From Fragmented to Submission-Ready: How One Global Pharma Company Centralized Clinical Translations

Centralizing clinical translation operations across a global pharmaceutical organization is not a small decision.

5 Minutes

Centralizing clinical translation operations across a global pharmaceutical organization is not a small decision. It touches country teams, regulatory systems, data integrity, and years of established workflows. When a leading global pharmaceutical company set out to make that shift, they came to the table with a clear set of requirements and a high bar for the partner who would help them meet them. 

The challenge: control, consistency, and change management

The organization had a clear strategic goal: bring clinical translation operations in-house to maximize cost savings, tighten control over data integrity, and ensure regulatory compliance across every market they operate in. 

On paper, that is a straightforward objective. In practice, it meant untangling years of localized translation processes across country teams who had built their own ways of working. It meant eliminating manual steps and rework that were quietly slowing study timelines. It meant creating a harmonized, inspection-ready process that could scale across therapeutic areas, language pairs, and clinical phases simultaneously. 

And critically, it meant bringing country teams along. Not just delivering a new centralized model from above, but actively building confidence with local teams, guiding them on clinical translation best practices, and earning their trust through the transition. That last requirement is the one that separates a capable vendor from a genuine partner.

What they needed from a partner 

When we look at what this client brought to the evaluation, four priorities stood out. 

First, proven expertise in their therapeutic areas. This is a global pharmaceutical company with a deep and complex pipeline spanning oncology, immunology, neurology, cardiovascular, metabolism, and endocrinology. They needed a partner who already understood the regulatory and linguistic demands of those areas, not one who would learn on the job. 

Second, a compliance model that is inspection-ready by design. In clinical translation, every step needs to be documented, traceable, and defensible. The client needed a partner with validated, compliant systems and a strict governance model around their data. 

Third, operational efficiency at scale. The organization wanted to remove manual steps, minimize local edits and rework, harmonize handoffs, and provide their teams with a secure, easy-to-use portal for file handling. Translation needed to stop feeling like friction. 

Fourth, integration into their existing technology ecosystem. Rather than managing translation as a separate workstream, the client wanted language workflows embedded directly into their eTMF and regulatory platforms, includingVeeva, so documents and data move at the speed their teams expect. 

These priorities are not unique to this client. At DIA 2026, we heard senior pharma buyers across the industry describe the same themes when asked what they actually evaluate in a translation partner: proven domain expertise, a demonstrable culture of quality, risk reduction, and a partner who genuinely embeds into their organization rather than operating at arm’s length. It was a useful reminder that what this client was asking for reflects what the industry expects. 

Why Welo Life Sciences 

We were not a new name in this client’s therapeutic areas. In the two years leading into this engagement, our teams had completed more than 7,500 oncology projects, 5,400 immunology and neurology projects, and 1,700 cardiovascular and metabolism projects. We were not learning their world. We already lived in it. 

That depth of experience changes the nature of a partnership from the very first conversation. Rather than asking foundational questions, we were already anticipating the regulatory sensitivities specific to their pipeline, matching linguistic expertise to their therapeutic areas, and flagging the kinds of risks that only surface when you have worked at this scale before. 

Our compliance model was equally well matched. With a 99.8% quality compliance rate across 1,100+ clinical trials and an average of 20,000 completed projects per year, every step of our process is documented, traceable, and built to be inspection ready. 

On the operational side, we brought a framework built specifically for this kind of centralization. Our partnership model is designed to embed directly into a client’s processes and people, reducing handoffs, eliminating disconnects, and ensuring translations arrive on the timelines clinical teams require. And as we build out the integration with the client’s eTMF and regulatory platforms, the goal is that language services feel native to their systems rather than bolted on. 

What the partnership has delivered 

Across 500+ language combinations and 670 unique therapeutic area and disease combinations, our teams maintain a 99.2% on-time delivery rate. Our network of 2,500+ clinical research linguistic experts spans all phases of clinical development, from patient enrollment through pharmacovigilance. 
 
For this client, the centralization model we are building together is projected to deliver cost savings of up to 46% over five years, driven by centralized linguistic asset reuse, reduced rework, and AI-enabled workflow efficiencies. Beyond the numbers, country teams that were initially skeptical of the centralized model now have a consistent, trusted process they can rely on, with a partner who shows up as an extension of their team rather than an external supplier. 

That shift in how the relationship feels internally is often harder to achieve than the operational targets. It is also what makes a partnership sustainable. 

The standard we hold ourselves to 

The pharmaceutical industry expects a great deal from its translation partners. Compliance is non-negotiable. Speed matters. Data integrity is everything. But the clients who stay with us longest are the ones who discovered early that we show up the same way at year three as we did at the start: present, invested, and genuinely committed to making their work easier.