If you work in clinical operations, clinical technology, or trial supply, you have probably felt this tension already. Your organization looks leaner than it did a year ago, yet expectations around timelines, quality, and regulatory readiness have not eased.
Layoffs have reshaped the industry; execution pressure has not.
According to recent industry reporting, large pharmaceutical and biotech companies have continued workforce reductions throughout 2023 and 2024, even as pipeline activity and trial complexity remain high [1][2]. On paper, this looks like efficiency. In practice, many teams are discovering that work did not disappear with headcount; it simply moved.
Most clinical programs do not fail when teams are reduced. What happens instead is quieter and more difficult to measure.
What often changes is who does that work.
We regularly hear from clinical operations and technology leaders who are spending more time in execution than they planned. Not because they want to, but because there is no longer a dedicated subject matter expert available to absorb that work.
This is how execution risk creeps in; not through obvious breakdowns, but through subtle overload.
One of the most underestimated impacts of layoffs is the loss of lived-system-knowledge. SOPs remain. Validation documents exist. What disappears is context.
Multiple industry studies have highlighted that loss of institutional knowledge is one of the most significant hidden costs of workforce reductions, particularly in regulated and technology-driven environments [3].
When that knowledge leaves, teams compensate by working harder. Meetings increase. Senior leaders step deeper into tactical decisions. Calendars fill up.
Velocity drops even though effort goes up.
The instinctive response to this pressure is hiring. In today’s environment, that solution is often unrealistic.
More importantly, many teams do not need more people. They need specific experience at very specific moments.
This is where many organizations start to rethink the structure of support rather than the size of the org chart.
Across pharma and biotech, flexible staffing models are increasingly used to manage execution risk without committing to permanent headcount. Industry workforce analyses show growing adoption of contract and fractional expertise in highly specialized domains, including clinical systems and supply chain operations [4].
In practical terms, this means bringing in experienced eClinical subject matter experts who can:
Step into UAT, system testing, or study support work without long onboarding cycles
Provide informed decision support during high-risk execution windows
Reduce pressure on internal leaders who are already overextended
This is not about outsourcing ownership. It is about restoring balance between strategy and execution.
At BC Consulting, we work with teams navigating exactly this reality. We see capable organizations doing their best to deliver complex trials with fewer experienced hands than before.
Our role is not to replace internal teams, but to support them with on-demand eClinical SMEs who already understand the systems, workflows, and regulatory expectations involved. That support is part-time, hourly, and scoped to real work that needs to get done.
When used well, this model reduces execution risk, shortens recovery time after reorganizations, and allows internal leaders to return to leading instead of firefighting.
If the work still exists, does it make sense for your most senior people to be doing it?
For many teams, that question is the starting point for a different conversation about how expertise shows up when it matters most.
[1] Fierce Biotech. “Biopharma layoffs continue as companies reset pipelines and budgets.”
[2] Evaluate Pharma. “Pharma workforce trends and R&D productivity analysis.”
[3] Harvard Business Review. “The Hidden Cost of Losing Institutional Knowledge.”
[4] McKinsey & Company. “The rise of flexible talent models in life sciences.”