Building an adoption roadmap that survives contact with reality

2. Phase 2: Medium-risk, workflow-embedded tools. Where AI touches decisions but humans retain control.

3. Phase 3: High-risk, high-reward bets. Where AI influences regulated outcomes (drug safety, trial design, manufacturing quality).

Each phase should be funded partly by savings or productivity gains demonstrated in the prior phase. This isn't just financial discipline, it's political capital. A completed Phase 1 project is the evidence that lets a Chief Medical Officer or Chief Digital Officer defend a Phase 3 budget line to the board.

Phase 1: Where to start (and why)

Good Phase 1 candidates share three traits: contained data scope, no direct patient-facing regulatory risk, and a measurable baseline.

Commercial function examples:

• Sales call summarization and CRM (customer relationship management) note generation. Sales reps spend hours logging physician interactions. AI transcription and summarization tools cut this dramatically. Measurable against a clear baseline (minutes per rep per day).
• Medical, legal, and regulatory (MLR) review triage. MLR review is the internal process, required before any promotional material goes external, that checks marketing content against regulatory and scientific accuracy standards. AI can flag likely compliance issues before human reviewers see the document, speeding up (not replacing) the review.

R&D function examples:

• Literature and competitive intelligence summarization. Scanning PubMed or clinical trial registries for competitor pipelinepipelineAll active sales opportunities across the stages of the sales process, together with their combined potential value and probability of closing.Voir la définition complète → moves. Low risk because outputs are advisory, not decision-making.
• Lab notebook and document digitization. Converting unstructured lab records into structured, searchable data. Unglamorous, but it's the data foundation everything later depends on.

The common thread: humans stay firmly in the loop, and failure modes are inconvenient rather than dangerous.

Phase 2: Where AI starts touching decisions

Once Phase 1 has delivered a documented efficiency gain (say, "20% reduction in MLR review cycle time," an estimate of the kind of gain such tools typically claim, always validate against your own baseline), you have currency to spend on Phase 2.

Commercial: Next-best-action engines that recommend which physicians a rep should prioritize, based on prescribing patterns and engagement history. Here AI shapes a business decision, so you need model monitoring and bias checks (does the model systematically deprioritize certain physician segmentssegmentsDividing a market into distinct groups of customers who share similar needs, characteristics or behaviours, so each group can be served with a tailored approach.Voir la définition complète → or geographies?).

R&D: AI-assisted target identification, using models to rank which biological targets are worth experimental investment. This is where explainability starts to matter: scientists need to understand *why* a model ranked a target highly, not just trust the score. This is the domain where tools like AlphaFold (DeepMind's protein structure prediction model) have demonstrated real scientific value, but even there, output is a hypothesis generator, not a final answer.

Phase 3: The hard, regulated stuff

Phase 3 is where AI touches things the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) or EMA (European Medicines Agency) actually regulate: AI-assisted clinical trial patient matching, AI models used in drug safety signal detection (pharmacovigilance), or AI-supported elements of manufacturing quality control under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) rules.

This is where the FDA's evolving guidance on AI in drug development becomes directly relevant. The FDA published a draft guidance in January 2025 on use of AI in regulatory decision-making for drugs and biologics, emphasizing a risk-based credibility assessment framework (source: FDA.gov). The core idea: the more consequential the AI's role in a regulatory decision, the more rigorous the validation evidence required. That's the same phased-risk logic this lesson is teaching, applied by the regulator itself.

Practically, this means Phase 3 projects need:

• Documented model validation (performance against a defined ground truth)
• Human override mechanisms at every consequential decision point
• Audit trails sufficient to survive an FDA inspection or EMA assessment

A simple way to think about sequencing risk versus payoff:

This isn't a formula to invent numbers with, it's a discipline: each phase's business case should reference the prior phase's actual measured outcome, not a vendor's projected outcome.

What "surviving contact with reality" actually means

Roadmaps die in three predictable ways, and each has a countermeasure:

1. Organizational friction. A reorg, a merger, a change of Chief Digital Officer, wipes out institutional memory of why the roadmap was sequenced the way it was. Countermeasure: document the phasing logic itself, not just the projects, so a new leader can see the reasoning, not just a project list.

2. Data readiness gaps. Phase 2 and 3 projects often fail because the data infrastructure assumed in the plan doesn't exist. A pharmacovigilance AI model is only as good as the adverse event data feeding it, and many companies discover mid-project that their data is fragmented across legacy systems. Countermeasure: treat data infrastructure investment as its own phase, not a footnote to a model-building phase.

3. Regulatory drift. Rules are moving. The EU AI Act (in force since 2024, with phased obligations through 2027) classifies certain healthcare AI uses as "high-risk," triggering conformity assessment obligations. A Phase 3 project scoped in 2026 may face different compliance requirements by the time it reaches deployment. Countermeasure: build regulatory review checkpoints into the roadmap timeline itself, not just at project kickoff.

🎬 [VIDEO: "How AI Is Transforming Drug Discovery" - youtube.com/results?search_query=AI+drug+discovery+pharma - search for recent explainer content from established science or industry channels covering AI's role across the pharma R&D pipelinepipelineAll active sales opportunities across the stages of the sales process, together with their combined potential value and probability of closing.Voir la définition complète →]

Key Takeaways

• Sequence by risk, not by ambition. Start with contained, low-regulatory-risk wins in commercial or R&D operations; use their documented results to fund riskier, higher-value bets.
• Each phase should be evidence, not just budget, for the next. A board should see "Phase 1 delivered X, therefore Phase 2 is justified," not a wishlist of AI use cases.
• Regulatory exposure should define your phase boundaries. Tools that never touch a regulated decision (literature summarization) belong early; tools that influence drug safety or trial design decisions belong in a later phase with FDA/EMA-aware validation built in.
• Data infrastructure is a phase, not a detail. Many roadmaps fail at Phase 2 because the data foundation assumed by the plan was never actually built.
• Document the logic, not just the project list. Roadmaps survive leadership turnover only if the reasoning behind sequencing is written down, not just remembered.