Vendor rationalization in clinical development: prioritizing value across partnerships
As drug developers look to streamline their vendor ecosystems, a value-driven approach can help them make informed decisions about the partners, capabilities and relationships that support clinical development.
Key takeaways:
- Vendor rationalization prioritizes value across the vendor ecosystem. Depending on development needs, sponsors may consolidate services, retain specialized providers, redefine responsibilities or improve coordination.
- Vendor rationalization is a leading industry strategy. According to The Pulse 2026, it ranks among the top three strategies pharmaceutical sponsors are pursuing, while 23% cite managing multiple vendors as a major challenge.
- Effective vendor decisions require a comprehensive assessment of value. Sponsors should evaluate scientific expertise, operational efficiency, costs, overlapping responsibilities and dependencies that could affect clinical development.
- Accountability and ongoing performance measurement are essential. Clear expectations, effective collaboration and regular reassessment help ensure vendor partnerships continue to support evolving development priorities.
Pharmaceutical companies depend on a complex network of external partners to advance their clinical development programs. From clinical laboratory services and patient recruitment to data management and trial operations, these relationships provide essential expertise and capacity across the development lifecycle.
Managing these relationships can become increasingly demanding as development programs evolve, responsibilities overlap and organizational priorities shift.
As pressure to manage cost and accelerate development intensifies, sponsors are taking a closer look at how these partnerships with vendors are structured and, as a result, vendor rationalization has emerged as a prominent strategy.
According to The Pulse 2026, an annual, global survey of 150 pharmaceutical and biotech leaders conducted by the PPD™ clinical research business of Thermo Fisher Scientific, vendor rationalization ranks among the top three strategies sponsors are currently pursuing. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (23%) also identify managing multiple drug development vendors as a major challenge, while 27% cite contract research organization (CRO) partnership dynamics.
The vendor rationalization process involves assessing and streamlining an organization’s external service providers to improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary overlap and better align partnerships with business and operational objectives. Depending on the circumstances, this may involve consolidating services under fewer providers, retaining specialized partners whose expertise is critical to a program, redefining responsibilities across existing partnerships or improving coordination among providers.
As sponsors reassess their vendor ecosystems, prioritizing value—and understanding that value looks different across clinical development functions—can provide a foundation for these decisions.
Four considerations for value-driven vendor rationalization
The value of a vendor relationship can take many forms, from specialized scientific expertise and operational efficiency to consistent execution and effective collaboration.
A structured approach to evaluating these contributions can enable sponsors to identify opportunities to strengthen their vendor ecosystem while making informed decisions about partnerships for their broader clinical development strategies.
1. Define value in the context of development priorities
The first step of evaluation must be to establish what an organization needs its vendor relationships to deliver. These expectations will vary across functions and programs. For example, a laboratory partner may contribute value through technical expertise, reliable testing and data quality. A patient recruitment provider may be evaluated on its ability to identify and engage appropriate patient populations, while a clinical operations partner may be assessed through study execution, site management and resource capacity. Providers may deliver significant value through, for example, therapeutic expertise and consistent execution, even if those services carry a higher direct cost.
Understanding these differences is essential to evaluating vendor performance fairly and consistently. Sponsors should establish criteria that reflect the specific objectives of their programs, considering factors such as service quality, operational performance, specialized capabilities, cost efficiency and the ability to meet development timelines.
Involving clinical operations, procurement, finance and relevant functional teams in defining these expectations can help ensure that vendor decisions account for both immediate business priorities and the requirements of clinical development.
2. Assess capabilities, overlap and operational dependencies
Once priorities are established, sponsors can evaluate how individual partnerships contribute to the broader development program and where opportunities for improvement exist.
This assessment should consider the distribution of responsibilities across vendors, the extent to which activities overlap and the dependencies between different services. For example, multiple providers supporting similar activities may create duplicative processes or additional coordination requirements. Consolidating certain services, clarifying responsibilities or standardizing workflows can help address these inefficiencies.
At the same time, some partnerships offer specialized capabilities that may be difficult to replace.
The Pulse 2026 found that 22% of respondents identified finding appropriate scientific or therapeutic expertise in vendors as a major challenge. The survey also highlights the continued importance of external providers across specialized functions. Over the next two years, 67% of respondents are very or extremely likely to outsource clinical laboratory and diagnostic services, while 65% say the same for patient recruitment and 59% for clinical data management.
These findings reinforce the importance of understanding what each provider contributes before making changes to the vendor network.
Sponsors should also consider the operational implications of transitioning responsibilities. Moving laboratory services, for example, may require method transfers, additional validation activities and changes to sample logistics. Changes to data management providers may involve technology integration, knowledge transfer and maintaining continuity across established study processes.
Evaluating these factors together can help organizations determine where consolidation, specialization or improved coordination will deliver the greatest value.
3. Prioritize accountability and effective collaboration
The effectiveness of a vendor ecosystem also depends on how well sponsors and external partners work together. The Pulse 2026 reveals challenges in this area. More than one-quarter of respondents (27%) identify CRO partnership dynamics as a major challenge. Additionally, 47% agree that they trust CROs to work toward their best interests, while 37% agree that relying too heavily on a CRO diminishes their influence within their organization.
These findings point to the importance of accountability, transparency and effective oversight in managing external partnerships.
As part of a rationalization assessment, sponsors should consider whether responsibilities are clearly defined, performance expectations are understood and appropriate governance structures are in place.
For organizations working with multiple specialized vendors, this may involve strengthening coordination across providers, establishing consistent reporting practices and clarifying ownership of activities that cross functional boundaries.
Where a single partner supports a broad range of services, sponsors may need to evaluate whether existing governance processes provide sufficient visibility and oversight across those functions.
Regular performance reviews, defined escalation pathways and clear communication between sponsor teams and external partners can help identify challenges earlier and support more effective collaboration.
Assessing these dimensions alongside cost and service capabilities provides a more complete understanding of the value each partnership delivers.
4. Measure and reassess value over time
Vendor rationalization is an ongoing consideration as development programs, organizational capabilities and business priorities evolve. Establishing measurable objectives can enable sponsors to determine whether changes to their vendor ecosystem are delivering the intended benefits.
Relevant indicators may include total vendor-related costs, study milestone adherence, operational efficiency, data quality, issue resolution and the continuity of critical capabilities.
The measures selected should reflect the objectives behind each partnership decision. For example, an initiative aimed at reducing duplicated activities might be assessed through improvements in coordination time or process efficiency. A decision to retain a specialized provider may be evaluated through technical performance, service consistency and its contribution to study continuity.
Sponsors should establish baseline measures before making significant changes and monitor performance as new arrangements are implemented. This can help identify where expected improvements are being realized and where additional adjustment may be necessary.
Periodic reassessment is equally important. A partnership that serves one phase of clinical development effectively may require a different scope or level or support as a program advances. Changes in therapeutic focus, geographic requirements or internal capabilities may also create new needs.
Maintaining visibility into vendor performance and capabilities allows sponsors to adapt their partnership strategies while preserving alignment with evolving development priorities.
Making value the foundation of vendor rationalization
As vendor rationalization becomes a more prominent strategy across pharmaceutical R&D, sponsors have an opportunity to strengthen how their external partnerships are evaluated, structured and managed.
A value-driven approach provides a consistent basis for these decisions, helping organizations identify meaningful efficiencies, protect specialized capabilities, establish accountability and assess performance over time.
The resulting vendor ecosystem may include integrated service providers, specialized partners or a combination of approaches tailored to individual development programs.
By keeping scientific, operational and business value at the center of these decisions, sponsors can develop partnerships that support efficient execution, maintain critical capabilities and help advance therapies for patients.
Recommended for you
