The problem
Full-service outsourcing is sold as simplicity and often delivers the opposite: a layer of account management between you and the people doing the work, and a change order for anything not in the original scope.
The opposite failure is equally common. A sponsor keeps everything in house, one function falls behind, and the whole timeline waits for it while everyone insists the plan is fine.
Modular is the honest middle. Tell us which function is short and we staff that, with one accountable lead, and we leave the rest of your model alone.
Tell us the problem. A specialist replies, not a form robot.
What we do
Protocol feasibility, timelines and budgets built on assumptions someone will defend.
Site management, enrolment and day-to-day delivery.
Full-service or functional, risk-based by default.
A single owner of the plan, the risks and the escalations.
Selection, oversight and the awkward conversations when a vendor slips.
Taking over a study that has drifted, starting with a real assessment.
For consultants
Study leadership roles are scarce and move fast. If this is your background, being known to us before a role opens matters more than watching a board.
Proof
However many functions you take, there is a single accountable owner.
Client testimonials for this discipline are being collected and will appear here once approved in writing by the clients concerned.
Questions
Yes, and most clients do. Expanding is a scope conversation rather than a new procurement.
You do. We own our function and its metrics, and we escalate across boundaries rather than stopping at them.
Functional support is usually time and materials against an agreed FTE profile. Defined deliverables work better as fixed-scope.
Yes, and it is usually better. Working in your CTMS and eTMF avoids a reconciliation exercise at the end.
An assessment first, which sometimes concludes the study is in better shape than feared. Then a prioritised plan, staffed.
Related
Hiring for it, or looking for the work. Either conversation is welcome.