Local teams are sometimes asked for feedback at the point when their feedback can no longer change the design. I wrote about this in the context of regional HCP engagement programs: segments selected, channels chosen and content formats built before the markets are invited to comment. The resulting friction is often called resistance. Sometimes it is simply a design problem discovered too late.
Not everything should be local
Pharmaceutical organizations need common standards. Privacy, security, core data definitions, appropriate governance and enterprise architecture cannot be renegotiated independently in every market. Shared capabilities also make it possible to learn across countries and avoid duplicating investment.
Not everything should be global either
Customer needs, HCP access, channel reach, language, field coverage, market maturity and applicable local rules differ. A global program that assumes identical conditions may be easy to deploy on paper and difficult to use in practice.
Three decision categories
Common core: enterprise controls, shared definitions and essential interoperability. Joint decisions: exceptions, cross-market trade-offs, measures and escalation. Market choices: customer journeys, channel sequencing and workflow details within approved guardrails. These categories are a starting point; real authority must be agreed for each decision.
Move local input earlier
Before locking the design, identify the two or three assumptions that most affect local feasibility. For an HCP engagement initiative, that might be priority segments, channel reach and data availability. Ask the markets to test those assumptions while changes are still possible. Do not ask for a general endorsement after the choices are effectively final.
A practical example
Imagine a central program built around a channel with limited reach in one market. The right response is not automatically to force adoption or permit an unrestricted exception. Establish the objective the channel was meant to achieve, test a compliant local alternative, preserve the necessary common data definitions and record who approves the deviation.
Disagreement is useful when it changes the design
A strong regional operating model does not require everyone to prefer the same solution. It needs a clear way to distinguish a material constraint from a preference, make the decision and document the trade-off. Local relevance and enterprise discipline are not opposites; they require better decision design.
Follow the decision
Who has authority when a global standard meets a local exception? This question connects to two other parts of the operating model:
Developed from my public writing on regional co-design. Scenarios are illustrative. The views I share are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Put this into practice
Global standards fail when local decision rights are ambiguous.
Use the Global–Local Decision Map to identify decision owners, exception routes and escalation thresholds.
Open the Global–Local Decision Map