The Control Gap: The Foundation the Vendors Don't Sell
- Jonathan Olsen
- Aug 11
- 2 min read
Every launch platform on the market makes the same silent assumption: that your data is ready for it. Most of the time it isn't, and that gap is where launches go wrong.
The short version:
68% of pharma CDIOs told ZS that neglecting data quality and governance early is why AI initiatives fail.
The post-mortem on a stalled launch-AI project almost never blames the algorithm.
Everyone will sell you the agent. Almost no one will make your launch ready to use it.
This isn't a hunch. When ZS surveyed pharma CDIOs this year, 68% pointed to the same culprit, which was neglecting data quality and governance early in the process. Not the model, the foundation underneath it.
That's why the post-mortem on a stalled launch-AI project so rarely blames the algorithm. What it tends to find instead is field, access, and patient data living in systems that don't talk to each other, no clean line from a recommendation back to an outcome, next-best-actions a rep can't act on or simply doesn't trust, and governance raised after the build rather than before it. None of that is a technology failure. It's a foundations failure wearing a technology costume.
Even the teams that have done this well arrive at the same place from the opposite direction. Pfizer, under CDTO Lidia Fonseca, deliberately runs several role-specific AI platforms rather than one tool for everyone, on the logic that a system built for everybody ends up optimizing for nobody, and that approach only works on a foundation built on purpose to support it.
All of which points at the white space in this entire market. Everyone will happily sell you the agent, and almost no one will sit inside your launch to make your specific data, your specific asset, and your specific team ready to use it. The vendors sell the seat, not the plumbing.
Be honest with yourself for a second: could your launch data actually support the AI you're being sold today?
Comments