minimum order quantities, lead time commitments, force majeure provisions), quality and regulatory obligations, and expiry timeline. The findings justified the effort. Eleven API contracts were identified as materially above current market pricing, in several cases because they had been negotiated five or more years earlier and had not been reopened despite significant changes in the API manufacturing landscape. Nine excipient contracts had no formal quality agreement attached — a compliance exposure that needed to be remedied regardless of any commercial renegotiation. And seven contracts across both categories contained no supply continuity provisions: no obligation on the supplier to provide advance notice of supply interruption, no safety stock requirement, and no step-in rights in the event of a GMP failure at the manufacturing site.

Over the following six months, all eleven above-market API contracts were renegotiated. The combined saving against previous pricing was CHF 2.8 million on an annualised basis — achieved without changing a single supplier, purely through structured commercial engagement backed by market benchmarking data. Quality agreements were put in place for all direct material suppliers. The most critical contracts were extended with supply continuity clauses that had not previously existed.

Double Sourcing: Eliminating Single-Source API Dependency

The most structurally significant initiative of the twelve-month engagement was the design and initiation of a double sourcing programme for APIs in the top 50% of spend. Of the twelve primary API suppliers, nine were the sole qualified source for their respective molecules at the company's manufacturing site. This was not unusual for a generics manufacturer of this size — qualifying an alternative API source requires analytical method transfer, comparative batch testing, stability studies, and in most cases a regulatory variation filing — but it represented a concentration of supply risk that the company had never formally quantified or addressed.

A risk prioritisation matrix was developed, scoring each single-source API on four factors: revenue criticality (what proportion of the company's turnover depended on uninterrupted supply of this molecule), supplier risk (financial stability, GMP track record, geographic concentration), lead time exposure (how long a supply disruption would take to manifest as a stockout given current safety stock levels), and qualification complexity (how difficult and costly an alternative source qualification would realistically be). The matrix identified eight APIs where the combination of high revenue criticality and elevated supplier risk made double sourcing an immediate priority, and a further six where the programme should be initiated within eighteen months.

For the eight priority molecules, alternative supplier identification and preliminary qualification activities were initiated during the engagement period. By the end of the twelve months, three alternative API qualifications had been completed and the relevant regulatory variations filed; four were in active analytical development at the receiving site; and one had been deferred following a detailed assessment that concluded the existing supplier's risk profile was lower than initially modelled. The double sourcing programme had moved from a recurring agenda item to a live operational reality — with a governance structure, a milestone plan, and named accountabilities that would outlast the interim mandate.

De-specification in Packaging: The Quiet Win

The packaging de-specification exercise was initiated in the final quarter of the engagement and delivered results that surprised even the team that had designed it. The hypothesis was straightforward: folding cartons for pharmaceutical secondary packaging are specified to a quality standard — board weight, printability, surface treatment — that in many cases reflects what had been requested when the product was first launched rather than what was technically necessary for the product's current distribution and storage conditions. Over years of product maturity, secondary packaging specifications frequently become over-engineered relative to their functional requirements.

A systematic review of the carton specifications for the company's top 40 SKUs by volume — covering approximately 70% of total secondary packaging spend — was conducted jointly with the quality and regulatory teams. For each SKU, the review assessed whether the current carton specification could be reduced in board weight or surface finish grade without any impact on GMP compliance, product protection, or shelf presentation. The assessment identified 23 SKUs where a de-specification was technically and regulatorily feasible with a straightforward artwork change and a packaging validation, and a further 11 where a specification review was warranted but required a more detailed stability assessment before a decision could be made.

Implementation was initiated for the 23 confirmed candidates before the end of the engagement period. The annualised cost saving from the lower-grade carton specifications — a reduction in board weight from 350gsm to 280gsm for the majority of the affected SKUs — was calculated at CHF 420,000, with no capital investment, no supplier change, and no quality risk. It was the kind of value that had been sitting unnoticed in the specification register for years, visible only once someone chose to look.

Handover and Legacy

At the twelve-month mark, a permanent Head of Procurement had been recruited — an experienced direct materials buyer from a mid-sized Swiss pharma company — and a structured handover was executed over a four-week transition period. The function that was handed over was materially different from the one that had been inherited: a category management structure with clear ownership, a contract register with full visibility of terms and expiry dates, eleven renegotiated API contracts, an active double sourcing programme with three completed qualifications, and a de-specification pipeline with 23 validated packaging changes in implementation. The combined value delivered during the twelve months — contract savings, avoided cost from supply risk reduction, and the packaging de-specification — totalled approximately CHF 3.5 million on an annualised basis against a direct spend base of CHF 45 million.

The CFO's assessment at the handover meeting was characteristically Swiss in its precision: "You did in twelve months what we had been saying we would do for five years. The difference was that someone was accountable for doing it."

In the spring of 2020, execon was engaged by the European commercial organisation of a large multinational pharmaceutical company to redesign and reinvigorate the commercial model across its affiliates in Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece. The timing could hardly have been more challenging: the engagement launched six weeks after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, at the precise moment when hospitals were closing to non-emergency visits, pharmacies were operating on reduced hours, and pharmaceutical sales representatives across all three markets had been grounded — unable to call on the physicians whose prescribing behaviour determined the business.

The commercial situation had been fragile even before the pandemic. All three affiliates were underperforming against regional benchmarks on key revenue metrics, with salesforce productivity significantly below the company's Western European average. Territory design had not been revisited in several years, leaving some representatives with unmanageable call lists while others covered sparse geographies with limited prescribing potential. Doctor targeting was based largely on historical habit rather than rigorous analysis of current prescribing data. And the concept of digital engagement — remote detailing, e-mail campaigns, webinar-based medical education — had been discussed at the regional level for three years without any of the three affiliates making meaningful progress in implementation. The pandemic made all of this urgent rather than merely important.

Step 1: Commercial Diagnostic — Seeing the Business Clearly

The first phase of the engagement focused on building a granular, data-grounded picture of commercial performance across all three markets. This was harder than it sounds. Each affiliate maintained its own CRM system — in Bulgaria and Romania, versions of the same platform but configured differently and used inconsistently; in Greece, a legacy system that had not been properly updated since a local IT restructuring two years earlier. Sales data existed at the product and territory level but had rarely been analysed at the level of individual representative performance, call frequency, or doctor-specific prescribing trends.

Pulling and cleaning eighteen months of activity and prescription data across three markets took two weeks and revealed a picture that the affiliate managers had suspected but never fully quantified. In Romania, the top 20% of representatives by call productivity were generating over 60% of the incremental prescription volume attributable to detailing activity — while the bottom quartile showed no statistically detectable correlation between their activity and prescribing outcomes in their territories at all. In Bulgaria, territory boundaries had been drawn along administrative lines that bore no relationship to where the relevant specialist physicians actually practised; several high-value hospital-based cardiologists and diabetologists were technically in no representative's territory. In Greece, doctor targeting lists had not been refreshed since a major hospital reorganisation in 2018 that had relocated or retired a significant number of the physicians on the existing call plans.

Step 2: Salesforce Redesign and Territory Realignment

Armed with the diagnostic, the programme moved into a redesign phase that touched every dimension of the commercial model. Territory realignment was the most structurally disruptive element. In all three markets, we rebuilt territory boundaries from the ground up — starting with physician mapping (identifying every specialist in the relevant therapeutic areas by location, hospital affiliation, and estimated prescribing volume) and then designing territories to create balanced workloads and maximise coverage of high-potential doctors.

In Romania, the realignment reduced the number of territories in two overstaffed urban regions and created three new specialist territories focused entirely on hospital-based endocrinologists and cardiologists — a segment that had been nominally covered by general representatives but never effectively engaged. In Bulgaria, fourteen physicians who had been in territory "gaps" were assigned to named representatives for the first time. In Greece, the realignment was the most extensive: thirty-two percent of the existing call universe was deprioritised or removed, freeing capacity to increase call frequency on the top two physician segments from an average of 4.2 to 6.8 visits per year.

Doctor prioritisation was rebuilt using a tiered model that combined prescribing potential, current performance against potential, and accessibility. The resulting segmentation — three tiers, with differentiated engagement frequency, channel mix, and content strategy for each — replaced the previous binary approach of "target" and "non-target" that had treated a high-volume hospital specialist and a small private clinic GP as equivalent commercial objectives.

Step 3: Building the Digital Engagement Engine — Under Pandemic Conditions

The pandemic had eliminated in-person access to physicians at exactly the moment the programme was redesigning the commercial model to make better use of it. Rather than treating this as a blocker, the engagement team used the forced hiatus from physical detailing as the catalyst to build the digital engagement infrastructure that all three affiliates had been deferring for years.

Within eight weeks, a standardised e-detailing platform had been deployed across all three markets, using the company's global remote engagement tool but adapted for local language and local therapeutic content. Representative training was completed remotely — itself an irony that was not lost on the teams. A library of modular digital content was developed for the top three products across six physician segments: short-form clinical data summaries for time-pressured specialists, longer-form disease awareness materials for GPs, and patient case-based discussion modules designed for the interactive remote format rather than adapted from face-to-face slides.

The rollout was not without friction. In Greece, physician adoption of remote interactions was markedly lower than in Bulgaria and Romania — a reflection of both demographic differences in the doctor population and a stronger cultural preference for relationship-based in-person engagement. The programme adapted by deploying a hybrid outreach model: representatives conducted initial outreach by phone to secure a remote detail appointment, supported by a personalised pre-call email with a content teaser. Adoption in Greece improved from 18% to 41% of targeted physicians accepting a remote detail within the first twelve weeks of the programme.

The pandemic also created an unexpected commercial opportunity: medical education. With in-person congresses cancelled, the appetite among physicians for high-quality online clinical content was significant. All three affiliates ran a series of virtual symposia — hosted by local KOLs, moderated by the medical affairs team, and attended by an average of 340 physicians per event across the three markets. These were not promotional events; they were designed as genuine clinical education, which both the KOLs and the attending physicians appreciated, and which generated a measurable halo effect on the prescribing data in the weeks following each event.

Step 4: Performance Management and the Feedback Loop

A redesigned territory and channel model is only as effective as the management system that monitors and adjusts it in real time. In all three affiliates, the existing performance management approach relied on monthly sales reports reviewed in quarterly business reviews — a cadence too slow to catch and correct commercial execution issues before they became revenue problems.

The programme introduced a weekly commercial rhythm: a concise representative-level dashboard covering call activity, remote engagement metrics, and local prescription data, reviewed by first-line managers in a structured thirty-minute team meeting each Monday. Regional managers held a fortnightly review with affiliate commercial directors, focusing on territory-level outliers — both positive (to identify and replicate what was working) and negative (to diagnose and address underperformance before it embedded). The dashboards were deliberately simple: five KPIs per representative, displayed in a format that managers could interpret without analytical support.

Equally important was the feedback loop between representatives and the content team. Digital engagement generated data that face-to-face detailing never had: which content modules physicians engaged with, how long they spent on each slide, which disease areas generated the most follow-up questions. This data was reviewed monthly and used to iteratively improve the content library — retiring materials that were generating low engagement and expanding those that were resonating.

The Outcome

By the end of the third quarter of 2020 — six months after the programme launched, in the middle of a pandemic — all three affiliates were outperforming their pre-COVID baseline on adjusted prescription volume. Romania posted the strongest improvement: a 14% increase in market share across the two primary therapeutic areas, driven primarily by the hospital specialist territory redesign and the new remote engagement model with hospital-based physicians who had previously been underserved. Bulgaria achieved an 11% improvement in salesforce productivity measured by prescription volume per representative. Greece, where the headwinds from physician digital reluctance had been greatest, closed the quarter with a 7% improvement — below target, but a meaningful reversal of the declining trend that had been in place for eighteen months prior.

The programme also produced something less visible in the quarterly numbers: a commercial organisation that had been forced, by circumstance, to build capabilities it would need for the long term. The digital engagement infrastructure, the physician segmentation model, and the weekly performance management cadence did not disappear when in-person visits resumed. They became the foundation of a permanently more sophisticated commercial model.

The Regional VP of Commercial summarised it at the end-of-year review: "The pandemic took away our only tool. It turned out we had been overusing it anyway."

In early 2021, execon was engaged by a Swiss specialty pharmaceutical company that had completed a series of acquisitions across the Middle East, Turkey, and North and Sub-Saharan Africa over the preceding three years. The rationale was compelling: direct access to high-growth emerging markets, established local manufacturing capacity, and registered product portfolios with existing market access. The execution reality, twelve months after the final closing, was considerably more complex. The acquired businesses were still operating largely as they had before the deal — with their own systems, their own ways of working, their own commercial logic, and in several cases their own view of what the acquisition meant for their future. The group had bought assets. It had not yet built a company.

The mandate was to design and lead the post-acquisition integration across seven operating entities spanning Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Morocco, and two Sub-Saharan markets — harmonising products, manufacturing, supply chain, commercial operations, and management reporting under a single group operating model, while preserving the local market knowledge and relationships that had justified the acquisitions in the first place.

The Complexity of Heterogeneous Assets

The first months of the engagement were spent building an honest picture of what had actually been acquired. On paper, the portfolio looked coherent: branded generics and over-the-counter products across cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal categories, three manufacturing sites, and commercial organisations in each market. In practice, almost nothing was standardised. Product registrations used different dossier formats across markets, with several held personally in the names of former owners rather than corporate entities — a legal fragility that created real commercial risk if relationships soured during integration. Manufacturing quality systems ranged from EU GMP-certified operations in Turkey to facilities operating under local standards that had never been benchmarked against international norms. ERP systems were different in every market. Financial reporting used three different chart of accounts structures, and two entities had never produced a management P&L in IFRS.

The people dimension was equally complex. The acquired businesses had been built by entrepreneurial local founders and managers who operated through personal networks, relationship-based selling, and a speed of commercial decision-making that had nothing to do with the approval hierarchies of a Swiss headquarters. Several senior managers had signed earnouts tied to post-acquisition performance — which created the right financial incentives but did not, by itself, create alignment on how performance should be achieved. The Swiss parent's instinct was to install process. The local teams' instinct was to resist it. Both were understandable. Neither alone was sufficient.

Products and Regulatory Harmonisation

The product integration workstream was the most technically complex and the one with the longest lead time. Across the seven markets, the group had inherited a combined portfolio of over 300 registered SKUs, of which a meaningful proportion duplicated the acquirer's own existing product range. Rationalising this portfolio — identifying which products to maintain, which to sunset, and which to re-register under group dossiers — required a systematic market-by-market assessment of revenue contribution, competitive positioning, regulatory status, and manufacturing feasibility.

Turkey presented the most immediate challenge. A significant portion of the Turkish portfolio was registered under a format that the local regulatory authority had announced would no longer be accepted from 2023 onward; dossier upgrades were required for every product the group intended to retain. In Egypt, two of the key-volume products had registrations that had lapsed during the acquisition process and required full re-registration — a process that, under Egyptian pharmaceutical law, could take eighteen months or more. Prioritising the regulatory workload across all seven markets, aligning it with manufacturing site capabilities, and managing the risk to supply continuity during the transition required a level of programme governance that none of the individual entities had previously needed to develop.

Manufacturing and Supply Chain Integration

The three manufacturing sites — one in Turkey, one in North Africa, and one in the Gulf — had each been optimised for their original owners' needs. Integrating them into a coherent group manufacturing network required resolving questions of product allocation, quality system alignment, and capital investment priority that had significant P&L implications and needed to be answered before any individual site integration could proceed meaningfully.

The Turkish site was the most capable and the natural candidate for group manufacturing hub for the region, but it was operating at capacity on its existing customer mix and required a line extension before it could absorb additional group products. The North Africa site had competitive unit costs but had never operated under an export quality standard; a GMP gap assessment identified seventeen findings requiring remediation before the site could supply markets outside its home country. The Gulf facility was the smallest and had the highest cost structure, but it carried a local manufacturing obligation that was material to the group's reimbursement positioning with government payers in the Gulf Cooperation Council markets.

Supply chain integration revealed a different set of fragilities. Each market had its own route-to-market model — some direct to hospital or pharmacy, others through exclusive national distributors whose contracts predated the acquisition and contained exclusivity clauses that could not be terminated without triggering penalty obligations. In Turkey, the currency volatility of the lira created constant pressure on the transfer pricing model between the manufacturing entity and the commercial affiliate, requiring quarterly recalibration to avoid margin compression that would undermine the investment case. In Sub-Saharan Africa, import lead times of twelve weeks combined with limited local storage capacity meant that stockouts were structurally endemic — not a failure of execution but a consequence of infrastructure that needed to be renegotiated at the distribution contract level.

Commercial Integration and Ways of Working

The hardest integration work was neither technical nor legal. It was cultural. The Swiss parent operated with quarterly business reviews, standardised KPI dashboards, formal approval authorities, and a management cadence built around structured data. The acquired businesses had operated on relationship, reputation, and speed — a model well-suited to markets where personal credibility with hospital procurement committees, ministry of health contacts, and wholesale distributors determined commercial outcomes more reliably than any CRM system.

The integration approach was therefore deliberately asymmetric. Rather than imposing the group's operating model wholesale, the programme designed a tiered harmonisation: a non-negotiable floor covering financial reporting, quality compliance, anti-bribery and anti-corruption policies, and pharmacovigilance obligations; and a flexible ceiling where local commercial practices — salesforce deployment models, tender strategies, distributor incentive structures — remained within local management discretion, provided they operated within the group's governance framework and could be reported against agreed KPIs.

Establishing the reporting infrastructure was a programme in itself. Two entities required parallel accounting restatements to produce IFRS-compliant opening balances. Management reporting templates were developed collaboratively with local finance teams rather than mandated from headquarters — a slower process but one that produced formats that local managers actually used, rather than formats produced for headquarters that no-one believed in locally.

The Outcome

Eighteen months into the programme, the integration had reached a stable operating state across all seven markets. Financial reporting was consolidated on a single chart of accounts. The product portfolio had been rationalised from 300-plus to 190 active SKUs, with a regulatory upgrade programme in place for the remainder. The Turkish manufacturing site had completed its line extension and was producing group products for three export markets. The GMP gap programme at the North Africa site was on track for external audit within six months. Commercial organisations in all seven markets were operating against shared KPIs, within the group compliance framework, and with local management teams that had retained — and in several cases strengthened — their market relationships.

What the programme could not accelerate was trust. The most durable outcome of any post-acquisition integration is not the systems or the processes — it is the decision by the people in the acquired organisation to act as owners of a shared enterprise rather than sellers of a business they no longer control. That decision is made incrementally, through dozens of small interactions over months and years. The programme created the conditions for it. The rest was time.

The group's Chief Integration Officer put it plainly at the final programme review: "We spent the first year trying to make them like us. We spent the second year trying to understand what we could learn from them. The second year was more valuable."

In late 2020, execon was engaged by one of Europe's largest pharmaceutical and life sciences manufacturing groups to lead a structured, multi-site programme addressing an emerging but underestimated risk: the extended loss of grid power — a so-called blackout scenario lasting twenty-four hours or more. The trigger was a confluence of structural changes in European energy markets. The accelerated phase-out of conventional baseload generation, the substitution of coal and nuclear capacity with intermittent renewable sources, and mounting evidence of targeted cyberattacks against electricity network operators had materially increased the probability of prolonged outages. For a company operating continuous chemical and pharmaceutical production processes, the consequences of an unplanned power loss — batch losses, safety incidents, destruction of temperature-sensitive inventories, regulatory non-compliance — could be severe and in some cases irreversible.

The group operated multiple large-scale integrated manufacturing campuses, each running continuous processes with uninterrupted utility requirements: steam, cooling water, compressed air, nitrogen, and of course electricity. Several sites also housed external tenant companies on shared infrastructure, complicating both the risk picture and the governance of any response. The mandate was comprehensive: assess the blackout risk across all major sites, design and implement technical and organisational countermeasures, and establish a group-wide emergency response and business continuity framework capable of withstanding an outage of at least forty-eight hours.

Phase 1: Risk Assessment and Baseline Mapping

The programme began with a rigorous site-by-site analysis at the group's three largest integrated manufacturing campuses. For each site, the assessment mapped the full dependency chain — from grid connection points through the on-site power generation and distribution infrastructure to individual process units — and modelled the consequences of interruption at each node. This was not a theoretical exercise: it required working closely with site energy managers, production planners, and safety teams to understand which processes could be safely shut down, which required managed rundown sequences, and which — particularly in biologics and sterile manufacturing — could tolerate no interruption at all.

The baseline picture was sobering. All three sites depended heavily on grid power for day-to-day operations, with on-site generation capacity that was sufficient for normal operations but had never been stress-tested as a standalone island grid. Emergency power systems covered safety-critical installations — emergency lighting, fire suppression, certain control systems — but not production continuity. Utility interdependencies meant that the loss of a single energy stream could trigger cascading failures across multiple production areas within hours.

A particular vulnerability was nitrogen supply. Several critical manufacturing processes required a continuous flow of nitrogen as an inert blanketing gas. The on-site emergency nitrogen reserve at the primary site was sized for safety purposes only — approximately ten hours at reduced consumption — with no provision for extended production continuity. Separately, the analysis identified that existing site-to-site communication relied almost entirely on the public telephone network, which would itself become unreliable within hours of a sustained grid failure.

Phase 2: Technical Hardening

With the risk landscape mapped, the programme moved into a parallel design and implementation phase covering both infrastructure hardening and organisational preparedness. On the technical side, the centrepiece was the conversion of the primary site's on-site power plant to genuine island operation capability — the ability to disconnect from the grid, stabilise internal generation, and supply the site's critical loads independently. This required modifications to control and protection systems that had been designed for parallel grid operation, not standalone generation, as well as validation that the generation capacity could maintain frequency and voltage stability under the variable load profiles of the site's manufacturing processes.

To close the nitrogen supply gap, the team identified an adjacent industrial gas operator whose liquid air separation unit sat on the site perimeter. Under normal operations, this unit supplied industrial gases to external customers; in a blackout scenario, it could be reconfigured to supply the site's nitrogen pipeline — provided that the site could supply it with power from its island grid. Negotiating this arrangement, including the contractual safeguards and the necessary new cable connection, required coordination across three parties and added a meaningful buffer to the site's nitrogen autonomy: from ten hours to well over forty-eight, sufficient to cover the design blackout scenario.

Similar hardening measures were implemented at the two secondary sites, adapted to their specific infrastructure profiles. At one site, the primary vulnerability was in the supply of essential cooling water; at the other, it was the electrical supply to a critical clean utilities system serving sterile manufacturing. In both cases, the solution involved a combination of backup generation uplift, targeted equipment modifications, and revised operating procedures for managed shutdown sequences.

Phase 3: Crisis Management and Business Continuity Framework

Technical resilience alone was insufficient. A blackout lasting more than a few hours would overwhelm site-level response capacity and demand coordinated decision-making at group level — across production, supply chain, regulatory, commercial, and communications functions simultaneously. The programme therefore dedicated equal effort to the organisational dimension.

A blackout-specific chapter was developed for the group's crisis management handbook, defining clear escalation triggers, roles and responsibilities, and decision authorities for each phase of an extended outage. A dedicated group-level crisis coordination centre was established, equipped with satellite communication terminals to ensure command-and-control capability independent of the public network. Each major site received its own satellite communication devices, enabling direct contact between site crisis teams and the central coordination hub even in the absence of any terrestrial telecoms infrastructure.

Every production unit across the three primary sites developed its own blackout operating instruction — a detailed, site-specific protocol covering managed shutdown sequences, safety checks, inventory protection measures, and restart procedures. These were not generic templates: they were written by and for the operators who would execute them, reflecting the specific process chemistry, equipment configurations, and safety requirements of each unit. Across the three sites, over forty such instructions were developed, validated, and brought into force.

Phase 4: Group Rollout and Business Continuity

With the primary sites hardened and the crisis management framework in place, the programme turned to two remaining challenges: extending the lessons to the group's broader portfolio of manufacturing sites, and addressing the business continuity implications of an extended IT system outage — a risk that had emerged from the analysis as significant and underappreciated.

A structured transfer programme was designed to carry the methodologies, tools, and hard-won operational insights from the primary sites to the group's remaining manufacturing locations across Europe. Rather than attempting a simultaneous rollout, the programme took a sequenced approach: a series of introduction workshops for the nominated blackout coordinators at each site, followed by tailored assessments using the standardised vulnerability assessment methodology developed during the primary site work. This allowed the group to build internal capability progressively rather than creating a dependency on external support at every site.

The IT business continuity dimension required separate treatment. The analysis had established that a sustained blackout would disconnect the group's central server infrastructure from its user base within approximately forty-eight hours — effectively halting all business-critical applications across the group globally, from manufacturing execution systems and quality management platforms to ERP, order management, and customer-facing logistics. A business continuity management programme was scoped to address this: beginning with a design phase to evaluate scenarios ranging from accepting the risk to implementing full IT resilience measures, with the decision architecture structured around the intersection of business process criticality and the feasibility and cost of technical continuity solutions.

The Outcome

By the time the programme reached its first major milestone review, the primary sites had been transformed from facilities with ad hoc emergency provisions to organisations with structured, tested blackout resilience. Island operation capability had been established and validated. The nitrogen supply gap had been closed through a novel industrial partnership. Crisis management protocols were in force across all major sites. Satellite communication infrastructure had been installed at every critical location. And the knowledge base built at the primary sites was being systematically transferred to the group's broader manufacturing network.

The programme also delivered something less tangible but equally valuable: a common language for blackout risk across a large, decentralised manufacturing organisation, and the governance infrastructure — regular steering committee reviews, shared milestones, named site coordinators — to sustain the capability over time. Blackout resilience had shifted from an engineering curiosity to a boardroom priority, with clear accountability and a roadmap that extended several years into the future.

The group's Head of Energy and Site Services reflected on the programme's scope at the final steering committee presentation: "We came into this thinking we had a power supply problem. We ended up building a crisis management system."

In the autumn of 2023, execon was engaged by a specialty pharma company preparing to launch a prescription cardiovascular treatment across nine European markets — Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The product had received EMA approval and carried a compelling clinical profile: a first-in-class mechanism targeting residual cardiovascular risk in patients with elevated triglycerides despite stable statin therapy, backed by a large-scale outcomes study demonstrating a statistically significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events. The science was strong. The commercial readiness was not.

The central challenge was structural: the company had nine to twelve months to build operational and commercial infrastructure in nine markets simultaneously — roughly half the eighteen to twenty-four months that pharma launch practice considers a minimum. Affiliates had been incorporated in the major markets, but several remained thinly staffed, without general managers in place, and without the network relationships that reimbursement negotiations in Europe require. The mandate was clear: design a go-to-market playbook that was realistic within the available window, identified the critical path in each country, and avoided the expensive mistakes that compressed launch timelines characteristically produce.

A Dual Research Approach

The engagement was structured in three phases. The first involved structured interviews with seventeen internal stakeholders across the nine affiliates — general managers, medical affairs directors, market access leads, commercial directors, and marketing managers — to map current state, identify operational pain points, and capture the questions each country team most needed answered before launch.

The findings were striking in their consistency. Across almost every market, the same cluster of problems surfaced: reimbursement timelines too tight for adequate KOL and agency engagement, promotional materials incomplete or absent, no shared digital asset management system, and country SOPs largely inherited from a US corporate infrastructure that did not map to EU regulatory realities. In Germany, the salesforce structure created ambiguous reporting lines that generated friction between external representatives and internal key account managers. In France, the required pharmaceutical operator licence — a legal prerequisite to commercialise drugs in the country — had been outsourced to a third party, creating a dependency risk that experts unanimously recommended be insourced before launch. In the Nordics, no clear plan existed for managing the supply chain complexity arising from four countries with four different distribution models.

The second phase engaged fifteen external industry experts — seasoned commercial, medical, and market access executives with direct experience launching products in each of the nine markets. Their input validated and sharpened the internal picture, and added a layer of country-specific tactical intelligence that no internal team could have generated alone.

The Critical Path: Reimbursement and KOL Engagement

Across all nine markets, the expert consensus on the single most critical pre-launch activity was identical: build the reimbursement dossier early and invest in KOL engagement well before submission. In European pharmaceutical markets, a product's price and reimbursement outcome is rarely determined by the data alone — it is shaped by the relationships between the company's medical and market access teams and the clinical opinion leaders, payer committees, and patient advocacy groups whose endorsement or opposition frames the negotiating context.

With a compressed timeline, this had direct sequencing consequences. In Germany — the anchor market whose reference price would set the ceiling for Italy, Spain, and other Mediterranean countries — the priority was an early, rigorous engagement with IQWIG and the relevant cardiology KOL community, combined with a cost-effectiveness narrative anchored in hospitalisation reduction data rather than unit price comparisons. Italy's launch was deliberately sequenced three or more months after Germany's reimbursement outcome, in recognition of Italy's explicit practice of referencing German pricing.

In the United Kingdom, the post-Brexit regulatory environment added a layer of complexity: post-approval activities were now managed through the MHRA rather than the EMA, requiring a distinct regulatory strategy and a salesforce clustering approach that treated England and Northern Ireland together and the Republic of Ireland separately, in line with post-Brexit trade arrangements.

Building the Operational Foundation

Across all nine countries, the external experts were consistent on a second priority: hiring general managers with established local networks before attempting any meaningful engagement with agencies, payors, or KOLs. This was not a conventional view — many pharma launches prioritise clinical and medical roles ahead of general management. But in markets where reimbursement committees and hospital formulary decisions are relationship-dependent, an affiliate GM without existing relationships to the key decision-makers is structurally disadvantaged from the outset. In Sweden, specifically, external experts identified the engagement with regional pharmaceutical teams across Sweden's twenty-one health regions as a pre-launch workstream of equal importance to the dossier itself.

The operational review also surfaced a gap that internal teams had not fully reckoned with: the absence of an EU-wide launch planning and project management function. Each affiliate was managing its launch preparation independently, with no cross-country visibility on timelines, dependencies, or emerging risks. Milestones were not tracked against a common framework. Best practices from markets that had already launched were not being systematically shared with those that had not.

The recommendation was structural: implement a central launch coordination office — a lean governance layer with weekly cadence, shared milestone tracking across all nine markets, and a clear escalation path for country-level blockers. The Germany launch, the most advanced, became the reference model from which other affiliates could extract learning rather than repeat avoidable mistakes.

Country-Specific Critical Actions

The operational guides delivered for each country translated the strategic priorities into country-specific action plans. Beyond the common threads, several markets required bespoke interventions.

In France, the insourcing of the pharmaceutical operator status — a process that takes approximately nine months to complete — was identified as a non-negotiable pre-launch requirement. The outsourced arrangement that had been put in place created legal exposure and a dependency that could not be unwound quickly if the third-party relationship deteriorated. A local law firm specialising in healthcare was engaged to confirm the path.

In Sweden and the broader Nordic region, the supply chain complexity was unique and underappreciated. Each of the four countries operates a distinct distribution model: Denmark requires direct wholesaler purchases; Sweden mandates a local distributor stock point to comply with a law requiring product availability within twenty-four hours of request anywhere in the country, including on islands; Norway allows monthly deliveries to pharmacy chains directly from the central 3PL; Finland can be served through the same Swedish distributor. A Scandinavian-speaking supply chain manager was recommended as an early hire — a role whose operational scope did not fit neatly into any of the standard affiliate organisational templates.

The Outcome

The engagement delivered a set of country operational guides covering all nine markets, each structured around market access, medical affairs, commercial, regulatory, pharmacovigilance, supply chain, and general management. The guides gave the executive team a clear picture of what needed to happen in each country, in what sequence, and with what organisational prerequisites — a level of operational granularity that the organisation had not previously consolidated in a single view.

Perhaps more importantly, the process surfaced the risk the company had not fully articulated internally: that the compressed timeline was manageable only with a deliberate prioritisation of activities. Not everything on the launch checklist could be completed in nine to twelve months. The recommendation was not to attempt all of it — it was to identify the ten to fifteen activities that would determine success or failure, sequence them correctly, and execute them with precision. The remaining items could follow in the two years after launch.

The Chief Operating Officer's assessment at the final readout was measured and direct: "We came into this project knowing we were behind. We leave it knowing exactly what 'behind' means and what we need to do about it."