Portfolio

Selected engagements

Examples of engagements, grouped by the kind of decision each one informed. In each one, we tested the assumptions behind a decision, compared the realistic options, and set out what had to be true for the chosen plan to work.

Client names and identifying details are withheld. Figures marked as estimates are modeled from engagement data and stated assumptions.

Bound strategy reports stacked on a walnut desk by a window

Decision type

Growth and Portfolio Decisions

About this service

Testing an Aggressive Growth Target Before Funding It

Top-10 global biopharma, Specialty Franchise

The challenge: Leadership had committed to growing an established brand several times over, closing a gap of several hundred million dollars in annual sales. Promotional support had recently been reduced, and a competitor with a similar product was moving toward approval. Several country launches were delayed by pricing, reimbursement or regulatory issues. Meanwhile, digital health companies were proposing partnerships faster than the team could evaluate them. Leaders needed to know which growth options were viable before committing the next budget cycle.
What we did: We tested each major growth lever behind the target: new indications, new geographies and digital health partnerships. We sized the incremental revenue opportunity for each adjacent indication and tracked launch readiness across multiple markets. We also built a weighted framework to evaluate digital health partners on clinical evidence, user base, data value and commercial readiness. We then translated these findings into a prioritized investment plan for the next budget cycle.
The impact: Identified a new revenue opportunity of over $300 million a year from a new indication in a previously untapped market, assuming a modest share of eligible patients were treated.
Exposed well over $500 million in revenue at risk in one major market, showing leadership that this revenue depended on a pending product launch and giving them the evidence to decide whether to fund it.
Directed the next budget cycle toward the growth levers most likely to close the gap, and screened out digital health partners whose evidence did not justify investment.

Sequencing Global Launch Markets for a Novel Medical Device

Global medtech, Medical Devices

The challenge: A novel device was approaching commercial launch, with a next-generation version close behind. Physicians required hands-on training before adoption, and training capacity was limited, so prioritizing one market meant deferring another. As a new category, it had little published market data. Markets that appeared attractive on paper could still stall on reimbursement, tender processes or regulatory timelines.
What we did: We built a market prioritization model covering the competitive landscape, market size, pricing, regulatory pathway and market access, and validated it with in-country commercial leaders. We also scored each market on its ability to build physician experience and clinical evidence, so that the first launch would establish the foundation for the next-generation device. We delivered country profiles, each with a clear recommendation.
The impact: Concentrated limited physician training capacity on the highest-value markets, narrowed from a broad candidate list on five-year sales potential in both units and revenue.
Built the commercial foundation for the next-generation device, which most of the future patient population would require, by sequencing launches to establish physician experience and clinical evidence first.
Matched pricing and adoption investment to each country's revenue potential: volume-based pricing to grow share in selected markets, and KOL-led adoption to prepare markets with lower near-term revenue.

Decision type

Operating Model and Investment Priorities

About this service

Knowing When to Stop a Flagship Technology Investment

Global biopharma, Regulatory Affairs

The challenge: Regulatory submissions require extensive documentation, and much of that content is re-authored from one submission to the next. This company had invested in a content automation platform designed to speed authoring and enable content reuse. The vendor promised to cut months from each submission and to make most content reusable. Well into the program, the time savings remained undefined and writers found the tool difficult to use. The experts needed to review its output were the same people needed for a submission calendar that was about to expand significantly.
What we did: We tested the vendor's claims on time, cost and quality against the platform's actual performance. We assessed both technology maturity and organizational readiness, from content standards and governance to change ownership. We then compared three paths forward: continuing with the platform, accelerating submissions through improved ways of working, and AI-assisted authoring with expert review.
The impact: Gave leadership a clear case to avoid an estimated $2 million to $6 million in first-year licensing and implementation costs by stopping before further commitment.
Preserved scarce expert capacity for an expanding submission calendar, where it protects launch timelines, rather than spending it on correcting the platform's output.
Opened a faster path to submission, with an estimated $3.5 million to $14 million in earlier time-to-market value at stake for each week gained, through improved ways of working and AI-assisted authoring.

Moving an AI Tool From Deployment to Adoption

Global biopharma, Regulatory Affairs and Digital

The challenge: During regulatory review, health authorities issue formal queries that require rapid, accurate responses. Managing these queries required thousands of hours of manual effort per product, and the company was planning a growing number of launches. An AI tool that classified incoming queries and retrieved precedent responses had already been deployed. However, deployment did not guarantee adoption. Experts needed reasons to trust the tool, and leaders needed evidence that it reduced effort.
What we did: We established the conditions for sustained adoption: a cross-functional superuser network, structured user feedback loops, training, and defined KPIs for accuracy, usefulness and time saved. Working with end users, operations and quality teams, we defined the requirements for the next release, including generative AI proofs of concept.
The impact: Built expert trust in the AI tool by demonstrating more than 90% accuracy in classifying incoming queries, as validated by experts.
Gave experts a proven starting point for more than 90% of queries reviewed, with the tool retrieving a relevant precedent response for each.
Created estimated capacity savings equal to several full-time employees (FTEs) across near-term launches, rising to about 12 FTEs over five years, assuming a 25% reduction in manual effort.

Scaling Through Acquisitions Without Losing the Front Line

National healthcare services provider

The challenge: The company was growing rapidly through acquisitions. Each deal added locations with their own roles, titles and staffing levels. At the same time, many existing locations were underperforming, and leaders could not determine whether the cause was overstaffing or a capability gap. The operating model had to be redesigned without disrupting care. With high frontline turnover, across-the-board cuts risked continuity of care, and each acquisition added integration work for local leaders who were already stretched.
What we did: We built a workload-based staffing model across the network's locations and support roles. We standardized role definitions and segmented locations into intervention tiers, so that each received the right combination of staffing changes and leadership development. We paired the new operating model with leadership behaviors tied to the company's mission, piloted it in one region and then scaled it.
The impact: Identified an estimated $7 million to $8 million a year in labor cost available for savings or reinvestment in growth roles, by showing that locations carried well over 100 more support roles than their workload required.
Grew annual revenue by an estimated $50 million or more and operating income by close to $10 million, by increasing service hours delivered by double digits across the pilot locations.
Gave leaders a repeatable model for integrating acquired locations, with common role definitions and intervention tiers showing where to act on staffing and where to invest in leadership.

Decision type

Partnership and Collaboration Decisions

About this service

Stress-Testing a Growth Case Before an Acquisition

Global life science tools company, Corporate Development

The challenge: A corporate development team was evaluating the acquisition of a company that makes specialized research instruments. The seller's forecast assumed that strong customer demand would continue to grow. The team needed to know whether customer satisfaction would translate into repeat purchases and revenue growth. The user base was small, specialized and difficult to reach, and competitors were moving toward integrated, data-connected platforms that could reshape customer requirements.
What we did: We sourced potential interviewees and led structured voice-of-customer interviews with scientists in academic, government and industry settings across several countries. The interviews tested product fit, purchasing decisions and unmet needs. We also benchmarked the target's technology against competitors investing in integrated instruments and data platforms.
The impact: Exposed the main risk in the seller's growth case before the acquisition decision: nearly every user would recommend the product, yet fewer than half expected to buy again, while the seller's forecast assumed nearly all of them would.
Validated an estimated $5 million to $7 million a year in recurring consumables revenue from the existing installed base, a proven base the deal case could rely on.
Identified an estimated $10 million to $17 million revenue opportunity in an adjacent application that more than a third of users wanted the platform to support.

One Medical Strategy Across a Multi-Brand Portfolio

Global biopharma, Oncology Medical Affairs

The challenge: A growing portfolio of targeted therapies planned KOL engagement, medical society partnerships and diagnostic testing initiatives brand by brand. As a result, teams repeatedly approached the same KOLs and institutions, lacked a shared view of society relationships and treated testing as each brand's separate concern. This mattered because these therapies benefit only patients who are identified through testing, and many eligible patients were never tested in time to inform treatment.
What we did: Building on extensive stakeholder interviews, we translated an approved Medical Affairs transformation roadmap into three detailed plans: a cross-brand KOL engagement model, a structured approach to medical society partnerships, and a defined role for Medical Affairs in improving testing rates. Each plan was tied to the portfolio's strategic imperatives, with clear deliverables and owners.
The impact: Eliminated duplicate outreach to the same KOLs and institutions by replacing brand-by-brand engagement with one coordinated model for a defined set of priority KOLs.
Secured alignment with global leadership on medical objectives, clearing the plans for rollout across the portfolio.
Identified an estimated $50 million to $150 million in additional annual revenue for the lead brand, from better identification of eligible patients.

Defending a Chronic Disease Franchise Through Partnerships

Global biopharma, Chronic Disease

The challenge: A US franchise serving millions of patients faced competitors that were moving first on connected devices and digital patient support, while its own connected offerings awaited launch. Physicians chose devices on product compatibility and patient cost rather than data features, and a flagship patient program converted fewer than 1 in 4 enrollees into patients.
What we did: We evaluated expansion options with an existing partner, weighing revenue upside, regulatory timelines, cannibalization and liability. We built a partner evaluation framework with a cultural screen and fit scorecard, redesigned the patient program around primary care and payer-relevant data, and tied these choices to the franchise business plan and the lifecycle plan for a next-generation product.
The impact: Opened a faster path to connected care through a partner field force many times larger than a key competitor's dedicated team, without waiting for in-house offerings.
Set aside a licensing option before investment, avoiding product liability exposure and faster competitor entry.
Narrowed program targeting by about 60%, concentrating field and program spend on the prescribers most likely to act, and surfaced an adjacent patient segment that most target prescribers already treated.

Organizations we've worked with

Global pharma, biotech, medtech and life science tools leaders.

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