Solutions for the Pharma Industry

How can pharma companies improve their digital systems while maintaining regulatory compliance, and ensure the two teams work together cohesively?

Rob Verheul at Graphite Digital

Regulatory and compliance functions exist to protect patients and uphold trust. Yet, for digital teams in pharma, their approach challenges daily workflows and the impact those teams can make. Two decades into the digital revolution, this tension is prevalent. A linear approval process built around static assets sits in conflict with the regular development cycles and dynamic content that define creation of effective digital experiences. The cultural tension between compliance and product development builds friction into delivery. To understand why this tension exists, and how we can address it, we need to look at what occurs when the two systems and cultures collide.

The culture tension

The tension exists because many of the frameworks designed to safeguard information were originally built for static materials, fixed layouts and linear workflows. These models assume predictable structures, infrequent updates and an environment where content remains unchanged once approved. Yet, digital experiences become optimal when they can be refined continually through iteration, insight and user behaviour. This should happen at pace, not locked in a single moment in the development process.

To deliver products with meaningful impacts for users, pharma companies need to measure impact of digital engagement initiatives effectively. However, senior leaders have highlighted that regulatory compliance and risk mitigation are the primary measures, outweighing other indicators of effectiveness such as customer engagement metrics.

So, how can good intentions around compliance sometimes create new challenges for the people whose days they’re meant to be making easier?

When caution creates new risks

The friction in process and culture around regulatory processes can influence the quality of the digital experiences delivered by pharma teams. Digital products shaped primarily around regulatory interpretation can feel cluttered or difficult to navigate once in front of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients: layouts become dense with competing messages; pages grow longer as teams manage uncertainty by adding more text; and local teams adjust global assets to fit differing interpretations, creating inconsistent experiences across regions.

For HCPs, the impact is immediate. If it takes too long to locate essential clinical detail, they go elsewhere. For patients, unclear or overloaded layouts can reduce confidence at moments when clarity matters most. Organisations end up with platforms that meet compliance requirements but struggle to build connection or support real decision-making.

What’s more, these issues rarely appear in review cycles because performance is not the primary governing factor, compliance is – at any cost.

Treating user experience as part of risk management

Today, there is a real opportunity for compliance teams and user experience (UX) designers to transform how digital experiences look and work in order to serve customers better. Many of the design norms that shape pharma websites today have been inherited from almost two decades of interpreting compliance requirements. They have become standard practice, not because they are the most usable, but because they reflect how the industry has chosen to mitigate perceived risk. Yet, a number of these conventions are unhelpful for users and could be interpreted in more effective ways.

Good user experience reduces risk by improving comprehension. For example, when hierarchy, typography and predictable pathways are applied consistently, HCPs can locate essential information quickly and without ambiguity. Structured layouts ensure that safety messages remain visible but do not obscure the rest of the interface. Techniques like progressive disclosure support regulatory expectations by presenting detail at the right moment, while interactive elements introduce information contextually, rather than front-loading everything into a single screen.

Seen this way, UX design is not an optional layer, but a core part of risk management. Clear design reduces misinterpretation, and consistency limits unnecessary variation across teams and markets. When UX and compliance collaborate early, they can challenge outdated patterns, reinterpret expectations through the lens of human comprehension, and build interfaces that are both safer and clearer.

Strengthening the workflow behind approvals

Delays in digital delivery often stem not from regulation itself but from fragmented processes: assets move between systems without a single audit trail; reviewers work from static files while creators iterate in dynamic ones; comments arrive across multiple channels; and earlier decisions are difficult to track, increasing perceived risk and causing rework.

Stronger workflows reduce this friction. Clear submission pathways, consistent templates for evidence and references, and agreed naming conventions give teams a shared structure.

Design systems extend this further. By embedding regulatory expectations into pre-approved components, they eliminate recurring formatting debates. Disclaimers, reference blocks, navigation patterns and accessibility elements are reviewed once then reused. When guidance changes, the component updates instead of every asset; this removes a significant portion of the operational load that slows digital projects.

Version control and audit trails also help. When teams can see what changed, when and why, discussions become more focused and less repetitive.

Aligning early, and life after launch

Early alignment between digital, medical and compliance teams reduces friction before design begins. It sets expectations around claims, boundaries and risk communication, and working together – to use their combined skills to optimise the digital experience for the user – enhances the outcome. It also prevents late-stage disagreements and reduces defensive decision-making, reducing the quality of the digital experience presented to target audiences.

Pilot programmes allow teams to explore new patterns or technologies safely. A controlled test of an interaction, layout or artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted workflow generates evidence and shared confidence. Governance evolves based on what works, not assumptions.

Leadership also plays a decisive role. When leaders signal that innovation can happen within clear, responsible boundaries, teams gain permission to focus on solving real user problems instead of avoiding hypothetical risks.

Implementing a digital experience that is optimal in terms of compliance as well as user journey is one thing, but organisations must look beyond the launch, which should not represent the end of a team’s focus, but the beginning of a channel that becomes optimised over time.

Building in regular testing and learning, and iterative approvals in pursuit of task completion, comprehension and user confidence is a necessary step to better embrace the digital culture and deliver better experiences for customers. Creating shared accountability across medical, regulatory, digital and UX teams to reinforce the idea that good experience is part of delivering safe, reliable information.

Updating models built for static content

Many approval frameworks were built for print. They assume fixed formats, long lead times and single channel use. Digital ecosystems are different: content updates frequently; journeys span multiple touchpoints; and interactive elements require new forms of assessment.

Adapting frameworks to reflect this reduces any avoidable friction. Shared patterns for layout, evidence, references and safety messaging reduce interpretation gaps. Digital- specific guidance helps reviewers understand responsive behaviour, interaction logic and component-based design. When regulatory teams understand how digital actually works, decisions become more consistent and more confident.

Modular review models are becoming more common. Pre-approved components and content blocks allow teams to assemble assets quickly, leaving reviewers to focus on scientific accuracy rather than recurring structural questions. Automated checks handle predictable requirements like missing symbols or broken links, allowing reviewers to apply judgement where nuance matters most.

Using AI without losing judgement

AI can support compliance by scanning for inconsistencies, identifying omissions or checking content against known rules. It speeds up mechanical tasks and reduces human error, but it cannot understand intent or context. Regulatory judgement depends on anticipating how users will interpret information, not just validating alignment with rules. Used well, AI highlights patterns in past reviews and helps teams refine templates and approaches. It strengthens judgement, but it does not replace it.

Rebalancing the way risk is managed

Risk in digital pharma should not be defined only by what must be avoided – relevance, usability and accuracy each shape outcomes. Delay reduces relevance, poor experience reduces trust and weak governance reduces accuracy; these are all risks in themselves.

Organisations making progress see governance, design and technology as a connected system: compliance is involved early; low level checks are automated where appropriate; design systems carry regulatory logic; and success is measured by both safety and the impact on HCPs and patients.

Caution within regulatory and compliance frameworks will always matter. It should. But when it becomes overcorrection, or established norms remain unchecked for too long, it undermines the purpose of digital channels. The task now is to build systems where safety and impact reinforce one another, and where digital products deliver clarity, confidence and trust through cultural transformation, and user experience and value become the focus.