The question was not whether to use AI. It was where it was actually working
A clinical stage biopharma team was looking at AI across clinical development, regulatory affairs and its digital function.
The difficulty was never finding claims about what AI can do. It was separating the use cases that were genuinely adding value from the ones that were still being talked about.
That distinction is hard to draw from outside. A supplier describes capability and a conference describes ambition. What a comparable organisation has put into production, and kept there, is a different question.
Twelve peer leaders, three functions, two regions
The work was structured conversations rather than a survey. Twelve peer leaders took part, across clinical, regulatory and digital functions, in the US and Europe.
Peers rather than suppliers or analysts. Everyone answering had faced the same decision inside an organisation like the client's, which is the vantage point the client did not already have.
Structured is the word doing the work. The same ground was covered in each conversation, which is what makes twelve of them comparable rather than twelve separate opinions.
Digital transformation work tends to be reported outward as success. A conversation between peers is where the qualifications get added.
Where it was working, what to expect, and where to start
The conversations showed where AI was adding value across the three functions.
They set out the AI governance challenges to expect. Knowing those before starting is what separates an adoption plan from an adoption intention.
And they produced the sensible first steps for adoption, which is the part a team cannot reason its way to on its own.
What the client took away was a peer grounded view of AI adoption across clinical development, regulatory affairs and digital work. It came from people who had already made the call rather than from people selling the tools.
