The Change Management Playbook: How to Bring AI into Pharma?
Perfect technology, 23% adoption. Here's what I learned about AI change management in pharma after multiple implementations, including the failures that taught me everything.
I'm writing this during one of the biggest transitions of my life. And maybe that's why this topic feels so urgent right now.
Because whether you're navigating a major life change or leading an AI implementation, the fundamentals are the same: change is hard, people need support and nobody hands you a playbook for the messy parts.
The product worked flawlessly. The ROI was clear. So why was our AI-powered tool achieving only 23% adoption six months post-launch?
The answer: we'd built a perfect solution for a change management problem we'd completely ignored.
After managing international product portfolios through multiple AI implementations, I've learned that technology is rarely the bottleneck. The people side? That's where transformation lives or dies.
Why Pharma Change Management Is Different
Regulatory stakes are non-negotiable. When I introduced AI-assisted document review to our team, their first question wasn't "how fast is it?" but "how do we validate it for the autorities?" That's not resistance; that's professionalism.
Established processes have saved lives. That manager who's been doing things the same way for 15 years? Her consistency might have caught mistakes that prevented failures. Respecting that expertise while introducing AI isn't optional.
Cross-functional complexity multiplies resistance points. During a post-market insights collection with AI, we'd secured support from cross-functional team. Launch day arrived, and IT flagged data security concerns we hadn't addressed. Three-month delay. Entirely preventable.
The lesson: Pharma change management requires patience that tech culture often doesn't value and validation that other industries might skip.
The Resistance You'll Actually Face (And Why It's Valuable)
1. Professional Skepticism (The Most Valuable Kind)
This isn't resistance, it's risk management. When team members push back, they're asking: How was this validated? What happens when it's wrong? Who's accountable?
What worked: We brought skeptics into the validation process. Let Managers tested our AI on historical cases. Own experience create strongest advocacy, not because we convinced, but because we let people verify for themselfs.
2. Process Protection
When someone says "we've always done it this way," they're often protecting institutional knowledge that isn't documented anywhere.
What worked: We documented current processes before changing anything. Then we showed how AI augmented expertise rather than replaced it. The shift from "AI replaces your judgment" to "AI handles routine work so you can focus on complex cases" changed the conversation.
3. Fear of Irrelevance
Nobody says it in meetings, but everyone's thinking it: "Is AI going to make me obsolete?"
What worked: Honesty. We acknowledged roles would change, then invested in re-skilling and showed clear paths for how expertise would become more valuable. The manager who feared replacement became our AI oversight specialist - higher-value work, better job security.
The Four-Phase Framework That Works
Phase 1: Build the Case (Before Anyone Touches the Technology)
You need the human case, not just the business case. What does this AI mean for your regulatory specialist's Monday afternoon?
Instead of leading with ROI, I started meetings with stories: "Remember last quarter's all-nighter reviewing reports before deadline? This AI flags priority cases first. You still make every decision, but you're not reading 500 reports to find the 12 that actually matter."
Your framework:
For each stakeholder group: What specific pain point does this solve?
For each role: What does their day look like after AI?
For resistors: What concerns need addressing before launch?
Phase 2: Create Your Champion Network
Here's what doesn't work: executive sponsorship alone.
What does: finding the respected voices in each department. Not the most senior people. The most trusted.
What we gave champions:
Early access (weeks before general rollout)
Direct line to the development team
Real power to flag concerns and shape features
What they gave us: Ground-level insights and credibility we couldn't buy with any communication plan.
Phase 3: Support the Transition (The Messy Middle)
Here's the reality: Week 1 brings excitement. Week 6 brings frustration. Week 10 brings doubt. Week 16 brings breakthrough. Week 24 becomes the new normal.
Most companies budget support through Week 6. The critical period is Weeks 6-16 when doubt is high and breakthroughs haven't happened yet.
What adequate support looks like:
Daily office hours (Months 1-3): More effective than formal training.
Use case library: Real examples from your organization beat vendor case studies.
Support escalation path: 4-hour response for critical issues.
Feedback loops: Weekly conversations in month 1, not surveys.
Budget reality: Triple what you think you'll need. You'll use it.
Phase 4: Measure What Actually Matters
We tracked login rates, features used, time saved. All useful. None predictive of actual adoption.
What we learned to measure:
Voluntary usage: Are people using AI when they don't have to?
Support ticket trends: Same questions = training or UX problems
Advocate emergence: Who's voluntarily training colleagues?
Confidence levels: Predicts sustained usage better than any metric
Unexpected use cases: When teams find applications you didn't plan, it's truly embedded
The metric that mattered most: At six months, I asked: "If we took this AI away tomorrow, would you fight to get it back?" 80% said yes.
The Conversations Nobody Prepared Me For
"Will this replace me?"
My initial response: "No, this augments your work."
Why that failed: I answered the question they asked, not the fear underneath it.
What I learned to say: "Your role will change. Some tasks the AI will handle faster. But the judgment calls, edge cases, complex regulatory questions, those need your expertise more than ever. Let's talk specifically about what changes for you and what skills become more valuable."
"I found an error in the AI's output"
My first instinct: Defend the AI.
What I actually did: "Thank you. Show me exactly what happened."
That "error" caught a validation gap our testing had missed. The skeptic became our quality champion, she'd proven the system was trustworthy because we actually listened when it wasn't.
The principle: AI will make mistakes. Make reporting them a contribution, not a complaint.
"The old way was fine, why are we changing?"
What they meant: "I'm comfortable with the old system, and this uncertainty is exhausting."
What worked: "You're right, the old way was fine. This isn't about fixing something broken. It's about being ready for what's coming. We're changing now while we can do it thoughtfully, not later when we're scrambling."
What I'd Do Differently
Failure 1: The Perfect Pilot
We spent four months creating the perfect pilot. Controlled environment. Ideal users. Flawless execution.
Scaling failed within two weeks.
Lesson: Perfect pilots in artificial conditions don't prepare you for messy reality.
Now I do: Pilot with representative users, including skeptics. The problems you find there are the ones you'll face at scale.
Failure 2: The Communication which Sparks
Beautiful announcements. FAQ documents. Video tutorials. Town halls.
People still said they didn't know what was happening.
Lesson: Information isn't understanding. People were drowning in content but starving for conversation.
Now I do: Less broadcasting, more dialogue. Small group discussions beat all-hands announcements.
Failure 3: Technology-First Approach
We showed what AI could do before explaining why it mattered.
Lesson: People don't resist technology. They resist change they don't understand or didn't help create.
Now I do: Start with the problem. Let teams articulate pain points before introducing AI.
Your Monday Morning Action Plan
This Week:
Map your stakeholders (90 minutes) – Not departments. Individuals. Who has informal influence? Who will resist? Who will champion?
Identify your champion network (2 hours) – Find 5-10 respected people across functions. Schedule coffee chats.
Draft "why this matters to YOU" messages (3 hours) – For each group: What pain point this solves, what their day looks like after AI, what concerns they have.
Next 30 Days:
Build support infrastructure (daily questions? escalation path?)
Create "quick wins" showcase plan
Schedule weekly feedback conversations (not surveys)
Months 2-6:
Stay visible (office hours, lunch-and-learns)
Celebrate small victories publicly
Adjust based on real usage patterns
Conclusion: The Real Transformation
`The hardest part isn't the destination. It's trusting the process in the middle when nothing makes sense yet.
I'm living this in my personal life right now, and I see it every day in organizational change.
The transformation happens when your manager who swore she'd never trust AI starts training colleagues. When your team stops asking "can we use AI?" and starts asking "which AI tool works best?" When people find applications you never planned for.
That's not technology implementation. That's organizational change.
Going through my own life change while writing this taught me: change requires vulnerability, patience, and more support than you think you'll need. That's true whether you're implementing AI or figuring out your next chapter.
Three years ago, I would have told you AI success was about picking the right algorithms.
Today? It's about building the right environment for people to learn, experiment, fail safely, and ultimately embrace a new way of working.
The technology will keep improving. Your change management capabilities? Those you have to build intentionally.
☕ Now go have that conversation you've been avoiding with your biggest skeptic. They probably have the insights you need most.
I'm writing this during one of the biggest transitions of my life. And maybe that's why this topic feels so urgent right now.
Because whether you're navigating a major life change or leading an AI implementation, the fundamentals are the same: change is hard, people need support and nobody hands you a playbook for the messy parts.
The product worked flawlessly. The ROI was clear. So why was our AI-powered tool achieving only 23% adoption six months post-launch?
The answer: we'd built a perfect solution for a change management problem we'd completely ignored.
After managing international product portfolios through multiple AI implementations, I've learned that technology is rarely the bottleneck. The people side? That's where transformation lives or dies.
Why Pharma Change Management Is Different
Regulatory stakes are non-negotiable. When I introduced AI-assisted document review to our team, their first question wasn't "how fast is it?" but "how do we validate it for the autorities?" That's not resistance; that's professionalism.
Established processes have saved lives. That manager who's been doing things the same way for 15 years? Her consistency might have caught mistakes that prevented failures. Respecting that expertise while introducing AI isn't optional.
Cross-functional complexity multiplies resistance points. During a post-market insights collection with AI, we'd secured support from cross-functional team. Launch day arrived, and IT flagged data security concerns we hadn't addressed. Three-month delay. Entirely preventable.
The lesson: Pharma change management requires patience that tech culture often doesn't value and validation that other industries might skip.
The Resistance You'll Actually Face (And Why It's Valuable)
1. Professional Skepticism (The Most Valuable Kind)
This isn't resistance, it's risk management. When team members push back, they're asking: How was this validated? What happens when it's wrong? Who's accountable?
What worked: We brought skeptics into the validation process. Let Managers tested our AI on historical cases. Own experience create strongest advocacy, not because we convinced, but because we let people verify for themselfs.
2. Process Protection
When someone says "we've always done it this way," they're often protecting institutional knowledge that isn't documented anywhere.
What worked: We documented current processes before changing anything. Then we showed how AI augmented expertise rather than replaced it. The shift from "AI replaces your judgment" to "AI handles routine work so you can focus on complex cases" changed the conversation.
3. Fear of Irrelevance
Nobody says it in meetings, but everyone's thinking it: "Is AI going to make me obsolete?"
What worked: Honesty. We acknowledged roles would change, then invested in re-skilling and showed clear paths for how expertise would become more valuable. The manager who feared replacement became our AI oversight specialist - higher-value work, better job security.
The Four-Phase Framework That Works
Phase 1: Build the Case (Before Anyone Touches the Technology)
You need the human case, not just the business case. What does this AI mean for your regulatory specialist's Monday afternoon?
Instead of leading with ROI, I started meetings with stories: "Remember last quarter's all-nighter reviewing reports before deadline? This AI flags priority cases first. You still make every decision, but you're not reading 500 reports to find the 12 that actually matter."
Your framework:
For each stakeholder group: What specific pain point does this solve?
For each role: What does their day look like after AI?
For resistors: What concerns need addressing before launch?
Phase 2: Create Your Champion Network
Here's what doesn't work: executive sponsorship alone.
What does: finding the respected voices in each department. Not the most senior people. The most trusted.
What we gave champions:
Early access (weeks before general rollout)
Direct line to the development team
Real power to flag concerns and shape features
What they gave us: Ground-level insights and credibility we couldn't buy with any communication plan.
Phase 3: Support the Transition (The Messy Middle)
Here's the reality: Week 1 brings excitement. Week 6 brings frustration. Week 10 brings doubt. Week 16 brings breakthrough. Week 24 becomes the new normal.
Most companies budget support through Week 6. The critical period is Weeks 6-16 when doubt is high and breakthroughs haven't happened yet.
What adequate support looks like:
Daily office hours (Months 1-3): More effective than formal training.
Use case library: Real examples from your organization beat vendor case studies.
Support escalation path: 4-hour response for critical issues.
Feedback loops: Weekly conversations in month 1, not surveys.
Budget reality: Triple what you think you'll need. You'll use it.
Phase 4: Measure What Actually Matters
We tracked login rates, features used, time saved. All useful. None predictive of actual adoption.
What we learned to measure:
Voluntary usage: Are people using AI when they don't have to?
Support ticket trends: Same questions = training or UX problems
Advocate emergence: Who's voluntarily training colleagues?
Confidence levels: Predicts sustained usage better than any metric
Unexpected use cases: When teams find applications you didn't plan, it's truly embedded
The metric that mattered most: At six months, I asked: "If we took this AI away tomorrow, would you fight to get it back?" 80% said yes.
The Conversations Nobody Prepared Me For
"Will this replace me?"
My initial response: "No, this augments your work."
Why that failed: I answered the question they asked, not the fear underneath it.
What I learned to say: "Your role will change. Some tasks the AI will handle faster. But the judgment calls, edge cases, complex regulatory questions, those need your expertise more than ever. Let's talk specifically about what changes for you and what skills become more valuable."
"I found an error in the AI's output"
My first instinct: Defend the AI.
What I actually did: "Thank you. Show me exactly what happened."
That "error" caught a validation gap our testing had missed. The skeptic became our quality champion, she'd proven the system was trustworthy because we actually listened when it wasn't.
The principle: AI will make mistakes. Make reporting them a contribution, not a complaint.
"The old way was fine, why are we changing?"
What they meant: "I'm comfortable with the old system, and this uncertainty is exhausting."
What worked: "You're right, the old way was fine. This isn't about fixing something broken. It's about being ready for what's coming. We're changing now while we can do it thoughtfully, not later when we're scrambling."
What I'd Do Differently
Failure 1: The Perfect Pilot
We spent four months creating the perfect pilot. Controlled environment. Ideal users. Flawless execution.
Scaling failed within two weeks.
Lesson: Perfect pilots in artificial conditions don't prepare you for messy reality.
Now I do: Pilot with representative users, including skeptics. The problems you find there are the ones you'll face at scale.
Failure 2: The Communication which Sparks
Beautiful announcements. FAQ documents. Video tutorials. Town halls.
People still said they didn't know what was happening.
Lesson: Information isn't understanding. People were drowning in content but starving for conversation.
Now I do: Less broadcasting, more dialogue. Small group discussions beat all-hands announcements.
Failure 3: Technology-First Approach
We showed what AI could do before explaining why it mattered.
Lesson: People don't resist technology. They resist change they don't understand or didn't help create.
Now I do: Start with the problem. Let teams articulate pain points before introducing AI.
Your Monday Morning Action Plan
This Week:
Map your stakeholders (90 minutes) – Not departments. Individuals. Who has informal influence? Who will resist? Who will champion?
Identify your champion network (2 hours) – Find 5-10 respected people across functions. Schedule coffee chats.
Draft "why this matters to YOU" messages (3 hours) – For each group: What pain point this solves, what their day looks like after AI, what concerns they have.
Next 30 Days:
Build support infrastructure (daily questions? escalation path?)
Create "quick wins" showcase plan
Schedule weekly feedback conversations (not surveys)
Months 2-6:
Stay visible (office hours, lunch-and-learns)
Celebrate small victories publicly
Adjust based on real usage patterns
Conclusion: The Real Transformation
`The hardest part isn't the destination. It's trusting the process in the middle when nothing makes sense yet.
I'm living this in my personal life right now, and I see it every day in organizational change.
The transformation happens when your manager who swore she'd never trust AI starts training colleagues. When your team stops asking "can we use AI?" and starts asking "which AI tool works best?" When people find applications you never planned for.
That's not technology implementation. That's organizational change.
Going through my own life change while writing this taught me: change requires vulnerability, patience, and more support than you think you'll need. That's true whether you're implementing AI or figuring out your next chapter.
Three years ago, I would have told you AI success was about picking the right algorithms.
Today? It's about building the right environment for people to learn, experiment, fail safely, and ultimately embrace a new way of working.
The technology will keep improving. Your change management capabilities? Those you have to build intentionally.
☕ Now go have that conversation you've been avoiding with your biggest skeptic. They probably have the insights you need most.
I'm writing this during one of the biggest transitions of my life. And maybe that's why this topic feels so urgent right now.
Because whether you're navigating a major life change or leading an AI implementation, the fundamentals are the same: change is hard, people need support and nobody hands you a playbook for the messy parts.
The product worked flawlessly. The ROI was clear. So why was our AI-powered tool achieving only 23% adoption six months post-launch?
The answer: we'd built a perfect solution for a change management problem we'd completely ignored.
After managing international product portfolios through multiple AI implementations, I've learned that technology is rarely the bottleneck. The people side? That's where transformation lives or dies.
Why Pharma Change Management Is Different
Regulatory stakes are non-negotiable. When I introduced AI-assisted document review to our team, their first question wasn't "how fast is it?" but "how do we validate it for the autorities?" That's not resistance; that's professionalism.
Established processes have saved lives. That manager who's been doing things the same way for 15 years? Her consistency might have caught mistakes that prevented failures. Respecting that expertise while introducing AI isn't optional.
Cross-functional complexity multiplies resistance points. During a post-market insights collection with AI, we'd secured support from cross-functional team. Launch day arrived, and IT flagged data security concerns we hadn't addressed. Three-month delay. Entirely preventable.
The lesson: Pharma change management requires patience that tech culture often doesn't value and validation that other industries might skip.
The Resistance You'll Actually Face (And Why It's Valuable)
1. Professional Skepticism (The Most Valuable Kind)
This isn't resistance, it's risk management. When team members push back, they're asking: How was this validated? What happens when it's wrong? Who's accountable?
What worked: We brought skeptics into the validation process. Let Managers tested our AI on historical cases. Own experience create strongest advocacy, not because we convinced, but because we let people verify for themselfs.
2. Process Protection
When someone says "we've always done it this way," they're often protecting institutional knowledge that isn't documented anywhere.
What worked: We documented current processes before changing anything. Then we showed how AI augmented expertise rather than replaced it. The shift from "AI replaces your judgment" to "AI handles routine work so you can focus on complex cases" changed the conversation.
3. Fear of Irrelevance
Nobody says it in meetings, but everyone's thinking it: "Is AI going to make me obsolete?"
What worked: Honesty. We acknowledged roles would change, then invested in re-skilling and showed clear paths for how expertise would become more valuable. The manager who feared replacement became our AI oversight specialist - higher-value work, better job security.
The Four-Phase Framework That Works
Phase 1: Build the Case (Before Anyone Touches the Technology)
You need the human case, not just the business case. What does this AI mean for your regulatory specialist's Monday afternoon?
Instead of leading with ROI, I started meetings with stories: "Remember last quarter's all-nighter reviewing reports before deadline? This AI flags priority cases first. You still make every decision, but you're not reading 500 reports to find the 12 that actually matter."
Your framework:
For each stakeholder group: What specific pain point does this solve?
For each role: What does their day look like after AI?
For resistors: What concerns need addressing before launch?
Phase 2: Create Your Champion Network
Here's what doesn't work: executive sponsorship alone.
What does: finding the respected voices in each department. Not the most senior people. The most trusted.
What we gave champions:
Early access (weeks before general rollout)
Direct line to the development team
Real power to flag concerns and shape features
What they gave us: Ground-level insights and credibility we couldn't buy with any communication plan.
Phase 3: Support the Transition (The Messy Middle)
Here's the reality: Week 1 brings excitement. Week 6 brings frustration. Week 10 brings doubt. Week 16 brings breakthrough. Week 24 becomes the new normal.
Most companies budget support through Week 6. The critical period is Weeks 6-16 when doubt is high and breakthroughs haven't happened yet.
What adequate support looks like:
Daily office hours (Months 1-3): More effective than formal training.
Use case library: Real examples from your organization beat vendor case studies.
Support escalation path: 4-hour response for critical issues.
Feedback loops: Weekly conversations in month 1, not surveys.
Budget reality: Triple what you think you'll need. You'll use it.
Phase 4: Measure What Actually Matters
We tracked login rates, features used, time saved. All useful. None predictive of actual adoption.
What we learned to measure:
Voluntary usage: Are people using AI when they don't have to?
Support ticket trends: Same questions = training or UX problems
Advocate emergence: Who's voluntarily training colleagues?
Confidence levels: Predicts sustained usage better than any metric
Unexpected use cases: When teams find applications you didn't plan, it's truly embedded
The metric that mattered most: At six months, I asked: "If we took this AI away tomorrow, would you fight to get it back?" 80% said yes.
The Conversations Nobody Prepared Me For
"Will this replace me?"
My initial response: "No, this augments your work."
Why that failed: I answered the question they asked, not the fear underneath it.
What I learned to say: "Your role will change. Some tasks the AI will handle faster. But the judgment calls, edge cases, complex regulatory questions, those need your expertise more than ever. Let's talk specifically about what changes for you and what skills become more valuable."
"I found an error in the AI's output"
My first instinct: Defend the AI.
What I actually did: "Thank you. Show me exactly what happened."
That "error" caught a validation gap our testing had missed. The skeptic became our quality champion, she'd proven the system was trustworthy because we actually listened when it wasn't.
The principle: AI will make mistakes. Make reporting them a contribution, not a complaint.
"The old way was fine, why are we changing?"
What they meant: "I'm comfortable with the old system, and this uncertainty is exhausting."
What worked: "You're right, the old way was fine. This isn't about fixing something broken. It's about being ready for what's coming. We're changing now while we can do it thoughtfully, not later when we're scrambling."
What I'd Do Differently
Failure 1: The Perfect Pilot
We spent four months creating the perfect pilot. Controlled environment. Ideal users. Flawless execution.
Scaling failed within two weeks.
Lesson: Perfect pilots in artificial conditions don't prepare you for messy reality.
Now I do: Pilot with representative users, including skeptics. The problems you find there are the ones you'll face at scale.
Failure 2: The Communication which Sparks
Beautiful announcements. FAQ documents. Video tutorials. Town halls.
People still said they didn't know what was happening.
Lesson: Information isn't understanding. People were drowning in content but starving for conversation.
Now I do: Less broadcasting, more dialogue. Small group discussions beat all-hands announcements.
Failure 3: Technology-First Approach
We showed what AI could do before explaining why it mattered.
Lesson: People don't resist technology. They resist change they don't understand or didn't help create.
Now I do: Start with the problem. Let teams articulate pain points before introducing AI.
Your Monday Morning Action Plan
This Week:
Map your stakeholders (90 minutes) – Not departments. Individuals. Who has informal influence? Who will resist? Who will champion?
Identify your champion network (2 hours) – Find 5-10 respected people across functions. Schedule coffee chats.
Draft "why this matters to YOU" messages (3 hours) – For each group: What pain point this solves, what their day looks like after AI, what concerns they have.
Next 30 Days:
Build support infrastructure (daily questions? escalation path?)
Create "quick wins" showcase plan
Schedule weekly feedback conversations (not surveys)
Months 2-6:
Stay visible (office hours, lunch-and-learns)
Celebrate small victories publicly
Adjust based on real usage patterns
Conclusion: The Real Transformation
`The hardest part isn't the destination. It's trusting the process in the middle when nothing makes sense yet.
I'm living this in my personal life right now, and I see it every day in organizational change.
The transformation happens when your manager who swore she'd never trust AI starts training colleagues. When your team stops asking "can we use AI?" and starts asking "which AI tool works best?" When people find applications you never planned for.
That's not technology implementation. That's organizational change.
Going through my own life change while writing this taught me: change requires vulnerability, patience, and more support than you think you'll need. That's true whether you're implementing AI or figuring out your next chapter.
Three years ago, I would have told you AI success was about picking the right algorithms.
Today? It's about building the right environment for people to learn, experiment, fail safely, and ultimately embrace a new way of working.
The technology will keep improving. Your change management capabilities? Those you have to build intentionally.
☕ Now go have that conversation you've been avoiding with your biggest skeptic. They probably have the insights you need most.
Let's Decode the Future of Medicine with Technology
- Together
Let's Decode the Future of Medicine with Technology
- Together
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Let's Decode the Future of Medicine with Technology
- Together
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.