Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences

From lab to market: change management for every stage of drug development

Pharmaceutical change management from lab to market is the discipline of getting people to work differently at every stage of drug development: discovery, clinical trials, regulatory review, launch and post-market. The Accelerating Implementation Methodology (AIM), developed by Don Harrison at IMA Worldwide, is the only change methodology that scores the sponsorship, readiness and reinforcement each stage depends on.

By Ann Marvin, IMA Worldwide

$2.23Baverage cost to develop one drug asset, end to endDeloitte, 15th annual R&D returns report, 2025
~2 of 3drug launches miss their own year-one expectationsMcKinsey launch research
323active drug shortages in Q1 2024, a US recordAmerican Society of Health-System Pharmacists
The problem

Why do discoveries die between the lab and the patient?

Short versionThe science usually survives. The transitions are what kill programs: every stage boundary asks a different set of people to work a different way.

Translational researchers call the gap between promising preclinical work and successful clinical development the valley of death: a widening divide between bench research and bedside application that has made turning discoveries into treatments persistently difficult (Seyhan, Lost in translation: the valley of death across preclinical and clinical divide, Translational Medicine Communications, 2019).

The pattern repeats at every later boundary. A molecule does not stall because chemistry stops working at the handoff; it stalls because a new set of people, in a new function, under a new regulator, has to adopt a new way of working, and nothing in the program plan owns that. That is the change management job, and it looks different at each stage.

Five stages in a line: discovery and preclinical, clinical trials, regulatory review, launch, and post-market. The line dips into a valley labeled the valley of death between preclinical and clinical, and later stage boundaries are marked as pressure points at the clinical-to-commercial handoff and post-approval changes. Illustrative of the pattern, not plotted from data. the valley of death Seyhan, 2019 1 · Discovery & preclinical 2 · Clinical trials 3 · Regulatory review 4 · Launch the handoff window 5 · Post-market every boundary asks different people to work a different way
The journey this page follows. Illustrative of the pattern, not plotted from a dataset.
The journey

What does change management do at each stage of drug development?

Follow the pipeline. At every stage the science question changes, and so does the change management question.

Lab bench to candidate

Discovery and preclinical

Candidate molecules are found, screened and carried through safety and mechanism work. The change decisions here look small, a platform, a workflow, a go/no-go gate, but they set the complexity everything downstream inherits.

Where it breaks

Scientists are asked to adopt new platforms and harmonized processes mid-discovery, and adoption quietly fails while the science continues the old way. The valley of death is fed long before the clinic (Seyhan, 2019).

The AIM play

A Business Case for Action for each change, Key Role Mapping so it is clear who decides and who must work differently, and a scored readiness baseline before the rollout, so risk is a number before the spend.

Documented: IMA Worldwide ran AIM across 80+ R&D projects at one global pharmaceutical R&D organization, from digital pathology and LIMS replacement to lab automation and five-site SOP harmonization (IMA Worldwide program archive, 2020 to 2022).
First human studies to pivotal data

Clinical trials

Phases I through III test safety and efficacy while sites, vendors and functions coordinate protocol changes, enrollment and data integrity. Every amendment is a change that sites must actually run, not just acknowledge.

Where it breaks

Trial timelines have lengthened: Phase III durations rose about 16 percent over five years before stabilizing in 2024 (IQVIA, 2025). Amendments and enrollment rescue plans land on site teams that were never made ready for them.

The AIM play

Readiness built element by element at the site level: Information, Willingness, Ability, Confidence, Control. Resistance from investigators and coordinators is treated as data about what is missing, with named escalation paths.

Two horizontal bars compare Phase III trial duration five years ago with now: the recent bar is about 16 percent longer, per IQVIA, with the trend stabilizing in 2024. Illustrative proportions. Phase III duration, five years ago now +16% IQVIA, 2025
Evidence to authorization

Regulatory review

Agencies assess the clinical evidence and the chemistry, manufacturing and controls behind it. The FDA, the EMA and national agencies each shape what may change, how it is documented, and how fast it can move.

Where it breaks

Compliance lives or dies on daily behavior, not binders: a peer-reviewed analysis counted 1,766 FDA warning letters to drug manufacturers between 2016 and 2023 (PubMed, 2025). A signed SOP nobody follows is an audit finding waiting to happen.

The AIM play

Treat every procedure change as an adoption project: sponsors contracted to visible tasks, readiness checked before effective dates, and observable behavior as the compliance evidence, tracked alongside the documentation.

Documented: the same R&D archive includes health-authority workflow, trade-compliance and IACUC procedure changes run as AIM projects, adoption managed, not assumed.
Approval to patients

Launch

Commercial, medical, regulatory, manufacturing and supply must move as one. This is the point where the most functions have to change how they work at the same time, on the least slack.

Where it breaks

About two of three drug launches miss their own year-one expectations (McKinsey launch research). The plan is rarely the problem; the synchronized behavior change across field, medical and supply teams is.

The AIM play

A sponsorship cascade with six non-delegable leadership tasks contracted before approval, and reinforcement designed in advance: what leaders reinforce carries three times the weight of what they announce (Don Harrison, AIM Practical Guide).

Three launch markers: two shown amber for launches that miss their own year-one expectations, one teal for a launch that meets them, per McKinsey launch research. misses year one misses year one meets year one About two of three drug launches miss their own year-one expectations. McKinsey launch research.
Honest note: IMA Worldwide's documented pharmaceutical cases are in R&D, quality and operations rather than commercial launch. The mechanism, synchronized behavior change under a sponsorship cascade, is the same one documented in those settings.
Market entry onward

Post-market and supply

Pharmacovigilance, quality systems, technology transfer, scale-up and a stream of post-approval changes, each of which must be adopted at every affected site, in every affected market, to keep product available.

Where it breaks

A global supply network faces divergent regional requirements for every post-approval change, a complexity the industry itself has flagged as a threat to product availability (global post-approval change management analysis, 2024; lean stability industry survey, 2022). The US recorded 323 active drug shortages in Q1 2024, an all-time high (ASHP).

The AIM play

Reinforcement outlasts the project team: a reinforcement plan per site, and the Targeted Reinforcement Index measuring whether timing, relevance and intensity actually favor the new behavior. Without it, adoption fades within 90 days (Don Harrison, AIM Practical Guide).

Documented: a $70M global SAP program at a pharmaceutical manufacturer ran with AIM's checkpoints built into the project plan and delivered on time, under budget, with no scope cut to make the date (documented IMA Worldwide client case study).
The critical window

The clinical-to-commercial handoff decides the launch

Between the last patient out and the first patient prescribed sits a window where development hands the therapy to everyone else: regulatory finishes the dossier, manufacturing scales and transfers, commercial and medical build the field. Treated as separate workstreams, they collide at approval. Treated as one linked change program with decision gates, they land together.

The AIM structure for the window is specific: sponsorship contracted before the window opens, so every leader whose people must change owns visible tasks; readiness measured in each receiving function before its go-live, not after; and the reinforcement calendar started at approval, because the launch behaviors that are not reinforced in the first 90 days revert (Don Harrison, AIM Practical Guide).

Run as separate workstreams

Each function optimizes its own plan. The collision happens at approval, when field teams, supply and medical discover each other's assumptions, live, in front of the market.

Run as one change program

One owner for the window, decision gates that check readiness and sponsorship, not just task completion, and a single reinforcement plan that starts on approval day.

The distinction

Why is change control not enough?

GMP change control governs documents. It approves, versions and audits what is allowed to change. It is necessary, and it says nothing about whether the analyst, the operator or the medical science liaison actually works the new way on Monday. Change management governs that second job, and in a regulated industry the gap between the two is an audit finding, a deviation trend, or a launch that misses.

That is the job the Accelerating Implementation Methodology was built for: sponsorship turned into specific leadership tasks, readiness measured before effective dates, reinforcement carried past go-live, and observable behavior as the success measure, tracked alongside the business and compliance numbers. The full pharmaceutical picture, including where the industry's own implementation record stands, is on the pharmaceutical change management page, and teams that want to carry the method themselves start with AIM certification.

Change control decides what may change. Change management decides whether it actually does.
Common questions

Lab to market, answered

How is change management different from GMP change control?

They do different jobs, and a drug program needs both. GMP change control governs documents, specifications and processes: what is approved, versioned and auditable. Change management governs whether people actually work the new way once the change is approved. A revised SOP that is signed off but not followed passes change control and fails implementation. The Accelerating Implementation Methodology (AIM) measures and manages that second job: sponsorship, readiness and reinforcement, with observable behavior as the evidence.

Where in drug development does change management matter most?

Two windows carry disproportionate risk. The clinical-to-commercial handoff, where development, regulatory, manufacturing and commercial teams must change how they work at the same time, and where McKinsey finds about two thirds of drug launches miss their year-one expectations. And the post-approval period, where a global supply network faces divergent regional requirements for every change: the industry set a record 323 active drug shortages in the first quarter of 2024 (ASHP). Both windows are behavior problems as much as process problems.

What does AIM measure at each stage of drug development?

AIM measures the conditions that predict adoption, stage by stage. At program start, the Implementation History Assessment scores how past changes actually went, producing a numbered risk forecast. During execution, readiness is measured across Information, Willingness, Ability, Confidence and Control, and sponsorship is checked against six specific non-delegable leadership tasks. After go-live, the Targeted Reinforcement Index measures whether the reinforcement system rewards the new behaviors across timing, relevance and intensity. Throughout, the success measure is observable behavior tracked alongside the business numbers, not instead of them.

Who owns change management in a pharmaceutical organization?

Sponsorship cannot be delegated: the leaders whose people must work differently own specific, visible tasks that nobody can do for them. The supporting capability can live wherever it fits the organization: a PMO, quality, HR, regulatory operations or a dedicated change function. IMA Worldwide does not require a center of excellence; where one exists, AIM works with it, and where it does not, the capability is built into the functions that already run the work, and transferred there through practitioner certification.

The science is yours. The adoption is AIM's job.

Wherever your program sits on the pipeline, the next stage boundary is a change project. Start with a conversation about the one in front of you.

Subscribe to IMA's Blog