Services

Operating Model and Investment Priorities

Talon Group Consulting helps life science leaders decide how their operating models, governance, and capabilities should evolve to support the strategy. That includes which automation and other technology investments the strategy depends on across R&D, clinical, regulatory, and commercial functions. Your teams and chosen partners carry out the work. Talon Group Consulting tests the plan's assumptions, compares the options, and clarifies the conditions required for execution.

Laboratory bench with glassware and a scientist in the background
Common pressures

What leaders tell us they are facing

  • Operating models and governance that need to change as the strategy changes
  • Scaling globally while maintaining compliance and quality
  • Unclear measures for whether operational investments are paying off
  • Automation and technology requests competing for the same budget
  • Adoption risk that has to be priced into the plan
  • Pressure on cost and timelines in a highly regulated environment
What you receive

Outputs built for the decision

Each output is an input to the decision in front of you, not a standalone report.

Operating model options

The realistic ways a function could be organized and governed to deliver the strategy, with the trade-offs of each.

Investment priorities

Which technology and capability investments the strategy depends on, and what to fund, stop, or sequence, and in what order.

Readiness assessment

Whether process, governance, data, and change ownership are in place for an investment to deliver what it promises.

Decision conditions

The measures and review points that tell leadership whether an investment is earning its place.

Client success

Knowing When to Stop a Flagship Technology Investment

Global biopharma, Regulatory Affairs

The decision
Continue funding a flagship content automation platform that promised faster, lower-cost regulatory submissions, or redirect scarce regulatory experts to a submission calendar that was about to expand significantly?
What made it hard
The business case was compelling on paper and the program had executive sponsorship. In practice, the output still required heavy expert review, and the experts needed to correct it were the same people needed for active submissions.
Our approach
We tested the vendor's time, cost and quality claims against the platform's actual performance. We assessed readiness across content standards, governance, data and change ownership. We then compared three paths: continuing with the platform, accelerating submissions through improved ways of working, and AI-assisted authoring with expert review.
What leadership gained
A clear case to avoid an estimated $2 million to $6 million in first-year licensing and implementation costs by stopping before further commitment. Scarce expert capacity stayed on active submissions that protect launch timelines, and leaders gained explicit criteria for revisiting the investment. The decision rested on evidence, not on sunk cost.

Learn more in the portfolio

Facing a consequential strategy decision?

Bring the decision in front of you. We will help you frame it, test it and decide where technology belongs in the answer.

Discuss a strategic decision